Kirk Gallaway

I'm not sure if subsequent posts were pro staying in Afghanistan or not , but I'll try to address what Doug's saying. Doug: In my opinion America and the free would will pay heavily in geopolitics for what Biden had done. In his speech yesterday he claimed he had ended the "Forever War." Ok, so what do you propose? Are you making the argument we should stay indefinitely because after all it's only 20-30 billion a year to employ a small force of 2500 who keep things reasonably stable in at least Kabul? Doug: In my opinion America and the free would will pay heavily in geopolitics for what Biden had done. In his speech yesterday he claimed he had ended the "Forever War." Then he went on to declare a new war, this one on terrorists who threaten America. But that's not a new war, presumably isn't that what we say we've been doing for the last 20 years? But we don't know the working reality of that statement. He's done the deed and how do we know he's not just trying to assure the hawks that America just won't roll over in the future. We don't know how much commitment that statement entails. RE New Yorker article:200,000 people Doug? So we're a lot better at making friends than I ever thought we were! So we owe it to everybody whoever co operated with us? I'm not going to trust the Taliban , but is there any point in them seeking reprisals on 200,000 people? They've got a country to run and have to understand to keep it from crumbling they are going to need some cooperation from world community. Doug: China now knows it can move against Taiwan. The terrorists now know they can move against America's homeland, maybe as proxies for China and Russia. I'm not sure what you mean specifically by the Middle East terrorists moving against the U.S in our homeland as proxies, but we certainly can't be sure to be safe , from terrorist attacks based within the U.S.. China moving against Taiwan is the big one, isn't it? But of course Taiwan has the "silicon shield" . In some senses Taiwan Semi conductor has the whole world hostage and if it was, for any reason, to stop production, the world would be shut down. So they hold some chips against a Chinese invasion. Of course, you have an impressive resume Doug. I've won a couple of Mandarin Speech contests and was considering being an interpreter many years ago, but decided i didn't want to go that route. But it did leave me some knowledge about the Chinese culture. This could sound Pollyanneish , but they've had a long history of being invaded but not being an imperialist power. They seem to be intent on taking over the world economically using far less weapons and bombs than our history shows we have. We'll see if that's where history's trending. We largely gave them Hong Kong. But in the meantime,let's hope we'll l be hearing mostly a lot of saber rattling about them taking over some largely uninhabited South Seas Islands.

You might find this interesting Anthony, as well as others. A Walter Cronkite interview about the Warren Report with John Mc Cloy. John Mc Cloy was a very accomplished person prior to being picked for the Warren Commission. But it is interesting at how the art of public speaking has evolved. After a somewhat prepared statement, when asked questions, Mc Cloy continually looks away in the interview as if referring to his notes, that don't really exist. He can't seem to know what to do with his glasses and nervously fidgets at times. Modern public speakers emphasize being more relaxed and there's a developed art of distinguishing "tells" in body language. But not so much back in the day. One could certainly get the impression from Mc Cloy's body language that he's hiding something. Around 4:20, "I sat at the window with the very rifle at what seemed, must have been the exact spot that whoever the assassin was sat"

Interesting fodder for conspiracy! Notice the curious timing in sync with Fox News lambasting Biden's speech today for hunkering down on his ending of the Afghan War, and vigorously defying elements of the MSM and the Defense establishment.. Is it really a coincidence that Glen Greenwald is in lockstep with Fox News and is now tweeting as to Biden's alleged dementia" Glen Greenwald: Anyone who has paid attention to politics for any period of time has seen Biden over the years. Is anyone willing to say with a straight face that his cognitive decline and even physical impairment aren't clearly visible? Doesn't mean full-blown dementia, but we can all see it. August 30 Very curious timing, why now?

