Kirk Gallaway

Castro was never a rightist. Castro started out primarily as an anti imperialist. I believe at one time he met Batista, but he was running for Congress when Batista seized control in a coup.Then Castro denounced him. At one point, not knowing Castro's allegiances,the CIA did back him over Batista.

Paul said: So if it takes a Russian controlled network to hear a bit of truth in a sea of lies, maybe we should get over our nationalistic pride and give it a listen. Agreed, Paul, and besides it's not the same old sh-t Paul said: Larry - I do, always, treat all media with as much care as possible. So if there is a Putin agenda at work in RT it won't work on me any more than NBC or CNN or the NYT. Again agreed Paul , Certainly you, Larry and I are in no danger of being "brainwashed" and can sense the slant in any media we might expose ourselves. But we're not everybody. For individuals who are addled, ADD ridden so as to not be able to read 2 paragraphs, mud slinging, then unable to apologize, like Di Eugenio and our President, any forays into such media is clearly detrimental, as evidenced. Heh heh Paul said: In fact the best reportage I heard was from Rick Santelli on CNBC, clearly a right winger. That was a curious choice Paul, Rick Santelli? I'm familiar with him. A TV financial analyst, bond trader, color commentator. And often as other color commentators, unfiltered , says what he thinks. There are really a lot of such commentators in media. But you might be shocked if the right questions were asked of him, as I know he thinks that the only eventual answer to our debt woes is the complete disassembling of the nations safety net. However, I have my doubts if he'd employ such Draconian cuts on the National Security State, but I don't know for sure. But I think it is true, if cornered, he would be truthful and tell you that. Keep in mind, the man who approached Smedley Butler in 1933 about a coup to overthrow FDR in reaction to his New Deal policies was also a bond trader. I don't think Santelli has any interest in treason, like some in government. Santelli's a very vocal voice against the policies of the Fed, but is not against the Fed per se. The existence of the Federal Reserve of course, to a few CTer's is probably the most Deep State Deep State conspiracy going on. How did we get this institution?,and how did they get the immense power they have over our government, and what are it's ties to an international financial conspiracy? I'm sure those in the loose conspiracy of financiers are just thrilled that most CTer's are diverting themselves on U.S.government "Deep State" CIA, FBI conspiracies,and have a hand in promoting such diversions on the unwitting public, because after all, the disbanding of the government, and the gutting of many government agencies that has already been instigated by the Trump administration is just music to their ears! They want a good size military though, so they can keep order if they have to. Isn't that incredible, to think that the Deep State actually went private or corporate?? Actually some have been saying it all along.You have much more control over your government then you'll ever have over them! But to throw another curve, the reason Santelli doesn't like the Fed, is because of the control they've taken since the Great Recession has smoothed out the interest rate curve that is his bread and butter. The Fed during the Obama administration intentionally put the economy on trainer wheels just to ensure the economy didn't tumble into the abyss, which was a real danger! In so doing they took the speculative power out of the market because it was that speculation in the U.S.market that destroyed the world markets! Santelli over 5 years ago, was in essence saying, "when is the government and the Fed going to get off our backs and let us make money again?" At that time, IMO it was very irresponsible.And time has proven that right, as the economy has speeded up, there has been less unemployment and there has been no shortage of people making money in the stock market in the last 5 years, (not that it's equitable, by any sense!) .There are certainly excesses now, but they would have been a lot more advanced in the boom and bust cycle that could occur if Santelli had had his way. But the whole issue is actually a conflict between new and old money.

That's a cool scene, Michael. In a 3 hour picture, with this much material, you have to combine characters. But in a series, you can have both characters playing off each other in scenes.It would shame to leave out Angleton (and his orchids), he's such a great, creepy character. I was thinking if the series ever went to the Nixon resignation. Why not go beyond and and handle the House Committee on Assassinations and all that was behind the scenes, including the deaths of De Mohrenschildt, .Roselli, Giancana, the Joannides obstruction and all that other testimony,etc. Leave the audience thinking we got so close, but never got to the truth..

Wow , that's interesting Pat. It sounds like you gave it some real creative thought. I agree with you about "Nixon". It was largely a sympathetic portrayal of the forces shaping his life. I really liked Anthony Hopkin's portrayal. In that sense it was similar to "GW", but GW wasn't as good. Still I liked both Hopkins and Brolin more than I liked Costner. I never got that dialect, was that a Louisiana drawl by way of Camarillo?

