Kirk Gallaway

I saw it and commented on it Paul. Read my posts.

No you're the oracle John. What qualified you to open your mouth about Ukraine war military logistics? . As for as Prigozhin, he's definitely old, though not as old as you. He's spent months fighting in Ukraine. Any ideas why he endangers himself by exposing Putin's bogus historical claims?

??? Michael I think that's because you've spent this weekend in your Virginia bunker. That's cool. Whatever we can do to bring you up to speed on world events. But don't get too focused on domestic enemies!

Which speech Paul? Jim mentioned he has RFK mentioning nsam 263 here JIm: Bobby did mention it in his Foreign Policy Speech and he mentioned NSAM 263 and Johnson's reversal of that. That's Bobby, not RFK junior. I assume Jim, like Karl is referring to my statement about Bobby never specifically pinning down that his brother was trying to get out of Vietnam. Karl said Bobby didn't have enough time. Jim says he has record of Bobby saying that in his campaign, and I asked him for a quote and source.

Mentions NSAM 263? Interesting, how about a quote and a source? Maybe Karl, but that's almost 3 months. And he got a late start and that was an excellent way to separate himself from the sitting President of his own party, as well as Mc Carthy who first lead the anti war charge and had the most votes in the primaries. That would be a much more effective move than waiting to separate himself from Nixon in the general election, whose voters tended to be more pro war..

Egor Kotkin: "Reading the local channels of Moscow and the Moscow region, they are literally preparing for the battle of Moscow" June 24th, 7:14 AM Somebody was taking this very seriously. Of course the quintessential forum Ukraine war military strategists are Cotter and Di Eugenio. Cotter a few days ago goads those who are in favor of the Ukrainian resistance with his keen military insight into the war, essentially saying to us, "We're going to whup yur ass reeeal good!" (Something we, who are for the resistance have never stooped to!) and posts this article that leads with "Now that the Global West seems finally to understand that the war in Ukraine is going terminally badly for Kiev", Then goes on to say "I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this." And Jim, eager to expand his "punditocracy" into Ukraine War strategist matters, chimes in approvingly. heh heh John: Thanks for that link, an insightful and objective appraisal of the status of the war on the ground. Round Two? There Is No Round Two. Where Aurelian says: "I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this." And then goes into a lengthy treatise of military strategy where he does presume to know everything about military capability and strategy that got John and Jim so jacked up I assume they went down to the local surplus and bought the newest style camouflage battledress! We wait with bated breathe at further prognostication. So things going right according to schedule boys? Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. So what do you think of that quote boys? A statement you absolutely know to be false. Right? Is he just a vicious malcontent who won't fit into your system? heh heh

This is a very affirming interview. But we're trying to evaluate this film in regard to it's effect to get people who weren't otherwise curious to look into the JFKA, right? Of course this interview tells me nothing new, but then 98% of "JFK Revisted" told me nothing new outside of a couple of new witnesses. And neither did RFK's Jr's peace speech. I know the alternate media is impacted that a Kennedy has finally come out declaring his uncle's death is result of a conspiracy. But I think how would he really be more of an expert on the JFKA than any of us considering he was silent and no help to the research community for 50 years?*) I don't like Aaron Mate either, (but is it really worth writing about Jim?!) but the only question that's at all challenging in this entire interview is when he asks why no one in the years following JFK's death said anything about JFK wanting to get out of Vietnam. Particularly 5 years after JFK's death, when it was accepted the war had become such a debacle. Bobby never mentioned his brother wanted out when he was running. Can you imagine a politician whose greatest issue was to wind down the Vietnam war and bring peace, would act with such restraint on the campaign trail? What politician does that? And what about all the JFK cabinet members when they left the White House? This was their one shot at greatness. The pinnacle of their career. You don't think it furthers their legacy to portray the best job and the best boss they ever had in the best historical light? -------- *Now that would be a fascinating question to ask RFK Jr. Why the silence for 50 years? If any of his followers actually had the balls. I don't need an ultra compassionate explanation from David Talbot. I'd like to hear it from RFK Jr. about the 50 lost years and he's quite capable of talking about the family resistance without mentioning specific members. The assassination is 60 years old!

Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. "Prigozhin contradicted Putin’s main pretexts for invading Ukraine, declaring that "Russia has faced no extraordinary security threat from Ukraine, and that Russian military officials had deceived Putin into going to war." Oliver Stone should hold a press conference calling this treasonous propaganda. And state again his certainty that Ukraine was ethnically cleansing Russians from Donetsk because Putin told him so! heh heh But now Prigozhin is trying to portray Putin as a fall guy who just innocently believed his generals. Hyeahh ok! My guess is so he can give Putin a way out of the war, and buddy up with him to ensure he's the new Defense Minister? Call it a false flag, (which it could be). If Prigozhin can't get additional support. I think he's probably toast. But he's being given a general amnesty if he backs out before too long.. Some more: The war, Prigozhin claimed, was designed by Russian officials and oligarchs who had plundered two separatist regions in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, for years, but grew greedy and wanted to plunder all of Ukraine. Prigozhin’s claim went well beyond his frequent rants against top military officials and Russian oligarchs, because it undermined Putin’s frequent argument that Russia had “no choice” but to launch a preemptive invasion. Putin has argued, without evidence, that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and was planning a major attack with NATO’s support on Russian-controlled areas of Donbas." WAPO

Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. "Prigozhin contradicted Putin’s main pretexts for invading Ukraine, declaring that "Russia has faced no extraordinary security threat from Ukraine, and that Russian military officials had deceived Putin into going to war." Oliver Stone should hold a press conference calling this treasonous propaganda. And state again his certainty that Ukraine was ethnically cleansing Russians from Donetsk because Putin told him so! heh heh But now Prigozhin is trying to portray Putin as a fall guy who just innocently believed his generals. Hyeahh ok! My guess is so he can give Putin a way out of the war, and buddy up with him to ensure he's the new Defense Minister? Call it a false flag, (which it could be). If Prigozhin can't get additional support. I think he's probably toast. But he's being given a general amnesty if he backs out before too long.. Some more: The war, Prigozhin claimed, was designed by Russian officials and oligarchs who had plundered two separatist regions in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, for years, but grew greedy and wanted to plunder all of Ukraine. Prigozhin’s claim went well beyond his frequent rants against top military officials and Russian oligarchs, because it undermined Putin’s frequent argument that Russia had “no choice” but to launch a preemptive invasion. Putin has argued, without evidence, that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and was planning a major attack with NATO’s support on Russian-controlled areas of Donbas." WAPO

ADAM SCHIFF GRILLS DURHAM It all started when Durham tried to claim that the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump and Russia was a hoax. BREAKING: Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff humiliates John Durham, the author of Trump’s phony “Durham report,” during a hearing today by the House Judiciary Committee. It all started when Durham tried to claim that the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump and Russia was a hoax. That’s when Congressman Schiff expertly cut Durham off, declaring, SCHIFF:“Mr. Durham, just so people remember what this is all about, let me ask you. The Mueller investigation revealed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systemic fashion, correct? This is when the fun began, because Durham had no choice it to respond, “Yes, that is correct.” But Schiff didn’t stop there, continuing to hammer Durham: SCHIFF: And Russia did so through a social media campaign that favored Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, correct? DURHAM: The report says yes. SCHIFF: Mueller found that a Russian intel service hacked computers associated with the Clinton campaign and then released the stolen documents publicly. Is that right? DURHAM: That report speaks for itself as well. SCHIFF: Mueller also reported that though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said, quote, "a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts," and also appears in the report, doesn’t it? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: In fact, you cited that very statement in your own report, did you not, as a way of distinguishing between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence that falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? DURHAM: Correct. SCHIFF: Both Mueller and congressional investigations found that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was secretly meeting with an operative linked to Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik, correct? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: And that Manafort gave that Russian intel operative the campaign's internal polling data. Correct? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: Is it true, Mr. Durham, that Mueller and congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump campaign, quote, "very high level and sensitive information," unquote, "that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton was part of," quote, "Russia and its government support of Trump." Are you aware of that? DURHAM: Sure, people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that. SCHIFF: Really? The son of a presidential candidate gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt on their important opponent. Is that what you’re saying? DURHAM: I don't think that’s so unique. SCHIFF: Are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that the president's son set up in Trump Tower to receive that incriminating information? DURHAM: I don’t think that that was a well-advised thing to do. SCHIFF: Oh, not well advised. All right. Well, that’s the understatement of the year. So you think it’s perfectly appropriate or maybe just ill-advised for a presidential campaign to secretly meet with a Russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent? You would merely say that’s inadvisable? DURHAM: I wouldn’t do it, but it wasn’t illegal, was it? It was stupid, foolish, ill advised. SCHIFF: Well, it’s illegal to conspire to get incriminating opposition research from a hostile government. Wouldn’t that violate campaign laws? At this point, all that Durham could respond with a was a shameless DURHAM:I don’t know.” Please retweet and to thank Schiff for setting Durham straight — and consider investing in Tribel, a “woke” new Twitter competitor that’s currently doing a round of equity crowdfunding and just blew past $1.8 million raised from 4,400 of its users. If you want to own a piece of the “next big thing” in social media, here is the link to do so, http://wefunder.com/Tribel. You can invest as little as $100 — or as much as you’d like. 12:46 PM · Jun 21, 2023 · 783.2K Views 3,791 Retweets 250 Quotes 12.2K Likes 318 Bookmarks

