Jump to content
The Education Forum
Robert  Harper

Trump and the Unspeakable?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

He skimmed the article he says.

In other words he did not really do anything else so he does not know the whole backdrop of what was happening to Russia at the time.

Even though  I quoted Mort Zuckerman,  one of his guys: Mr MSM, Mr. CFR.

Yeltsin had completely wrecked what Gorbachev was trying to do.  Gorbachev was trying to move Russia into an age of modernization, democracy, and openness.  He was harangued on all sides.  Some thought he was going to slow, others too fast.  When Yeltsin came in, he simply ruined the progress Gorbachev had made.  And he sent the country into a near death rattle.  As Zuckerman says, the country was simply pillaged because Yeltsin allowed first Gaidar and then Chubais to implement Freidman's shock therapy through Harvard's Jeff Sachs. It resulted in a rate of inflation of over two thousand percent.  This evaporated much of the country's wealth. Then Chubais and Yeltsin auctioned off what was left to a bunch of oligarchs while the country was reeling into poverty.  And some of the money came from AID, which Chubais embezzled to help Yeltsin's campaign.  (https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/

This is why many historians use the cause and effect view of history.  Its not possible to understand Putin's success unless you understand Yeltsin's sell out of the country.  As Putin has often said, what Yeltsin did was completely unnecessary.  The same thing could have been accomplished without the terrible violence to the citizenry.  All it accomplished was that it made some Russians and some foreigners incredibly wealthy while it impoverished millions of Russians.

And then you ask me if I wanted to see the adversary to Yeltsin win the election. See TG its that kind of either/or Allen Dulles style rhetoric that results in horrible epic tragedies like Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973. If you recall, on the eve of the success of the Chilean CIA coup, partly run by Phillips, Kissinger said:

"I don't know why we have to sit by and watch a country go communist just because the people voted for it." 

I thought that was what democracy was about.  And I would take Allende over Pinochet any time. But considering what Kissinger did in Bangla Desh, East Timor and Cambodia--which resulted in the deaths of about 3 million people--I would beg to disagree.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

And then you ask me if I wanted to see the adversary to Yeltsin win the election. See TG its that kind of either/or Allen Dulles style rhetoric that results in horrible epic tragedies like Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973.

 

 

James,

 

In case you haven't noticed, life is chock-a-block full of "either/or" choices.

 

"Would you like another serving of apple pie a-la mode, or another half-gallon of chocolate pudding, Jimmy?  I'm sorry, sweetie, but you can't have both this time.  Aww, don't cry, honey.  Doctors orders, not mine."

Bummer, huh?

 

So, I ask you once again, James:  Would you have preferred to see the Communist Party's candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, win the 1996 Russian presidential election?  Yes, or No, James?

 

Da?  Really??

 

"Zyuganov enthusiastically supported the (2014) annexation of Crimea by Russia as well as the (2014) pro-Russian insurgency (in eastern Ukraine)."  --  Wikipedia



Also, James, did Boris Yeltsin hire those evil, evil American advisers, or did your favorite bugbear, the The Deep State / National Security State/ Military Industrial Intelligence Cabal, force them upon him?

 

(Don't run away and hide, now, like you do all too often.)

 

--  T.G.

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy - you seem to relish baiting people. You do it to me too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - you seem to relish baiting people. You do it to me too. 

 

How have I "baited" James on this thread, Paul?

 

I mean, maybe I have, I don't know. 

Is that a bad thing to do?

If so, does he ever do that sort of thing?

 

What's the official definition of "to bait," in the context of an Internet forum on a controversial subject, anyway?

To trap somebody through rhetoric and logic into a position which they are unable or unwilling to try to defend?

 

Don't they teach that in high school debating classes?

 

--  T.G.

 

PS  How about James' insisting on another thread a few months ago that Rudolf Hess was not a spy for the Soviets, and telling me quite rudely, "You don't know enough about the Hess spy case to be able to debate it intelligently with me, so I'm going to leave now," or words to that effect? 

Given that little pleasantry by James, what do you think about his subsequent disappearing and refusing to reply to me when I posted a few days later that I'd done some research and found out that many historians, including our very own John Simpkin, now believe that Hess was a long-term spy?

Which James is yet to respond to.

You tell me, Paul, was that "baiting"on James' part, or did I end up winning that little debate?

