Kirk Gallaway

As I said, I thought Jim's disjointed piece was in the first half a rehash of previous posts about JFK and Nasser and how Jim dreamed of a JFK/Nasser Socialist takeover of the Middle East where the Sauds and other oil rich countries would give up their wealth to the non oil countries like Egypt, in Nasser's always changing politically expedient vision of a Pan Arab League. And by the way, the Palestinians would have been given a permanent home! As if any powers anywhere would look forward to a revolution in oil country! It was a dream that was betrayed early on when JFK sided with Sauds against Nasser in the War in Yemen. Then near the end, JIm brings in Henry Jackson as the starter of the neocon movement! I'm not sure if Jim knows JFK actually was considering Henry Jackson as his VP running mate in 1960, before he decided on his southern strategy with LBJ.! Then imagine my surprise when I find that jt was Jackson who was there for RFK's support when he appeared at the 1964 Democratic Convention. First coming on camera with RFK at 5:25. https://youtu.be/o2rdKbOmPKs Besides to assume without Henry Jackson, there wouldn't have been a PNAC movement 20 years after his death is BS! The invasion of Iraq is totally on George W. Bush and his PNACer's. The Democrats in the house solidly voted against going to the War in Iraq. If we hadn't gotten that very questionable electoral result and we had Al Gore, the war never would have happened! I never liked Joe Biden through his entire career but I've been surprised to see his economic policies were certainly more for the working class than JFK, or any President in the last 45 years. Has anybody asked Di Eugenio since I can't because he has me on ignore, heh heh about RK Jr. making the most hawkish defense of Israel of any American politician up to this day? I think not, and wouldn't expect it! Would any other of you hard core RK /peace in Israel people like to weigh in on that as well!? My guess no matter whatever shock they possess over Israel's atrocities, they'd vote for RK anyway. Because we have a President in the U.S. I think a lot of people across the pond think that that must mean he has super powers. But we have a Congress that has the power of the purse strings. And If you're serious about the catastrophe in Gaza. Blaming it all on Biden is silly because the support of Israel is widespread in the U.S.! There's a number of people here who don't even agree with you about this! I generally like Mother Jones, but the current policy didn't just happen because of Joe Biden!. Imagine Trump as President ,who merely said the hostilities have to "play out! " The current situation would have been completely unleashed with very little Presidential calls for humanitarian action, and the Palestinians fed to the dogs, with a nothing more than shrieking from a handful of lefties! Yesterday, Bernie Sanders tried to pass a resolution to force the State Department to report on Israeli human rights violations in Gaza. It was backed by all of 11 Senators out of 100! Of those who voted for it, 10 were Democrats!, the one Republican out of 49 was Rand Paul! That should tell you what and who you're up against! Knowing Kennedy politics, JFK would probably be somewhere between Bernie and RK Jr., heh heh heh Ok probably like Biden, with about as much call for humanitarian efforts. I don't think JFK would be threatening to cut off aid to Israel at all, (Ask yourself, did he ever in all of his Presidency cross Congress!) and the U.S.is not going to bring in troops! Any JFK-as-saint conjecture would be as realistic as Jim's JFK Nasser plan of socializing the Mideast,solving the Palestinian issue forever, and then all of us living happily ever after! Call it a conspiracy, or call it dealing with political reality as it is. What changes the equation, are events that effect U.S. political sentiments in an election year. How mundane huh? https://www.businessinsider.com/which-senators-voted-bernie-sanders-resolution-israel-human-rights-violations-2024-1

Prankster gives Ron DeSantis a participation trophy for his campaign in Iowa before being taken away by guards! heh heh heh

To me this is honestly a sort of back door tribute to race relations in America among a certain strata of our population. Of which I'm one. 2 cool back dudes, review Louis CK roasting blacks. Laughter can bridge the world. I believe that!

I hope she does make a race of it. Of course, Matt you're not from New Hampshire so all your conjecture as to Haley having a chance at all is from polling, or from the talking heads that use polling. I'd say barring any watershed event, Trump is the nominee for the Republican Party. Outside of health, the watershed event could be a conviction of one of the major crimes, as a quarter of Republicans have said that would persuade them to not vote for Trump. Of course that's if you think that those polls have any validity. That seems reasonable to me, but right now it doesn't look like any verdicts are going to come by November, though I ' hope I'm wrong, but that doesn't preclude considerable damage being done to Trump in the ongoing trials. Trump could gut the federal cases if he was to become President, except in Georgia, with the most open and shut case with a smoking gun recording, but the prosecutors decided to cast a wide blanket with 19 different indictments of individuals, so that will prolong that case, though some have already turned. Let's hope!