Paul said; Kirk - What media outlets do you consider free from propaganda? None. Jim, Maybe you got flustered at my first paragraph, couldn't see straight and didn't bother to read the second, (below) which is a much more articulate defense of RT than I've seen you make. But on the other hand, you do get guests that seriously question the neocon American adventurism that aren't ever allowed on the American political pundit shows on the major networks and cable networks. We still have Bill Krystol actually on MSNBC no less, despite the fact that his cabal initiated the most destructive foreign policy, wasteful of lives and displacement to this day, and from just a selfish American viewpoint draining of our treasury to the point that some in our government can plausibly deny that the government can''t fulfill basic rights to their citizens. Yet he's still allowed to opine about foreign policy,and some other pundits are centrist but there's no equal time to the opposite side. There's not a shortage of responsible spokesman for the other side and you can see some of them on RT. I hope you have read this now. Kirk said: I do think people should check it out for themselves. Jim said:"Just remember what the first amendment is all about. What's next with you and Kirk? Joe McCarthy bumper stickers? " Oh! Invoking MC Carthy no less at so little provocation, Jim? That reinforces my view that I've never found you particularly tolerant of dissent at all. Jim says: Its about the survival of ideas in a fair marketplace. Agreed, if you put something out there, it's fair game. You resort to name calling, you lose! Or maybe I should say have lost. Honestly Jim, I didn't think I was attacking you at all, but giving my review.

RT (Russian)Times is a propagandist dream! It is produced by a state run agency though I know some here who think our supposed private run institutions aren't any more independent. If there was a conspiracy channel that's it, with a few human interest stories and general world news cleverly thrown in . But it's mostly an American conspiracy channel and maybe EU conspiracy, and absolutely nothing about how Putin ruthlessly handles his own dissidents, nor do they ever get introspective and tackle the reasons that even before sanctions, Russia is the greatest underachieving economic basket case in the world. Countries like Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands can produce a high standard of living for their people even despite having next to no natural resources, then by contrast, we have a country with great wealth as Russia with a pitiful standard of living for the everyday person. Yes there have been former employees who have acknowledged RT's disinformation, and I do think people should check it out for themselves. But on the other hand, you do get guests that seriously question the neocon American adventurism that aren't ever allowed on the American political pundit shows on the major networks and cable networks. We still have Bill Krystol actually on MSNBC no less, despite the fact that his cabal initiated the most destructive foreign policy, wasteful of lives and displacement to this day, and from just a selfish American viewpoint draining of our treasury to the point that some in our government can plausibly deny that the government can''t fulfill basic rights to their citizens. Yet he's still allowed to opine about foreign policy,and some other pundits are centrist but there's no equal time to the opposite side. There's not a shortage of responsible spokesman for the other side and you can see some of them on RT.

Joe, I've noticed in the past, you like casting! You're right.Stone could get top box office actors, so of course he did. When you think of a multi Oscar winner like Jack Lemmon (one you can thank Mamet for) , only playing a minor character role. I personally think it's nice to have a mix of new and old faces. Years ago I was a bit Jack Nicholson guy, then I realized in every part I was really just watching Jack Nicholson in my mind, and no matter how well he did, it became distracting for me. Kevin Costner was super hot box office at the time, but I thought he was very poorly cast, and was probably the weakest decision Stone made in casting. The Kennedy assassination was always too intricate for a 3 hour movie. But just imagine it with all the new characters , plots and subplots that we know of now. With a series, viewers can fill in gaps with co workers or friends during the week. I like sustaining the ongoing thread rather than just throw it all out there at once, like Netflix does. People binge it or watch it slowly, and if you're not on the same episode, all that's left is for a person to say, "catch Stranger Things, it's really good", and there's no discussion or sense of mutual discovery or suspense that an episodic serial does from week to week. Just take only Parkland, you can have 1)the Seth Kantor, Ruby chance meeting. 2)You can have Evalea Glanges witnessing the hole in the limousine windshield and being ushered away.(or for simplicity, just say Kanter saw it) 3)and you can have a depiction of Robert Mac Clelland telling his story, first with the President, than 2 days later with Oswald, as told below. 4)Of course the first diagnosis of the throat would as an entry wound. In an episodic series you give people time to breathe and reflect for the first time learn what a bullet does when it passes through a body,for example. Now in the TV series, "the Walking Dead", they have another hour show right after it to explain what happened in the first hour show! It's rather absurd, but that's what you want, for people to ask questions. The public isn't so informed about the Kennedy Assassination that for some and particularly generations that were born after the 60's, it would be a who-dun-it- drama they could really sink their teeth into and learn about real history, because it actually happened. There's no decade that could be said that "Real life is stranger than fiction" than the 60's.