Chris, Regarding Your quotation below of Robert Kiyosaki's about Kamala Harris's VP running mate. Kiyosaki: TRUTH to come out. When Kamala is President the House and Senate will have to confirm her choice for Vice President. Her VP choice will show the world who the real “PUPPET MASTER’s” are. Stay awake. Rarely will people ever see who is “the real Wizard of Oz,” behind the curtain. You've mentioned Robert Kiyosaki before Chris. Robert Kiyosaki is another one of these get rich quick shysters, that I've always resented his marketing handle which is to put down his poor financially unsavvy biological father in favor of his financially savvy sort of adopted "rich father". I always hated his willingness to use his real father as a stooge in his marketing scheme. I think that says volumes about him as a person, but that's me.. I think the proof in the pudding about Kiyosaki is that he is actually a part of Trump U. and has done many seminars with Trump. Of course you know that. That's why you always seemed so willing when you first came here to embrace Trump as some savior against the "Deep state" (which in Trump talk, is any entity that could possibly collect taxes from him) and were the first here to suggest the election was stolen. Similarly in your chosen topics, there's very little about climate change, wealth inequality, very little disdain for the financial elites, you're actually down on taxing the rich, stating the same reasons that the rich always use. "The rich never pay taxes anyway", and then you use the ever present elitist threat," besides the rich will just pick up and move somewhere else", which I'm sure happens a lot in the U.K., but not much in the U.S. While the financial elites barely deserve a mention, the whole problem to you is solely the totalitarian government which is exactly the pablum the elites try to tell the everyday people in their long term objective to defund the government while they're controlling it, so they can squeeze the government of resources in a way to leave only their priorities remaining. I'll credit you that hopefully you're not conscious of that, but are another aspirant, duped into another "get rich in America" dream. Anyway, those are just my impressions from rather corporate statements you've made and influences you cite. Speaking of which, As for your quotation of Kiyosaki, whose obviously no fan of Kamala Harris. That's sort of typical of the unsubstantiated statements, you're sometimes liable to post here on this thread Chris. There is nothing more behind it than a fat rich billionaire turned political prophet, airing his wacko suspicions of a supposed "Socialist" who would dare insinuate that Kiyoshi pays more taxes. In the end, he doesn't even deliver the VP's name, because it's all a tease to get more subscribers. And you don't have to speculate any more about it than that. It's like that other right wing tripe rumor I heard here during the 2016 election that the DNC knowingly made Biden the party nominee for President knowing he was soon to die (or maybe killing him?) in order to make Harris President!

Doug, you keep pounding home the political price Biden will pay for his blunders in Afghanistan. I've always seen from the links you post that you have what I have interpreted as old right wing friends that occasionally pop up in your links and newer left wing friends. It seems to me Biden is being punished because the President fled and his army collapsed. To this you would normally blame American Intelligence. Personally I've always thought these agencies are like huge elephants in the room who always ended up shooting themselves in the foot to mix metaphors. It never impresses me as something that necessarily can carry off anything in detail, much less an all imposing "deep state", but I digress. It's the arms suppliers and the contract people who are the chief beneficiaries.. The neocons hated Trump's rhetoric and then found the reality of Biden turned out to be worse. If the neocons have no place else to go, that's a good development. But at least we're starting to ask some questions. If this does in fact ruin Biden's presidency as you predict it is a victory for the neocons. We hear these cries of "who will ever trust the U.S, militarily anymore". If that's a greater barrier to them getting involved with us. I think that's another good thing, as well that we have should have a lot more reticence about nation building in the future. The Republicans will always have the luxury of criticizing, while on one side of their mouths they'll try to act like they realize they can't be there forever for the public and the other side, they'll never really propose how they would have pulled out any differently, or pulled out at all. JMO

That's true Ron, but what's so completely pathetic is what a squirming l-ar he was in these interviews when asked if he conversed with Trump on Jan.6th. First, obviously feeling he was on home ground with Fox's Bret Baier, he was completely taken sideways by the Baier asking him. Watch how he hems and haws and obfuscates. But if that isn't pathetic enough, you'd think he would have been better prepared the second time when further questioned by another guy. Look at the first 2:08 of this for the clips. It wasn't at all significant to Jordan if he talked to Trump before, during, or after the riots. You'd think maybe the content of the conversation with Trump might jog his memory, but he can hardly remember. I love how Jordan positions himself in the second interview with an American flag and a football behind him. You'd think after the allegations of him being quiet about the pedophile coach in the locker room in his past, he's be careful about evoking his locker room past. And to think Kevin Mc Carthy actually wanted to include him on the Jan.6th hearings, before Pelosi nixed it. He's accomplished almost nothing in Congress other than, of course being a a legendary Republican hero against the National Security State to Benjamin heh heh

