Kirk Gallaway

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.

Yow! I gotta say I'm more impressed with my Governors ability to think on his feet than I've ever been in this interview with Sean Hannity, Newsome doesn't get derailed and completely owns him, and it's a pretty substantive interview as well. Newsome defends Biden better than any Democrat I've seen yet. Which is no surprise as I don't think the Democrats are communicating well at all about what they've done or where they stand. With the policies of the Republicans, even apart from the MAGA craziness, the Democrats should be cleaning up! It appears barring a Biden health incident, Newsome is biding his time until 2028, which is a better time for him, though I do have a hard time waiting.

Yeah, perhaps selling top secret information about the vulnerability of the Iranians? Donald Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen said the Department of Justice (DOJ) should probe Jared Kushner's ties to Saudi Arabia after the former president was indicted for allegedly mishandling classified documents post-presidency on Thursday.1 day ago BREAKING: Trump’s former attorney sounds the alarm, demands that the Justice Department immediately investigate whether Trump and Jared Kushner sold Saudi Arabia any of the military secrets in the top secret documents that Trump stole and stashed. The lawyer declared, “The Justice Department should be, if they're not already, looking at the unholy relationships that exist between Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, and Jared Kushner. I mean, this whole two plus billion dollars to an unqualified hedge funder makes no sense to me, and in light of the information that came out, that there was military information on Iran, and we all know what that Saudi Arabia has had Iranian aggression on their mind for a long time -- who knows what was shown to them? Who knows what was discussed? Who knows what was sold? None of us." The lawyer continued, “I do believe that our law enforcement, because we have the greatest law enforcement in the world, they can find anything, and I do believe they will find a lot of information that goes on outside of Trump, even though I do believe he probably had his hands in it, that he certainly knows about it, and chances are, if he had his hand in it and he knew about it, he profited it from it.” This should strike fear in the heart of every American who gives a damn about our struggling democracy. Please RT and if you think that the Justice Department MUST launch an immediate investigation — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new Twitter I created competitor that is exploding in popularity because Elon Musk banned Tribel’s Twitter account — but he forgot to ban this link to download the new Tribel app: http://tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb

John Burrows, Democrat running against Mc Carthy to take his seat. John Burrows Speaker McCarthy, with all due respect you are completely full of it. Joe Biden didn’t indict Donald Trump. A) An independent counsel brought charges and a Grand Jury of Trump’s peers in Florida indicted him. You know the truth, but you are to weak to tell the truth. You lie and pander to the MAGA base in a desperate scramble to hold onto your position as Speaker because you are to weak to lead your party out of the Trump cult. I've got news for you Mr. Speaker. Trump supporters will never love you. They’ll never have your back. They hate you. They want to destroy you, and it's working. Time to be a big boy and stop with the transparent and childish games. You are hurting our country, you are hurting your party, and you are humiliating yourself. 12:31 PM · Jun 9, 2023 · 588.8K Views

As I've said, Sandy, make the RFK Jr. candidacy it's own thread. It doesn't matter the amount of response it gets. If people are interested, they'll find it. Re: RFK Jr. RFK heaps praise on Musk saying he's "rescuing Democracy" and then goes off on a border rant. I was willing to give RFK Jr. a chance despite his anti vaccine craziness, but now I'm convinced it spills over into all aspects of his judgment. Even as a purely gross political maneuver, it's in turn a gross miscalculation.The overall effect will be damaging to future Kennedy family political prospects. The one great thing that could have come out of it is a real debate among Democratic candidates, where issues could be raised. The Democrats have the authority to raise the issues about the political dominance of the Corporate State, for example. But if the story line is that there's no real answer to Biden. The Democrats will just look like status quo politics all over again. But barring a major Biden health incident, these 2 opponents are not going to muster up enough support to in any way embarrass the incumbent Biden by not debating them. No conspiracies please, learn about your political system! That's just the political reality.

Yes, Ben never did, because that was too low profile for him. He wanted to be seen out in the forum supposedly because he's so concerned about getting new people to the forum. But Ben has never seen fit to answer questions regarding his monotony and repetitiveness, ( which he at least didn't use to exhibit in his JFKA participation), but It's an unspoken spookiness that will turn away new people.