It's a death cult!

Agreed W.! Add to that, wealth inequality and taxation, climate change, universal health care, But in another world, Little Marco endorses Trump!

Sandy, I don't think it's your place as a moderator to start a thread to be an advocate on this issue, or give permission to direct or thwart conversation in either direction,.Or to declare shame and single out other forum members. I personally think some of these fringe issues are discrediting to the forum as well. But I see no point in arguing with advocates for the 1000th time. You can find many such arguments here if you look at past threads. But I don't find these advocates are overbearing and you can usually see from the titles of their threads what their views are and choose to ignore or get involved. There's a certain give and take on a forum like this and everyone must be willing to grant directions of research that are not mainstream. If you don't like these pursuits you can just blow it off if you don't agree or get involved and challenge it. If you hold these beliefs, time has told you, you're going to somewhere along the line have to defend them. And that comes with the territory. It needn't be a traumatic event.

Good article, W.! Of course the question comes up : 1)How can a President remove critical intelligence files? Aren't there backups on everything? 2. ) How can our NSS, which is feared throughout the world not even be aware such files are missing.? 3) In an unrelated matter. How can a President abort an ongoing investigation and turn over most of 91 counts against himself when he reaches office? A potential conviction in court should not be able to be overturned with a vote.That's what separation of powers is all about! There's a lot of BS that's needs to be straightened out when this is all over! Regarding Putin, I've now heard Trump told an EU official in 2020 at the Davos Economic Conference not to expect the U.S. to defend European NATO members from attack, and said that the U.S. will get out of NATO. He could have gotten this by edict from Putin in Helsinki. This is the end all, (keep it simple stupid.) Trump can appear to have his own agenda opposing Putin in smaller matters but when push comes to shove. And say, Putin invaded the Baltics, Trump would use his Presidency and his MAGA following to oppose any U.S. intervention. To be clear, I'm not at all sure if after this embarrassment at getting bogged down in a 2 year war with Ukraine that Putin is ambitious as he once might have been and is more content to just hold on to his present territory seized in Ukraine and declare that victory, and use it to attain re election, and continue his funding and support proxy wars in the Middle East and other possible regions. Which of course, in fairness, we've done as well. Still there should be no doubt, if there was one simple easy command for Putin to direct Trump, promising no intervention in Europe, would be it.

Here's Tony Lyons Leslie, Anybody who runs for President has to devise a campaign strategy. In this interview Lyons keeps being asked what states in the electoral college does RK intend to win, and he's completely evasive 3 straight times! They're just sort of shooting in the dark.

Just to be clear, Leslie, these are 2 separate events. This doesn't support W's article about RK being a VP for Trump, right? Boy RK would be a permanent political pariah if he did that. Still I think some of more MAGA like RK supporters here would go for that while maybe not saying so. So far I notice one who has seen now that RK is a hard core pro Israel, which he doesn't like. Still I don't see any defections in them. It's a blood cult. i really have a hard time believing it. Still he's done about every politically stupid thing he could do. Does he have any idea of the scope of moral revulsion by a solid majority of people he would get for doing that? Allying with Trump is such a cynical move it goes counter to everything the Kennedy's stood for in the public mind.

There's a quiet movement going on in Israel to never let Gazans resettle and pawn them off on the rest of the world, never to return! https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/opinion/israel-gaza-war.html?smid=url-share

