Interesting read

[Minister of Truth]

The military industrial complex Ike warned us about in his farewell speech began before Eisenhower. It was what evolved after WWII. His mention of it stems from his presidency being sabotaged...

In 1960 when President Eisenhower launched his Crusade for Peace to bring about a lasting detente with the Soviet Union, one U-2 airplane, one pilot, and the invisible enemy shattered his dream. That U-2, flown into the USSR on May 1, 1960 by Francis Gary Powers was not on a spy mission as had been alleged. It was launched for the sole purpose of destroying whatever chance there was for peace. It was the weapon of the war lovers -- the missile of the industrial complex.

Ike learned what other world leaders have learned: it is easier to wage war than to make peace. In war the enemy is visible, and he is usually on the other side.

The U-2 flights had been going on for years, and the crash was not the last time Powers was to crash an aircraft (he managed to crash a helicoptor in his next life, working at an airport).

 

[christiefan915]

I think I have written that Nixon totally crushed me. He did start troop withdrawals fron 'Nam, but the Watergate fiasco and the tapes. I was in high school and campaigned for him. Walked door to door handing out pamphlets, I was a true beleiver, a Young Republican. He was my eye opener, it is when I became a skeptic. I didn't take politicians at face value, until Obama, and then I got swept up in the tide.

Could I blame my illness and the chemo?

Nurcats used to be a repub and also went door to door for her candidates also, but finally saw the light. You oughta mention your experience to her.

 

[christiefan915]

Awww that's adorable. I met him too! At a luncheon a big business group was giving here. It was the LIA or the ACIT I think. This was in 2003 or 2004. Before I had my own business for certain, but my brother belonged to the group and he knew how excited I'd be so he actually bought me a ticket. It was very cool.

What the heck were you doing in Arkansas at that tender age?

Wow, I'm so jealous!

 

[christiefan915]

Freaks opinion on Carter is colored by the mythology he's been spoon fed by the right wing about Carter. His comments about Carter's inability to handle the economic mess he inherited, just as his opinion of Obama, is utter non-sense. Carter inherited the Nixonian caused period of stagflation caused by Nixon's inept handling of domestic policy as well as critical errors Nixon made in foreign policy (i.e. the arab oil embargo). Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker and his adoption of Volkers advice (which by the way Reagan continued) is what ended that period of stagflation and Carter took a substantial political hit for implementing some very unpopular policies. Ones that worked and eventually ended the Nixonian induced period of stagflation.

Carter's failures as a president predominantly had to do with two things political in nature. The political tone he set which was pesimistic and conveyed a message of self sacrifice and lowered expectations for the future. His second failure was that Carter ran as a Washington outsider and when elected he brought in his outside the beltway gang from Georgia and he immeadiatly alienated the inside the beltway power brokers both within Congress, the Federal Bueuracracy and with the lobbyist. It rendered his legislative agenda impotent and made him ineffective as a chief executive. So when Reagan came along with his unbridled optimism and his superior communication skills he was able to pull the rug right out from under Carters feet. You can get a good example of this from going to youtube and watching the debate between Carter and Reagan. On almost every policy topic they debated and with the advantage of 30 years of hindsight on point after point on policy Carter was right and his criticisms of Reagans policies were spot on. However, you'll also note that Carter's negativity and his apparent lack of conviction turned people off and gave the strong impression that Reagan had won the debate and the electoral results bear that out.

Now I realize that Freak will have all sorts of criticisms with this analysis about Carter but I was there and he wasn't. I lived through this era, he did not. Carter came along as an outsider who promised that he would avoid foreign entanglements and destructive insider DC politics and that he would focus on domestic policy. It was what the American people wanted to hear at the time after the debacle Nixon caused and it got him elected. It was his failings that I listed above when confronted with a master a communicator that was his downfall and cost him re-election.

So knowing this all you have to do is note the legislative accomplishments of the Obama administration and the comparisons to Carter fall down. That's just wish full thinking by the right wing and unfortunately for them they don't have anyone in the wings with even remotely close to the charisma that Ronald Reagan had.