: So Jim's last sentence is; The Powers that Be will not abide by that notion. Jim's 's been saying that for 10 years and he's never been able to substantiate any of his claims. "The powers that be." That's just the kind of erroneous phrase that commits no one to specify. Tucker was total BS, there is no smoking gun in the files. It's been verified by others. Maybe some leads. There is no person in government who fears the files will get out. And there's nobody presently in government who knows who killed JFK. Think about it. Who would it be? They oppose opening because they can, until legally they're forced to open. As I've asked many times to stunned silence. What's the worst that could happen? The worlds major superpower will not dismantle it's intelligence. At the best, they'd just reconstitute it.. This has nothing to do with the JFKA or Operation Mockingbird! All the people, whether in government or in the media have been replaced a few generations over Jim was a the cult leader JFK fanboy for several years here. And it seems pretty cultish right now. Just overlooking one obvious RFK gaffe after another Just like the Magas did with Trump. Unless Biden has a health episode or the economy completely tanks. You're probably going to spend the next 9 months in utter frustration and exhaustion And the only meaningful thing you'll get out of it is another conspiracy feather in your cap. Can't we just agree he's a real bitchin' guy, but a lousy candidate? No we're way beyond that.

We can talk about real issues where RFK is very corporate. But we can also talk about crazy assertions he makes without any real evidence. Here, Wifi radiation opens up your blood brain barrier.

Honestly Larry,characterizing other people criticizing RFK Jr. is so "Fox". They started the "Trump Derangement Syndrone" Neither of you has addressed a single point in Baker's article about Rfk Jr. Tell me Larry , do you think bringing these quotes up from RFK Jr. in this Rogan interview that you are endorsing is an example of "RFK Jr. Derangement Syndrone?" RFK Jr. says here the U.S. has spent 8 trillion on the Ukraine War so far? This is just plain garbage! He pulled this figure completely out of his ass! It's more like a couple hundred billion. Though I can understand some might think we should pay nothing at all. It's been estimated that the entire cost of the War in Afghanistan over 20 years was 7 trillion! This is like his figure that 300,000 Ukrainians have died and 30,000 Russians. He also said here that the increase in food costs to Americans are being used to fund the war. These are 2 completely different phenomena. Inflation was first caused by natural factors but has been exacerbated by corporate greed mark ups. RfK Jr. and the Democrats should use the term "greedflation" and take them on, but this assertion is absurd!