I would never go to a theater to see the "Rob Reiner" LBJ and sort of resent it's called "LBJ", as if that's going to be the definitive LBJ film. At the time I also resented Stone for entitling his movie as "JFK " because it was really about the JFK assassination but given that was really the issue concerning JFK at the time, it really hit the spot for memorability. The irony with the emerging world demographics is that movies are for kids and now some TV. Netflix Amazon etc. are for adults. I might sound snobby, but Rob Reiner has had some good stuff, mostly early, but there's something so predictable about his choices, he seldom really hits the mark with me. In general as Pat said, I don't see the millennials caring much about the Kennedy's or history in general. If I see a trend it's an increased interest in the Kennedy assassination among an older sect (aprox. 35-50) of the "Deep State" Trumpian" largely right.leaning people with not a lot of formal education who feel disenfranchised and seeing that same old conspiracy behind everything now as an answer for their feelings of powerlessness in their present reality. I know, I can't resist playing amateur psychologist! But as far as positively using the film medium, as a means to generate interest in the Kennedy Assassination and the issues of that time, (which the public has proven over and over again, it does have a appetite for) there is an idea I've thought about many times. It would be a 5-7 year series, mirroring "The 60's". To me Stone directing it would be a natural, but it seems unlikely he'd want to undertake it, since he claims that "JFK" made his life so difficult he'd never want to undertake such a thing again. But he did combine to do an excellent documentary series on Showtime "The Untold History of America" which I would recommend to anyone here. I'd segment the first 2 years like this Year 1- 1960-62 starting withe 1960 election the rise of Castro in Cuba, BOP Kennedy, Khrushev and end the first season ends.with the Cuban missile crisis. Year 2- 1962-64 Resolution of Missile crisis. The maneuverings leading up to and culminating with the Kennedy Assassination. I wouldn't spare many characters in the Kennedy assassination and I think Stone's take of a government /MICC conspiracy which a lot of us share is also the most intriguing direction for huge ratings.You can take your time and weave a hell of a plot in a continuing series, where a criticism of "JFK" is that while Stone is to be applauded for undertaking a Herculean task it goes into so many details, it can lose it's thread at times to the more casual viewer. Obviously the meat of the drama would be later, MLK civil rights movement the Viet Nam War, Anti War Movement, sex , drugs, R&R, counter culture, race riots domestic strife, RFK emerging at the peak, their deaths.I might extend it for 7 years to end it with the Nixon resignation.(Or at that 1968 point you could misdirect,such as Bobby survives an assassination attempt, gets elected and the series then projects a hopeful direction of the end of the Cold War and the punishment of those who obstructed that ends being brought to trial including Bobby and his brothers assassins and attempted assassins.----nah! it's the 60's you have to "tell it like it is!") Similar things have been attempted before. There are a lot of questions of direction, such as do you include the journey of a typical family through the 60's and their inevitable pulling apart, etc.? Nothing short of a major break in the JFK case, could keep these assassinations in the public mind as a well done film project like this.

Paul said: is it your opinion that Trump didn't know what his people were doing? I don't see how you would have assumed that from what I've written. I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't trust our liberal media so much. I'm not sure what the liberal media has to do with this? Aren't these releases of the first charges filed in the Mueller investigation?, if you want to take someone on, take on Mueller. The overriding point I would hope we could agree on is that Trump and his people stole an election by cheating, using sophisticated data mining techniques and targeting specific states, counties, and socioeconomic groups. Did Russia help them? Quite possibly. I don't care who approached who. Of all the charges you've made here, I would say you're quite possibly right (stole the election, I'm not sure anyone can say for absolutely sure) but if you believe, not the liberal media, but the Meuller charges, there was a mutual attempt between the Trump campaign and the Russians to collude in the 2016 campaign. And that is the charge that has the greatest possibility of impeaching a President. I realize, easier said than done.