I found this interesting: "His second failure was that Carter ran as a Washington outsider and when elected he brought in his outside the beltway gang from Georgia and he immeadiatly alienated the inside the beltway power brokers both within Congress, the Federal Bueuracracy and with the lobbyist. It rendered his legislative agenda impotent and made him ineffective as a chief executive."

Now the idea of an outsider has a lot more appeal to people. Not necessarily to me, but that's how I see it.

 

[christiefan915]

Thanks Mott, I'm going to watch those debates. I have to say I'm woefully ignorant of this period, and there's no excuse for that. I guess I never found Carter or Nixon compelling. I do know more about Reagan since I have read several books about him. But watching the Carter Reagan debates is a great idea. I should definitely know this stuff. It's not like I was too young to remember Carter, and yet, I don't remember Carter. I have no memory of Carter being President. It's really weird. I think my earliest political memory is of Reagan being inaugurated and all of the hoopla over the hostages. But even that is vague. I think I lived much of my life in a fugue state...and then came the internet. Now I can only wish I was in a fugue state.

That's good about the fugue state and the internet. We (internet junkies) may have gotten a lot more educated and knowledgeable about politics but now I wonder if knowing so much has made us cynical. I don't have much respect for pols now, just look at the ones I like as the better among the worst.

 

[christiefan915]

I am very proud of the fact I thought Reagan was well rehearsed actor. I did not vote or him and I would not voter him, now.

I pretty much despised him. I hated that he called the USSR an "evil empire", along with some of his other lies like the welfare queen and the Cadillac, etc. He was phony, phony, phony and had a lot of people fooled.

 

[Bfgrn]

The U-2 flights had been going on for years, and the crash was not the last time Powers was to crash an aircraft (he managed to crash a helicoptor in his next life, working at an airport).

Don't ever try to educate yourself...it is much better to pontificate.

Contrary to all reports, that U-2 was not on a spy mission. It was not even flown by a spy. Powers' identification papers -- and he was loaded with them -- proved to his captors that he was a pilot working for the U.S. Air Force. He carried no CIA documents. With his Air Force ID and his uniform, military-type pressure suit, there was no evidence to indicate he was a spy. He looked like any other Air Force pilot. Why then was he promptly labeled a spy? What was Powers doing over the heart of the Soviet Union on May Day, and just before the most important summit conference of all?

In 1960 the directive NSC 10/2, published by the National Security Council (NSC) required that any clandestine operation must be operated so that if it failed or was compromised in any way, this country would be able to plausibly deny the existence of the operation. In CIA jargon, the plane and the pilot had to be "sterilized." The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin. Why then did Powers carry ID, and why did this U-2 carry so many identifying marks and decals?

I was the properly designated military officer in the Pentagon for a period of nine years -- including 1960 -- responsible for exactly this function of supporting the clandestine activities for the CIA. Under my direction many aircraft, many items of equipment, and many personnel were properly sterilized and "sheep-dipped" prior to use in secret missions. The U-2's were no exception. As a matter of fact, the entire U-2 program was supposed to have been made sterile from production on up. I must say I knew the CIA to be meticulous about deniability. On regular clandestine overflights to China Tibet, Indonesia, Burma, and other places, they did their best to conform with and obey the NSC directive. The identifying evidence included in Powers' flight violated the NSC mandate. If this was a spy mission, the violation was clearly planned to wreck the upcoming summit conference.

It was normal DOD-CIA practice that pilots engaged in clandestine operations don pressure suits which contained no identification of any kind prior to takeoff. In the process, the pilot was required to strip, and all identity and personal items were removed by the officials in charge of that flight.

Not only was this standard procedure a matter of great care, but in important cases, two or three aircraft and two or three pilots would be readied for each flight. The pilots would not know which plane they might fly, and no pilot would know his mission until the final briefing.

