Kirk Gallaway

Doug's right, you get older and more of your talk with your friends is about your health problems and you see everyone's got different problems. I've always dreaded a day when I would get a wake up call, because you never know when it could happen. It sounds like you've gotten a double wake up call. Please do what you need to do to have a lasting recovery because we want you here!

Miles, Matt's completely right. You made the same such statement and I went into great detail about this specifically answering your questions and I never heard from you again. I told you at the time.There's is no greater difference between the 2 parties in your lifetime or in mine than now. They've politically polarized each other into completely different philosophical camps. Miles:Nearly all other first-world and many second/third world countries have some form of nationalised health care. That's very boiler plate Miles, as if read from a Poly Sci 101 textbook. But there is a marked difference between the 2 parties regarding health care, and Matt has highlighted one such example, and there are others.. Let me give you some history. In the 90's the Clinton's tried to initiate an expanded health care system. Hilary Clinton was appointed by her husband to try to push it through Congress. If we could have pushed it through 30 years ago. Judging by the eventual acceptance of the ACA, We would have had much more expanded health benefits now. Probably to the degree that we wouldn't have needed the ACA, and having it done earlier, it would now be much cheaper, just as it would have been cheaper yet, if Hubert Humphrey as President had started in 1968, which could easily have happened, but that's another story.* Hilary Clinton was stopped by Dick Armey and the Republicans big money, and it never happened. Part of reading politics is not what politicians or parties say, but what they don't say. The Republicans will always say when cornered that they are for expanded Health Care. When Obama came into office, he naively believed them. In order to try to get something going and get some consensus, he opted for a Health Care proposal from Republican Mitt Romney. We then found out what many of us suspected all along, the Republicans never wanted to expand health care. In the next 6 weeks, you might get sucked into believing that Republicans do want decent health care because the Democrats are going to show the Republicans previous voting record on Health Care and hang it on them.. And you can be sure the Republicans won't come up with their own health care alternative, but will just say that all these rumors about cutting medicaid or social services are false Democrat propaganda. But we've had enough record by now to know what's truly going on. Miles:No major candidate for the presidency in either party in the last 50 years has publically challenged the value and necessity of Social Security while running for office (Republicans love to rail against welfare, but they know that if they really campaigned on abolishing SS they would lose a massive voter base) No and the reason for that, is that they are extremely popular, and they are not fools!. ****** * Nobody talks about him. He was quite a letdown after Bobby was killed. But expanded Health Care was his baby.

"Carried approvingly"? Again, you've provided a Cohen group link and there's no connection between your Maurice Greenberg quote and the Cohen Group. Provide the connection, and show your readers that the article was"carried approvingly " by the Cohen group. If you can't provide the connection, and since you've already told us 3 times about Cohen. Maybe you should have innovated and broken new ground and made the article about Greenberg. That might have been more interesting. but of course that would have involved more research on Greenberg. What a drag! But then, you probably don't know this but Greenburg has a political affiliation with Marco Rubio who goes on Fox all the time as an anti Chinese trade guy. I'm a little miffed at that, actually having read his article. Did you?

W. -What makes this even stranger is that Ben has said he's contributed 50 years into the Social Security system as a U.S. citizen, but ignores all the bread and butter issues he has the most personal interest in to pursue some fixation in foreign policy that the Democrats who are fighting for his interests, are like the Republicans, and not isolationists in World Trade. Obviously nobody's going to stop world trade, and this has no effect at all on Ben living in Thailand. This is what I mean when I say the average Joe may not know to vote in his own personal interest, and sometimes for the kookiest reasons. *** On a more substantive note, Congratulations! to my fellow Cesspudlians as we tread on to our inevitable millennial page thread, which will be a truly fab moment indeed!!!

Ben I know you've been down on William Cohen a few times before for an article back in 2015. But your commentary link didn't open to a new article by William Cohen. "We Want to Rebuild U.S. Relations With China" And i checked this quote from the WSJ, and it lead to an a July article by Maurice Greenberg, not William Cohen. A 97 year old former AIG exec who does have political ties to Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio but not William Cohen and the Cohen group. You have to be more accurate and not just throw a lazy combination of things together when your points are being challenged.