Ok Paul, understood. If you could please answer a couple of questions for me. 1) Did the Trump campaign "collude" or conspire with the Russians in the 2016 campaign? 2)If yes, do you care? An auxiliary question which involves an opinion because it is one man's word against another. On one hand we have "Honest Abe #45's" word against some guy we don't know from Adam. 3) Did the President of the United States knowingly "collude" or conspire with the Russians in the 2016 campaign?

Paul, I'm sorry I've been gone, and I didn't see your post..Here's the question you asked. "But what about the point that it's a stretch to think that today's reporting on the Russia hack is entirely truthful." Be specific, What is the nature of your issue with today's reporting on the Russian Hack? "Entirely truthful", what are they hiding? Now you're talking about Cambridge Analytical. All I know about Cambridge Analytics is that Banon and Murcer have millions in it and have sat on the board and. it is a target of the Russian investigators.If you you'd like to tell me what you know beyond that please do. These seem to be in 2 different directions. Tie that that in to your fear that today's Russian hack reporting."isn't entirely truthful."

Any "Deep Red State" theories on this "Trump/ Russian Hack Hysteria?" It got me thinking....Who is this Papadopoulos dude? I've never heard of him. Is he even from here? Is he even an American? Trump should look into this guy, he's good at that. Then it came to me..With all the vast resources that the Deep State has at it's disposal, Why didn't I think of this before? There is no George Papadopoulus! He's a robot! Look! He looks pleasing, they even puts blemishes on his forehead! Whoa!

Entirely truthful??, I think you're losing track of what's important Paul. As I said I don't have all the answers.I won't say I'm a completely impartial filter. And don't think I'm asking these questions just of you.(unless I specifically am) THE RUSSIANS Did the Russians interfere with our Presidential campaign? Don't be naive. Of course they did. Why wouldn't they? We're doing stuff to them all the time! Paying 100-150K to Facebook, for the newest estimate 80,000 election posts going out 126 million people.? If you don't believe that. Is it that you think the Russians are morally above that? Why should they be? They're not going to be thrown in jail! That's money very well spent! So Paul, If you're not sure the Russians are hacking,what is the source of those emails that the Russians offered to Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner in Trump Tower?. Or do you believe that whole assemblage was all just about adoption? Ok, so from what source, did the Russian e-mail dirt on Hillary that Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to offering to the Trump campaign come from,other than through hacking? If all this is part of a media and or gov./intelligence conspiracy, please explain it to me. Are Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn,----TrumpJr. all just patsies with a spy in there in this master scheme? What's the prevalent "Deep State" theory?

Doug, Is this cleansing for you? I know you were a big follower of Buckley at this time. I have to admit, he plays the as-hole and puts up the good fight. I'd be curious as to how you felt when you first saw this, and I'm very appreciative you saw fit to share this, as I think it's a very insightful depiction of the day.

Paul, Your question is probably worth a thread and I'm the only one who would take on even part of it. That's a very complicated question, and I don't have all the answers, but I can try to give my take on it, but I can't all at once now. But about the central question. In the next 6 months, the JFK conspiracy advocates should stop crying about their lowly status in the mainstream media or how they got there and start making specific demands and let the MSM know exactly what they want..

Whew! a lot there Paul. I'll just address what I think is the MSM aspect of this for now. First off I don't think in 6 months we're going to become incensed that the Russians or Cubans are responsible for the death of JFK. I have a different take on this. For all the outrage and indignant comments on this forum , I think the MSM is completely consistent with how it's reacted to this story for the last 20 years. They think it's complete hoakum, Their inane questions show they think it not worthy of serious investigation. The only thing that will alter their coverage will be a big break in the case. I saw Morley today on MSNBC , it wasn't bad. First they did try to distract him by asking his take about the new indictment in the Mueller investigation. But that's a fair and timely question. He didn't take the bait and answered as briefly as possible, and left the bulk to talk about the assassination files. I saw an interview with Talbot on Chris Matthews a month back, from the very beginning it was obvious Matthews was going to thwart any real positive direction. Talbot wasn't distracted and looked thoughtful and intelligent and got in some good points. But the real problem is that the repetition of these introductory, inane questions will last and the dialog won't get beyond the first inning of inquiry. The good guests have to put on pressure by insisting on a wish list, . That is a list by which the amount of compliance can be fairly judged. Such as: We want the complete files on Harvey, Phillips, Angleton, Morales etc..(assuming they haven't been sanitized already) Among records that have not been included in these releases, they should demand the files on Johaniddes. It should be driven home that the course of this release should be specified and held to a standard. .

