Benjamin Cole

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Is there any reasonable doubt at this point that a 21st century iteration of Operation Mockingbird is alive and well?

This week's coordinated M$M assault on Spike Lee and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is proof positive, IMO.

And, in an obvious case of overplaying their hand, WaPo even dragged Oliver Stone into the smear campaign-- after blacklisting any coverage of JFK Revisited all summer.

W.--

Just out of curiosity.

You see how WaPo handles the JFKA and 9/11 topics.

But then how do they handle the 1/6 topic?

If there there is a story behind the story on 1/6, would you trust WaPo to dig it out? 

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To really see how far off this is, in my article this is a key statement:

Robert Alan Greenberg, in his book Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, describes some of what Revilo Oliver thought about the murder of President Kennedy:

The conspirators had become impatient with Kennedy when his efforts to foment domestic chaos through the civil rights movement and “economic collapse” had fallen behind schedule. (Greenberg, p. 110)

They thought JFK was a commie plant!  I mean how different can you get?  But this is how eager the MSM is to use the Q phenomenon as a discrediting device. I actually think this is an act of desperation on their part.  Sort of like pouring boiling oil over the ramparts of the castle.

"I actually think this is an act of desperation on their part." --JD

This may be right.

Something about the Afghanistan collapse is driving the establishment batty. The story is not what a long-run catastrophe and obvious, overt example of globalist hubris was Afghanistan.  The story is "Biden's Blunderous Bungle."  The MSM wants this dead albatross hung around Biden's neck and memorialized that way. They would have hung it on Trump's neck if he had pulled out. 

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

OSWALD ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DOUBT KILLED KENNEDY?

This is what I wrote about and thought would happen.  That whole rightwing Q movement would be deliberately mixed in with the JFK critical community and then be used as a brush to smear the JFK critics with.  When in fact they are not at all related, let alone the same.

I have tried to explain this on more than one occasion, once with that sell out Steven Gillon.  He was all so eager to do this in order to cover his tracks for cooperating with someone like Dale "Single Bullet Fact" Myers on a JFK special. 

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/steven-gillon-mark-lane-equals-donald-trump

This is worse than I could have imagined. The WaPo is a mouthpiece for the national security state and the Donk Party.  

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Benjamin, 

I think the narrative gets made before the commission even starts its work, the commission then seems like it is reacting, confirming or rubber-stamping the story that has already been floated throughout the media and the majority of the public are consciously accepting (or subconsciously). For example; if you have the first 10 pages of every newspaper for months being saturated with terror stories, it does the work for the commission. 

Cheers

Chris

 

Verily, you are right. The media is the blockers for the commissionistas running backs, and the national security state the coach-owner.  OK, this football analogy gets a bit clumsy and US-centric, but you know what I mean...

I am keeping an open mind.

And government commission and legislative "investigations" are always dubious, including the 9/11 Commission.  

HUAC? The Warren Commission? The HSCA? The Mueller Report? 

The government investigation mechanism has a few flaws....then the media gets on board, and the narrative is made.  

The autopsy report on RFK is remarkable, to put it mildly. There was an effort to get rid of Noguchi, the coroner. 

Who knows the state of Sirhan's mind, and if at this late date he can summon forth what happened. 

My guess is Sirhan was brainwashed, triggered.

Thane Eugene Cesar the real gunman?  Seem likely.

BTW, photos of the event have been destroyed and even stolen. 

For the purposes of this Forum, yes I think the national security state-foreign policy is a prime topic.

For this Forum, the carry-over from the JFKA is a deeper understanding of the national security state, globalism, and how it plays in today's world---and that we inherited a post-JFKA world. 

So, in my view, the national security state is a relevant issue here. 

ODS, TDS, national health care, farm policy, what happens at DOT, HUD, the various C19 issues are less relevant in this space. If you are hissy-fitting about Trump or Obama or Biden, that's fine, but I don't care in the context of this Forum. Go for it, but it seems out of place. 

I only mention ID politics as the CIA, the national security-Deep State and others seem to play the ID card now. Women's rights in Afghanistan, or the CIA hires Latinx, what have you. Globalism is presented as cosmopolitan, and anti-racist. 

And (says MSM) the biggest threat to America is those Jan. 6 cretins, not the national security state. 

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

   It may be hard to explain because it isn't true.  The lion's share of the blame for our multi-trillion dollar military debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq surely belongs to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Neocon staffers.

   Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning-- one of the few.  It is true that he later acquiesced in the prolongation of the Afghan occupation -- begrudgingly, according to Robert Gates' memoir-- but Trump's administration killed more civilians in the Middle East, "collaterally," in their first eight months in office than Obama did in eight years.

   My only real disappointment with Obama as POTUS was over his somewhat surprising acquiescence in the phony "War on Terror"-- in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

   Obama's self-proclaimed approach to military policy was, "Don't do stupid stuff," but I read somewhere that Leon Panetta advised him early on in his Presidency that, "You can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the Joint Chiefs and CIA.)

    Unfortunately, he didn't.  Would he have met JFK's fate if he had said, "No?"

W.--

Yes, I agree the loathsome W crowd got us into Iraqistan. With Donk support. 

But then, LBJ was the prime mover in Vietnam. With 'Phant support. 

Obama had eight years on Afghanie. OK, maybe he wanted to get re-elected (ala Nixon), so Obama could have pulled out early his second term (as did Nixon fro Vietnam, effectively speaking). 

I am not here to defend the nut-creep Trump.  

I do wonder if the nut-creep Trump, on foreign policy, was any worse than the Donk-'Phant establishment. He may have been marginally better. 

