Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

            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.  

     

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

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

 

 

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

 

 

Just because those of us who can spot a Deep State coup when we see one does not mean we are Trump supporters. Hardly. My candidate is Tulsi and not because she called out Clinton for what  she is but because she is the only anti war candidate running. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

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?

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.

Exactly. You beat me to it.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - you voted for Green because you live in California. 

I am not a fan boy for Pelosi, or the Clinton’s, or the Democratic Party Establishment. But demonizing them is absurd. Foreign Policy isn’t the only thing we judge them by, is it? Trump has been an unmitigated disaster from day one. Using Deep State analysis to draw a parallel between JFK and Trump is ridiculous. They are polar opposites. As for Pelosi moving to impeach, she wasn’t Speaker until this year and could do nothing. Were you not rooting for Democratic victories in 2018 elections? Was it not a good thing? Is the Democratic Party not inexorably moving to the Left? If we care at all about our future the best hope is to unite behind this and keep fighting. The result of media focus on the internal fight within the Democratic Party is to divide us. I’d have to assume that JFK lovers care about Domestic policy too. He sure did. Trump is tearing apart everything. That’s the Bannon Plan. Tax policy, environmental regulations, race relations, immigration policy, guns, health care. Is there anything we care about except foreign interventions? Talking about regime change wars is easy pickings for Trumpers who would like to deflect to what’s wrong with the Democratic Establishment. 

And Jim - you know a guy in Illinois who predicted Obama would be a centrist president? Hmm. Obama presided over a country increasingly and deliberately divided along race and class lines, and a Congress controlled by the opposition. This isn’t LBJ in the ‘60’s. He could do nothing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dawn Meredith said:

Just because those of us who can spot a Deep State coup when we see one does not mean we are Trump supporters. Hardly. My candidate is Tulsi and not because she called out Clinton for what  she is but because she is the only anti war candidate running. 

How else do you think we can get rid of Trump? Tulsi Gabbard one on one? 

This Deep State coup is desperation against a political party run amok. It is not JFK all over again. We can worry about the very Real Deep State later. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly trying to stay the course of this wonderful JFK truth seeking forum by tempering my burning and highly concerned desire to post about Trump, but this thread's content has compelled me to the breaking point.

I believe we are in the midst of a battle over the perception of right and wrong reality in the minds of our collective societal citizenry regards Trump personally and his political agendas and policies pitting his unmovable support base against those of us who find Trump a morally repulsive, pathologically lying, dangerous fear and hate mongering, self obsessed egomaniac disaster.

It is so disturbing to me how Trump's support base ( especially the millions of supposedly "Christ teaching and following" evangelicals) is purposely ignoring and downplaying the realities of his unprecedented non-presidential even unchristian bad character traits, actions and words and the truly real divisive damage he and they are doing to our nation as a whole.

They actually believe non-condom wearing, extensive philandering Trump gives a hoot about abortion?

They pretend that Trump's extensive sexual predator and philandering history, shady business dealings with shady customers, tax cheating and tax hiding, extorting foreign leaders to aid his own personal political interests, favoring murderous despots who make him money etc.etc, and almost daily obsessive anger inciting public comment attacking of anyone criticizing him with the crudest most base language, insults and taunts that Americans have ever heard from a President is just not that important in judging the moral and emotional character qualifications we expect from our highest elective office holder.

Seriously, regarding not just his daily rants via his 60 million followers Twitter account but also his super hyperbolic rally ones, it's as if our President is one of those crazy, over-the-top World Federation Wrestling characters who come out on stage yelling Trump like insults against their also crazy yelling ring opponents to work up their stupid audiences into a Roman Colosseum blood lust type frenzy.

Trump: my critics are my enemies and are scum, traitors, XXXXX, losers, degenerates, rats, stupid, weak, corrupt criminals ( "lock her up") lynching bastards, dogs, ugly and on and on and on. 

No sitting U.S. president has ever been this loudly verbally attacking, abusive and crude with no filter or boundaries daily in public forums ( rallies, press statements, tweets ) to an almost psychotic yelling street person level ... until Trump.

This crude and bully minded circus is shameful and even perverse in so many ways. It's sickening coming from a President and 10's of millions of Americans like me are sick of it.

And most of our main stream media is letting Trump get away with this crazy extreme almost daily demonizing and hugely society damaging and divisive trash. Every news site ( internet, TV, radio, newspaper, magazine ) should be condemning this destructive Presidential behavior as outrageously wrong and damaging as often as it is spewed...on a daily basis.

And in response to anyone downplaying Trump's crude, always conflict creating and inciting and nation dividing daily rhetoric as just typical New York City brashness, I say ... that is Judge Judy "RIDICULOUS!"

