Cliff Varnell

And you think these op-eds reached more people than Fox/CNN/MSNBC combined for 11 straight days?? Can you identify any CIA leaks of the Steele Dossier prior to January ‘17? Not a peep on TV. Because you paid no attention to the 24/7 coverage of Hillay’s e-mails heading into the 2016 election, Ben, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 11 straight days of Hillary bashing on cable news happened. I like the way you ignore anything and everything that doesn’t fit your theories. You’re very consistent in this regard.

Which is why, in the last 11 days of the 2016 campaign, cable news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) gave wall-to-wall coverage to the re-opened FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mails. When the same story totally dominates 11 consecutive cable news-cycles ahead of an election — that’s the Deep State working overtime. Trump was thus chosen by the powers that be. They could have broadcast the Steele Dossier pee-tape, but they didn’t until January. Why did they choose Trump? Tax cuts? Maybe. Or perhaps the Eugenicist wing of the ruling elite anticipated the appearance of a global pandemic and they wanted an idiot in charge?

Indeed. The Fox 5 “wound” is clearly above the shoulder blade.

So the top of your back is 4 inches below the bottom of your shirt collar? No, Pat. Sorry. You’ve been pitching this hooey for 20 years. T1 is just below the base of the neck. How can you deny that? Gas lighting us again? The mark Jenkins made with pencil is several inches below the base of the neck. The bullet holes in the clothes line up with T3, consistent with the witness testimony and the properly prepared medical evidence.

The bullet holes in the actual clothes are 4 inches below the bottoms of the collars. Is that the top of your back, Pat?

Factually incorrect. The chalk mark is well below the location in ONE photo, Fox 5. But those measurements were written pen — which means they were NOT taken at the autopsy. Jenkins filled out the face sheet in PENCIL as according to autopsy protocol. Jenkins marked the back wound well below that. So what? You’re obfuscating both the nature of Kennedy’s wounds and the elements of the cover-up. And it’s always been a big fat lie. No, such claims help establish the simple fact that autopsy material not prepared according to proper protocol is phony.

T2/T3. Because he wanted to look like an idiot holding a pointer two inches above the chalk mark? Are you sure there was no pressure from Hoover to put it in a location consistent with the Sibert-O’Neill report? The Cover-Up put the back wound in various locations, a by-the-seat-of-their-pants operation with wound locations from C5/6 to T2/3 including a T1 and a T2 in the final autopsy report.

I dispute your characterization of Fox 5 as a photo that is “now” regarded as fake by some. I’m pointing out that it’s authenticity has long been problematic — not a recent development as you imply. Pat, all you have to do is put the word “if” in front of your assertion of authenticity — “IF Fox 5 is authentic, THEN the Rydberg drawing is debunked.” But you insist on pushing misinformation which disregards the physical evidence, written contemporaneous accounts, properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony. JFK’s back wound was at T3, Fox 5 depicts it at T1. When you present Fox 5 as authentic you posit a T1 wound, do you not?

No, it was the HSCA who first singled the Fox 5 photo out as problematic — “more confusing than informative.”

The CIA knew. The civilians working for the US Army within the CIA project MKNAOMI knew. One of those civilians briefed the FBI as to the existence of this technology and the possibility of its use in a foreign attack. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf <quote on, emphasis added> Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people. (pg 163) Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work. Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes... ...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q> It was ‘t meant to be disguised. It was meant to pin on the Soviets while the US bombed Cuba back into the Stone Age. Textbook false flag attack. It’s not my ice bullet theory. The wound was shallow. Conventional firearms don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

The SBT was conceived the night of the autopsy. The autopsists saw two wounds in soft tissue with no exits and no bullets. They flashed back to their youths in 1936 — a Dick Tracy strip in The Funnies which featured an “ice bullet” dissolving in the victim’s body. Humes asked Sibert and O’Neill if such technology existed. Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out. “We have the bullet—“ FBI SA Chuck Killion told Sibert, who told Humes. That bullet had to account for both wounds. That was the cover-up assignment. This was an ad hoc cover-up with different bites at the apple — the Rydberg drawing, Fox 5 autopsy photo, the FBI re-enactment with two different back locations and the final autopsy report with two different back wound locations. Ironically, it was the FBI who marked the wound in the correct T3 location.

My bad! I stand corrected. A thousand apologies Pat! It’s this episode at 3:08 for which you need to apologize.

You didn’t show Fox 5 in your BlackOp presentation?

A travesty which put the back wound at T1. Ahistorical nonsense.

Curtailing the drone strike program was a major shift. So was the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden opposed the operation in Libya. Timber Sycamore in Syria was a pathetic waste. Obama was condemned for not supporting it sufficiently. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-mccain-obama-syria-speech-response-096615 Shame on the Biden administration for interfering in Pakistani politics. All attempts at regime change must be condemned. Shame on the Trump Administration for pulling out of the Iran nuke deal and whacking Iran’s #2 leader. Hardly egregious. A terrible decision , if true. This James Bamford article casts doubt on that conclusion. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nord-stream-pipeline-explosions/ Omnipotence?? More than a slight exaggeration. So the sordid history of US regime change policies justifies Putin’s regime change policies?

Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party activist base — they’ve selected every Democratic Presidential candidate since Clinton. Not big consumers of right wing media.

THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF JOE BIDEN AND THE FUTURE OF DRONE WARS https://theintercept.com/2021/12/15/drone-strikes-joe-biden-pentagon-kabul/ Dec. 15, 2021 <q> OVER THE PAST YEAR, the number of reported U.S. drone strikes has plummeted. President Joe Biden did not authorize a single known strike for the first six months of his presidency before breaking his streak with a series of drone attacks against al-Shabab in Somalia in July. Despite the notable reduction, at least two of the strikes conducted under Biden have killed civilians, including the now-infamous August 29 attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 civilians, seven of them children. While Biden’s drone strike dataset is tiny, the outcome of his known strikes presents a ghastly civilian death rate. In the case of the Afghanistan hit, 100 percent of the victims were civilians. So what is happening? Why has Biden apparently decided to pump the brakes on a tool of war that he and President Barack Obama embraced so enthusiastically? For nearly a year, the Biden administration has been engaged in a comprehensive review of the use of drone strikes as part of a broader evaluation of “counterterrorism” policy that is expected to be completed later this year or at some point in early 2022. “I think the White House is appropriately wary about drone strikes,” said Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official who worked for the Pentagon as counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2011. “My sense is that they’re serious about the review and are trying to minimize drone strikes at least until there is complete clarity on internal policies.” </q> Biden finalizes new rules for US drone strikes https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/drone-strikes-counterterrorism-white-house-biden-new-rules/index.html Biden had quietly put in place many of the limitations that the new policy now formalizes when he took office. The policy now officially reverses a loosening of Obama-era rules under then-President Donald Trump, which had pushed authority for approving lethal strikes down the chain of command. </q> Trump Ramped Up Drone Strikes in America’s Shadow Wars https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ramped-up-drone-strikes-in-americas-shadow-wars

Not the first one. He voted no in ‘91. And Biden opposed the Libya bombing. I’ve mentioned this many times and all we get is deer-in-the-headlight eyes: The Neo-cons were outraged by: the Obama-Putin deal over Syrian chemical weapons; the Iran nuke deal; Obama’s visit to Cuba; Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. And who can forget the Obama Red Line? Obama vowed to militarily retaliate against Assad if chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. A chemical attack was subsequently reported. The Neo-cons were anxious for Obama to follow thru. Instead he kicked it to Congress — who didn’t want it. Then Putin worked out a deal with Obama to remove and destroy Assad’s chem stockpiles. The Neo-cons bitched about this for years after.

And the price the American people have paid in blood and treasure is incalculable. I think I’ve outlined this effectively. And now not popular. The Neo-cons have been conned out of their natural home in the Republican Party. This fact proves the Neo-con quest for world military domination is bankrupt. This “soft power” was wielded by Obama in his second term and Biden in Afghanistan. The Neo-con regime change policies are out of favor. And this is your justification for denying Eastern Europeans the Human Right of self-determination? Where was this “aggressive foreign policy” in Syria ‘14, Iran ‘15, Cuba ‘16 and Afghanistan ‘21? Regime change policies are in disfavor because of their disastrous consequences. Putin pursued regime change in Ukraine and ended up with 800 miles of NATO on the Finnish border.

It didn’t show up on x-ray. Wouldn’t that show up on x-ray?

Again: You’re referring to the core tenet of Neo-cons, one faction among many within the American national security state. No, I don’t agree with the statement. The Neo-cons do not currently run American foreign policy — as I’ve pointed out earlier. Your actual argument is wrong. The peaceful negotiations with Syria, Iran, Cuba and Afghanistan were opposed by Neo-cons. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly.

John, you said NATO was an “instrument” of the American “core tenet” of world domination. Add up the repeated failures of American regime change policies — and the instances of peaceful American negotiations in Syria, Iran, Cuba and Afghanistan — and clearly America does not exercise hegemonic/monolithic world domination. That’s your weak tea justification for denying the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc the Human Right of self-determination.

Oh, so you *do* want to engage. Fine. You contend the Eastern expansion of NATO was a function of hegemonic/monolithic American world domination. I asked you to reconcile that view with: Cuba kicking the US out in ‘59, Vietnam in ‘75, Nicaragua and Iran in ‘79, Lebanon in ‘82, Iraq in ‘11, Afghanistan in ‘21. (Those last two wars cost 8 trillion dollars and a million deaths and left Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and Iraq closer to Iran than the US.) Also: the 2014 Obama-Putin negotiated destruction of Syrian chemical weapon stockpiles; the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal; the 2016 opening to Cuba; the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Promises between NATO and Russia — formalized or not — were meaningless because the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc have a Human Right to determine their own economic and security alliances. Negotiations were ongoing as late as January 2022. https://time.com/6138916/ukraine-russia-nuclear-missile-treaty/ The labs have been there 30 years. Any evidence that these labs presented a new and existential threat to Russia in 2022 has yet to surface. Mutually Assured Destruction prevents such an attack. Who garnered around 5% in the previous election. What is the argument that Azov presented an existential threat to Russia in 2022? Yes! We point out Putin’s flaws. Just like we call out American Presidents for war crimes. So we need to re-litigate American post-WW2 foreign policy on the backs of Eastern Europeans? “Sorry Nikola, you can’t join NATO because it’ll make bad actor America happy.” If Putin withdraws tomorrow it’s over.

Of course. Just asking. I’m accessing the actual alarm Putin may have felt over these labs, and the degree — if any — their existence justifies the invasion of Ukraine.