RFK Jr. says here the U.S. has spent 8 trillion on the Ukraine War so far? This is just plain garbage! He pulled this figure completely out of his ass! It's more like a couple hundred billion. Though I can understand some might think we should pay nothing at all. It's been estimated that the entire cost of the War in Afghanistan over 20 years was 7 trillion! This is like his figure that 300,000 Ukrainians have died and 30,000 Russians. He also said here that the increase in food costs to Americans are being used to fund the war. These are 2 completely different phenomena. Inflation was first caused by natural factors but has been exacerbated by corporate greed mark ups. RfK Jr. and the Democrats should use the term "greedflation" and take them on, but this assertion is absurd!

Re: Russ Baker I thought this was an excellent piece. It starts out strong, he gets lost in the weeds a little when he's speculating who might be RFK' Jr's cabinet members. But I had the exact same impression as Baker of this interviews with RFK Jr. on Breaking Points, there's no doubt RFK Jr. is very corporate about at least, energy. This doesn't square with his declaration vow against "corporate feudalism" which I really liked..The big oils seem pretty feudal, among the biggest and most successful companies in the world. Philosophically, it's quite a gaffe, but mostly for philosophers. Then honestly sometimes I think he's not sure what he thinks. Sometimes I find a naivete. There's so many fair questions that can be asked. I wonder if he's at all prepared for what's he up for?

Oh, Hey welcome back Cotter!, Confirmation bias is somewhat rampant on this forum but Cotter takes it to the extreme. He wants to get back at W. Spends hours trying to make his "one flew over the cuckoo" case,finds authors to confirm his bias but inevitably shoots back the same old phrases like You apparently missed the Open Democracy article dated 28th February 2022 by Anthony Barnett titled, “Putin was shaped by US greed. His defeat must lead to change” You also apparently missed the Aljazeera article dated 30th March 2022 by Justin Bronkata. Like we'd all read the same garbage he reads. **** On another topic , I must say I do find curious the emotional proclivities from some of those across the pond, like Cotter. Here Cotter was so entrenched in his tribalism, he was blind and stood silent when a child member of his tribe was completely destroying the discourse of the 56 year thread and then is so outraged when it's finally dissolved! But later the he gushingly says WELCOME BACK MATTHEW.! Is Cotter? as a 69 year old man "grooming" Koch or is he Koch's groupie and sees Koch as a next generation Johnny Depp? heh heh Cliff you dared to soil some of Cotter's vision of the America's Deep State full spectrum dominance by reminding him of some of the U.S. policy failures. There's probably no example of America's full spectrum dominance that has ever been so successful and complete than our our deep state full spectrum indoctrination of American Exceptionalism has with Brits, Cotter, Rigby and Barnard. To them there's absolutely nothing the American Deep State can't do and get away with complete impunity. Stick a fork in all 3 of them. They are psychologically helpless before us, never to get out of the starting gate. The battle was won without ever firing a shot. We left them nothing, lives sterile of all value, wondering what happened, and condemned to just chirp away in conspiracy forums. heh heh again

Roger, I'm going to deal with just your first post now. I liked and agreed with your first post up to the paragraph below. The second one I think you went astray when you characterized W's questions to you as a "rant'. His questions to you were well thought out and very legitimate. Roger:That was 30 years ago. The rules based order and its twin idea of "American exceptionalism" are now crumbling before our eyes. In one sense the partnership of China and Russia, and BRICS and the more than 20 countries that want to join it, are now, on the 60th anniversary of the speech, taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the economic and military dominance of the US. Well first off. We did have a multi polar world but the Soviet Union collapsed. Roger: taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the dominance of the dollar in world trade. To replace war with peaceful interaction. I neither know why you assume the past was historically so brutal, or why you assume this collection of nations with greater economic instability will be any more peaceful. But I have no problem with those countries striking out on their own. With all the U.S. excesses that you and W. have noted, this period of western hegemony has produced the most quiet peaceful period in Europe perhaps ever. It's lasted almost 80 years, and my entire lifetime with nary a peep. A lot of blood has been spilled unnecessarily spilled by the U.S. in other places without a doubt. The era of super globalism is ending, China's unparalleled prosperity was really completely based on the U.S. consumer and Europe. We can pull out the rug from them, and I think they know it now and I'm among those people who would think it's probably pure foolishness for China to invade Taiwan. Let Xi rationalize the complete world instability that would ensue after China is just starting to get a taste of the good life. Again, why do you assume this group of nations will be peaceful?