Paul: lest you think that the omissions I'm talking about refer solely to Sperling and Jim Di make no mention of the JFK's sale of Hawk missiles to Israel. Let's deal with more omissions and maybe some fallacies.. Let's go to Jim's Gaza and JFK. It's cool. He has me on ignore anyway. ***** Jim Di: Kennedy also made it clear that he did not like having to deal with the dissolute Saud and his extremist monarchy. For him, Nasser represented the hopes and aspirations of Arab nationalism. He was the reformer who could lead into a new and different future. Consequently, JFK wanted to disconnect America from the relic of the past, namely the Saud family. Yes JFK made it so clear, he ended up betraying Nasser and supplying military assistance to the Saudis against Nasser in their War in Yemen. This is what I mean by a "glaring omission." And as I said, I looked into this 5 minutes and I found out about the JFK/Nasser relationship concerning the War in Yemen just prior to JFK's death. Perspectives on power -Summit: This left the Kennedy Administration with a decision: support Nasser or support alliances with the conservative Arab countries. Kennedy ultimately chose to defend the conservatives and break with Nasser. And you contributed Paul! Paul Rigby:Nasser was the alternative to the Saudi’s, and the US chose the latter with ongoing devastating effect, And then from Paul Rigby's text: Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. ------- Now Jim's misunderstanding of the true conflict between Nasser and the Sauds. Jim Di,--- Gaza and JFK: Kennedy understood that Nasser stood in opposition to Saudi Arabia. Not just the fact that the Saudis practiced an extreme form of Islam promoted by the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood, but also because it was an oligarchy and a monarchy. Nasser was a socialist who thought that the oil in the Middle East belonged to all the Arabs. This is why he decided to fight a war against the Saudis for control of Yemen, Jim:Nasser was a socialist who thought that the oil in the Middle East belonged to all the Arabs. Yes, Jim, the Socialist. Easy for Jim to say. But this is precisely why Jim's dream of JFK and Nasser unifying the Middle East would never have gotten off the ground. A factor that's seldom taken account on this forum is economics. Egypt has no oil! I don't care if you're a Secularist , Religious fundamentalist or a Monarch, no country gives away their national treasures, to in this case be Santa Claus to Egypt, a country with 5 times their population! And the oil rich gulf states didn't, and have enjoyed many generations of wealth since, whether we like them or not! I assume everyone here no matter what country they're from, no longer likes colonialism. But why in the world would the West want a revolution in oil country? With those goals, an eventual JFK betrayal was inevitable! Never once in Jim's piece does he address the oil in his piece!. The elephant in the room! That Nasser was a very popular figure in Egypt, as Jim pointed out is obvious, because 1) what Egyptian wouldn't want the Arabs oil? and 2)why wouldn't they want a Pan Arab league lead by their own countryman? While Jim has played up the potential of the JFK Nasser relationship. Here's what eventually happened! , Paul Rigby's text: Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. Of course the U.S.primary goal was 1) to keep a presence in the Middle East for their oil. and 2) to keep the Soviet's out. So if Rigby's text is true here, the Americans temporarily allied with their ideological enemies together against Nasser, which is an even greater double cross! But it doesn't stop there! Jim omits that JFK sold Israel Hawk missiles, which is even a triple cross of Nasser by JFK! Perspectives on power - Summit: Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway Ok, the situation involving the Missiles is complicated. But actions speak louder than words. So when push came to shove, JFK chose to ally with the oil rich interests and Israel over Nasser. (Please don't tell me that JFK had no free will, and was again the victim of the CIA, MI6, or the Dulles Brothers. He is the POTUS , and makes his own decisions,) and it's based on economics! Mission of omission Forget it Jake! It's Chinatown!, heh heh

Bad news? I suspected that at the very beginning , and asked you that. So do I. For example, I don't make any claim that JFK's sale of Hawk missiles to Israel started an arms race in the Middle East. But asserting an escalation I think is less ridiculous than some of these claims or omissions in these 2 JFK, Gaza, Israel threads. You've explained this further which is good. But honestly this just sounds like a straining, long winded rationalization with the sole purpose to convince the yanks they didn't give the store away. You sure Orkaby's not a Mossad agent? That could be a standard reaction here. heh heh Not that I think they gave the store away. I just don't think Kennedy was going to make any progress on Dimona and maybe some progress in his second term with the refugees. But some of this is more unclear now that you're saying these may not be your opinions. KIRK: So the Kennedy administration chose the Sauds. And how was it devastating in your opinion? But concerning Nasser: What were you hoping Nasser to accomplish? Thanks

One of Meidi Hasan's finest moments came when Matt Taibbi approached Hasan to be on his show with his Twitter files. I also use to like Matt Taibbi but I have enough critical faculty to change my opinion when they've changed their stripes. Full MSNBC interview here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg&t=1528s&pp=ygUYbWVoZGkgaGFzYW4gbWF0dCB0YWliYmkg

