Sandy Larsen

Had Biden voted for the UN resolutions, Netanyahu would have said screw you and would have attacked all of Gaza without any warnings for the civilians to move south. Had Biden altered long-standing U.S. policy in providing military aid to Israel, he would now have zero leverage in keeping Israel from invading Rafah while a million Gazans taking refuge there are starving to death. Yeah, that's real smart William. Doing it you way would have sure felt good... like you were actually accomplishing something. But in reality it would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Gazans.

Biden keeps up pressure on Netanyahu as possible Rafah invasion looms https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/28/biden-netanyahu-rafah-invasion-00154847 Biden last month warned that an invasion in Rafah would be a “red line” for his administration, pushing Israel not to pursue a military campaign in the region without a credible plan to protect civilians in place. ...On the call with Netanyahu, Biden also “reviewed ongoing talks to secure the release of hostages together with an immediate ceasefire in Gaza” and “discussed increases in the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza including through preparations to open new northern crossings starting this week,” according to the White House. During the interview on ABC, Kirby noted, “There are still challenges on the ground in getting [aid] up into the north but that’s starting to happen, and the Israelis have started to meet the commitments that President Biden asked them to meet.”

You are wrong. There has been no Biden collusion. Only people whose emotions overcome their ability to think rationally.

Netanyahu was actually doing some of the things Biden asked him to do to minimize civilian casualties. I don't know every one of Biden's calculations, but I suspect he feared that Netanyahu would quit listening to him if he had voted for a UN resolution or halted arms shipments. The one thing Biden did do was stipulate what arms couldn't be used in Gaza. And of course, now he has signaled that he will change policy toward Israel if Netanyahu invades Rafah without providing refuge for the Gazans living there. Or if Netanyahu doesn't allow humanitarian aid in. I believe that Biden was saving his big guns (threatening to end military and other aid) for when the largest number civilian lives were at stake. That time has arrived. Progressives should be happy with that. But now my conservative friends are bitching that Biden is turning his back on Israel.

Netanyahu would have bombed the hell out of Gaza regardless of what Biden did. But had it not been for Biden, the number of civilian deaths would have been much greater. And right now Israel would be bombing Rafah while the millions of Gazans sheltering there die of starvation and sickness.

My take is this... 1. Biden has a strategic plan that he's been working to minimize civilian casualties. 2. Biden's critics have no idea that Biden has a strategy. What they want to see is anti-Netanyahu rhetoric coming from Biden's mouth and anti-Netanyahu actions taken at the UN. Regardless of the outcome. (Sure, they want a good outcome... but their focus is on having Biden come across as being anti-Netanyahu... period.)

Biden got Netanyahu's ear by commiserating with him over the Oct. 7 attack. Because of that, he was able to get Netanyahu to notify Gazans of imminent attacks so they could move out of harm's way. From the article I quoted in my prior post: Biden’s strategy at the beginning of the conflict had been to embrace Netanyahu publicly, while privately urging him to scale down the military operation in Gaza, but Israel has often defied US recommendations. In contrast, you would have threatened Netanyahu to hopefully achieve the same goal. Has it not occurred to you that your plan could backfire by angering Netanyahu into ignoring you and doing as he pleased with the Gazans? From the article I quoted in my prior post: ...some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice. I don't see how your approach could have done any better than Biden's approach. At least Biden's approach has had some demonstrable success. I think Biden has played it masterfully. It hasn't worked out as well as we all hoped only because of Netanyahu's stubbornness, not Biden's mishandling.