Powers' U-2 had been flown from Turkey to Peshawar, Pakistan on April 30, 1960 just a few hours before Powers took off for the USSR. He had been flown to Pakistan by transport and given only two and a half hours' warning before the flight. He has written: "I did not see the plane at close range."

For some unaccountable reason Powers took off on this, the longest USSR overflight ever planned, and in the seat pack of his parachute was every identification imaginable. If Powers was supposed to play the role of a spy, then in accordance with the script that has historically been passed down, he would be nameless, faceless, a man without a country. He was none of those things. Why not? And who saw to it that he was none of these things?

Powers had in his kit one of the old World War II silk "escape-and-evasion" flags. On the margin of this flag was written, among other things, "I am an American. I need food, shelter. I will not harm you. You will be rewarded." Does a spy carry such identity? And how about the cover story that he was a military pilot who unaccountably got lost and flew over the Soviet border? If he hadn't intended to fly over a "hostile" country in peacetime, then why the escape-and-evasion kit? None of the official stories made the slightest bit of sense.

Yet, as soon as the news of Powers' discovery in the USSR became known, he was declared by both the Soviets and the Americans to be a spy. He was tried as a spy.

What was even more incriminating was the fact that Powers had his DOD identification card listing him as a member of the Air Force. He had forty-eight gold coins, four expensive watches, seven gold rings, and a pocketful of paper currency of many nations, including the USA and USSR. Powers had nineteen other forms of identity, including his Social Security card, 230-30-0321, a Lodge card, his USAF medical card, a driver's license, and two copies of his instrument cards, earned by all Air Force pilots for weather-flying qualifications.

During the Senate hearings, Allen Dulles said: "He [Powers] was given the various items of equipment which the Soviets have publicized and which are normally a standard procedure and selected on the basis of wide experience gained in World War II and in Korea." What experience was Dulles talking about? Military? CIA? Certainly Dulles knew that true spies are nameless.

On top of this, Dulles told the Senators: "He [Powers] would acknowledge that he was working for the CIA. This was to make it clear that he was not working for any branch of the armed services and that his mission was solely an intelligence mission." At another point in the hearings, Senator Fulbright said to Dulles: "You made a point of being very careful to have these planes disassociated from the military force. I mean you saw that the pilot was." [author's emphasis]

Dulles replied: "That is correct. We made every effort to disassociate this so that any incident that might occur would not rub off on the Defense establishment or the Air Force."

That is an out and out lie! A case can be made that Allen Dulles, like President Eisenhower, did not know that the U-2 flight had gone out. This ordeal with the Senate Committee may have been thrust upon him by those who had the power to send out the U-2 flight without the knowledge of the proper authorities. As an indication of Mr. Dulles' confusion before the Committee, when Fulbright asked him another question, Dulles replied: "Yes, which lie . . .," then quickly corrected his goof by saying: "Which page . . . ?" He knew he had been telling lies all day long.

Allen Dulles didn't know the facts. It is true that uniformed military personnel on military missions are given identity and an escape-and-evasion kit. Military personnel are always in uniform, and there are Geneva Convention agreements which govern their care. Powers was in a USAF military-type flying suit. His ID said he was an Air Force pilot.

In sworn testimony Allen Dulles contradicted himself and lied frequently to Senators Fulbright, Green, Mansfield, Gore, Wiley, Carlson, and Lausche. Dulles could not have it both ways. A spy is a spy, or he is not a spy.

As the hearings progressed it became even clearer that Dulles was uninformed about this critical U-2 operation. Considering his position as Director of the CIA, this ignorance is astounding. That he should lie, however, is not astounding. In 1964, Dulles told the Warren Commission that he would expect J. Edgar Hoover to lie about Lee Harvey Oswald's possible connection to the FBI and that he, himself, would lie to anyone about the CIA, its operations, and its agents. When pressed, he conceded that he "might tell the truth to the President."

Dulles knew what he was talking about; he was lying like mad to these Senators in May 1960. He had to!