Richard said: it would be political suicide--he would only gain points among far-left radical progressives and marginalized groups. No gains anywhere else. For the vast majority of moderates and average liberals he certainly gains nothing, and it will give conservatives ammo to use against when he runs for President. Last thing he wants to see is the campaign TV commercial with pictures of RFK's corpse lying on the kitchen floor and having that tied to his insincere smiling face. Richard, You're pretty much reiterating the political angle I was saying. But the way things have polarized now. I don't think Newsome would care what the Conservatives say about the Sirhan parole in Conservative ads in Red states, he'd just go for the blue states, but why would he take that unnecessary chance in moderate states?. There is no political pick up in Newsome not taking action. And you're probably right.

I agree with your sentiments, Ben. But I'll give you a different slant than the "victim" slant you're looking for and liable to hear here. These stories have been around for a long time, and even if they were a concerted MSM effort to discredit JFK. It's always backfired. In fact, I think with post 40's crowd who were aware of the power dynamic they grew up with, by in large it's only added some mystique to JFK, as well as a lot of naughty actions, by the young Kennedy siblings of the 70's. The Kennedy's despite all the tabloid action, are the most durable political dynasty on the American scene, and it's not even close. Not that the successive generations of Kennedy politicians can get away with that now. The only outlier, is the millenials and younger super politically correct crowd, who might view this article with disgust.But I don't see that impairing the new somewhat wholesome generation of Kennedy politicians.

This is good stuff! And not easy to predict. 1)Personally I don't think Newsome will be recalled. 2) I don't think this recall will interfere at all in his ambitions for higher office. Which is not to say, he'd be successful. He'll be trounced over and over again for his dinner in Napa , as he should be. But a lot of it is sour grapes about the pandemic, and he's definitely made mistakes. But most people understand that's a hard thing for any politician to navigate, but he comes out on the right side of history. Though the variant has complicated things in what was to be a cakewalk. Some think because of results in the UK and India, that it should peak within a couple of weeks in the U.S., but in California, it's confined mostly to rural, unvaccinated areas. Jim's right, if he lets Sirhan go free, it won't be in any activist sense, he'll just say "let the will of the courts be done", and distance himself from any involvement, because he is an unabashed politician, and as Richard says, 1) the thing he least wants to do is entangle himself in a conspiracy theory. but 2 )it's not a good decision for the straight liberals who support him who believe that Sirhan did kill RFK, 3) He gains nothing with the moderate crowd, but looks like a bleeding heart liberal, which is not a good look for a liberal like Newsome. heh heh.

A motley crew of anti vaxer's speaking out of their oppression in a San Diego board of supervisors meeting.

My best wishes as well. Rest up, do only what you're comfortable with. Get well!

I think Obama could have and should have gotten out of Afghanistan in his first term. It would have put the blame on the War, squarely on the people who started it, Bush and the Republicans. As it is now, any online newbie from anywhere can parachute into, and be an expert on the American political scene and make no distinctions and declare the Democrats just another war party. I don't really forgive Obama for that. I think of Obama as the "Jackie Robinson" of the Presidents, and he saw himself as that.. I think it has to do with Obama's psychological make up. I guess anybody can be an armchair psychoanalyst. There's an interesting anecdotal story about Obama. As a student at Harvard when Obama won editor of the Harvard Review, later his leftist allies who voted for him over the conservative candidate became upset with Obama , for bending over backwards to the conservative he beat. Later as President, Obama was honorable and too concerned with being fair and got steamrolled by Mitch Mac Connell. There are numerous incidents of that, including one in the fall of 2016. Being the first black President he didn't want to be seen as uppity. Just my take.