Wow! interesting stuff Doug! You get the impression from Taylor that neither Mongoose or Lansdale really got off the ground! Re: Mongoose HACKMAN: Can you remember any dissatisfaction on Robert Kennedy's part in terms of the Mongoose Com- mittee with the kinds of things that were being suggested either by Lansdale or by the CIA people who were working with Lansdale? TAYLOR: Well, yes, I would. I think we all were critical in a sense. Many times it didn't seem to make much sense to try something in Cuba which ~ould endanger the lives of some of the Cubans who were involved in the thi~g. I think ±hat that sense of responsibility he [RFK] had very, very deeply. "Why lose lives if the return isn't clearly clearly worth it?" he would ask. And so many of these little tasks were just annoyances to Castro and of very questionable v.alue. RE:Lansdale: HACKMAN: TAYLOR: HACKMAN: ~l5- Do you know why at some point fira.lly the Lansdale thing on Cuba, the Mongoose operation, was sort of shifted to State? Is this just because he runs out of things to do? I didn't know that it had •. so, I'd forgotten. Finally, yes , it was. . it was. If TAYLOR: See, Lansdale was really chosen on the grounds of being a reputed Cold Warrior who had won his spurs in various places in the Far East. So it was really his personal background that got him his job rather than what he happened to be--a general in the Air Force. HACKMAN: Had his appointment on that been primarilyat Robert Kennedy's suggestion, or was it your suggestion, or can you remember how that was made? TAYLOR: I can't recall. I can't recall how it became Lansdale. I would say that the general feeling was that he disappointed us because he didn't come up with programs which, even if successful, would be very . effective. And there always seemed to be a wordiness about his proposals; they were not concise effective plans which offered some hope of progress ****** TAYLOR: Well, since the Bay of Pigs , we really had the choice of ejecting Castro by military means, which nobody proposed after the Bay of Pigs, of simply doing nothing and taking a philosophical point of view, "Well, time will take care of Castro," or doing something in between which would make his life gs unpleasant as possible, · make it just as hard as possible, and so to facilitate time, to be a helper to time . Well, the latter was really what we were doing, but little by little we saw that Castro was not getting weaker. If anything, ·he was getting stronger. And as I recall, the Mongoose effort just gradually died down. I don't ever recall it being called off. Now I've never consulted the record. As a matter of fact , you see, in October '52 I went over, and I became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and gave up the Chair- man of the Mongoose Committee ***** I always like insights like these. Re: RFK TAYLOR: I don't think that he did, although I would say it seemed to me that Bob had a sense for organization as a device, as a useful tool of government, beyond what the President had. Duri?g the Bay of Pigs we had a lot of discussions on what kind of adjust- ments of the federal relationshii:swould be necessary to permit the kind of .focusing of inter-departmental power that we thought was necessary. And it seemed to me that he under- stood organization and was for it, whereas I never felt that ' President Kennedy ever eared about it--he talked in terms of people. When I started to work for him, one of the things Bob told me was, "Now, you'll have to remember my brother doesn't think the way you do," referring to my old military past, which he was always throwing up to me. "He thinks <bout issues and people, and he likes to talk things out." And I soon found that the most carefully prepared fact sheet would rarely get read. Bob had been a great help to me in pointing out the P~esident's foibles, but it always seemed to me Bobby talked my language to a very great degree and sensed the need for order around the President, which he realized was not present in that first year, a very disorderly year. ****** Re: RFK HACKMAN: Did he ever have any problems in understanding any of either the written materials that you gave him or the discussion that was going on? TAYLOR: No. We had many military debates during t h e Bay of Pigs, and, of course, I'd accuse him of becoming a field marshal after the first week. But we'd get on and argue the tactics of the 1anding and what was reasonable and what was unreasonable . And ever y now and then in later years he'd say whenever I would : ..;26- criticize his position on Viet Nam, "Well, you're the man responsible. You taught me all these things about not taking armies into Asia." Of course, he was a very quick intellect, and he was very perceptive, also he was a good listener during a period of time that he wasn't sure of him- self. Then after when he knew what he was talking about, he didn't hesitate to make his views known. He also had a good sense of humor and an ability to laugh about himself which I've never heard commented on. He could kid himself in an awfully nice way--a very, very appealing way.

For the first time I can remember, Ben admits he was wrong, I think we're all appreciative. I also mentioned to you a number of times that the vast majority of arrests on 1/6 were not at the Capitol. We have figures that over 95% of the arrests made were not at the Capitol., We can probably agree that most of the people arrested at the Capitol were caught at least allegedly committing illegal acts. If you were armed, you'd be a fool to commit illegal acts. This completely shoots to hell any of your declarations over the last year and a half of how harmless this group was. You've also seemed to discount the harmfulness of any weapons outside of firearms. Your claims haven't been disputed greatly, other than to tell you, that most of the arrests happened off the Capitol grounds because we were aware that there was no way we could positively know how many rioters were carrying weapons.

