I told you Tulsi's the one!

[Jon Pickering]

The way it falls all over itself to please the Pentagon, I'd say it's one of its assets and not the least bit republican.

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Paul,

The Clinton/Obama/Biden wing of the Democratic party should be destroyed. They have played a nefarious role and prevented any resurgence of the "New Deal" type democrat that Tulsi is at least close to.

I think these people explain themselves clearly every now and then and Obama recently did that for me.

"This idea of purity, and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke, and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said. "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."

Can you imagine JFK or FDR saying that? Those guys empowered people with their speeches "I welcome their hatred" and "we all breathe the same air" etc... This wing of the democratic seems to primarily exist to prevent that from happening, and they've done a great job.

        Study some American history, Berube.  Obama is spot on.  And he and Bill Clinton were, far and away, the two best American Presidents of the past 56 years, regardless of the billions spent during the past 20 years by GOP Robber Barons like the Kochs, Scaifes, Murdoch, et.al., to impugn and tarnish their reputations.

Are Bill Clinton and Obama saints?  Of course not.  Neither was JFK.  No saint could ever be elected POTUS.  But they were all generally focused on optimizing the public good, unlike the Republican scoundrels in the Oval Office who created our Reaganomic national debt and launched ops like Iran-Contra, Desert Storm, and the $6 trillion dollar Bush-Cheney/PNAC "War on Terror."

 And Hillary had no operational role in any of these CIA/Joint Chiefs' Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine military ops-- in Syria or Libya.   Hillary was not even directly involved in implementing CIA Operation Timber Sycamore.  To re-brand these CIA/MIC Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine ops "the Clinton Doctrine" is beyond absurd-- analogous to blaming Clinton and Obama for the "supply side" tax cuts that created our Reagan-Bush-Trump national debt.

Most major policy achievements throughout American history, since the drafting of the Constitution, were a result of unsavory compromises-- a process that Bismark likened to making sausages.  Obama compromised with Gates and the MIC in the "War on Terror," and he compromised with Charles Grassley, Max Baucus, and Lieberman on limiting the scope of the ACA.

Bill Clinton compromised on the GOP's Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that deregulated Wall Street and, ultimately, caused the Great Crash of 2008.

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[Dennis Berube]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

What’s your opinion of the Republican Party?

In the current form, I view the republican party as overtly fascist and a disgrace to American history.

 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

And he and Bill Clinton were, far and away, the two best American Presidents of the past 56 years

Ok, then the two best presidents of the last 56 years were not good for this country or the world in most ways.

 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Are Bill Clinton and Obama saints?  Of course not.  Neither was JFK.

There is a huge difference between Clinton/Obama and JFK. If you dont' understand that then I don't know what else to say. JFK had everyone telling him to act a certain way on several fronts and he decided to fight against what is normally considered our allies and "noblemen" of big wall street/pentagon/CIA types. That is something that the democratic party never regained after JFK (at the POTUS level). In other words, on a simplified level, this democratic party that is currently in power will never challenge the power that keeps the major structures in place, starting with covert operations. That is fundamentally different than JFK. And he absolutely looks like a saint compared to those other guys, I don't see how to get around that mentally, and I'm not even considering Bill's white house debauchery.

 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Study some American history, Berube. 

Coming from a guy who believed Oswald did it for 56 years, I don't know how to take this WN. Based on your earlier suggestions, I do not have an interest in learning about how Soros and big banks view the current political climate. If I want that, I can read the NY Times or watch CBS, MSN, CNN news. Jim DiEugenio has made it clear that the foreign policy changes from JFK to LBJ were much more involved than most people are aware of and its extremely important in my view. There simply couldn't be more of a difference between the democratic party of 1963 and todays party, I don't view them as the same. Much like the republican party of 1863 is nothing like it is today. If you wish to cling on to the light neo con party, fine, I don't.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

In the current form, I view the republican party as overtly fascist and a disgrace to American history.

 

Ok, then the two best presidents of the last 56 years were not good for this country or the world in most ways.