Ben: Concerning his exhaustive research into Amy Klobuchar talking points. BEN:There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP, btw). China is a real economic threat. It's the one thing Trump got right. If you loathe the CCP, then why are you putting her down for that? But my eyes are already glazed over. I'm not sure why you chose a midwest Democrat Amy Klobuchar's sort of boiler plate foreign policy statement to mean anything. She actually ran for President in 2020 and was beaten soundly. So she doesn't represent a sizable chunk of the dems. About the only good foreign policy things I can say about her is that she was for the U.S, Iran multi national agreement,( that actually was backed by Putin and Russia if that validates it for you,) and that was opposed by Cheney and was jettisoned by peacenik Trump. She also favored Obama opening up relations with Cuba, again opposed by Cheney, and Trump dumped that as well.. These are substantive issues. Unfortunately in the U.S. there are only 2 parties, so they cover a lot of ideological ground. Ben:If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP On the surface, that may seem so , but you're confusing the pablum that Tucker is directly feeding you, but Steve Banon was the architect of, as reality. You talk about the "populist wing of the GOP". Do you have anything specific on who you're talking about? Can you name me one person that you'd like to defend? The great majority of the "populists" you're mentioning were never really on record espousing anti national security state views, (maybe the Paul's,) and if you look through their history in public statements, were pro Bush's War in Iraq. They're just blindly following whatever Trump says. There is a character element in all this stuff as well. So there's a bit more going on under the surface. Ben I get from you there's one big issue and that's the U.S. National Security State. Oh and of course "identity politics". But since you were probably the last person here to predict Biden would get out of Afghanistan, you can now see there's a lot more resistance in the U.K. and Europe and throughout the world than just the U.S, "Deep State". But there's also a myriad of other issues that we citizen's of the U.S. face; there's issues of Environmental Protection and climate change. There's a struggle for civil rights and voting rights. In the U.S.. there are severe income inequality issues and some of us are trying to build a more equitable health care system. We're going through a pandemic and there's been a massive economic displacement here and throughout the world. These problems do exist whether Tucker and Glen Greenwad talk about them or not. No I don't agree with that either Ron. So Biden has a choice, but Obama didn't have a choice, because he would have been assassinated.?

Wow! Not the first Stone I thought to roll, but I did think Keith may have had 9 lives! RIP

John said: However, I am not sure Larry is right when he says a capitalist country should be able to compete economically with communist China. It would be true if China was a communist country. However, it is more accurately described as "state capitalist". This is the most effective economic system ever and very difficult to compete with. Most importantly, the government controls "labor costs" and major investment in the economy (it also controls outside investment). This is really a cogent point. It's really a hybrid of Capitalism and a planned economy. For example, Two of the biggest issues in the U.S. now are 1) wealth inequality. The CCP are going after the billionaires and are going to be a lot more successful than the U.S. ever could be. 2) There's a lot of talk by both parties in the U.S. about the power of social media. Europe has taken a more regulatory stance, but The CCP is just sweeping in and taking control in a manner we would consider Draconian, and there's not a long history, or culture of respecting individual rights to offer much resistance. The weakness is it rests on critical decisions, by a very centralized group and if the judgment is wrong it could be, at some time disastrous, as for example it has occasionally been with overbuilding, as there are 100,000 people cities that are completely unoccupied. But up to now, the economy has been such a powerhouse, it can easily be absorbed. The Chinese are everywhere funding foreign infrastructure projects. There is a total of about 800 foreign infrastructures projects in every major continent. In Panama they are talking about the increased Chinese influence. There is still a loyalty or a willingness in Latin America to look upon the U.S. as a big brother. I'm not sure why, but there is a perception that the U.S. could be their natural benefactor if the government didn't from time to time get in the way. But that perception has to be changing. I remember for many decades there was a grueling, bumpy 9 hour bus ride from Guatemala City to a remote region in the Guatemalan rain forest and the Mayan temples of Tikal. I didn't go there over a decade and 15 years ago when I last went, I found that whole route had now been paved. I wondered how the Guatemalan government managed to do that? And I found out it was an infrastructure project funded by the Germans. The Germans? If the U.S. had done more of that rather than just selling arms to perpetuate a 5% middle class that preserved our corporate interests, they had the chance to be the benevolent super power that the West so much looked up to after WWll.

