Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[W. Niederhut]

34 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Here is a direct quote of what she said WN.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've (Russians) got their eye
on somebody whos currently in the democratic primary, and are grooming her to be
the third party candidate. She's a favorite of the russians. "

 

If she's not talking about Gabbard then please let me know who it is. I would say its absolutely Gabbard and she's saying it because of Tulsi's stance

on Syria and foreign policy in general, which the Russians would probably prefer to the fasces of the Clinton networks (Biden, possibly Warren) and Trump's erratic embarrassments.

Sure, even though her stance on the DNC was cemented 3 years ago when she wasn't on FOX at all.

FOX has her on their network because they know she will never be allowed to be a primary candidate for president and her views are generally opposed to the DNC at this point. Therefore, it is a smart political strategy to promote her. Is Tulsi supposed to turn down national air time that she barely gets on the "liberal" networks?

 

 

 

Turns out Hillary Clinton said Republicans — not Russians — were grooming Tulsi Gabbard

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24

 

Published: Oct 24, 2019

By

MikeMurphy

Editor

 

In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe” that Russians were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — widely assumed to be Gabbard — for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.

But apparently Clinton meant Republicans — not Russians — were doing the grooming.

The New York Times ran this correction Wednesday night: “An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was ‘the favorite of the Russians,’ and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton’s remark about the ‘grooming’ of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.”

The Associated Press said: “In a story Oct. 18 about Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Hillary Clinton said she believes the Russians have ‘got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and grooming her to be the third-party candidate.’ She was referring to Republicans, not Russians, according to an aide.”

It was unclear Wednesday night how so many news reports misunderstood Clinton’s quote, or why it took so long to clarify the remarks.

[Bob Ness]

I don't think it's controversial at all that anyone sympathetic to Trump and his policies would try to dissipate democrats votes by helping a can't win candidate. Let's see how effective it is with both parties.

[W. Niederhut]

43 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

1. Tulsi also goes on FOX  because every time she goes on any other channel they call on her to explain why she is a fan of Assad.

  2. No  one should have to defend themselves for thinking HRC is a neocon and she  was a bad Secretary of State.

   Those are simply facts that are logically deduced from her record.  

    3. And no one  here likes Trump.  But there are people who can see something rather questionable and weird in Russia Gate.  And we also realize the power of the Neocon cabal, since we have seen it grow and grow at least since 1981. To deny that power is simple blindness.

Rupert Murdoch has always been an essential part of the "Neocon cabal."

IMO, the Neocon media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, is simply paying Tulsi Gabbard now to undermine opposition to Donald Trump, the man who was bribed by Sheldon Adelson, et.al., to become a Neocon mule.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

3. And no one  here likes Trump.

Where are the anti-Trump articles/segments at Kennedys and King, Black Op Radio or Garrison mag?

Quote

 

  But there are people who can see something rather questionable and weird in Russia Gate.

Sure.  US intel conjured a complex false flag attack to implicate Putin and Trump in the DNC hack for the purpose of denying Trump the White House.

Two 24 hour news cycles broadcast the "Russia-hacked-DNC" story over the last 5 months of the campaign -- nothing over the last 70 days.  Total blackout on this false flag attack over the last 70 days. 

Sure.

Quote

 

  And we also realize the power of the Neocon cabal, since we have seen it grow and grow at least since 1981. To deny that power is simple blindness.

To deny that the #1 priority of the Neo-cons in 2016 was U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuke deal  -- simple blindness.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

How is he paying her?

And how on earth can someone who is about to leave the house influence Pelosi and Schiff's efforts to impeach Trump?

Finally, can you find one other candidate who is reading the Douglass book? Or any related one?

HRC: "“She is a favorite of the Russians,” Clinton said of the combat veteran. “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Edited November 2, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The link is just for context. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/revealing-military-official-who-worked-with-top-schiff-witness-alex-vindman-reprimanded-him-for-inappropriate-and-partisan-behavior-in-military/

You can read about how Colonel Vindman’s career consisted of diverting weapons bound for Afghanistan to Libya and Syria in the Wall Street Journal in a few months, or NY Times in a few years. 