What planet have you been living on, Dennis?  Clinton dramatically reduced the growth rate of the Reaganomic national debt from 1993-2000, presided over robust U.S. GDP and job growth, and left Bush and Cheney with a healthy budgetary surplus (that was completely squandered by Bush and Cheney after 2001.)

Obama effectively managed our recovery from widespread bank failures and the worst U.S. recession since the Great Depression.  He helped establish our first system of universal healthcare coverage-- one century after TR called for it-- and implemented Wall Street regulatory reforms in response to the 2008 Crash.  On the world stage, he restored international confidence in U.S. leadership in the aftermath of the Bush-Cheney debacle, (80 percent approval of Obama in the EU  vs. 9 percent for Trump) signed nuclear arms reduction treaties with Russia, in addition to the Iranian disarmament treaty and the Paris Climate Accords.

There is a huge difference between Clinton/Obama and JFK. If you dont' understand that then I don't know what else to say. JFK had everyone telling him to act a certain way on several fronts and he decided to fight against what is normally considered our allies and "noblemen" of big wall street/pentagon/CIA types. That is something that the democratic party never regained after JFK (at the POTUS level). In other words, on a simplified level, this democratic party that is currently in power will never challenge the power that keeps the major structures in place, starting with covert operations. That is fundamentally different than JFK. And he absolutely looks like a saint compared to those other guys, I don't see how to get around that mentally, and I'm not even considering Bill's white house debauchery.

True.  Clinton and Obama did not say, "No," to the military-industrial complex as JFK tried to do.  No one has dared to do that since 11/22/63.

Coming from a guy who believed Oswald did it for 56 years, I don't know how to take this WN.

Don't worry about my credentials.  In the past 56 years I also managed to graduate magna cum laude from Brown University (majoring in American Studies) and from Harvard Medical School.  But I never took the time to study the bona fide research on JFK's assassination (including DiEugenio's work) until recently.  (Nor have a lot of reasonably well-educated people that I know.)

And, yes, I'm now fairly up-to-date on the true history of the dramatic foreign policy changes that occurred following JFK's murder-- the "Untold History," and the "Destiny Betrayed" by our CIA and military-industrial complex.

 

 

Based on your earlier suggestions, I do not have an interest in learning about how Soros and big banks view the current political climate. If I want that, I can read the NY Times or watch CBS, MSN, CNN news. Jim DiEugenio has made it clear that the foreign policy changes from JFK to LBJ were much more involved than most people are aware of and its extremely important in my view. There simply couldn't be more of a difference between the democratic party of 1963 and todays party, I don't view them as the same. Much like the republican party of 1863 is nothing like it is today. If you wish to cling on to the light neo con party, fine, I don't.

 

Speaking of the Neocons, you still don't seem to realize that the Arch-Neocon Trumpagandist, Rupert Murdoch, has been smearing Hillary Clinton since 2012, (Benghazi, Emailgate, etc.) and is currently trying to blame Hillary and the Democrats for the Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine behind the $6 trillion dollar GOP "War on Terror."   That's one of my objections to the misguided Hillary bashing around here.  It's largely a result of a misogyny and a multi-year, multi-million dollar GOP smear campaign.  Hillary had no operational role in the CIA/Joint Chiefs' Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine ops in the Middle East.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

In the current form, I view the republican party as overtly fascist and a disgrace to American history.

 

Ok, then the two best presidents of the last 56 years were not good for this country or the world in most ways.

 

There is a huge difference between Clinton/Obama and JFK. If you dont' understand that then I don't know what else to say. JFK had everyone telling him to act a certain way on several fronts and he decided to fight against what is normally considered our allies and "noblemen" of big wall street/pentagon/CIA types. That is something that the democratic party never regained after JFK (at the POTUS level). In other words, on a simplified level, this democratic party that is currently in power will never challenge the power that keeps the major structures in place, starting with covert operations. That is fundamentally different than JFK. And he absolutely looks like a saint compared to those other guys, I don't see how to get around that mentally, and I'm not even considering Bill's white house debauchery.

