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.

He turned years after JFK's death and became a willing participant to all those publishers who wanted to try and discredit Kennedy's reputation. If I recall the first was with Lucianna Goldberg and Kitty Kelley in her book on Jackie.

What is so amazing about this is that not on voter has case a ballot yet. That is what the DNC has done to these things. The debates are everything, as are the rules about them.

Oh please. Just put each other on ignore.

At my talk in Dallas this month, I will use some prefatory remarks to thank Malcolm Blunt. That talk could not exist in its present form without his work. And that essay I did for garrison on Kennedy and the Middle East also could not have existed without his work. The guy does not just go to NARA. The documents he got for me on JFK and Nasser and Israel were from the Kennedy Library. I could have written an essay on JFK and the Middle East, but it would not have been studded with primary source documents without the several folders Malcolm sent me on the subject. And therefore that essay could not have been nearly as good. Malcolm Blunt is really indispensable to this effort in many ways.

I answered this on the other thread. I don't understand this. In their desire to nail Trump, Tulsi gets thrown under the bus.

Before he turned, Smathers said that Kennedy really worried about some of the things the CIA was doing behind his back. He suspected them of being involved in Trujillo's assassination.

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.”

With the power of the MSM, the Neocon cabal that controls Washington and the press, plus the really bizarre way the DNC controls the primaries, its a miracle she is still around.

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.

Actually Rob, that is really important to the JFK story. E.g. the Congo and the murders of Lumumba and Hammarskjold. That story is finally getting some attention. A good film to see is Cold Case Hammarskjold. That film goes beyond even Susan Williams' book Who Killed Hammarskjold. It just may turn out that the TRC documents were correct. Allen Dulles had a hand in it.

Did Jeff Greenfield read my column about him? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/30/when-jfk-was-trump-229888

DM: I suppose Cliff believes Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian asset too. No, but I think Kirk does. (Two can play the game, right Kirk?) The astonishing thing is that none of these people here see any parallel or significance in how she slimed Stein and Tulsi. Its one thing to go after the other party's candidate. Its quite another to go after someone in your own party, and then a Green? I voted for Stein. Am I a Russian asset too? Well, am I Kirk? (BTW, am I getting my info from Jordan? Nope, but I do get info from Ray McGovern, who you somehow left off your list. As you did Bill Binney.)

Jim Hougan on Jonestown is really fascinating. The work he did on Jim Jones is really first rate stuff. And the thing I like about him is he can write. Therefore he makes complex ideas understandable. And Caitlin Johnstone is always humorous and insightful. I really like the way it always had something on JFK. Or else why call the Zine what it is?

Bob: If the Flynn case is so open and shut, then why are they still hiding evidence?

And let me add something else. Bernie was not the only one there. I think it is important to note who was there. It was Bernie, Buttigieg, Bennett, Klobuchar, and Castro. Some sent messages, but Harris did neither. This J Street group is really part of the Democratic party that is trying to bring back the Dems from the Republican Lite DLC days. As the poll quoted shows, that is where most of the party is on this issue. Meanwhile the large part of the GOP is essentially in Likud's camp. And Obama did nothing with the issue. In that article in garrison, I noted that Kennedy--through 1962 and 63--pressed David ben Gurion, for some kind of Palestinian resettlement agreement, which the UN would pay for, and secondly for inspections of Dimona. Ben Gurion danced around the second issue. When JFK sent him a second letter cutting through the BS, Ben Gurion resigned within 24 hours of receiving it. This was another policy that was reversed upon his death. First by Johnson, and then even more by Nixon. The guys in the CIA from back then will tell you that Kennedy was the last president who was completely dedicated to nuclear non proliferation. Especially in the Middle East. LBJ and RMN did not do jack about it.

Thanks Cory and Larry. That is the feedback I wanted. Because his next article is going to be how to specifically remedy the situation. Do you mind if he talks to you guys about that?