Obama and Clinton defend Biden’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza Former presidents spoke at Democrat fundraiser in New York that was disrupted by protesters. Financial Times March 28, 2024 Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, the former US presidents, sought to bolster Democratic support for Joe Biden on his handling of Israel’s war in Gaza — an area of angst and division within the party — ahead of the coming presidential election against Donald Trump. At a star-studded fundraiser held at New York City’s Radio City Music Hall on Thursday, Obama and Clinton backed Biden’s leadership on the Middle East conflict, as protesters interrupted the event to criticise US support for Israel. The turmoil in the Middle East was “one of the most important reasons to elect President Biden”, said Clinton, who repeatedly sought to broker peace in the region during his time in office between 1993 and 2001. “He genuinely cares about preserving the existence of Israel, which Hamas doesn’t. And he genuinely cares about giving the Palestinians a decent state of self governance and the support they need for self determination,” Clinton added. Obama said Biden had shown “moral conviction and clarity”, adding that “he’s also willing to acknowledge that the world is complicated and that he’s willing to listen to all sides in this debate”. The support from Clinton and Obama comes with Biden facing a wave of criticism from the left of the Democratic party — including Arab-American communities in key swing states, particularly Michigan — that has threatened to harm his re-election chances in November. Biden has been increasingly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct of the war recently, saying he was not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties in Gaza and ensure access to humanitarian aid in the enclave. Israel launched its war against Hamas after the group killed 1,200 Israelis in an October 7 raid on the country last year. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has so far killed more than 32,000 people in Gaza, according to Palestinian authorities, as well as displaced 1.7mn of its 2.3mn inhabitants and fuelled a humanitarian catastrophe in the enclave. US officials have warned that Israel risked losing international support if it continued with its offensive without adequate plans to protect civilians. But Biden has still not endorsed a permanent ceasefire or the conditioning of US military aid to Israel, as some Democrats have been calling for. “There are too many innocent victims, Israeli and Palestinian. We’ve got to get more food and medicine, supplies into the Palestinians. But we can’t forget, Israel is in a position where its very existence as at stake,” Biden said during the fundraiser. Obama’s support for Biden’s stance on Israel is particularly significant because he had a more tense relationship with Netanyahu while in office between 2009 and 2017, and some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice. Biden’s strategy at the beginning of the conflict had been to embrace Netanyahu publicly, while privately urging him to scale down the military operation in Gaza, but Israel has often defied US recommendations. Biden has also been calling for Israel to accept a “two-state solution” at the end of the conflict, which Netanyahu has rejected, though the US president said it was still possible. “I‘ve been working with the Saudis and with all the other Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan and Qatar. They’re prepared to fully recognise Israel,” Biden said on Thursday. “But there has to be a post-Gaza plan, and there has to be a train to a two-state solution. It doesn’t have to occur today, but there has to be a progression, and I think we can do that.” [End] From the above article: Obama’s support for Biden’s stance on Israel is particularly significant because he had a more tense relationship with Netanyahu while in office between 2009 and 2017, and some of the former Obama administration had been warning that the Israeli prime minister had a history of ignoring US advice.

Thanks for posting that Jim. The following sets up my comment: 1. An element of the CIA plotted the assassination, and also plotted the false flag operation designed to blame Cuba and Russia for it. The available evidence proves that. 2. The available evidence also proves that the Generals had been tasked with controlling the autopsy in a way that would cover up shots from he front. It occurred so quickly that it had to have been part of the CIA plot. Note that numbers 1 and 2 contradict one another in that #1 indicates a conspiracy while #2 indicates a lone gunman. Why would the CIA plotters have designed the plot this way? Because had LBJ chosen NOT to take advantage of the prelude to war created by #1 (or not been convinced by it), the (faked) autopsy evidence would have allowed the authorities to proceed with the lone gunman solution to the assassination. Thereby eliminating the need for the US government to investigate further beyond the designated patsy. Which, of course, benefited the plotters. For the plot to work, it was absolutely necessary that Kennedy's body be taken to Bethesda for the autopsy. The above is roughly Peter Dale Scott's Phase-1/Phase-2 theory. The evidence for it is so strong, and it makes so much sense, that I consider the theory to be fact. That said, it makes absolutely no sense for the plotters to have designed the plan to work the way it did if LBJ were an integral part of the plan. Because if LBJ were indeed an integral part, the plotters could have simply asked him if he wanted them to make it look like the Cubans or Russians were behind the assassination. They then could have planned the assassination accordingly. There would have been no need for a Phase-1/Phase-2 plan. Therefore, your argument in this thread makes a lot of sense... that it was someone in the Secret Service who instigated the snatching of JFK's body from the Texas authorities. One of the first SS agents you mentioned, Emory Roberts, makes a lot of sense for this role. He was the same agent who had instructed Agent Henry Rybka to fall back from the rear area of JFK's limousine, causing a perplexed Rybka to stop and raise his arms several times in protest.