How did Dulles expect "to make it clear [to the Soviets] that Powers was not working for any branch of the armed services" if he knew Powers had all the ID with him? It seems that Allen Dulles might well have been set up for these lies. He didn't know Powers had gone with that ID, and it may well be that Dulles did not even know about the flight until it was done.

 

[christiefan915]

Selling weapons illegally, that hard choice? I bet more of that crap goes on than we realize. Reagan was the beginning a a power control surge that has spiraled us down to the point we are at today. The middle class took their eyes off the ball and blindly believed our government could do no wrong. We are paying for that mentality now. Überpatriotism and the anti Americanism of those who try to hold the government accountable. This RIGHTIE blind attitude that Reagan was a saint and that he did more right than wrong is absolute bullshit. Sorry, Superfreak, but Reagan started the slide into mediocrity!

Great post, Rana.

 

[cawacko]

I pretty much despised him. I hated that he called the USSR an "evil empire", along with some of his other lies like the welfare queen and the Cadillac, etc. He was phony, phony, phony and had a lot of people fooled.

What would you consider the USSR at that time?

 

[apple0154]

You are the one that brought up geographical conditions. The point is, we have far greater land mass than the European countries and far greater population. We also again have more tech per hospital bed.... ie.... we spend more on high tech than most countries and couple that with the litigious element and you have escalated costs.

True, but if you notice longevity is greater in countries that have government medical. I would think the lack of high tech is balanced with having people address their illnesses early. Also, statistics show that costs for countries like Canada with a large area and small population are very similar to countries having a small geographical area and a large population like the U.K.
Universal medical doesn’t mean there has to be a major hospital in every small community. The serious cases can be referred to major centers.

Assuming that number is correct, again, we DO NOT NEED to put the entire country on a government plan in order to take care of those that cannot afford health care.

Ahh, but you do. It would be a lot easier to just cover those in need or help those on the borderline but that’s not the way things work. It’s next to impossible to help people when capitalism is so strong and everyone talks about hard- earned money. It’s the same with SS. People will not contribute unless there’s something in it for them. Do you really believe the people who can afford medical insurance but don’t buy it will pay for someone who can’t afford it? Well, we know the answer. It’s never happened in the last 200 years.

Apparently you don't comprehend what UNFUNDED means. It means we are NOT paying the taxes to support our current systems. We would have to dramatically raise taxes just to cover the existing Medicare unfunded liabilities.

If universal medical was in force the taxes paid would be less than the average cost one now pays for insurance and deductibles. It’s natural Medicare is unfunded considering it serves mostly the elderly, people who require more medical attention. There would be sufficient money if everyone paid in taxes what they pay for insurance and deductibles.

Wow.... tell me, do people stop getting ill in Canada? No, they keep getting sick, needing surgeries, getting injured playing sports etc... While I agree that preventative care can help alleviate many problems (if the people stick to the dietary and exercise regimens), the health care industry can benefit from that side as well. Personal trainers, dieticians, physical therapists etc...

People do continue to require medical attention but it's the major preventable diseases that take the toll. People will not change their lifestyle if they feel healthy. Just the idea of a free yearly check-up would make a huge difference.

Medical advancements enable doctors to spot problems not readily apparent but people won't go to a doctor if they feel OK. Some countries have clinics staffed by nurses. A person can drop in to have a small ailment checked out free of charge. Maybe that small ailment is a sign of something major. The nurse will be aware of the possibilities and send the person to a doctor. If it's free people will go see the nurse. If it's not free they won't. An example can be the start of diabetes. If caught early and diet change made it can make all the difference. Just consider how many visits to nurses and doctors can be covered compared to the amputation of a foot due to diabetes. Or a stroke. Or skin cancer.


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yes, I know that. My point is that we ALSO spend more per capita on many other areas. Given that we are the largest economy in the world, that is going to happen.



The government can put a lid on excessive jury awards WITHOUT having to take control of the health care system.



You are the one that brought up geographical conditions. The point is, we have far greater land mass than the European countries and far greater population. We also again have more tech per hospital bed.... ie.... we spend more on high tech than most countries and couple that with the litigious element and you have escalated costs.