 

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can win all the debates you want, or lose them. Is that what we are doing here? Not me. As far as baiting me, digging up an old thread and misquoting me is an example. So I either ignore you or I spend 20 minutes trying to find the non existent quote. Try starting fresh and not carrying grudges. You may not be the only one that does this, but in my view each of us is responsible for letting go of past grievances. Try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

You can win all the debates you want, or lose them. Is that what we are doing here? Not me. As far as baiting me, digging up an old thread and misquoting me is an example. So I either ignore you or I spend 20 minutes trying to find the non existent quote. Try starting fresh and not carrying grudges. You may not be the only one that does this, but in my view each of us is responsible for letting go of past grievances. Try it.

 

Paul,

Please freshen my memory.  Which one was that?

Something to do with evil, evil, evil de Vosjoli and that evil, evil, evil "Brandy"?

 

Which past grievances on this forum should I forget about, and in regards to whom?

 

--  T.G.

 

You mean you don't come to the world famous JFK Assassination Debate Forum to debate, but to learn, Paul?

Fantastic!

Have any idea how much teaching, aka debating, showing, linking, baiting, cajoling, and outright arguing with you and others I had to do to get you to read "Ghosts Wars," Paul?

(I'm proud of you, by the way, and I truly mean that; I didn't think you would ever read it.)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

TG, let me make myself clear; as I thought I did above when I said I would have taken Allende, who was a democratically elected  communist, over Pinochet who was a CIA installed Fascist who then disappeared tens of thousands of people.

I do not like the uses of covert action into other countries to upset their own processes.

To give another example, I did not like the fact that the CIA sent five assassins into Congo to murder Lumumba before JFK took office.  Lumumba was a democratically elected premier, and was part of a constitutional government. Dulles and Eisenhower were going to turn over that process, and the Belgians were all too eager to be the recipient of that aid.  Because now the great wealth of the Congo would go to them  and their stand in Mobutu and not to the Congolese as Lumumba, Hammarskjold, and JFK wanted. I suppose the fact that all three of these men were murdered and that LBJ overturned Kennedy's policies there was just a coincidence.

I could cite several other examples e.g. Arbenz.  In all of these cases, and more, what people like Kissinger and Dulles did ended up killing democracy, and rewarding the wealthy and foreign imperial interests, many of them American.  And such was the  case with Russia. I am against American interventionism in those cases.

What I would like to see is what RFK wanted and what he told to Pete Hammill as he was running in 1968.  Once elected he was going to eliminate the covert action arm of the CIA.

Now, if you are for fascism, if you are for genocide, and you are at heart a Neocon who believes only what the National Review or what the Weekly Standard prints, then why don't you say that? Don't have the gonads?  The Cold War died in 1985 when Gorbachev rose to power.  Only in the mind of a triple distilled Cold Warrior like Bagley did it still exist in the New Millennium.  And if your foreign policy views are that dated and that easily formed by a guy who never got over losing the Nosenko battle, then wow, how can you ever understand the JFK case?

If you were a pushover for Bagley, I would hate to have seen you after lunch with Angleton. You probably would have started writing poetry and then offered to help Epstein on his next book.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would have taken Allende, who was a democratically elected  communist, over Pinochet who was a CIA installed Fascist who then disappeared tens of thousands of people.

Thank you very much for these words 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

TG, let me make myself clear; as I thought I did above when I said I would have taken Allende, who was a democratically elected  communist, over Pinochet who was a CIA installed Fascist who then disappeared tens of thousands of people.

I do not like the uses of covert action into other countries to upset their own processes.

To give another example, I did not like the fact that the CIA sent five assassins into Congo to murder Lumumba before JFK took office.  Lumumba was a democratically elected premier, and was part of a constitutional government. Dulles and Eisenhower were going to turn over that process, and the Belgians were all too eager to be the recipient of that aid.  Because now the great wealth of the Congo would go to them  and their stand in Mobutu and not to the Congolese as Lumumba, Hammarskjold, and JFK wanted. I suppose the fact that all three of these men were murdered and that LBJ overturned Kennedy's policies there was just a coincidence.

I could cite several other examples e.g. Arbenz.  In all of these cases, and more, what people like Kissinger and Dulles did ended up killing democracy, and rewarding the wealthy and foreign imperial interests, many of them American.  And such was the  case with Russia. I am against American interventionism in those cases.

What I would like to see is what RFK wanted and what he told to Pete Hammill as he was running in 1968.  Once elected he was going to eliminate the covert action arm of the CIA.

Now, if you are for fascism, if you are for genocide, and you are at heart a Neocon who believes only what the National Review or what the Weekly Standard prints, then why don't you say that? Don't have the gonads?  The Cold War died in 1985 when Gorbachev rose to power.  Only in the mind of a triple distilled Cold Warrior like Bagley did it still exist in the New Millennium.  And if your foreign policy views are that dated and that easily formed by a guy who never got over losing the Nosenko battle, then wow, how can you ever understand the JFK case?