Thanks, I asked because I do think the reaction of your family is very interesting. But there was no danger of Nato in Ukraine. Biden actually said that prior to the invasion, and I remember Ben here, in essence calling Biden a pussy and saying he was giving away Ukraine and telling Putin it was fine to invade. Ukraine joining Nato was not in the foreseeable future, and I'm sure without aggression, could have been avoided.

So we're going to advertise every RFK speech in the future? But somehow it's more legitimate than Ben because Jim posts it? Though I'm sure Ben Loves it. Paul I don't mean to pick on your comments. l can also attest to your transformation on psychedelics, but I'm in agreement with Jim on that point. So self determination is a good thing when Algeria is breaking away from their colonial past but not when Ukraine is breaking away from gun to the head Russian domination? That's why I asked you guys. You can have different ideas about what to do about Putin's invasion. I think JFK believed, but do you really believe in self determination? . And you guys think, JFK would have would have been great with negotiating a settlement? Why? You ignore the first 2 years of the JFK presidency. Paul you're older than me. Jim can only imagine because he's just read all this stuff through books. With your family background and your Father being a Communist, what were you and your families thoughts during the Cuban missile Crisis? Was Kennedy really such a transcendent figure?

I'm currently in Hanoi and have been in Vietnam for the last month. I started out in Ho Chi Minh City, which about everybody who lives there calls Saigon. It's is a bustling, vibrant city of more than 8 million. More vibrant than any city I've visited on my travels here including Bangkok. I have a lot I can say about Vietnam. But early one morning I was walking in Ho Chin Minh City and I came upon Ho Chi Minh square not surprisingly with a big statue in the center of it. I noticed a group were gathered in front. I knew Ho Chi Minh was born around that time of year and I looked it up on my phone, and sure enough, it was Ho Chi Minh's birthday! I wanted to take a picture of the opera house which was a short distance away. I did and about 5 minutes later I came back by the square and the memorial was wrapping up. I got close but there were police there who asked me politely to take film from a distance. I don't know why they were there, really. There were no other people there except the celebrants. I've got a short film but I'm showing just a couple of still shots. They first thought of filling a football stadium with celebrants but decided against it. A joke. The attitude from people from Saigon is that it doesn't matter what the government says. They are just going to power on economically, and probably at this point, keep their mouth shut, because all they really want, is a better life, just like the Ukrainians. It's a little similar to the Ukrainians but of course, they're not engaged in a brutal war to defend themselves. Capitalism is going quite well for the Vietnamese. Cranes everywhere in Saigon, Da Nang and even Hanoi. Ok for those who always seem to know what's ultimately best for everyone else. We all know Capitalism and it's income inequality is facing a serious crisis now. But if given the choice that many previous Soviet bloc countries were facing between joining the West and joining Russia. What fool wouldn't know which to pick? I understand the arguments for not getting involved in the Ukraine War the first place, which as I said was Biden's first position, to provide asylum to Zelensky. It prolongs the War. War's never good. And all the money we're spending that could be spent on human beings in our country. Jim, John, Paul though I'm not exactly sure I put Greg in the same category. I'm reminded what my Dad, who was a pretty intelligent guy said to me during one of our hot political discussions during the Vietnam War days. "Well if you think the Soviet Union is so good. Why don't you just go to Russia!" heh heh But even then, I didn't need any lecture. I knew the Soviet Union wasn't that good. And I think any people with any sort of reasoning and real life experience knows the current answer to that question. What fool country if given the choice, (or it's past experience) would pick Russia? But are whole generations just pawns in the game? Michael G. weren't you having a discussion with Jim about the oppressiveness of the current regime in Vietnam? Eddie's bar in downtown Saigon. But just to ensure you still can't sleep at night because of the brutal regime. There is still cause for alarm. A Russian restaurant! Do both these images tell you there might be some freedom going on? (Actually I think the restaurant statement might be a little tongue in cheek. Many Russians are fleeing Putin's war down there and their behavior is causing some concern in the 4 SE Asian countries I've visited. Though many I found were in their 40's, above draft age?) Despite the fears expressed about the new BRIC government's resistance to the U.S. the everyday people never like a big country invading their neighbor. Some of our Brit friends who number amongst the most avid and varied conspiracy hobbyists here, might take comfort on the political statement of my boatman in Hoi An!