Jim, we had this discussion, maybe a year ago. Didn't you argue that Nixon was the worst for the reasons that Ben stated. The overall loss of life during Nixon's administration was the greatest and he and Kissinger knew early on the war was unwinnable. It's a persuasive argument, the overall loss of life. But anyway, welcome aboard! I agree of the two, W. is worse because he chose to enter a completely elective war, and was under no real pressure from the MIC, and the extent of both his and Nixon's actions were both very far reaching. But you can always argue Nixon inherited the Vietnam War, though his role in history shows a sinister influence before he ever became President. As for Trump, I'd say, he was the least fit for President, and the extent of the damage he's caused to the Nation itself, isn't fully known and can't really be assessed truly for probably the decade. Though it's a good argument to say the loss of life under Trump because of the pandemic will always be hard to determine, but will at least contained to the country, that he was President. And I notice W's chief partner in crime, Tony Blair has now called Biden's actions "imbecilic".

That's funny Adam! For awhile you really had me going there! I can think of another thread here, where utterings like that are almost commonplace. So literally nothing can make me even flinch anymore! ** It's like the U.S. is so empty within, that they're completely given over to the world and idle pleasures come streaming in from without, and are welcomed as a diversion. And wielding the fate of others becomes an amusement which will always find an opportunity toward indulgence. -Maybe Trump was the true American President! heh heh ***** Larry said: Yep, there will never be a shortage of reasons for foreign intervention - strategic, humanitarian, security. And that will generally come to include cultural intervention (projecting our system of democracy and equal rights overseas), regime change, nation building, and all the opportunities that go along with it. After all, its worked so well for us.... Well put! Larry, you can see it now in the myriad of rationalizations to stay. It's like we're coming to grips that we're going to have to jettison our true egalitarian Afghanistan dream of the convenience of home delivery from Amazon, and a Mac Donald's at every corner and a Starbucks on every block. for every Afghani man, woman, and child.

Well Pat's posted this. How are you doing Pat? How is your recovery going? Great interview! Interesting to hear about your unique JFKA journey, and I've always wanted to hear about your encounters with hard core JFKA "experts" or in some cases dogmatists.

There's nothing "macro" about this at all. She's going after Dylan's deep pockets and hopes to settle out of court. As far as the media carrying this story. In this day, it's called "news". You can expect them to report on an ongoing suit against a celebrity like this every time. The reason is that it is of interest to some people. People really eat this stuff up!

Yes I remember that. I thought you might be confusing Cheney's statement as to Sadamm not being directly involved with 911, to Bin Laden. For Cheney to admit that, credibility wise, would be in fact giving away his store. Maybe I missed it but have you found any evidence to back up your assertion that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive?

W. I agree with you. i think Doug is greatly overestimating the Taliban as an international threat. W: Both Dick Cheney and FBI Director Robert Mueller later testified that evidence implicating Osama Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks "was never forthcoming." What is the source of this? This was in some Senate Subcommittee hearing? ***** The reaction to this withdrawal is pretty much as I predicted. The outrage, the pressure on Biden. The people on the ground, the soldiers who previously fought, the same usual historian media "talking heads" weighing in in the news media. But now positively on the withdrawal, I am starting to hear more stories in reflection of what a miserable boondoggle this entire war was. Despite Biden's claims a month ago, that there wasn't a complete fall to be reckoned with, at least anytime soon. I knew that was BS. But I thought that it might take a month rather than 10 days. Isn't that all the more reason that we shouldn't be there? Obviously the haste by which this has happened has produced some problems. The Taliban is prudent to appear moderate and cooperate with the evacuation. Why step on the tale of a tiger when the tiger's leaving? I was hoping to find the interview to post here of Jim Acosta with Jerry Brown on Saturday where Brown praised Biden's actions as showing courage, and went into one of his good rants about the endless wars, hitting upon JFK, and the CIA's role in the Bay of Pigs briefly and pleading for these cycles of endless war to stop. I thought "not bad for an 83 year old!"