If you were a pushover for Bagley, I would hate to have seen you after lunch with Angleton. You probably would have started writing poetry and then offered to help Epstein on his next book.

 

James,

 

What does any of this have to do with (admittedly corrupt, but hey what do you expect after 70 years of institutionalized cronyism?) Yeltsin's retaining a couple of American political advisers in 1996 to help to help him spiff up his image and improve the palatability of his message in an election campaign?

 

As regards what I read, I try to limit myself to those news sources which have, regardless of their left-or right bias, "High" factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck. com.  Needless to say your beloved Global Research based "Information Clearing House" isn't one of them because GR itself is categorized as being "Conspiracy and Pseudoscience" and as having only "Mixed" factual reporting.

 

Finally, regarding that evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley, if he were alive he'd probably say to you, "If it's true as you say, James, that 'the Cold War died in 1985,' why then did the Soviets/Russians continue to wage so many "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations against us and our allies?"

 

--  T.G.

 

PS   Genocide? You wanna talk genocide?

Okay then, how about what  EDIT ALERT: your buddy Stalin did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s, James?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

 

(To give just one example.)

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

 

What does any of this have to do with Yeltsin's retaining a couple of American political advisers in 1996 to help to help him spiff up his image and improve the palatability of his message in an election campaign?

 

As regards what I read, I try to limit myself to those news sources which have, regardless of their left-or right bias, "High" factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck. com.  Needless to say your beloved Global Research based "Information Clearing House" isn't one of them because GR itself is categorized as being "Conspiracy and Pseudoscience" and as having only "Mixed" factual reporting.

 

Finally, regarding that evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley, if he were alive he'd probably say to you, "If it's true as you say, James, that 'the Cold War died in 1985,' why then did the Soviets/Russians continue to wage so many "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations against us and our allies?"

 

--  T.G.

 

PS   Genocide? You wanna talk genocide?

Okay then, how about what your buddy Stalin did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s, James?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

 

(To give just one example.)

 

 

Tommy - that’s a perfect example of baiting. “Your buddy Stalin”. That’s really out of bounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - that’s a perfect example of baiting. “Your buddy Stalin”. That’s really out of bounds. 

 

Yes, Paul, you're right.

It was probably just an overreaction to James' insinuating that I'm a fascist and that I support genocide.

Shall I delete it?

 

Regardless, do you have anything of substance to say about my post?

 

--  T.G.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

 

Finally, regarding that evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley, if he were alive he'd probably say to you, "If it's true as you say, James, that 'the Cold War died in 1985,' why then did the Soviets/Russians continue to wage so many "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations against us and our allies?"

 

--  T.G.

 

Tommy,

Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature which demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

Tommy,

Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature that demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

 

Michael,

 

It's likely that you, sir, are full of beans.

 

Warning: almost a sentence fragment coming up: 

As are (or were, if deceased) Harrington, Leonard McCoy, John Hart, Bruce Solie, and Cleveland Cram, et al.

 

Why don't you take some Gas-Ex and then read Bagley's Spy Wars, or at least his 35-page PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars.

Paul Brancato finally read the latter, and almost kinda thanked me for having suggested it to him, iirc.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

 

Totally blew me away.

 

--  T.G.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

It's likely that you, sir, are full of beans.

 

Warning: almost a sentence fragment coming up: 

As are (or were, if deceased) Harrington, Leonard McCoy, John Hart, Bruce Solie, and Cleveland Cram, et al.

 

Why don't you take some Gas-Ex and then read Bagley's Spy Wars, or at least his 35-page PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars.

Paul Brancato finally read the latter, and almost kinda thanked me for having suggested it to him, iirc.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

 

Totally blew me away.

 

--  T.G.

TOP SECRET

13 October 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

#386 38

1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.

2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confess their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that the Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone subjects instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that and Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

 

Howard J. Osborn

Director of Security

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

It's likely that you, sir, are full of beans.

 

Warning: almost a sentence fragment coming up: 

As are (or were, if deceased) Harrington, Leonard McCoy, John Hart, Bruce Solie, and Cleveland Cram, et al.

 

Why don't you take some Gas-Ex and then read Bagley's Spy Wars, or at least his 35-page PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars.

Paul Brancato finally read the latter, and almost kinda thanked me for having suggested it to him, iirc.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

 

Totally blew me away.

 

--  T.G.

I reported this post to the moderators. If everyone acted like you we would not have a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×