 

Coming from a guy who believed Oswald did it for 56 years, I don't know how to take this WN. Based on your earlier suggestions, I do not have an interest in learning about how Soros and big banks view the current political climate. If I want that, I can read the NY Times or watch CBS, MSN, CNN news. Jim DiEugenio has made it clear that the foreign policy changes from JFK to LBJ were much more involved than most people are aware of and its extremely important in my view. There simply couldn't be more of a difference between the democratic party of 1963 and todays party, I don't view them as the same. Much like the republican party of 1863 is nothing like it is today. If you wish to cling on to the light neo con party, fine, I don't.

 

 

I appreciate your answer regarding Republicans. And I largely agree with your criticism of Democrats, especially on foreign policies and the military. But today’s Democratic Party is no longer a monolith. New members are fighting to change the Party, without destroying it, something we cannot afford in this Trump era. Isn’t the best hope for the future to continue to elect Democrats to Congress? Can we not be a little more subtle in our analysis? There are major differences between the two parties on Domestic issues. 

[James DiEugenio]

WN, are you really serious?

You cannot see how the things HRC did as Sec of State would be compared with the GOP neocons?

Wow, that kind of hurts.  I mean you liked the John Wayne thing with Libya?  Validating the overthrow in Honduras.  And is there any doubt HRC would have tried to go into Syria?

And somehow Bill Clinton and Obama were better presidents than JFK?

Clinton passed what is I think one of the worst domestic acts in recent history, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  And why stop there.  What about his DIck Morris inspired Crime Bill?  Which even Biden apologizes for.  What about the gutting of FDR's banking laws and the legalization of derivatives. What about NAFTA?  At the time the Lewinsky scandal broke, he was talking with Gingrich about making Social Security means tested.

Bill Clinton's presidency pushed the Democratic base away from the party and made Republican Lite acceptable in the MSM.

As per Obama, please.   He had a great opportunity when he got elected to do some really great things since he had the congress.  I mean he could have burst out of the box like FDR with a fireside chat and saying he was going to bring Wall Street to its knees and throw people in  jail.  JFK did just that during the Steel Crisis.  Obama instead hired Geithner and put no one in jail. The GOP truly feared that Obama was going to act like FDR.  As my friend from Illinois told me, they really had nothing to fear. Obama and his wife were quite well off before ascending to the White House.  She actually made more money than he did. They talked a good game, and that was it. IMO, JFK and his brother did more good in three years, than those two did in 16.  Oh yeah, let us give credit to Obama for NOT invading Syria as HRC would have. And Barack was proud of that as a signal achievement.

Edited November 4, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, You're  certainly on one of your rolls  of despair. I agree about a number of points you and Berube have made about Clinton and Obama in the past.

Lets talk about now...Since you've  started this political endorsement thread maybe I'll give equal time and segue to  maybe  a little more multi faceted  candidate maybe not so opaque as to make me feel like I'm  staring at a lovely dark side of the moon like Tulsi  Gabbard (ok, I'm  joking, I do I like her)and more interesting to talk about than in essence saying over and over again "I know in my gut Tulsi is the real peace candidate" and Jimmy Dore, and maybe Ollie Stone and Breitbart say so too, and because Hillary hates her, and she did go to see Assad, blah blah blah.

I think we can all agree that any candidate who has in their platform that they want to cut defense is worth listening to . And one has been saying it when no one was saying it.

Sanders is  candidate with a clearly defined idea about what he wants to accomplish on a number of levels.6 months ago,I didn't realize at the time that Bernie Sanders appeared on Fox town hall.------

Is Fox MSM or state media?

I'm not sure if Fox News actually believes  their hype  about taking the mantle for the little guy, as I think they were confident of an ambush on Bernie Sanders while they were in fact heading into an ambush.

It is true to say that there was  diversity in the crowd, there were some who just listened.

I actually thought Bret Baier was supposed to be one of the better and more neutral commentators there. He looked astonished and ill prepared at every turn like he hadn't done any real research and his total knowledge of Sanders positions was from watching his own network. Near the end he seem preoccupied like he's wondering how he's going to explain this town hall meeting thing to his bosses. As did Martha Mac Callum, another typical Fox blonde.