Remember the name General John F. Haley.

I'm thinking Vindman has more integrity than the Pussy Grabbing, Porn Star Boinking, Real Estate Scamming, Serial xxxx and Charity Huskster in the oval office. How's the research going on him?

Edited November 2, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

15 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

If having more integrity means the weapons containers are returned to the US with Fentynal from China and heroin from Afghanistan, then you are right.

In the meantime. You seem pretty unhinged and your comments are not constructive. I am going to put you on ignore.

You should put me on ignore. That way, when I say things like, Bob Mueller’s father was part of the plot to kill JFK because he, with the help of his brother, John Freeman, at Reynolds Metals submarine works, brokered the Navy’s HEU out of the NUMEC plant via Mark Rich and Gerald Tugwell of Englehard Industries, to the Israelis, while LP Gise, the grandfather of Jeff Bezos, William Taylor Sr., the father of the Ukrainian Ambassador, Glenn Seaborg, John McCone and Merson Booth, all of the AEC, looked the other way; and then formed Tugwell Mueller Associates to broker HEU to the Pakistanis and South Africans, so his son could get a piece of the action, you won’t have a coronary.

If you mean by unhinged the examples I gave as adjectives I'd like to point out that those are actually factual. Yours are speculation and rumor designed to disparage people you don't agree with. I'm sorry you feel a need to do that.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh  please.  Just put each other on ignore.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Of anybody here, I do think Cliff has the most realistic view of the how the Democratic party works.

I was a Bernie guy too. i was outraged at how the DNC and Wasserman Schultz tried to marginalize Bernie. But Cliff's right, Hilary drew a sizable greater amount of votes in the primaries, and it was largely because of Black voters preference for Hilary just as it is for Biden in the current Dem race. But who knows how that will turn out?

There are a lot of posters here whose primary political issue is to cut defense. Tulsi's perceived with her visit to Assad by many here, as well as the Russians as being the Peace candidate. But the practical truth of the matter is that ending the American imperialist regime change policies are not in the top 10 as far as one of the public's priority issues in  Democratic polling and not in the top 50 of Republican polling. And that's all politicians look at is polls. And that's why Gabbard, whose made this her central issue,  is at 2 %.

Hilary is the greatest example of a Dem candidate perceived with Neocon foreign policy ties, and I've hear a lot of crazy scenarios by some about how she would start WW3.But the truth is, she could never have initiated the War with Iraq in 2003 the way George Bush did., That would be suicide with her Democratic base.  What confuses people is there are situations that can come up, such as the aftermath of 9-11 when the American public demands blood. No President could have any hope of getting re elected in 2004 if he didn't aggressively prosecute the perpetrators of that act. Al Gore would have been a Super Hawk as well, but of course that's no surprise . Gore ran I believe twice before for the Dem nomination., or at least once and he billed himself as the most strong Defense Democrat of the lot. I have no doubt he wouldn't have made the catastrophic blunders of the Bush administration. There are a lot of people here who think that he would just inevitably have gone to War with Iraq. that's not true at all. The War with Iraq was totally conceived by Bush and PNAC. . There was neither  political, governmental  or MIC government "Deep State"  pressure to start that war. That was George Bush's retaliatory baby.

Hilary voted for that Iraq War, which is the chief reason  I voted for Obama in the primary in 2012. Hilary Clinton's career has been so deliberately crafted to eventually run for President. These silly scenarios of WW3 are really so off base. I think of Obama as being the Jackie Robinson President.He in my mind could have gone farther but he bit one for history and decided he wasn't going to get too uppity and spoil it for future Black Presidents. I have no doubt that Hilary in those 8 years would have done the same as the first woman President.. Ok, our relationship with Russia in 2016 wouldn't have been as good, but so what, what are they going to do anyway? (Maybe you say "throw our elections", but remember for many years, the prospects were at lot worse!)