Thom Hartmann cites a NYT article now proclaiming what we already knew. That Regan sabotaged then President Jimmy Carter's attempts to free American hostages in Iran, with his guns for hostages deal that ended up ensuring his election over Carter. Then Hartmann cites Nixon undercutting LBJ in Vietnam. Then the 2000 stolen election and the resultant War in Iraq. Michael Moore embellishes Thom Hartmann's piece with his own. Oh, W. Doesn't sound like you can believe your own hometown team's success? I don't know why. I knew they were going to kill the Lakers. The Lakers weren't that good. I knew the Warriors weren't going to repeat. I haven't had much time to follow,so I can't say much about the Heat, bu I think the Nuggets are champs.

Yeah I saw that Ron. Congrats!- A little more background here about just what they got him for.Some interesting twists! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/us/texas-ken-paxton-background.html?algo=editorial_importance_fy_email_news&block=4&campaign_id=142&emc=edit_fory_20230527&fellback=false&imp_id=696115786&instance_id=93668&nl=for-you&nlid=61798350&pool=fye-top-news-ls&rank=5&regi_id=61798350&req_id=501702822&segment_id=134108&surface=for-you-email-news&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55&variant=0_edimp_fye_news_dedupe

Ok, it's not particularly relevant to the JFKA , or anything else we're talking about. But reflect on it when you're eating fish and bite into a little bone. Pompadour

That's actually a brilliant idea. Newsome can't give it to Adam Schiff or Katie Porter or Babara Lee, even though she's black, and Newsome promised an Afro American, because they are already in the race for Senate in 2024. Oprah's so popular, she probably couldn't blow it, would be a good place holder and it might give her some political ambitions. A complete temporary win, and makes Newsome look good. But he's gotta do something!

I think talking about the assassinations in his family has already given him most of the campaign boost he can get from it. Sorry, RFK's caught off guard continually, is flat footed, and can't think on his feet. He makes rookie mistakes all the time about a number of subjects, and I could show you. His figures and sources can be off, and that will dearly cost him. I liked Dennis Kucinic, his campaign manager, but he lacks the hard edge that's needed to ground RFK Jr. Not saying he couldn't get another person, whose more campaign savvy to prepare him to anticipate these questions. Unfortunately, rather than learning what a real candidate does. if he loses I suspect a many of people here will just pass it off as the MSM or the "deep state" went after him and got him, but that's a cop out.