So you're a tactician, and your saying JFK's move was tactically smart. Paul: Sixth, and finally, by attaching Israel directly to the American warfare state teat, Kennedy offered both himself – in the overwhelmingly likely event he won a second term – and his presidential successors the opportunity to strengthen its control of Israel’s military, and thus political, options. Are you taking that out of a book? If so, what 's your source? Please explain exactly how does that strengthens U.S. control? Paul:Fifth, it was essential to the above that the sale was NOT explicitly linked in negotiations with Israel, a crass move that would have exposed the White House to the charge of cynical calculation. Yes, my God! how crass to link that sale of missiles to the inspection of Dimona and the Palestinian refugee situation. That would be so cynical! And yet you say in point 4. the Hawk Missile deal offered powerful political cover to Kennedy’s twin pushes to prevent nuclear proliferation and settle Palestinian refugees. So you're saying that indeed was JFK's intention, but he had to be more subtle about it? So as not to be crass, let Israel have it's Hawk missiles without any strings attached. Right? So your author thinks the U.S. giving away a bargaining chip in good faith to Israel will produce good results in the future with Dimona and the Palestinian refugees? Good karma!, Right? To that I would say he's/ you are dreaming! Israel had no intention of allowing us to inspect Dimona or buckle with the Palestinian refugee situation. **** Paul , I was asking you about your earlier statements, and you didn't respond.. You said this. Paul Rigby:Nasser was the alternative to the Saudi’s, and the US chose the latter with ongoing devastating effect, So the Kennedy administration chose the Sauds. And how was it devastating in your opinion? What were you hoping to have accomplished? Paul Rigby's : Despite concurrent Cold War tensions, Americans and Soviets appeared on the same side of the Yemeni conflict and acted mutually to confine Nasser to the borders of South Arabia. So you're saying the Americans allied with their ideological enemies together against Nasser, in the Yemen War. Again, And in your opinion, what was the effect.?

Organized plot? You don't think that just naturally happened? I could have predicted this in my sleep. It wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure they get funding. That 2007 meeting does sound pretty manly! Then that means, he's liable to do anything?

Unfortunately the most hard hitting news anchor on MSNBC, Meidi Hasan demoted and is now leaving. The reason is obviously that he's too pro ceasefire, and not enough pro Israel for MSNBC. It's too bad, for MSNBC, because even before Israel's War on Hamas, he was by far, the best interviewer, who would let the least sh-t slide. I was sent this by Chris Hayes twitter feed.

Wow, that is quite a story Sandy! I assume that was real spooky for awhile. So you were half a days distance from Tehran, out in the country? Then you moved down to Sea level closer to the gulf.? And you were there as part of a volunteer service for your church?.So did the administrators tell you where to go? How long were you in Iran? Most Iranians I know, including a woman who cuts my hair, fled the Shiites. They don't like the Shah but much preferred the life under the Shah, and wish there was some other answer. I remember you saying you were out in the Bay Area. The Shah's son lives in Atherton.. I do remember for a while hearing of Khomeini as an exile in France before returning after the Revolution.

No. W. JFK's Mideast policy was not a success at his death, and the future didn't look promising. But you're ignoring the elephant in the room. Here you cite Jim's "Gaza and JFK", piece as inspiring you to find Sperling's piece. i think you've praise both these about 3 times and went into an outburst assuming I hadn't read your Sperling piece when I had. Both pieces extol JFK as having a vigilant, hard line toward Israel and the Israeli Palestine question at the time. As I say, JFK on the issues, sound good. But in neither Sperling or Jim's piece is there a single mention that JFK ended up stoking the fire by selling Israel Hawk missiles! That is a glaring omission. Obviously neither of them researched this very well, or if they purposely omitted it, that's much worse. We already have enough JFK fluff fanboy pieces here being passed off as accurate. As I said earlier, Jim's piece "Gaza and JFK" highlighted a rehash of JFK and his relationship with Nasser that I'd heard several times before but I did acknowledge was probably good for new people coming here to read for the first time. But after only 5 minutes of researching further. I would suggest that any who might rely solely on one source, (such as K&k for example) should diversify their sources. When appropriate, seek sources outside of conspiracy community. Find out what the world is thinking. There's no secret information here, (except omissions?) All this stuff is public information. Yes, people may interpret it differently and have different opinions. You can usually tell by their writing if they have huge axes to grind. Perspectives on power The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. " How many ears must one man have? Do you need a further explanation of this W.? You've seen it now 3 times, from me and Michael informed you the other day that JFK was selling hawk missiles to Israel. And read further. "It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor." "The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel." Does that sound desirable?. Does that sound like a good policy, W.? Though this is more detailed. I'm not saying that's this piece is the last word on this like you're claiming Sperling and Di Eugenio is, (probably even after their omissions?) But I'll warn you, IMO she's more vigilant about 60's Israel than you guys apparently are and is capable of dispassionately assessing how JFK handled Israel which you guys aren't. "In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles." What this is saying, is JFK was "played," something you've never heard here before . " In layman's terms that means he was forced to give up something and get nothing from Israel. And if you read my post, that was true for the Saud's and Egypt as well. He gave Nasser money and gave the Sauds a squadron to combat Nasser! How about this? "Circumstances had forced Kennedy to choose between loyalty to conservative Arab regimes and a new openness and friendship with Nasser’s form of Arab nationalism. The choice to sell HAWK missiles to Israel also completely dashed any hope for a solution to the Arab refugee issue or of demonstrating a tough hand with Israel. " You can take form that, that the policy was muddled. There wasn't any progress made in settling the Palestinian issue, or getting any co operation from the Israeli's concerning refugees, or the Dimona reactor, as result of his policies, but he did end up selling the Israeli's Hawk missiles! Understand now? And the overall effect was like in Vietnam, things were not getting better, or peaceful or fruitful at the time of his death, and the future didn't look promising. Lots of mistrust, It's a tough job! Voila!, So let me ask you. W. Do you think any written piece that extols the virtues and applauds JFK's "get tough" policy toward Israel and omits the fact that he sold Hawk missiles to Israel is anything but a fluff piece? How about your reaction to this text about Kennedy's policies.:W. "The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance of U.S. policy toward Israel. The country that benefited most from Kennedy's Mideast policy was Ben Gurion and Israel." Of course you should never demand that people should read your submitted article when you completely ignore their post, that they obviously spent some time on. But that's cool! I've actually got a few other quotes you might find similarly disruptive. heh heh heh