Here's the shocker that people have no clue about.    Hilary's voting for the Iraq War is what any aspiring Democratic Presidential candidate who was a Senator would have done at the time! The worst political calculation of all would have been to vote against it and have the war be an unqualified success.That would have destroyed all Hillary's aspirations for President. Nobody really knew how that war was going to turn out! As it turned out, if she voted against it, she would have coasted to the Presidency in 2012. Voting for it like she did and then  the war being a disaster doesn't ruin her future chances.(look! she actually did win the popular vote for the Presidency!) because it wasn't her or her party that started that disastrous war and she was doing the patriotic thing and supporting her President during a time of war.  Every step of Hillary's career has been calculated to the nth degree to allow as little spontaneity and leave as little to chance as possible. That's what I can't stand about her.

I 'm sure this kind of demystification would be quite a letdown for some here, and some who actually have a financial interest in the idea that a super deep state now exists. And I'm sure they believe it. But was Hilary corrupted by the MIC "deep state"? I guess you could call it that. I call swimming in the political ocean.They scratch each others back and they vote for each other's bills. If you're a Democrat , you can be softer on Defense, but if you want to be President, you can't ultimately be a softy on Defense. The only time that doesn't apply are times like these, when total contrarians, like Trump, Sanders or Warren are actually considered because the public has finally got a clue where the status quo  has lead them all these years.

 

 

beuBut gai.De There is o President  a a Warbwith Iraq the way if she ever attempted a bold mo , 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Paul Bacon]

Thanks, Kirk, for that thorough review!

I had to laugh though:

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Every step of Hillary's career has been calculated to the nth degree to allow as little spontaneity and leave as little to chance as possible. That's what I can't stand about her.

This is exactly why I voted for her --both times :>)  She's brilliant at it!  And there isn't a politician alive who is any different.  And, since I agree with her stated values, I want her in my tent pissing out.

I don't think that total transparency is even possible for a politician in these polarized times.  It leaves too much grist for the spin mills.  I had hoped that Obama would be different, but he was faced with a reality he had to deal with.

For me, Hillary's consummate, calculating mind would have been overwhelmingly preferable to what we have now!

[Douglas Caddy]

For those in the forum who like Trump, there may soon be a way to worship him.  One is forced to ask where the collection plate money would end up.

Revealed: Trump wanted to build a megachurch

by Paul Bedard

 | November 01, 2019 12:08 PM

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/revealed-trump-wanted-to-build-a-mega-church

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[W. Niederhut]

            Hillary Clinton had no significant role in the PNAC/CIA/Saudi/Mossad false flag op to blow up the World Trade Center on 9/11-- PNAC's new "Pearl Harbor" that was designed to mobilize popular support for the implementation of the Wolfowitz Doctrine in the Middle East-- unilateral pre-emptive U.S. invasions to Balkanize Iraq and Syria and establish U.S. control of Central Asia.   The Democrats in Congress after 9/11 went along with the Bush-Cheney administration's phony post-9/11 "War on Terror," but they were not involved in any meaningful way in formulating or implementing the military plans-- other than voting for the funds.

           Recall that General Wesley Clark was briefed about this Grand PNAC Plan in the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith Pentagon shortly after 9/11.  Clark was told at that time that the Pentagon plan involved the invasion and destabilization of several Islamic nations threatening Israel's long-term survival-- Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Iran.  Both Wolfowitz and Feith had consulted with Netanyahu and Likud Party hardliners in the 1990s about this grand plan to destabilize Israel's Muslim neighbor states-- a variation on the original Oded Yinon Plan.

          Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the U.S. aggressively promoted the phony PNAC "War on Terror" propaganda after 9/11.

         Murdoch even bragged later about his role in promoting the Iraq War.

         Now Rupert Murdoch is using Tulsi Gabbard to re-brand the Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine the "Clinton Doctrine."

         It's true that Obama (and, peripherally, Hillary Clinton from 2009-13) basically cooperated with the CIA and Joint Chief's PNAC "War on Terror," but Obama did so reluctantly.  Nor was Hillary in the loop with Pentagon ops from 2009-13.

         In contrast, Trump's DOD killed more (collateral) civilians in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria during Trump's first eight months in office (in 2017) than the Obama administration's DOD had killed in eight years!