Please show me where HRC ever made a speech like this one. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-israel-palestinians_n_5db7a36fe4b02aee7d351cfd This is the woman who had Gaddafi killed so Libya could turn into a rogue state full of Fundamentalists who could then raid Europe across the sea. Sanders approach is much more like JFK's, which I outlined in the second issue of the Zine garrison. And this shows how much the DLC, Henry Jackson Democrats took over after his death. You know HRC and Bill schmoozing it up with Mr. Genocide, Henry Kissinger.

Good Paul. Read it between your gigs up there by the bay.

There is one point that needs to be clarified. The Russians did not blink. No one in the ExComm knew that they had delivered all the ICBM's at that time. Plus, they were in the silos and ready to be be ignited. When McNamara heard this at a conference in Havana, he was shocked. He ripped off his translating headphones and put his hands up to his face. Therefore, strategically speaking, there was no real need to cross the blockade. I have always thought though that what Kennedy and Nikita K did when the Cubans shot down Anderson was really a key point. See, when that happened, there was a contingency plan for it. And it was a fighter plane attack on all the Cuban batteries on the island. The nutcake Nitze--one of the worst Cold Warriors in US history--tried to bring it up. Kennedy just ignored him. For Nikita, this marked the end of his cooperation with Castro on finding a solution. So he decided it would be just him and Kennedy working their way out of the mess. The positive sidelight for Castro was, now that he felt slighted by the USSR, he now got a message to Kennedy saying he was ready to talk about detente.

BN: What used to be Eisenhower Republicans are now centrist Democrats and have difficulty presenting a reasonable candidate to most Americans This is so true that it is now a truism. And IMO, this is why Trump won the GOP nomination and Sanders almost won the Democratic nomination. The Democrats have become the Eisenhower Republicans and the Republicans have gone to the right of Goldwater. Paul and Andrew, no I do not think there would have been any inquiry. Because as Bob says, virtually every time, if you win, you do not do that stuff.

Let me ask a rhetorical question: Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election? Obviously not. There would have been no controversy over the Steele Dossier, Comey would have never shoved it in Trump's face and in all probability Buzzfeed would have not published it. Which means that Trump would not have fired Comey and there would have been no Mueller. How did this all really occur then? Because the entire Establishment and MSM thought HRC was going to win. Recall, Huffpost said it was in the bag, a probability of over 90 per cent. Almost every pundit and every celebrity said Trump was not going to win. HRC had every material advantage in the race, in fact it was not close in that regard--more money, more workers, the Access Hollywood tape etc. How did she lose then? As Steve Bannon said, they outflanked her. They spent their limited funds in holding onto the south, and making forays into the upper midwest and mideast. That is the Rust Belt. And they disguised Trump as the economic nationalist. Since they knew no one would buy HRC in that role due to her husband's record on NAFTA and Glass Steagall. No one bought her as a change agent. When a Democrat loses Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, something is wrong someplace. Here it was both the candidate and the strategy. No one likes to admit they ran a stupid ass campaign, even though they had all the advantages. So HRC blamed Comey and the Russians. And what is amazing is that she is still doing it with Stein and Gabbard. Which shows you what a sore loser she is. And also how she cannot take responsibilty for her own mistakes. She picked two bad managers in Penn and Mook. And she then blew the VP choice with the ultra safe pick of Kaine. When in fact Sanders or Warren would have given her a real rocket boost. In fact, I think she would have won with either of them. These were all her mistakes, just as letting Trump make twice as many visits to the upper midwest was a bad error on her part while actually trying to extend herself into states like Arizona and ignoring her base. So, she decided to blame her defeat not on Mook, or herself but Comey and the Russians. Its called transference of guilt. And now she plays even more the demagogue with Stein and Gabbard. This is not statesmanship and it is not being gracious in defeat. And its not good for the Democratic Party. But mostly its not being candid about one's own failures. As Bannon said, her tactics played right into his gameplan. He said economic nationalism beats identity politics every time. And it did. And that is what happened. And Michael Moore predicted it --with no Ruskie interference--and no one would listen.

Zaid is a straight shooter? Really, ask John K or Jeff Sterling. BN: We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional. If this is not an exceptional case then what is?

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA? Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg? But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

Bob: Do you really not understand how a plea bargain works? Or what deliberate overcharging is? https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wasnt-russian-spy