Ben: in an earlier post to me. Ben: We can do better than that, and should show a better face to readers and prospective members. And reposting your same opinions in the same subjects over and over again will attract new prospective members , Ben? Your opinions have never contributed anything to the knowledge base of this forum. And I suspect whatever entertainment value they may have had dies after continued repetition. If it ever had any at all. I'm into talking about the RFK Jr. Presidency in a special thread made specifically for it. My advice to the mods; just do it! But this article:Re Biden:Not only is he the most corrupt president in the history of the United States, but he is also a fraud. And this coming after the Trump presidency. This person is so anti Biden, and so obviously partisan, like Ben.. If you want some real entertainment. This was Ben's posts for an approximate 2 week period at the beginning of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Ben was the foremost Ukraine hawk on the forum, but that was fine because it was in the 56 year thread where we could freely state our political opinions. Outside of 4 lines, this is all Ben. Tell me if you don't see a theme here. And now he's trying to do this in the JFKA forum. Maybe you agree with him, fine, but do you really need this much talking down to? Is this really going to attract more "prospective members". Is this what they came for? ******* Ben:Personally, I favor a no fly zone over Ukraine, and some real military gear for Zelensky. C-130 gunships, and destroy the convoy. Ben: So...Biden is a muddle. He doesn't know what to do. A convoy is headed to Kyiv and the civilians who live there and Biden is...doing what? Deciding that, "Oh no! We can't allow Poland to send fighter jets to Ukraine. What if Putin gets angry?" I think you need to mention the 1/6 scrum again. That will absolve Biden. ****** Ben: Biden-globalists did nothing. When the tide turned to Zelensky's favor (thanks to Ukrainian resolve and Putin's image, one that cannot be rehabilitated), they half-heartedly backed Zelensky. Which is where we are today. In a muddle. ah, but Trump is history. Biden is president now. Are you satisfied with Biden? Putin has a lethal convoy headed to Kyiv. Biden promised not to intervene militarily, before Russia's invasion. But Biden has declared a no fly zone...over the US. Biden has called out the Army to deter the convoy...well, not that convoy, but a trucker convoy of US citizen-protestors, near DC somewhere. It seems to have escaped people on this forum, the story is not what Trump would have done, or what he said, or the 1/6 scrum. Trump is a nobody now, deservedly so. Biden is the president, and foreign-military policy is one area in which the president is supreme. What is Biden doing? ******* Ben: The latest reports are the Ukrainians have blown up bridges that enter Kyiv, obviously in preparation for an assault. In response, Biden is proposing that Russia be stripped of its "most favored nation" trade status. Biden has not looked strong or shrewd, but rather resourceless, flat-footed and dull. Even feckless. Nations such as Greece and Turkey seem to show some spunk. It is no secret globalists run US foreign-military-trade policy, although sometimes the bureaucratic imperatives of the Pentagon are asserted. Biden has been told to sit on his hands, and so he is. Who is the Putin stooge now? ******* Ben:Seems to me the fix was in from the start. The globalists (including Biden), at bottom, said Putin could take Ukraine if he could. Biden promised not to interfere, even before a Putin-boot had set foot in Ukraine. Biden did not think to arm the Ukrainians a few months ago with the Stingers and RPGs and other useful equipment. Ukraine was a woeful failure of diplomacy and military preparedness--on Biden's watch. Biden may not be a Putin-stooge, but the results are the same. We can only hope that the Russians themselves decide to call this off. And yes, Putin is a thug. But we knew that from Chechnya, from Georgia, from his treatment of political opponents. So why was Biden so flat-footed, so weak? ****** Kirk:Ben suggests the U.S. confronting the Russians directly in Ukraine to Matt. Matt: The only way to stop Putin would be to attack him. That's war. Nuclear war.--Matt Ben:But this defeatism in your sentiments, evidently adopted by the globalist-Biden camp, gives carte blanche to the thug Putin. Can't you come up with any better approaches? Are not you repeating Putin-speak of the RT types? That it is too risky to challenge Putin and level-headed people must compromise? **** But the issue today is: How has Biden performed, in the one area in which the President ascendant? Foreign-military policy? Biden has been president for more than a year. Did he deploy the diplomacy and military tools available to blunt or dissuade a Russian occupation of Ukraine? Seems to me Biden has been flatfooted, unimaginative, sterile. A failure. The fix was in, and if Putin wanted Ukraine then he can take it. Putin took Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and the Donbas. An obvious thug. But Biden is going to try to revoke Russia's most favored nation status. China has MFN status. ******* Kirk:Ben, now warmongering far beyond the most vocal hawks in Congress. Ben: Oh, so ugly. Basically, Putin is raining missiles and bombs into Kharkiv. 48 schools flattened, hospitals hit. Biden will not honor Zelensky's request help create a No Fly Zone. But Biden did declare No Fly Zone for Russians...over the US. Biden made sure the convoy was stopped.;.well, the trucker convoy headed to DC. Not the Russian convoy pointed at Kyiv. Note: None of the usual whining from the globalists. "America cannot be trusted as an ally!" "America looks weak, and invites further aggression." Biden appears feeble, woefully unprepared, unimaginative. Whatever one says, what has happened to Ukraine is a diplomatic and military failure. Happened on Biden's watch. ******* Ben:I stand by my assessment that Ukraine has been a huge US diplomatic and military failure, given the horrid results we are seeing unfold. I hope you are correct, and Putin has misjudged circumstances. ****** Ben:And perhaps the West should have been more diplomatic regarding what happened in Ukraine. The mucking around in Ukraine of Biden and son during the Obama years, and the rearrangement of leadership there under Biden/Obama was provocative. Incidentally, the Bidens help loot Ukraine. That said, IMHO when the Russian armored column went into Ukraine...whatever moral ground Putin had was lost. Seriously, no one can invade Russia again as they do have nukes. The "fear of the West" argument is overdone. The Ukrainians, unlike the Crimeans, do not appear to want to be a part of Russia. The result of Putin's armored columns has been a humanitarian disaster, and a humbling failure for Biden diplomatic and military policies. That brings us to today. Biden's leadership has led the US into a dead end. For Putin to prevail in Ukraine is a crime. But the US invents reasons to not enforce a No Fly Zone in Ukraine, bowing to Putin threats. The US is in a muddle, with only bad options. JFK endorsed co-existence and detente, but not abject capitulation. Also he was largely speaking about the US not joining the colonialists all over the world, on behalf of globalist-multi-nationalist interests. I wish there was an answer on how to resolve the Ukraine mess. It looks like Biden will choose to be very brave with Ukrainian lives. The Ukrainians may prevail, but they will have to choose to live like Afghanies. ******* Ben: Shooting down aircraft over Ukraine, if it comes to that...not over Russia. It may be Russian pilots choose not to test a NFZ. Agreed, very unpleasant options available. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Putin threatens to go nuclear and reabsorbs Poland and East Germany? Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? See Ron Bulman's post regarding Maruipol. Jeez. Biden looks feckless. Why is it those who oppose a NFZ are not characterized as Putin tools, or Moscow stooges? ********** Ben: Putin says a No Fly Zone over Ukraine is a provocation. Some US citizens, and Biden, echo that a No Fy Zone over Ukraine is a provocation. So...who are the Moscow stooges and Putin puppets? Funny what becomes a M$M narrative or meme and what does not. ******* Kirk:Now of course the biolabs in Ukraine... another Tucker rumor. Then there are stories that get buried as they not PC at the time. Bio-labs in Ukraine? With dangerous pathogens? Why? I happen to be hawkish on Ukraine, and would prefer going to No Fly Zones. That does not mean the bio-lab story is fake news. I guess the Biden Administration knew about the bio-labs, and kept them going. Trump probably did too, and probably Obama. Biden has been on his back foot all along on Ukraine, and the result is a horrible diplomatic, military and humanitarian catastrophe. This does not absolve Putin at all. I hope Putin is toppled yesterday. ***** Ben:The globalists seemed to give Putin a green light on Ukraine. Before the invasion, promising no boots on the ground, and then abstaining from a No Fly Zone as Putin said it would be provocative. I think the globalists were fine with partitioning Ukraine to Putin, but then lost control of the narrative due to stiff Ukrainian resistance, and Putin's foul image (in large part a deserved image, but also a residual of the Trump-bashing regimen). Now there is the scramble to come up a Plan B. De-escalate somehow. No Fly Zone! Open to negotiations! I do not see how Western values will prevail if Putin takes over Ukraine. The spooky thing is how tight the US multinational-globalist set is with the CCP. Do globalists have Western values? Or something else? Is international stability (a good commercial climate), rather than Western values, really the top priority in the DC-globalist set? ****** Ben: The globalist-Biden approach to Ukraine appears to be a failure. Certainly, a humanitarian catastrophe. The situation in Mariupol appears particularly grim, but of course that scenario may play out across Ukraine, in every contested city, in the months ahead. The West is encouraging the Ukrainians to fight, but is not providing a No Fly Zone. Not targeting Russian vessels with submarines, and still buying Russian oil. My take is the globalist-Biden Administration pretty much consigned Ukraine to Putin, and signaled as much pre-invasion. The globalists lost control of the narrative due to Ukrainian resistance, and Putin's foul image (deserved, and also a residual from Trump-bashing). The globalists want stability and commercial relations above all. See how they kow-tow to the CCP. Human rights is low on the agenda. Ukraine is dispensable, and Russia has fossil fuels to sell. The globalist plan presently appears to be to give the Ukrainians enough tools to make the Russian occupation miserable for Moscow. From a cynical perspective, that might work. The cost in human carnage is too horrible to contemplate. Biden appears poorly counseled. Seems to have no ideas. Flat-footed. ******** Ben: Well, when Russia promised to not invade Ukraine, the West had a chance to say they would establish a No Fly Zone over Ukraine as a prophylactic against anyone starting a war. I think it is still a good idea, though riskier. Stop the sale of Russian oil. Declare the port of Odessa a free port, that will be kept open. Zelensky has asked Biden for tougher sanctions. I don't know all the details, but it this is not time for anything except maximum economic sanctions in all regards. How can Zelensky be asking for tougher sanctions? True, the globalists have lost control of the Ukraine narrative. They still want to situation resolved so that business can resume with Russia ASAP, and nothing changes with Beijing. I prefer a victory for the Ukrainians. Biden seems to have no plans for a Ukrainian victory, or a decoupling from Beijing. ******** Ben: Like I say, the globalists lost control of the Ukraine narrative. So...we are seeing limited support for Ukraine from elements within US and Nato. Just enough to make occupation miserable for Moscow (well, maybe not in Moscow, they still have heat and caviar, but for Russia's soldiers). This war could drag on for years. You are not hearing globalists warning, "If Russia can cause this much damage...should we not de-couple from China too?" ****** Ben: The globalists were fine with Putin (see all those McDonalds?), happy to do business in Russia, and even OK with partitioning Ukraine to Putin. See Biden essentially promising to do nothing prior to the Putin invasion of Ukraine. The globalists and Biden lost control of the narrative when the Ukrainians showed unexpected resolve, and Putin's image could not be rehabilitated. After all, Putin was a Trump-pal, the worst sin of all. Now, the globalists just want the war to end and terms are unimportant. But No Fly Zone. That is an executive decision, made by Biden, a globalist lackey. So...looks like a humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine. Prolonged war and death. Certainly, Putin is the villain. Is Biden an accomplice? Accessory after the fact? ******* Ben: Biden is a creature of the Washington establishment, in which the globalist framework is ascendant. The Biden Administration has made clear they will not draw a line in Ukraine. If Ukraine falls to Putin, so be it. The Biden Administration might ship small arms to Ukraine, but no jets, no big stuff. No "No Fly Zone." The Q: Is Biden an accessory before, or after, the fact when it comes to Ukraine? Putin is a thug. The images from Mariupol...surely, this kind of assault cannot be endured. The Biden Administration seems lost. Feeble. Directionless. Clueless. The Ukrainians look tough. ******** Strong NATO, weak U.S., puzzled China: Ukraine war hints at new order ******** Ben:But seeing the shelling of civilian areas in Mariupol, and the column of armored vehicles and tanks pointed at Kyiv, has changed my mind. I now advocate a No Fly Zone for Ukraine, and possibly even NATO boots on the ground. Times change and so yes, I have moved to a more-hawkish position on Ukraine. Biden has floundered, looks weak. NATO has dithered somewhat. Biden and NATO have allowed Putin to dictate terms of battle. Russia can fly jets over Ukraine, but not NATO. Really? This is your idea of the right course? ********** Ben: Biden's Policy: The Russians can fly jets over Ukraine, but NATO cannot. ****** Ben:I do not agree with the de facto Biden-NATO position, that Russian jets can fly over Ukraine, but NATO jets cannot. Biden has been underwhelming on Ukraine. Confused. If Putin is a war criminal, then why no air cover for Ukrainians? ******** Ben:Well...Biden