 

You don't have to like all of Sander's policies to see he's learned and gotten better.

-At one point Brett Baier asks Sanders if there can be a truce in Sanders bashing Fox News. Sanders replies "Well,. we'll see."

While Baier and Maccallum are oblivious to their own  obnoxious, silly gotcha questions:

-Where do you stand about final week abortion????.

-You're now a millionaire from book sales, are you going to give it back to the government?

-Oh what about Omar's statements.and Sanders reply ,so we have tow the line and act  like we can't even discuss a corrupt right wing government in Israel?

-Yes, Martha I think even Brett knew healthcare isn't free.You may have to pay a little more than the rest of us. Boo hoo!

-Will members of Congress have to pay less than the rest of us? They've been deriding him as a socialist against special privilege, do you think the answer will be anything other than no?

-Is Joe Biden really a progressive? At  every turn, trying to turn the candidates against one another. Sanders would not have any of it.

-Not much about Trump but he poses an  honest question any thinking person would ask at around 15.00.

Feel berned!

Part 1 and after that -part2

 

https://youtu.be/p4ozAACcc8I

 

https://youtu.be/hSnxuzDm7C0

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

WN, are you really serious?

You cannot see how the things HRC did as Sec of State would be compared with the GOP neocons?

Wow, that kind of hurts.  I mean you liked the John Wayne thing with Libya?  Validating the overthrow in Honduras.  And is there any doubt HRC would have tried to go into Syria?

And somehow Bill Clinton and Obama were better presidents than JFK?

Clinton passed what is I think one of the worst domestic acts in recent history, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  And why stop there.  What about his DIck Morris inspired Crime Bill?  Which even Biden apologizes for.  What about the gutting of FDR's banking laws and the legalization of derivatives. What about NAFTA?  At the time the Lewinsky scandal broke, he was talking with Gingrich about making Social Security means tested.

Bill Clinton's presidency pushed the Democratic base away from the party and made Republican Lite acceptable in the MSM.

As per Obama, please.   He had a great opportunity when he got elected to do some really great things since he had the congress.  I mean he could have burst out of the box like FDR with a fireside chat and saying he was going to bring Wall Street to its knees and throw people in  jail.  JFK did just that during the Steel Crisis.  Obama instead hired Geithner and put no one in jail. The GOP truly feared that Obama was going to act like FDR.  As my friend from Illinois told me, they really had nothing to fear. Obama and his wife were quite well off before ascending to the White House.  She actually made more money than he did. They talked a good game, and that was it. IMO, JFK and his brother did more good in three years, than those two did in 16.  Oh yeah, let us give credit to Obama for NOT invading Syria as HRC would have. And Barack was proud of that as a signal achievement.

Jim,

       It's true that Hillary, unfortunately, voted in the Senate to approve Bush & Cheney's invasion of Iraq in 2003 but, like almost everyone in the Senate (other than Obama and Bernie Sanders) she did so largely in response to a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign from Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove's 2002-03 Iraq War PR committee to sell the public on that invasion.  As for the misguided Neocon NATO/CIA op to overthrow Ghaddafi in Libya, what role did Hillary actually play in it?  She was nominally in charge of Christopher Stevens' under-the-radar Foreign Service mission to Benghazi, but I find it hard to believe that she was actively involved in the CIA and Pentagon ops there, or in the CIA's Operation Timber Sycamore in Syria.  Perhaps I am mistaken.  At worst, Hillary Clinton has been a Senatorial and State Department accomplice in Bush & Cheney's Neocon/PNAC "War on Terror"-- hardly justifying the Neocon Trumpagandist, Rupert Murdoch's recent use of Tulsi Gabbard (WSJ) to re-brand the Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine as the "Clinton Doctrine."