Yeah, and stay skeptical!! heh heh heh heh heh heh ....ho! On another front, word has it that Billionaires are shaking in their boots in fear of the prospect of hearing Ben's next Biden Globalist tirade because it hurts so bad! And Republicans are marching on Wall Street against the 1%, to hear Ben tell it! **** On a substantive level, Thanks Doug!, That's really quite remarkable that Monroe, Madison, Hamilton,Burr and Marshall were under 25 at the signing of the Declaration of independence! Some more older guys, Washington was 44 and Franklin was the senior at 70!

Here we go again, huh? It's just as I remembered of Conally's account. He heard a shot, and said he turned to his left, (though he meant to his right) to look at the President ("who said nothing") "and almost simultaneously as I turned I was hit". That seems very consistent with Dave's clip. . To think he was hit by the same bullet, you have to assume a good lapse of time before Connally was hit and cognitive of being hit, as he has the presence of mind to turn around and be concerned for the President, but then on top of that, as Bob points out, that lapse of time is even greater because if Connally was struck by the same bullet. He still was most likely struck before he even heard the shot. 0n 1:20.

Yes, Mark I think we're largely in agreement. I was surprised when I looked the word "oligarchy" up. Oligarchy is a form of government in which a small group of people hold most or all political power. But then more elaborately, "Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control." I think a lot of times the term "Oligarchy" is associated in the U.S. with old wealth, that is multi generational wealth passed on down from generation to generation by the "elites". Though I assume your definition might also include "new money" or maybe the .1%? Where the Corporate State is an active force in controlling Congress and influencing decisions through their lobbyists and campaign contributions. The "old wealth" oligarchy may be part of that process in their ownership stake in corporations and their direct or indirect ability to effect action in their corporate boards to write and submit legislation to members of Congress. How active old wealth can be on the corporate boards may vary greatly. Through successive generations of old wealth ownership, the company founders, or their heirs may retain seats on the board and be more hands on, or be less hands on, or may choose to delegate their interests though trusted proxies. Though you have to also consider oligarchic rule through their foundations in effecting Public Policy. But I'm not sure to how great a degree. This is in no way to villainize the rank and file corporate people, who may have their own personal political agendas or none at all, and may not be aware of how their hierarchies pursue policies that are to the detriment of the majority of people, or they may rationalize it as keeping up with their competitors. The type of conspiracies posited here on the forum seem very similar to those posited in the JFKA, that is micromanaged "top down" conspiracies. Those type of conspiracies are good at feeding paranoia but I don't think the present day Corporate State or Oligarchy if you will, needs to take precipitate bold actions, as the gradual path of infiltrating the government to effect policy in their favor has been accomplished very successfully over the last 40 years without all but a handful being scarcely aware of it. So although they may pursue discreet resistance to forestall it, there's no need for the globalist interests to really freak out at more local, national control as Ben continually repetitively hammers home. There's no way the world will choose to wipe out global trade! But they do have to answer to public opinion, and that is why Biden was able to achieve a pulling out of multi national corporations in Russia after Putin's invasion of Ukraine to an extent many didn't think possible. That and a further judgment was made that in the ultimate ideological struggle , they can sustain less profits to show solidarity to further their propaganda war to the public to ensure their eventual goals of world free market capitalism. Even though the fact of their existence in Russia in the first place is already evidence that Russia isn't a heavy socialist state. Old public perceptions die hard! And similarly if the alliance were to fall apart during the winter because of Europe's dependence on Putin's oil, that would be a case of politicians succumbing to their constituent public opinion. And while we're discussing the prospect of the "powers that be" freaking out. There's damn sure no reason for a fourth generation present day group to greatly freak out if the truth of the Kennedy Assassination was revealed. If you really think there is such a group, what would they have to lose? Nobody could really be prosecuted anymore, and the greatest superpower in the history of mankind is hardly going to dismantle their Intelligence or Security State. There is no scrambling going on from the "Corporate State" or "Oligarchy". Most of the urgency was mitigated long ago, not from a battlefield, but from a perch.