is a globalist puppet, that hardly needs debate. DC is afloat in globalist money. And, in fact, the initial globalist response was to partition Ukraine to Putin. Biden promised in advance of the Russian invasion to not get involved. But the Ukrainians showed resolve, and the globalists lost control of the narrative. Now, the Biden-globalist pathway forward is very foggy. They really did not have a Plan B. They will give small arms to the Ukrainians, and with such arms and a lot of deaths, the Ukrainians may bog down the Russians for years. The Russians can fly jets over Ukraine, but Biden/NATO cannot. Biden has agreed to those terms of battle. Seems a bit muddleheaded, no? ******** Ben: Biden and globalists were willing to partition Ukraine to Putin. Offered Zelensky passage out of the Ukraine. Biden signaled he would not fight for Ukraine. The globalists were fat and happy doing business with Putin. See the Koches presently. ***** Ben: Egads. Biden/NATO need to do a lot more on Ukraine. If Putin dictates terms of war...a civilian slaughter will ensue. Which it is. This carnage could go on for years, unless there is meaningful interdiction. Biden appears muddled, unclear, resourceless. ******** Bob Ness: Give it a break Ben. Gets boring. Ben:Probably life is not boring for those on the ground in Ukraine. Biden and the NATO have failed. Sure Putin looks to have bogged down, a "stalemate." That outcome is perhaps the worst result for the people of Ukraine. How boring! 1. If Putin tanks had simply rolled into Kyiv, then bad, but nobody's dead and Ukrainians can wait for Putin to die and maybe better times. 2. If Biden/NATO had offered stiff resolve pre-invasion, perhaps no invasion. Good. 3. (The option chosen). Globalists and Biden decide Ukraine is not worth fighting for, and publicly invite Zelensky to leave. Signal they will not fight for Ukraine, and all but invite a thug like Putin in. Ukrainians stole the narrative by showing the stiff resolve lacking in Biden/NATO. So now, what is antiseptically called a "stalemate" is daily death and dis-membering for thousands of Ukrainians and Russian soldiers weekly, and incredible damage to Ukrainian housing stock and infrastructure. But if you drink the blue kool-aid, you must cheer this result? ****** Ben:How will this death end the Ukrainian slaughter more quickly? The Western press seems off-point. Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are dying by the hundreds daily, and Biden/NATO seem to have no real plans other than to watch and (perhaps unintentionally, but nevertheless) prolong the conflict. But we chortle at the death of replaceable officers? ******* Ben:The WaPo chortles that Russia is no longer a superpower. How delightful! This is the globalist point of view. Russia has bogged down in Ukraine, a stalemate and that is a good outcome. Whew! That's a relief. The M$M chimes in. As for the people of Ukraine.... The thug Putin has the bombs coming....while Biden/NATO are on a vowed, permanent standby. ******* Ben: I will say it appears the Russians have bogged down, but that also appears to be have been the result of Ukrainian resistance, not Biden/NATO, who all but invited Putin into Ukraine, have not issued a no fly zone, or given weapons to the Ukrainians such a A-10 attack planes. The consensus seems to be that Ukrainian resistance combined with Russian battlefield incompetence is leading to a stalemate. The Biden/NATO position appears to be that a stalemate is a good result, and will drain Putin. It may, but in the meantime Ukrainians, and Russian soldiers die by the hundreds every day. In humanitarian terms, the Biden/NATO result is a cruel debacle. Like you, I wish for a putsch in Moscow. But Stalin stayed in until he died. ******* 'Ben: Biden's European trip will be heavy on displays of Western unity but could be light on actions to stop Putin's Ukraine war" If the Donk in-house mouthpiece CNN says that.... ****** Ben: Have Biden-NATO shown any resourcefulness, any imagination, any capacity for warding off what now appears inevitable? Was essentially partitioning Ukraine to Putin---the pre-invasion Biden-NATO position---a mistake we can learn from? ******* I only know what is on the internet. It appears the Russians are taking heavy losses, in equipment and people. (The thought of youthful Russian conscripts being killed or sent home without body parts is saddening also). I have no idea how long Putin will persist in Ukraine, which many Russians (rightly or wrongly) regard as part of Russia, and important to Russian national interests. It appears Biden/NATO have engineered a cruel stalemate, and globalists cheer that result as a victory. I guess it is non-PC to even discuss or ask if there are better options on the table. ***** Ben:Unfortunately, even the bad guys adopt tactics to situations. It appears Russians units, aware that standing in the open is dangerous, are "digging in", literally digging trenches and placing artillery and tanks behind berms etc. Winter is receding, so there are months of mild and even warm weather ahead. It may be the days of Russian troops blithely advancing and occupying are over, along with the higher death rates. Instead they will dig in and shell from safe, protected positions, and then advance when advantageous. Biden/NATO are flatfooted? Seems so. No new plans, no initiatives, no means to deliver some real losses to Russians. As they say, a stalemate. ****** I doubt this will do any good because Ben might be the one writer among all the writers in the world who could never get sick of reading his writing. Just our luck! * Why is it those who oppose a NFZ are not characterized as Putin tools, or Moscow stooges? ******** Ben: Putin says a No Fly Zone over Ukraine is a provocation. Some US citizens, and Biden, echo that a No Fy Zone over Ukraine is a provocation. So...who are the Moscow stooges and Putin puppets? Hell no- we won't go! Take your 60's deep state brinkmanship mentality and cram it up your ass, old man! You had your chance to be a hero! ******* If Ukraine falls to Putin, so be it. The Biden Administration might ship small arms to Ukraine, but no jets, no big stuff. No "No Fly Zone." Matt: The only way to stop Putin would be to attack him. That's war. Nuclear war.--Matt Ben:But this defeatism in your sentiments, evidently adopted by the globalist-Biden camp, gives carte blanche to the thug Putin. Biden/NATO are flatfooted? Seems so. No new plans, no initiatives, no means to deliver some real losses to Russians. Biden may not be a Putin-stooge, but the results are the same. But the US invents reasons to not enforce a No Fly Zone in Ukraine, bowing to Putin threats. I happen to be hawkish on Ukraine, and would prefer going to No Fly Zones. I now advocate a No Fly Zone for Ukraine, and possibly even NATO boots on the ground. Times change and so yes, I have moved to a more-hawkish position on Ukraine. The West is encouraging the Ukrainians to fight, but is not providing a No Fly Zone. Not targeting Russian vessels with submarines, and still buying Russian oil. Now there is the scramble to come up a Plan B. De-escalate somehow. No Fly Zone! Open to negotiations! I do not see how Western values will prevail if Putin takes over Ukraine. If Ukraine falls to Putin, so be it. The Biden Administration might ship small arms to Ukraine, but no jets, no big stuff. No "No Fly Zone."