        What is worse, Trump was bribed to foolishly withdraw from the Iranian nuclear disarmament treaty and to completely abandon the longstanding U.S. commitment to serve as a neutral mediator of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  

     

[Dennis Berube]

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

But apparently Clinton meant Republicans — not Russians — were doing the grooming.

WN, please explain the part of the quote that the article doesn't mention.

 

"And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset."

Who is the other Russian asset here WN?

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was ‘the favorite of the Russians,’ and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard,

Oh right, Ms. Gabbard. That Stein/asset comment was right after the favorite of the Russians comment. I

 

I think what might have happened here was the media's response to her statement was actually quite negative on the whole and this is her pathetic way of backtracking to

save face, but I believe her strategy was to paint Gabbard as a republican and link to her the Russians at the same time.  It reminds me of an attorney who knows he will get an objection, but does it anyway because the jury will hear it. In this case, the jury is all of the democratic party faithful who somehow still believe the clinton family represents the American public's interest.

[James DiEugenio]

KG: That would be suicide with her Democratic base.  What confuses people is there are situations that can come up, such as the aftermath of 9-11 when the American public demands blood. No President could have any hope of getting re elected in 2004 if he didn't aggressively prosecute the perpetrators of that act.

What is the logic here?  Saddam did not have anything to do with 9-11.  Nor did the Iraqui people, of which we killed perhaps 600,000.  The whole sickening aspect of that debacle was that it was completely manufactured from step 1.  I would argue even moreso than LBJ's entry into Indochina.  One of the best books written on that subject was by Frank Rich, called The Greatest Story Ever Sold. The even more shocking part of it was how, in large part, the MSM went along with this pile of BS.  And even worse, Nancy Pelosi did not harbor any desire to  impeach the guy.  In other words, you kill 600,000 people in a war you lie your way into, that is cool; you do a deal with Ukraine over military aid, let's start the hearings.  

This is why so many people have problems with the Democratic Party. As per the idea Obama somehow held back for the future of his race, as I have said, I know someone from Illinois.  He watched Obama's career from the start.  And he told me that anyone who had done that would have been able to predict what a middle of the roader Obama really was and is.

The idea that voting against that obscene war would have been a strike against one's candidacy is another leap in logic. HRC was harangued on this when she ran against Obama.  Gore would have done the same thing? You cannot be serious.  I am not a big fan of Al's but there are two things most people close to him say about the guy.  He is a logical thinker, and he is not afraid to sail against the wind.

Two examples, first, when everyone was jumping on the Reagan military build up in the mid eighties, Gore was against it and debated some of the neocons on TV about it. Second, when he first came to congress, he was friends with Bud Fensterwald, founder of the AARC.  Bud asked him to stop by each Friday morning, before he flew back to Tennessee.  Bud set aside a desk for him each day with several documents on the JFK case for him to read.  They did this for a year.  At the end of the year, Gore told Bud: "You're right, it was a conspiracy."  And he never backed down on it.  I know someone who was in that White House circle while the Clintons were there, she told me that Gore was really interested in the JFK case all the way through.

Notice what Bill did, once Posner's book came out?  He noted it positively in public.  Also, the State Department did not help the ARRB get the KGB file on Oswald.

If the above is realism, its why I vote Green. So call me a Russian asset.

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Dennis Berube]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Second, when he first came to congress, he was friends with Bud Fensterwald, founder of the AARC.  Bud asked him to stop by each Friday morning, before he flew back to Tennessee.  Bud set aside a desk for him each day with several documents on the JFK case for him to read.  They did this for a year.  At the end of the year, Gore told Bud: "You're right, it was a conspiracy."  And he never backed down on it.  I know someone who was in that White House circle while the Clintons were there, she told me that Gore was really interested in the JFK case all the way through.

Notice what Bill did, once Posner's book came out?  He noted it positively in public.  Also, the State Department did not help the ARRB get the KGB file on Oswald.

Interesting, I didn't know that about Gore.

I always wondered what the KGB had on Oswald, especially considering Nagell's story. Did anyone ever get the full KGB file?