Of course this quality vs. quantity argument has been the crux of many discussions here Larry, and I'm probably at the opposite end of the issue. But as I've said before, I applaud your initiative. How's it been going in your quest to get the ear of James Comer? I think since we've last talked about it, he's been largely discredited. I think to adequately gauge what effect you could have, you also have to consider the overall political climate. The JFKAC has the longevity that we could occasionally misstep and align with crazies and it won't destroy us, but I think that's no reason to be careless. I have no specific knowledge of this either, but we should be clear what and who we are pushing. Joe, you should give links to the K&K article.

Oh so it's " merrily, merrily, merrily off to nowhere" John? Oh, To refocus on the post and link you submitted, John. I can't say I was disappointed , but it's really just another "We're going to whup up yur ass reeeeal good!" (remember John Cleese?) posts you guys have been posting. My charge is you have no qualification. This is what I mean by "no substance". But if this is an earnest prediction, you've been wrong for a year now. Jim, you have half the world on ignore, (none of us believe you incidentally) for just asking you direct questions.

Jim I read John's post. Why is it that John, Barnard, and Koch and now Jim who are supposedly arguing for peace always rely on information from people who arrogantly claim they know the real story on the ground and Ukraine is losing terribly and have been saying that since the beginning of the war. But we people who similarly want a peaceful settlement but agree with the resistance Ukraine is putting up to a bloody invasion of their country are a bit more sincere and never make such claims to say "we're kicking your ass" like you do!. That's the crux of John's link. And how about (Autrelian's?) phony disclaimer at the onset. I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this.. I call it phony' because he then arrogantly makes an assertion that the the offensive may be over by the time you read this." Which it is'nt! and then goes on to write an article where he does presume to know everything about military capability and strategy. I've never found Cotter having any technical knowledge about anything, and regarding involved military planning, that goes for you as well, Jim. Just in general, I think we could all benefit if you start admitting when you don't know what you're talking about. Neither of you have any "inside track" on this any more than we do, or you would have been right a year ago. When Cotter runs out of facts he starts using well worn phrases over and over again as if it gives him some mystical power and he ends up contributing nothing in content, or he passes it off to make an exit on some author like this guy to make his case, ("This guy says everything I'm thinking!") and thinks adding some cute quip about "warmongers' and "fellow travelers" will bail him out, or he'll go off in on some supposedly broad historic context and quote a poet. The only lasting thing that will come from Cotter as result of this article is that we'll probably hear the phrase "punditocracy" over and over again from Cotter, so I figure maybe I can nip that in the bud right now.