This coming from "free speech Ben" who wants to hide the thread? I didn't ask you Ben but nobody new is going to go to the thread because it will be placed off topic and most people who come here will search out topics according to names of JFKA subjects that they have an interest in. Actually there was a lot of good research that was sometimes inspired by correcting your often repeated mistaken political notions, which were the standard mistaken novice political notions developed in the early 2020's period, and serve a useful historical perspective. Unfortunately you took personal offense from the very beginning with people simply challenging your notions, and you never have really mentioned any specifics as to what your "sewer allegations" really were. And unfortunately, when a real problem developed, I never saw you in the final months of the 3 year thread identify any growing problem outside of your general "butthurtness" of having people just challenging your ideas.

Mark, You have my thoughts, for whatever they're worth, on what happened to the 56 year thread. Still I'm not going to argue with your decision to close the thread from further posts. But what is your thinking about denying access to this thread, any more than any other thread that's been posted on this forum?

Of course we've heard of these smoking guns before. But this is the newest. BREAKING: CNN drops bombshell, reveals that the National Archives just notified Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Justice Department that it has “critical evidence,” including a whopping 16 incriminating recordings, that could land Trump in prison because they “prove that Donald Trump” KNEW that it was illegal to “declassify” top secret documents by simply “declaring them classified.” The recorded communications are between the National Archives and “Trump himself,” and “top Trump staffers.” CNN reports that the “16 presidential records, which were subpoenaed earlier this year, may provide critical evidence establishing the former president’s awareness of the declassification process, a key part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.” CNN continues, declaring that the recordings “may also provide insight into Trump’s intent and whether he willfully disregarded what he knew to be clearly established protocols, according to a source familiar with recent testimony provided to the grand jury by former top Trump officials.” if you think that Trump MUST be criminally charged — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new Twitter competition I created that Elon Musk is trying to silence. He banned Tribel’s Twitter account, but he hast yet banned this link to download the new Tribel app: http://tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb Trump's former lawyer thinks he's going to jail.