Whew! Doug! The idea of using the key classified documents as a get out of jail scheme by threatening to give these to Putin if he were indicted is about is about as explosive as it can get! We can only hope that Michael Cohen is just speculating from what he knows in his decades in working for Trump. As it's been very apparent in his past interviews, that there's absolutely nothing he won't put beyond Trump! I looked for that segment in the interview and I'm able to find only the first half. I assume you haven't been able to find it either, or you would have posted it. We'll be looking for that.Though it's of much lesser magnitude, I thought Michael Cohen accounting his abuses at the hands of the Trump- William Barr DOJ is also worthy of comment. And I've posted it below. It's the Donald Trump -William Barr "Deep state shadow government" that prosecuted Michael Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels to the fullest extent, to whitewash the fact that Donald Trump authorized those payments. Cohen was told even his wife would be threatened if he didn't sign a gag order immediately! Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation from the JFKA era, that leads people to think that there's a monolithic agenda to a present government "deep state" or "shadow government" . That was more true 60 years ago, in the days of JFK. But now the government is more malleable to the will of the Chief Executive, though it has a number of different agendas, some at cross purposes throughout different localities and regions. This thinking of the government of a 60's style monolithic deep state (tailored to whatever political prejudices people may hold) is harmful, as it's being used in general by the Corporate State to turn public opinion to ultimately defund the government, and further disenfranchise the will of the great majority of people. In reality, your only shot to dismantle or lessen the power of the Corporate State over your government is through the government itself, and your right to vote! However well intentioned those that preach that there's a 60's monolithic government deep state may be, they have been duped into spreading the gospel of the Corporate Deep State.

Bill Maher's pisses me off sometimes, but I think he struck the right balance of proportion and consequence here. FU Tribal America!, pos(s)! Silly False Equivalency

Ben: Trump seems like a grifter. Lets' the courts decide! Ben jumps for joy for a chance to defend Matt Gaetz, he's had it with the infringement of his liberties that's being taken away by the deep state in America,so much that it drove him to locate in Thailand where they don't thumb their nose at this "trafficking " sort of nonsense~right Ben? heh heh heh heh It's a joke, Ben! Ben knows emphatically over and over what he thinks about Biden. and bores his audience to tears leaping up to his soap box with his repetitive Biden diatribes.. And yet Mr. defiant Perpetual Deep State Ben's , JFKA honed super sleuthing abilities just become impotent, as if struck by Kryptonite and he freezes in his tracks, and just can't make up his mind, and becomes a complete fence sitter about the prospect about Trump actually being a crook! And despite all of his institutional deep state contempt, he has adopted an attitude of blind faith submission that the verdicts in the "deep state"courts will relieve him of any responsibility of delving any further into even thinking about Trump's possible guilt, and consigns that the courts will be the final arbiter on everything, and any acquittal of Donald Trump or Matt Gaetz will be like "thy will be done" ( as in the OJ case!) and will lead him to run to his computer and post to his lifeline in America that all this business about Donald Trump Matt Gaetz was just the "shadow government" aspect of the "deep state?"* persecuting poor Donald and Matt? * I'm confused. I'm sorry, I've been busy lately Ben.. Did the "shadow government" battle and overtake the "deep state?" All the sudden one day, Ben starts driving home the "shadow government". It's kind of like the early days, when I first started hearing about Isis. heh heh heh! Skeptical enough for ya?

I am friendly, you posted all this. Why do you take offense at someone showing you what you posted? You can check our responses by simply going back. Let's stick to facts. You were the lone voice of Uber Dullesite militarism here, the major Ukraine hawk who was continually pummeling Biden for not being tough enough. As I've shown to you. You've outhawked Biden and probably John Mc Cain if he were living. Fact, nobody in Congress could outhawk you, no matter what you say your intentions are now. Nobody's picking on you Ben. We just hold you accountable for what you say. Explain your statement here and how it could possibly support peace? Ben: 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. Nato boots. Ben?, You're pretty courageous with the blood of younger generations, there Popps! You've said this before. I don't accept your dictatorial authority about what is to be discussed on this thread. Particularly when you violate your own rules and continually bring modern politics over to the JFKA side. Sometimes that can't be helped, but it's ok here. I've challenged your concept of the Deep State on a number of occasions and you've run away. If you want, i can give you examples that we can put up for discussion. To new people here I'd say concerning the modern Deep State . This isn't Grandpa Ben's 60's Deep State. heh heh I tell them the truth, and they think it's Hell! Harry Truman

Ben: 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. We know Ben, we heard it many , many times. Watch your escalation! Biden is: flat footed a Moscow stooge and a Putin puppet! Biden shown no resourcefulness, any imagination, any capacity for warding off what now appears inevitable? The Biden Administration seems lost. Feeble. Directionless. Clueless. Biden has been underwhelming on Ukraine. Confused. You've certainly been overwhelming wrong, Ben Biden/NATO need to do a lot more on Ukraine. Biden has agreed to those terms of battle. Seems a bit muddleheaded, no? No new plans, no initiatives, no means to deliver some real losses to Russians. Biden and NATO have allowed Putin to dictate terms of battle. that really hit the nail on the head The Russians can fly jets over Ukraine, but Biden/NATO cannot. complete BS! Biden has been on his back foot all along on Ukraine, and the result is a horrible diplomatic, military and humanitarian catastrophe. certainly not as macho as you Ben. It's pretty obvious, sleepy Joe kept Ben up for a few nights in March! Is this the tortoise firebombing the hare? Next you'll be giving up in helplessness and calling for civil war! but the rest of us urged restraint, as did Biden and the U.S. government. For those who say you're an inpenetrable wall, we can say no!, there is some trickle some osmosis, we served as your better angels!. So it has a happy ending, at least until the next time!