     BTW, I never said that Bill Clinton and Obama were better presidents than JFK.  What I wrote was that, IMO, Clinton and Obama have been the two best U.S.Presidents of the past 56 years-- since 1963.  Both made some mistakes by compromising with Republicans in Congress.  As I mentioned, in Clinton's case, agreeing to sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the worst.  Who controlled Congress at the time?  Similarly, Obama settled for the Senate Finance Committee's compromise (with Baucus, Grassley, and Lieberman) to kill a public option for the ACA.  What was the alternative?  To accomplish nothing significant in U.S. healthcare reform-- similar to what happened to Bill, Hillary, and Ira Magaziner after 1992?

     As for Obama's remarkably successful management of the Great Bush-Cheney Crash & Recession of 2008-10, I'm continually amazed by the public ignorance and amnesia on this subject.  Obama inherited widespread bank failures and a collapsing U.S. economy from Bush & Cheney in 2009, and he had a very brief stint with a cooperative Congress from 2009-10 to keep the U.S. Ship of State from sinking.  Princeton Professor Alan Blinder's analysis of the success of Obama's 2009 Stimulus Recovery Act is the best thing I've read on the subject.  Most people have been bamboozled by the bogus Koch Tea Party/Fox News/ GOP counter-narrative to smear Obama.

    Meanwhile, Obama also inherited the Bush/Cheney Neocon wars in Afghanistan & Iraq.  I, certainly, fault him for keeping Robert Gates on board, and colluding with the Wolfowitz/Bush agenda in Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc.  But, at least, Obama pulled the plug on the Neocon push to start a war with Iran.   How has Trump done, in comparison?  In addition to withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear disarmament treaty, (for Netanyahu and the Neocons) Trump also killed more civilians in the Middle East in his first eight months in office than Obama killed in eight years!

      (P.S.  I'm a Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporter.  I donated to Bernie in 2016.)

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk and WN,

We both agree that Bernie should be the candidate, good.  And I like Warren also.

But WN, from what I have read, HRC was actually leading the charge against Libya. She then recruited Rice and Power, and that trio then sold Obama on it.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk and WN,

We both agree that Bernie should be the candidate, good.  And I like Warren also.

But WN, from what I have read, HRC was actually leading the charge against Libya. She then recruited Rice and Power, and that trio then sold Obama on it.

Jim - where have you read that? I haven’t seen it.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk and WN,

We both agree that Bernie should be the candidate, good.  And I like Warren also.

But WN, from what I have read, HRC was actually leading the charge against Libya. She then recruited Rice and Power, and that trio then sold Obama on it.

       Oy...  If true, may the fetid excrement of a thousand pigeons rain down upon Hillary's head en route to her next CFR meeting... 😩

[James DiEugenio]

Here it is from an eyewitness:

As Secretary of State, [Ms. Clinton] blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.

 

For his part, Kubic writes:

Prior to the February 17, 2011, “Day of Rage,” Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent [and] the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent.

Furthermore, “Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States.” Yet, Ms. Clinton “strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.” Even though, within “weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi’s abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton [who] had already met with rebel leaders in Paris … and had committed to support their revolution.”

Edited November 4, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

See, although I like Warren and Bernie, I don't think either one is radical enough on foreign policy.

And that is what I think its going to take to get this Neocon sickness out of the system

Plus, unless we do that, we will never balance the budget.  And I mean never.

 

[James DiEugenio]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-ponders-2020-run-lets-not-forget-her-real-libya-scandal-glenn-reynolds-column/895853001/

Then read this and you will see how far the Democratic Party has fallen, especially note the photo of JFK.

 

https://jfkjmn.com/new-page-1/

Edited November 4, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/27/clinton-ponders-2020-run-lets-not-forget-her-real-libya-scandal-glenn-reynolds-column/895853001/

Then read this and you will see how far the Democratic Party has fallen, especially note the photo of JFK.

 

https://jfkjmn.com/new-page-1/

Jim - the first is an opinion piece, and it just seems way too glib. Not to mention Ms. Clinton gets an enormous amount of bad press on Libya. 

I won’t argue that the Democratic Party fell like a rock after the ‘60’s assassinations, or that it’s foreign policies have been almost as hawkish as the Republicans. But can’t we see the tide shifting? And don’t we know that on a host of domestic issues the two parties are light years apart?