Only thuggish NYC gangsters and angry street people talk like Trump.

And for those who claim the super loud audience majority booing of Trump during his World Series appearance simply reflected the Washington DC liberal hatred of Trump I again say hogwash.  Look at the ethnic make up of the crowd in attendance. You hardly saw any blacks who make up the majority of that District's population. The huge majority of that booing crowd were non-Hispanic whites and not residents of DC.

Ethnic composition. According to 2017 Census Bureau data, the population of the District of Columbia, was 47.1% Black or African American, 45.1% White (36.8% non-Hispanic White), 4.3% Asian, 0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

They pretend that Trump's almost daily obsessive attacking of anyone criticizing him with the crudest most base language, insults and taunts that Americans have ever heard from a President is just not that important in judging the moral and emotional qualifications we expect from our highest elective office holder.

That's how we talk in New York. Your opinion is quaint.

I find someone who must affect the accent and colloquialisms of whatever ethnic group she is appealing to be more offensive.

Do you know who was quite a gentlemanly President? George H.W. Bush

He would never call anyone an "A" Hole to their face, he would just send his goons to your house in the middle of the night and kill you and your family.

In all seriousness, Trump has been in the public eye for 40 years. We know he is boorish, brash, uncouth, often hyperbolic. We know more about his life, personal situation, business dealings, business failures, friends, associates than any other President ever, even more than Ronald Reagan who was actor, and in front of a lot of cameras regularly. Tough xxxx if your offended. I hear the Canadians are polite. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew Joe, well put!

Paul's right.There are more concerns than just foreign policy, but in this binary political world we live in, until that dynamic changes. If you want to stop the regime change imperialistic American policy, your best shot is the Democratic party.

 

Jim that's right, I said   No President could have any hope of getting re elected in 2004 if he didn't aggressively prosecute the perpetrators of that act."

Jim you're confusing going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan  with going after Sadomm, just like Bush did.

Where we share some agreement is about Al Gore,  but in mind concerning a more far reaching issue. Al Gore in 1983. It is easy to underestimate him,but he was ahead of everybody in Congress.

https://youtu.be/T8JlBkOe6HU

A little longer. Debate with Imhofe in the Senate in 2007. Gore Imhofe, Boxer, Sanders a cameo.

https://youtu.be/OZ0uxCYLSzQ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsflash...  More shocking revelations today about Trump's secret bromance with Vlad Putin.

Buzzfeed has just posted their first batch of Mueller investigation 302s-- obtained from Barr's Department of Justice Obstruction (DOJO) through FOIAs.

It's looking very grim for Trump's Deep State conspiracy theory alibis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

How else do you think we can get rid of Trump? Tulsi Gabbard one on one? 

This Deep State coup is desperation against a political party run amok. It is not JFK all over again. We can worry about the very Real Deep State later. 

The “deep state coup” was initiated before Trump assumed office, with the publication of the Intelligence Community Assessment on January 6, 2017. John McCain, in Australia later that month, told his hosts to disavow Trump because he would shortly be removed from office. The wheels were in motion before Trump began running “amok”, with elements of the intelligence agencies in the lead, supported by elected politicians like McCain who were “deep state” players.

As far as “worrying about the Deep State later”, I am curious to hear from participants their thoughts on the reaction to JFK’s death back in 1963/64. Am I correct that a consensus view holds the liberal/left establishment of the time made a decision, consciously or not, to not pursue a political investigation of the circumstances of the assassination and instead decided to accept and promote the lone nut thesis? That part of the reasoning was the liberal/left constituency could not win against the right wing in a heightened political civil war that might be hatched by unearthing the true responsibility and that the New Deal/reformist initiatives might be then lost? If this was the case, wasn’t all lost anyway as allowing “getting away with” JFK led to “getting away with” RFK, and eventually to the steady right-wing drift in US politics since 1968?

I believe the circumstances in 1963/64 are totally different than today, so this query is not seeking comparative analysis - other than the notion of placating the “deep state” for presumed short term goals. (i.e. get rid of Trump now, deal with “deep state” later).

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The “deep state coup” was initiated before Trump assumed office, with the publication of the Intelligence Community Assessment on January 6, 2017.

Interesting.  I can't help but notice that you rarely if ever acknowledge the "deep state coup" pulled off in 2016 by Republican voter ID laws and voter roll purges, which augmented James Comey's re-opening of the Clinton e-mail "scandal" 11 days before the election.

Your selectivity over what constitutes a "deep state coup" is duly noted.

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

×
×
  • Create New...