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! heh heh

Ben on the Ukraine War Exactly, The fact that Ben was the foremost Ukraine hawk here, daring Biden to be a macho man and now is having misgivings and calling Biden a hawk, is the kind of intransigence we've come to expect from Ben, still every one can have their say. But this is really something. These are Ben's posts in one 2 week period in March. I did some editing for purposes of brevity. I think I was fair. A lot of it are Ben's conspiracy theories that were based on fallacies, and never materialized. Ben relentlessly pushed the idea that Biden was weak for not establishing a NFZ in Ukraine. History has shown that that not even the most hawkish people in the U.S. government thought a NFZ was at all necessary because there never was a serious obstacle to our supplying Ukraine with weapons, so a NFZ would have been just a needless, provocative move. I think Biden's conducted the war well, with a calm and seasoned approach and got a greater consensus that anybody ever thought he could. But I do wonder what limit is there on our financing a destructive war indefinitely. But you can't help but notice at so many junctures how wrong Ben was and what a bloody war he would have lead us into. I put in 2 comments in bold print and identifying myself. As well as some bullet points from Ben, and identify quotes from Matt and Bob. These are all separate posts. I think the best way to read this is with a sense of humor. But if Ben thinks the lighting in Biden's anti Maga speech was creepy, could it be 1000th as creepy Ben's obsession with Biden?!!!!!! ***** Ben on the Ukraine War 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. ****** Kirk: 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! *

Most conspiracy theories formed now are because people are politically stupid and can't understand that other people might think differently than them. So just as people use to pass off events they couldn't understand as the work of many Gods, Now every outcome that doesn't favor their objectives is passed off as an ominous conspiracy.

Trump Was Warned Late Last Year of Potential Legal Peril Over Documents He was warned by was by Eric Herschmann, so it's been proven that Trump ignored counsel. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/trump-herschmann-documents.html

New book alleges Trump tried to strongarm the sale of CNN to Rupert Murdoch https://www.salon.com/2022/09/18/new-book-alleges-tried-to-strongarm-the-sale-of-cnn-to-rupert-murdoch_partner/

Yes It is a good article Matt. Thanks! I liked the first half or so when she explained procedurally how the case must be assembled so as to avoid pitfalls. The middle part is what lawyers, including some of my lawyers friends always say, which is to cool off your expectations. Concerning Trump, the most open and shut case I can think of is his tape recording with Brad Raffensperger to throw the Georgia election. Of course, that's indisputable evidence. I'm not aware of limitations regarding using that tape as evidence, though there might be. But from past such cases with wealthy powerful people who aren't even POTUS, a similar kind of case would probably take a long time, unfortunately, though it's now been a year and 9 months!.

Tom, I would slightly change your critique. Tom: , he would have revealed his plan publicly and unambiguously coded it into policy prior to his re-election, and thus your position is based on the notion that JFK was an political idiot. Tom: It's just not an effective political argument. There's no doubt what JFK said in his speeches were hawkish. But there are 2 things to keep in mind. 1) He was talking to Texas supporters, the most Defense conscious, Cold Warmongering state in the union. (eventually evidenced by LBJ) I believe the very last sentence in his last speech in his life, he acknowledged all the work being done in waging the Cold War and said to rally the audience "And Texas will lead the way!" 2)the point you're making, it's poor political strategy to mention definitive future plans regarding Viet Nam. Just as Biden in the 2020 campaign never definitively mentioned his intention to pull out of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure this is appropriate for the" Queen thread." so I'll post it here. Egads! Brits were spending 24 hours waiting in line, some through 45 degree evening weather to pay their respects to the Queen! The monarchy is alive and well, indeed! I think it would be a great comfort to all of us if Cliff could do a cameo here and pay his respects to the Queen and let us know things will carry on as they were, and give us some sense of continuity! Perhaps honor the Queen with a playing from across the pond of "American Taliban" heh heh Hey Cliff!, I think I'm going to have to bone up more on the interrelations of the Royal Family, but right now, I've been more concerned about the Roy's on "Succession"..