Ok this is my opinion. We know moderating this forum was never an easy job. But the actions of one immature person were allowed to get completely out of hand, and one rotten apple spoiled the whole bunch for everyone. Things were always going to be controversial, but they were fine 9 months ago. In the end, everyone let a destabilizing force get way out of hand. But in fairness, These excesses were reported months in advance and little guidance was taken, but it was pretty apparent, that the little guidance given was just being dismissed with a casual apology, yet none of the actions were curtailed. You can't teach sincerity. This should have been noted and cause for greater concern., but as it turns out little by little freedom of expression was abridged by a group who were just snickering among each other at their newfound power to cancel others speech, which just exacerbated the hostility, to the point that the entire thread has been dismantled and that was a terrible mistake in that the mods didn't accurately pinpoint the causes, and let the excesses continue and by so doing allowed a small potentially innocuous whimper undermine the civil discourse. IMO Though I don't necessarily agree with Cotter in that I don't see there's that much value in having the specific 56 year thread back. I will agree with Cotter, some of us for years had put effort in on that thread. Then in the last 6 months of the thread, the mod game became that the thread became so toxic at the end , it was easier to just dismiss it as a "toxic thread". But it's become similar to the Republicans knowing the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop and refusing to release it, to conjure up fear of what might be in it, but no one here should have any fear now of just having the thread open as a repository of the efforts many here have made. Why are you banning books or in this case threads? (Particularly, when there are so many threads here that haven't been contributed to in years?) As if the evil contained on those records will wreak it's insidious effects on the forum again? Such an attitude might be understood if the mods were completely out of touch with the more productive educative elements that were there, but they themselves contributed to the thread, which was a good thing! I just don't understand your thinking in closing that thread for what is it now, 4 months? After all, as I've said, it's a pretty unique 2020-2023 time capsule among political chat forums in that all the people contributing to it also believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. That's false, Lance hardly posted on the 56 year thread at all,