Assuming that number is correct, again, we DO NOT NEED to put the entire country on a government plan in order to take care of those that cannot afford health care.



Apparently you don't comprehend what UNFUNDED means. It means we are NOT paying the taxes to support our current systems. We would have to dramatically raise taxes just to cover the existing Medicare unfunded liabilities.



I agree with the above. Preventative care, education on dietary and exercise habits etc... would drastically reduce the health care costs by reducing the obesity levels. The only part I disagree with is the lack of knowledge on what is bad. You would have to be a moron on the scale of Mott to not know that McDonalds/Burger King/KFC/Taco Hell etc... are horrid for your diet.

Side note....Everyone has a different metabolism that will be affected by the extra curricular activities they partake in. I consume about 4500-5000 calories a day just to maintain my weight. One of the common problems for women that causes them to gain weight is that they don't consume enough calories. You can consume as many calories as you want, provided you burn more. The best way to lose weight is to find out how many calories you burn in a day on average, then start consuming about 500 or so under that number (though a bare minimum should be 1200 for a small female... otherwise your body goes into starvation mode)



Wow.... tell me, do people stop getting ill in Canada? No, they keep getting sick, needing surgeries, getting injured playing sports etc... While I agree that preventative care can help alleviate many problems (if the people stick to the dietary and exercise regimens), the health care industry can benefit from that side as well. Personal trainers, dieticians, physical therapists etc...

 

[cawacko]

I want to know who was behind Oswald. He may have been the lone shooter, but how and why.

Just watched an excellent documentary tonight on the History Channel called The Kennedy Assasination: Beyond the Conspiracy Theories which was excellent. It points out all the theories that have been brought to over the years and shows how they are not credible. They go into Oswald's life for why he did what he did. Threedee basically stated it, he was a nobody who wanted to be somebody who changed the world. This was how he did it.

 

[Damocles]

The OP and actual discussion on topic is why this site exists. Excellent article. I'll add more when I have some time to breathe...

*sigh*...

The holidays stink for me. I let the Christians have the important days off, so I wind up doing their work. I actually like doing a ton of work, it makes the day go by, but fixing other people's mistakes hacks me off... Especially when I've walked them through it again and again... Gaaaah...

Anyway. Loved the article, will get back to this.

 

[Minister of Truth]

For the local conspiracy nut, spy planes are generally not operated by the CIA, but are generally part of the branch intelligence networks. Military pilots fly and operate them. For example, the spy plane that was knocked out of the sky by the Chinese back in 2001: it had taken off from Whidbey Naval Air Station (Whidbey Island, WA), and was operating under the control of the US Navy. There were probably civilian agents on board, I don't recall many details about the captured crew.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Just watched an excellent documentary tonight on the History Channel called The Kennedy Assasination: Beyond the Conspiracy Theories which was excellent. It points out all the theories that have been brought to over the years and shows how they are not credible. They go into Oswald's life for why he did what he did. Threedee basically stated it, he was a nobody who wanted to be somebody who changed the world. This was how he did it.

One of my favorite History Channel features, and somewhat out of place on a network that bathes in conspiracy theories and UFO/alien encounters.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just watched an excellent documentary tonight on the History Channel called The Kennedy Assasination: Beyond the Conspiracy Theories which was excellent. It points out all the theories that have been brought to over the years and shows how they are not credible. They go into Oswald's life for why he did what he did. Threedee basically stated it, he was a nobody who wanted to be somebody who changed the world. This was how he did it.

The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond the Conspiracy Theories is excellent? It is murder by cartoon.

In recent years, the work of digital animator Dale Myers has repeatedly been used to demonstrate the feasibility of the single bullet. The problem: his work is deliberately deceptive at best, and an absolute fraud at worst.