Jagger with a country western twang! Who would'a thought? This is the second time Denny Z. has brought out the young'uns!

What would you have done differently, William?

Denise, You can download uncropped high-resolution scans of the autopsy photos here: https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back of head (15%3A16) (HT).jpg

To your caddie: "Hand me my four iron.... No, make that my 30-06 rifle."

Willie Nelson had a ranch here in Utah when I was younger, located between my mothers hometown of Fairview and Birdseye (populations 1200 and ~50 respectively). I understand that the IRS confiscated the ranch back in the 1990 to satisfy a tax debt. It is currently for sale for $666,000 if anybody is interested.

Chuck, Had Mayor Cabell of Dallas told the chief of police that LHO was suspect, the chief surely would have been surprised and asked how the mayor could have known such a thing. Because of that, it's a little hard to believe that's how it came down. However, I just recalled something that happened that, if true, makes a whole lot of sense. Not too many years ago a forum member mentioned an apparent fact that somebody had called a tip into the police saying that someone with a rifle (or shotgun?) had just walked into the Texas Theater. That's something that the perpetrators could easily have done, that would guarantee a huge police response! But still, for this to work, it would have been necessary for the police to already be looking for LHO. And to have an accurate description of him. I don't know enough about that part of the story to figure out how the police could have gotten that information. I do recall hearing that Roy Truly fingered Oswald as a suspect around the time the police were checking out the snipers nest.

My whole point is that some of the photos are faked. If I assume one of the photos is real in order to prove that another is fake, then I have accomplished my goal whether or not I am right in my assumption! Because if I am right in my assumption that the one photo is real, then I have proven the other is fake. On the other hand, if I am wrong in my assumption that the one photo is real... well the only way I can be wrong is if the one I assumed is real is really fake! So, either way, I have proven a photo to be faked. This obvious fact seems to be beyond your comprehension level. If it weren't, you would have seen the flaw in your critique right away before posting it. Or... maybe it's just your dogmatic insistence that is making you say dumb things. What "irrefutable scientific evidence" are you talking about? If you think that a photo in and of itself is irrefutable evidence, then you are sorely mistaken. Unless you think that Dick Van Dyke really danced with penguins.

You mean the DPD was told that Oswald was the designated patsy, and that was the reason DPD directed their police officers to go to the Texas Theater and arrest Oswald? If so, that would mean that the head of the DPD was in the the conspiracy. I think it's much more likely that the conspirators somehow brought to the DPD's attention evidence of some kind indicating Oswald should be a suspect. Faked evidence.

You're wasting your time Keven. Ideologues hear only what they want to hear and they disregard the rest.

I doubt Trump is Tucker's source because Tucker knows he isn't trustworthy.

Jim, I don't know if you realize this, but Roger's motive for insisting the WC was Johnson's idea is that his theory is that Johnson was a major player in the assassination plot, and indeed a necessary element of it. That seems to be the case to me, after debating this point with Roger on other recent threads.

Tucker hates Pompeo and says he's a criminal. In return, Pompeo tells Tucker some CIA secrets? Makes no sense to me. Were Tucker and Pompeo pals in the past?

Jim, I don't understand... how do you get the impression that Pompeo is Tucker's source? The impression I get is that we still don't know who the sources is, but that Pompeo (former CIA Director) is afraid Tucker's source will reveal something that the CIA doesn't want us to know. So Pompeo has a lawyer call Tucker to try and intimidate him into not talking.

Richard, I agree with al the points that you make here. Even though I admitted to egg on my face, that was only to admit that Mexico City did indeed know about the Cuban Consulate visit but chose not to report it to headquarters. I never thought that there was was reason to believe there was a nefarious reason behind that decision. Including anything to do with a mole hunt.

Right. But it was Harriman who said he consulted the Sovietologists. When I said that Harriman conveyed this information to Air force One, I didn't mean personally/directly. But I have corrected my comment to make it clear. Thanks.

Europe and America should create a Palestinian State and a Marshall Plan for quickly building it. Leave Gaza as-is for a Holocaust-like museum reminding everybody what Hamas and militant Israelis did to the Palestinian people.