Here's RFK Jr's recent interview with Sean Hannity, where he talks about his case, for the CIA assassinating his uncle, that we've all talked about for many years, but he is now divulging in public. This information will make him marginally gain votes at the edges, among many of us, who were already leaning in that direction. But there is a lot more to this interview. I don't particularly like to talk about the Presidential run in 2024 for at least another 6 months, but what can we do? RFK Jr. has declared for the Presidency and that is big news here! But he's definitely inexperienced and should have been more prepared in this interview with Sean Hannity. I think he was lulled into some idea that Fox would be his one friendly network and was ambushed by Hannity, (around 9:50) with a question about whether he renounces using private jets, and RFK stumbles and his first response is to act betrayed as if that is an unfair question, but it is typically seamy coming from Fox and Hannity, but really isn't an unfair question to ask of an environmentalist politician. He should have done some homework and realize that Fox has been criticizing John Kerry, another previous environmental candidate for his private jet use many times. And Hannity lowers the boom on RFK on whether he's willing to condemn all private jet use. This is clearly a typical "gotcha "game that primarily Republicans will use against Democrats to condemn someone within their own party that they clearly have no problem doing themselves and RFK Jr. having a solid environmental background should have been aware. This topic will become another litmus test cudgel that the left will use on themselves. But there's some inaccuracies in this interview as well. I'll skip the covid vaccine segment as we've already talked about it a lot, and some of us think it is a greater burden to his campaign really getting somewhere. But there's another matter here with RFK Jr. using fuzzy figures. He said the U.S., by their funding of the Ukraine War has already killed 300,000 Ukrainians!. But U.S. estimates, which are to be expected he would use, are that 300,000 is the number of total casualties of Russians and Ukrainians. "Casualities" are all those who are killed in action or who die of wounds, as well as those who are wounded, listed as missing, or taken prisoner of war. The total number of deaths, on both sides estimated by the U.S. is listed as 60,000! Obviously we can't know for sure, it could be considerably more or less but probably nowhere near 100,000. But he's off by a factor of 5 and he's not even counting projected Russian deaths! This allegations is just a whopper! RFK Jr. has to have a fact checker in his campaign who can get the story straight. He's not Trump and if he's caught using that 300,000 or 700,000 in a debate in 6-9 months with Biden, he will be crucified! Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 'It was my father's first instinct the agency killed his brother' | Fox News Video

Whew! Maga boys, feeling their oats! Gaining steam!

Whoa, Trump in filmed deposition.Some men here may actually find this funny. Trump says that she said she loved being raped! Trump reiterates proudly what he said, "if you're a star you can do anything." "That's true, unfortunately or fortunately" I think you can say I'm a star!

Something I'm sure you won't hear from Mearsheimer is that the conflict was winding down before Putin's invasion. Between 2014 and 2022, There were 29 failed ceasefires. About 14,000 people were killed in the war: 6,500 Russian and Russian proxy forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,400 civilians on both sides of the frontline. The vast majority of civilian casualties were in the first year! The info is spotty but I'm able to retrieve civilian deaths year by year. Which should reflect a correlation to combatant totals to an extent, as a indicator of the amount of the war's direct engagement. And it shows the conflict sharply de escalating after 2014. Things were getting steadily better. This is also very congruent with the fact that, I believe there were 11 countries who joined NATO up to 2004, and only 3 since, in 18 years!, prior to the Russian invasion. Which begs the question to Putin, Why now? Look at how the civilian casualties slowed to almost a standstill prior to the Russian invasion. Civilian deaths (2014-2021) 2014-----2084 2015-----1955 2016-----112 2017-----117 2018-----58 2019-----27 2020-----26 2021-----25 Of course getting a dependable neutral source on the deaths since Russia invaded is very hard and there is no consistent neutral source. U.S. documentation, for whatever it's worth estimates are below. Obviously I make no claim for the accuracy of these totals.. If one has concern about protecting lives. There's little doubt that the overall number of deaths since Putin's invasion is over 4 times the total of the projected of deaths (14,000) in the region between 2014-2021! And perhaps 10-20 times the casualties! Though I don't have that specific information the casualties. Russian combat casuallties and killed 189,500–223,000 casualties (35,500–43,500 killed in action Ukraine combat casualties and killed 124,500–131,000 casualties (16,000–17,500 killed) The United Nations estimates Ukraine civilian casualties 8,709 killed, 14,666 wounded (conf. minimum, thought higher) https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War