President Ghani of Afghanistan has now fled the capital leaving it completely open for the Taliban. ******* Absolutely right W. As I said, Biden was going to take a lot of heat for this. It's sort of a cheap shot that the Republicans and the media are delivering. You notice none of them are coming out for a massive military action to fight back one last time to salvage the 20 years. Though Biden's going to send more troops to assist in evacuation, which is technically a blunder that they'll also thrash him for. A President does this in the first year of office, so he has plenty of time to recover in the next 3 years. In the case of Biden, he's hoping his covid relief package, infrastructure bill and relative vaccination success, (most people understand Biden's not going to hold much sway over people who simply refuse to get vaccinated) offset the 20 year foreign policy embarrassment. Trump could have done this in his first year and won some begrudging approval from Democrats and would have looked brilliant with Middle America for breaking up the "stalemate" in Washington. But despite his campaign rhetoric, he didn't. Obama, if he had listened to Biden, could have also and lay the historic responsibility of these occupations where it belongs, on the Republicans, who initiated them. But he ended saddling the Democrats to another pro war party, which is a perception with a sizable number of people, that lasts to this day.

W: I'm not one to blame Trump or Biden for trying to get us out of the quagmire, Trump trying to get us out of the quagmire?? If he wanted to, he could have, in his first year in office back in 2017, just like Biden did. Whatever Trump's rhetoric, in the end he's blaming the withdrawal on the Democrats. That tells you how sincere he was about pulling out of Afghanistan. Just as the increased Intelligence and Defense budgets under Trump. W: What concerns me is whether the American public will get an honest, accurate appraisal of the 20 year Afghanistan War fiasco, "Honest, accurate appraisal?" In the final analysis, most people can see it's a 20 year war, that's probably going to end in images similar to the fleeing from Saigon in 1975. That's not going to be perceived as successful. As far as the "Rambo syndrone": The case that we could have bombed our way to victory as some alleged in Vietnam is not going to be swallowed in such a disfragmented ,tribal country and culture that foreign powers have been warring over for centuries. People aren't, at least that stupid. After 1975, Jimmy Carter had a very peaceful administration. Why?, in part it was Carter, and in part, because people didn't want to go war. Then Reagan got in, and it gradually escalated, Beirut , Grenada, bombing Khadaffy, escalating to Iran contra etc.. In the future, the choice to not fight is always there. Keep in mind, the Democrats in the house voted solidly opposing going to war in Iraq. Now we've finally got a few right leaning people who have abandoned the neocons.

Re: Trump, you know I've been thinking about something that might get us out of this mess. It may seem a little far fetched but hear me out. Why don't we produce a "Truman " like movie where Trump still thinks he's President. Trump's followers after watching a few episodes will follow in suit and in a couple of months, we'll be right back to normal! 😃 What do you guys think?

The question by David was: CIA budget cut? Does anyone know their total yearly budget, for any year? The answer is yes, there is a budget, that's approved every year, and is a matter of public record. But that of course doesn't stop a black budget within the budget, and money going to very nefarious things. The biggest parts of the pie are to the National Intelligence budget, (NIP 62.7 billion in 2020.) which includes the CIA, and the Military Intelligence budget (MIP 23.1 billion in 2020). I love this disclaimer by the Director of national Intelligence. In addition, other departments and agencies may engage in certain activities related to intelligence for their own mission needs that are not captured here. I found out some interesting things. During the last 4 Obama years, Intelligence was largely underfunded , actually given less money than they asked for(with one exception on MIP in 2014), and during the Trump years they were almost all over funded. 2017 budget is largely done by the time Trump gets to office. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/ic-budget Of course this doesn't eve take in account, Homeland Security.