I don't know what kind of diet could produce such an orange pos! He even puts Epstein to shame! Matt, I believe that. He is becoming more of an embarrassment.with every passing day. Could Nikki Haley actually have a chance of beating Biden.? It seems completely absurd! It looks like it's Donald Jr. walking him with Kimberly Guilfoyle. And speaking of Donald Jr. Now that we know Trump has been on Epstein's plane 7 times. This was his previous tweet.

Whew! W. you seem upset. W. said: Did you and Ben even read Sterling's excellent essay at the top of this thread? I did and it told me nothing I didn't already know. Ok, there was a little more detail on the timetable of the failed attempt to inspect Dimona. In fairness some of what I had learned previously was from Jim. Yes but it was never accomplished. So did Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama! Who talks about them? In a non related issue: Bill and Hilary Clinton wanted to establish health care for all Americans 30 years ago and didn't accomplish it either. Who talks about them? So did about everyone else on the planet W., and JFK failed! JFK wanted to stop the number of nations that had nuclear weapons to around 5. A good goal. Now they're , what 8-10? I don't buy Sperling's assertion that JFK could have done anything to stop it had he lived. And what would that be, a military operation?, Sperling doesn't even say. BS speculation walks! JFK attained none of his objectives on Israel and ended up selling Ben Gurion HAWK missiles? Did you read my post on this. Not the same old stuff. Israel:The problem was, of course, Israel. Why Kennedy decided to sell HAWK missiles to Israel is frequently debated. It is clear that the President hoped to use the missile to gain Israeli cooperation on the refugees and the Dimona reactor. In both cases, this policy failed. His willingness to sell the missiles before Israel signed any agreements, however, leads one to believe that he would have sold the missiles anyway. If Israel maintained, not just military equality, but superiority, then Arab countries might think twice before attacking. The result of this reasoning was two-fold: the creation of an arms race in the Middle East,and a tip in the balance o f U.S. policy toward Israel. In both cases, Israel continued its own policies while giving lip service to American interests. Kennedy’s fear that Israel would develop nuclear weapons became a valuable tool Ben-Gurion used, along with the refugee negotiations, to obtain HAWK missiles. Kennedy and Nasser, a failed relationship Again so what? he failed. RFK quit as Attorney General. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, -3 strikes you're out! The rest of what you wrote, we're pretty much in agreement. I agree, good intentions. But speculating that JFK was in any position to have pulled all this off is just dreaming! And if you're going to award JFK for just having good intentions, I bet Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama would feel the same way about these issues too! Who talks about them? If you remember, Netanyahu years back, came to Washington to talk to Republicans and bypassed Obama!

W; Kirk's meme has assigned precisely the wrong genders to the U.S. and Israel. What w.? i assigned the wrong genders? i didn't make the meme! Besides it's called a joke! Lighten up! I suppose you could say the U.S. is the male in that in that it's the world's dominant superpower. But to change you're view of us being in a subservient position. I hope you're not advocating sending U.S.troops in there. First you have no support from Congress, nor the American people. But getting back on topic, and this knee jerk acceptance that JFK would have an instant answer to this problem. But did JFK ever really buck his Congress? JFK's backing of Nasser was no revolutionary act but was backed by Congress with funds. W. you, Robert and I can huff and puff about the atrocities in Gaza. But a political reality you're ignoring is that Congress is solidly behind Israel. Though I expect that will change in time. Besides, I'm gender neutral! heh heh