heh heh

I think this is a good thread Sandy. I see where this current thread is going, and I want to address that here as well. But It seems like this thread was boiling down to, what would JFK have done with the War in Ukraine? and is making assumptions about what JFK would have done, and what Biden has not done. It's a pretty hypothetical question, but since we know how Biden has handled this, I'll give my idea of how JFK and Trump would have handled this. I think this is useful in that there's a lot of mythology about JFK here. To be clear, We're making the assumption here that JFK was first elected President in 2020 with the current political climate. And in 2022, Putin invades Ukraine. Jim:And I repeat, do you really think Kennedy would have let it unfold as it has? Ok, Let me begin with this. This assumes JFK's, a newbie comes into office with great negotiating skill. Was that really what happened in the first years of the JFK Presidency? Tell that to an 11 year old kid, who was hearing that we may have a nuclear war, and was wondering how our leaders could have let things go to this, and there wasn't even much of a protest about it at all! There was a general mood of American sameness. Keep in mind this wasn't during Nixon or Eisenhower administration but JFK. The American public was grim but we're going to "stand behind the President". It was out of no special allegiance to the charismatic John Kennedy, it was to his office. Has anything Biden done got us near that sort of brinkmanship the JFK administration brought us to? The reason Nixon thought JFK couldn't be beat in 1964 is not because of his AU "Pax Americana speech". Quite the opposite, JFK had a unique opportunity to enact a liberal agenda because he shed the image of the Democrats being soft on communism and stood up to the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK and Khrushchev were painted into a corner, and some of it by their own making, and left with only one another to get out of it. Later on we find out that JFK stood up to his more hawkish generals. But at that point he realized if the world ended in nuclear catastrophe, him and Khrushchev would be the historic figures blamed and no one else. And Thank God he was wise enough to know that and make a stand. Kennedy speech was a major policy change in the offing. But it's quite a stretch to make assumptions if JFK was President in 2020 and his presidency never occurred in 1960, how would he react to Putin's bloody invasion. Nonetheless, the truth is, his first actions would have been identical to Biden, which would have been identical to Trump. They all would have done what Biden ended up doing. Offering Zelensky asylum. In essence, giving in. First Trump: When Zelensky refused. Then Trump would have tried to give Ukraine away to Putin while trying not to make it look like he was giving into Putin's demands but Zelensky would be screaming bloody murder. But Trump would have had little support in Congress and there would be an incredible battle between the Congress and the President with the Congress winning. The previous charges Trump's opponents would make that he was Putin's puppet, would also have been a major obstacle to Trump getting any peaceful solution. But because of Congress having the upper hand, the whole confrontation would be going on largely in private, and as everything else about Trump's legacy, his major accomplishments, getting tax cuts for the rich as well as conservative Supreme Court justices would be a collaboration between him an Mitch Mac Connell and in this case, the Democrats. Maybe there would be a little less funding, but I don't think Trump would have accomplished anything different, with anything other than rhetoric than Biden for at least until the winter of 2022. It's harder to say after that, what would be the effect of the public wearing down a little about the War with a President who was becoming increasingly critical of the war. Honestly JFK and Biden would not have been much different though JFK might have more vigorously pursued negotiations in secret. Their funding of the war would have been similar. I'm sorry to bust people's bubble but there's really not much evidence that JFK ever exerted a powerful presidency, though there was a promise he might. He couldn't protest strongly when he first from Lodge heard that that Diem was to be assassinated, and later on acts like he's disappointed. And all the while, during this period, it makes sense he never really made a clear stand in that interview with Walter Cronkite. It's a politics 101, learn how politicians talk. Read it again. I think there's a lot about JFK that's misunderstood on this forum. There's much said here about JFK ideals, for example about not interfering and letting fledgling countries find their own way after their colonial past. Jim has addressed this a lot, and I agree with him. But how is colonialism really any different from the previous Soviet bloc countries trying to assert their independence from 40 year imprisonment they had to serve with the Soviets? JFK was for self determination. Are you for self determination or are you not? Or are we forever going to be in this hierarchical frame of thinking where we have to continually pay respects to bigger bully nations paranoia that they use to justify annexing nations, now in the 21st Century? That, as Cliff said is playing into "great power arrogance". LBJ "Ill give you your goddamn war." Yeah, that sounds really awesome but of course it never happened, and is really some real amateurish schlocky writing, if you could ever get over your Stone tribalism to really critically evaluate it. When I first heard it in the movie, I cringed! "JFK would have completely pulled out of Vietnam in 1965." Yeah ok, maybe. I'm not sure why it is was such a secret after it became apparent 5 years later that the Vietnam war was such a debacle. That's not what politicians do, if they're interested in continuing a family legacy. If it was so black and white that JFK was going to pullout of Vietnam in 1965, why didn't RFK cite that during his campaign? You'd think at that time everyone no longer in power in the previous Kennedy administration would have completely disowned that war, and played up the differences had JFK lived, but they didn't. But I do believe JFK would never have let the war escalate the way LBJ did, and eventually would have cut and run, but a little embarrassingly. Maybe like Biden leaving Afghanistan but a little better planning. And probably like Biden, not suffering any long term effects. But I don't really buy the reason for JFK's assassination was because there was certainty he would get out of Vietnam. I can understand that idea would have an appeal to Stone because he personally made such sacrifices there.