You're right Sandy. So i checked the Huff Post and the only new thing I saw there wasn't new at all, as you previously pointed out.. It was about Helms being asked about Oswald being a Cia agent. To which he had said no in an earlier release. That's all i could find there. I .

At this point, I think the only break we could possibly get in 6 months, would be the suppression of records of Harvey, Angleton, Phillips, Morales as I heard rumored earlier. We should jump on that like leeches in heat!

Yes, unbriefed, speaking off the top of this head, promising the world. Unable to effectively pull any levers of government. Unable to anticipate, Always caught with pants down, Declares a national war on opioids, but may not even know it yet, he's not going to spend a dime of Federal money on it. I can' believe that he's happy about it He'll forget about it soon enough. This is about the only time I've been sad that he can't get anything done. About the only way one could shift some of the blame away from Trump is to say he got bad advice because after appointing all of his friends to cabinet positions only to be exposed as crooks, that leaves the only ones around him to be generals. Just venting, he's a great guy.

Hey i say: If Trump and Stone don't finally solve this assassination once and for all tomorrow. Let's impeach their as-es!! Impeach Trump as President and impeach Stone as the self appointed savior of our JFK conspiracy movement! ---Oh I'm sorry for any Trumpsters, I got carried away---Well how about Stone?

I'm not sure I find that as unlikely, they probably see themselves as being more independent thinkers.I'm not sure how much independent voters overlap with the "undecided voters" that can't make up their mind until the last days of the Presidential elections. Who can figure out what those people are thinking? About Dave's comment about the numbers reaching parity among the well educated. Sandy, I thought you made a really good observation about that a few days ago about a respected,well educated friend or acquaintance of yours who was a LN. that i wanted to comment on at the time. I think the future journalists, academics, historians, the more educated, people who run for political office , the people in broadcast media, who shape public opinion in the future will increasingly be more inclined to be LNer's. I think the only thing that can disturb this trend is a major break in the case, and if this new release of documents doesn't produce that, there will be another small spike up in the LNer numbers. Just my observation, I'd be curious to hear anyone else.

Jim says: He actually said in public that the CIA must have something to hide if they are still resisting this 54 year later. I don't know what's so profound about that? You or I could have said it. Jim says: I think he deserves some credit for this and I will try and do so in my appearances. About the only sure asset that anyone can say with certainty that Trump has is that he knows his own personal interests. After Trump's own rhetoric of distrust about his justice, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and some of their persecution of him. i hardly think he needs any counsel from Roger Stone to tell him that. I don't why you'd insist on legitimizing by even mentioning Roger Stone particularly in light of some of your criticism of him. He's irrelevant. The most helpful thing I can say is, find your own voice in these interviews.That's my media advice, for whatever it's worth...---K

Steve, undoubtedly. Any reference to past CIA wrongdoing Trump sees as a plus for him. Particularly in light of the ongoing investigations into Trump.

Steve, undoubtedly. Any reference to past CIA wrongdoing Trump sees as a plus for him. Particularly in light of the ongoing investigations into Trump.

I remember Mort Sahl as largely political comedian from a very early age before I cold understand the meaning of his jokes. As any political humorist of his day, he was never really a huge commercially successful comedian. His heyday was when he was a frequent on the Smothers Brothers show, during the Viet Nam War period. I remember, he would use the exclusive "we" a lot, pertaining to be of the liberal movement of that day, which I related to. Though I thought it spanked of a "we are the other people" sort of snobbishness. I have heard his 70's foray into the Kennedy assassination on FM radio at the time and there's no doubt, he held to his beliefs. In the early 80's he became an avid follower of Ronald Reagan and alluded to being a close personal friend of Nancy Reagan. My friends and I at the time thought that was a real 180. I saw a TV interview where the interviewer remarked that came as a surprise to him as he had always thought Sahl as a Liberal, which sort of embarrassed Sahl, and he denied any real political affiliation.