 

[Bfgrn]

For the local conspiracy nut, spy planes are generally not operated by the CIA, but are generally part of the branch intelligence networks. Military pilots fly and operate them. For example, the spy plane that was knocked out of the sky by the Chinese back in 2001: it had taken off from Whidbey Naval Air Station (Whidbey Island, WA), and was operating under the control of the US Navy. There were probably civilian agents on board, I don't recall many details about the captured crew.

Gee, should I believe you or Leroy Fletcher Prouty (January 24, 1917 – June 5, 2001) who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President John F. Kennedy? Tough call, you look so Emperor like.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I prefer you state in your own words what YOU think. Not what some author thought mere DAYS after the assassination. That you would choose something written mere days after when WE have had decades of materials on the event and countless conspiracies to sort through just shows how little you care about anything more than cutting and pasting.

I can't see the problem in posting something that is part of the historical record.

 

[Bfgrn]

I can't see the problem in posting something that is part of the historical record.

I find it ironic that freak chastises me when I copy and paste factual information to back up my claims. Yet he figuratively copies and pastes the beliefs of others as fact.

I have done a lot of reading about the Kennedy assassination. There are way too many holes in the Warren Report and the single bullet/Oswald lone assassin theory. Anyone who is familiar with the crime knows that without the single bullet theory, there HAD to be more than one gunman. SBT falls apart on so many fronts that anyone who believes it today must also believe our government would never lie.

I would be willing to discuss the case with anyone if they are willing to approach it on an adult level.

I will present a few anomalies to consider.

This is the Warren Commission's official story of how the President was murdered and Governor John Connally was wounded. The Commission never even viewed the autopsy photos, claiming deference to the Kennedy family. Instead, they relied on artist renderings

THIS IS what the Warren Commission said happened:

Warren Commission exhibits 385 (left), 386 (center), and 388 (right). Produced under the direction of JFK autopsy physician Dr. James Humes, these drawings represent the Commission's view of the paths of two bullets that struck Kennedy.
(see Warren Commission Volume 16, CE 385, CE 386, and CE 388).

But, it is NOT what ACTUALLY happened, proof?... the holes in the President's clothing and in the President are ACTUALLY in a different location. The actual location creates a path that DOESN'T line up with an exit wound in his neck and then a line through Governor Connolly.

How much clearer does it have to be to see that the Warren Commission 'placed' the wound where it would line up with Connolly, NOT where it actually was, because the single bullet theory would not wash.

From that point forward, one can't avoid asking simple and straight forward questions...

Why did the Warren Commission move the first wound?
How did Oswald move the TSBD bldg to the opposite side of Elm St for the fatal head shot?

Explain how a bullet fired from a 6th floor window at a downward 21 degree trajectory can hit the President in the back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, then exit a wound in the front of his neck at the adams apple that is 11 degrees HIGHER. THEN, after exiting the front of Kennedy's neck, the bullet RESUMES the 21 degree downward trajectory and hits John Connally?

Get me past this and then you can explain how Oswald moved the TSBD to the opposite side of Elm St for the fatal head shot...

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said this about the Warren Commission:

“It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the of the assassination.”

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.


If you need more narrative, why don't you pay some credence to someone that was actually in the car and wounded?

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[cancel2 2022]

I find it ironic that freak chastises me when I copy and paste factual information to back up my claims. Yet he figuratively copies and pastes the beliefs of others as fact.

I have done a lot of reading about the Kennedy assassination. There are way too many holes in the Warren Report and the single bullet/Oswald lone assassin theory. Anyone who is familiar with the crime knows that without the single bullet theory, there HAD to be more than one gunman. SBT falls apart on so many fronts that anyone who believes it today must also believe our government would never lie.

I have always tried to keep an open mind on the assassination, there were certainly many candidates as Kennedy had accumulated a lot of enemies. Not least, the Mafia, Cubans, racist southerners and religious nuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have always tried to keep an open mind on the assassination, there were certainly many candidates as Kennedy had accumulated a lot of enemies. Not least, the Mafia, Cubans, racist southerners and religious nuts.

Don't forget elements of our own government.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address