Here is only a portion---just part of!---of Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) web-page regarding national security, which reads like she copy-pasted by Liz Cheney's page: 

 "We must invest in diplomacy; support our military, including our National Guard and Reserves; and defend democracy, freedom, a vigorous press corps, and the rule of law abroad.

...

Ensuring stability in the Middle East. We need a regional strategy in the Middle East that addresses the threats from Iran and extremism, while also supporting human rights and addressing the terrible humanitarian situations in places like Yemen and Syria. I am a strong supporter of the alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and believe we should find a constructive approach to advance a peace process that has buy-in from Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab world. This is the best route to direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and a two-state solution.
 

Combating Iran’s destabilizing activity in Syria. The Syrian conflict has led to one of the world’s worst ongoing humanitarian crises and the worst refugee crisis since World War II. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and more than five million Syrians have registered as refugees since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. This crisis requires an international response and clear U.S. policy to address Iran’s destabilizing activity in the region. I have repeatedly supported sanctions against Iran, which are an important part of our policy to counter Iranian support for terrorism. In particular, I supported the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act, which was signed into law on August 2, 2017. This bill called for a comprehensive regional strategy and imposed mandatory sanctions on those involved with Iran's ballistic missile program, those who fund terrorist organizations, and those who commit human rights violations.
 

Addressing the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The situation in Yemen constitutes another of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Out of a total population of 28 million, over 24 million Yemenis are in need of assistance and over 14 million are in acute need. Ongoing hostilities between the Saudi Arabia-led coalition and Houthi forces have only exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. We have a responsibility to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it. Doing so enhances our security by thwarting those who wish to radicalize youth in the region.
 

Support for Israel. America and Israel are close allies whose interests in the Middle East and around the world remain strongly aligned. The deep and enduring friendship between our nations is based on values rooted in democracy and mutual strategic goals, and we must remain steadfast in our commitment to Israel’s security. With dialogue, patience, and resolve, our ultimate goal of peace throughout the region can be realized. As staunch allies of Israel, we must also stand up again the resurgence of anti-Semitism and those who enable it.
 

Curbing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly supported the sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. After extensive review, I concluded that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the agreement reached between Iran and the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China—was our best available option to put the brakes on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, and I opposed the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. Although the JCPOA was not perfect, Iran’s commitments under the pact—including an agreement to give up 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, disconnect two-thirds of its centrifuges, limit uranium enrichment to a single research facility, open its nuclear facilities to continuous monitoring, and allow stringent inspections of its uranium supply chain—represented a significant step in the right direction. I strongly disagreed with the previous Administration’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the JCPOA, since it was at odds with the guidance given by military leaders, diplomats, and our nation’s closest allies. The previous Administration’s withdrawal from the agreement has made monitoring Iran’s nuclear program more difficult, isolated us from our allies, and undermined U.S. leadership to confront Iran’s aggression in the region.
 

Deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have supported bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but we must do so responsibly and in keeping with the advice of our senior national security officials. We must also continue to work with each government to maintain stability and to ensure that the countries are not again used as bases for terrorism. This could include a limited troop presence focused on counterterrorism and training. This strategy puts the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in the lead for security and economic development and allows the United States to continue to conduct counterterrorism operations. The international community must work together to emphasize security and economic development for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to push for strong and necessary oversight of U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and a responsible approach to U.S. troop engagement to ensure that these countries cannot be used as a safe haven for terrorists again.
 

Combating aggression by authoritarian regimes. According to the Intelligence Community’s latest Worldwide Threat Assessment, authoritarian governments have intensified their efforts to undermine the United States through election interference, weapons proliferation, and cyberattacks. In response to this threat, we must continue to defend America’s democratic system and position in the world.
 

Russia. Our intelligence agencies have confirmed that the Kremlin attempted to use cyberattacks, espionage, and propaganda to undermine the 2016 and 2020 elections, and that Russia has continued to wage influence campaigns intended to undermine our democracy. Russia also launched an extended information war designed to divide our country and destroy Americans’ confidence in our political system. We must act to protect our democracy against this kind of foreign interference. As the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, I am leading numerous pieces of legislation to counter interference in our elections by foreign adversaries like Russia.

Since annexing Crimea, Russia has become even more emboldened and aggressive, and the Russian military maintains a significant presence in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s threatening behavior also includes large cyberattacks against the U.S. government and private companies’ computer systems and providing weapons to Iran and Syria. Our commitment to NATO is more important than ever. Our allies and adversaries around the world need to know that we will stand together to protect each other against military aggression. If President Putin continues to ignore international law and engage in hostile behavior, we must continue to escalate political and economic pressure on his regime and reinforce the global coalition against Russian aggression, not further isolate ourselves from our allies.

The United States and our allies should work to help the government in Kiev and deescalate the violence in eastern and southern Ukraine. I supported legislation that was signed into law in March 2014, which provided loan guarantees and other assistance to help support the new Ukrainian government and imposed targeted sanctions on Russian officials who have contributed to the crisis.
 

North Korea. North Korea’s accelerating nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a serious threat to the United States and our allies. The country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is a ruthless dictator who has committed horrible crimes against his own people. We need a comprehensive strategy on North Korea that includes diplomacy, economic pressure, and engagement with our allies in the region.
 

Strengthening relationships with North American trading partners. By working together, North American nations can improve our ability as a region to compete in the world economy and enhance our collective security. We need a revamped approach to our North American partnerships.
 

Seizing the opportunity for a new day in North America. As the three largest countries on the continent, the United States, Canada, and Mexico are strong democracies with a combined population of more than 490 million people. Our increasingly integrated economies are worth more than $20 trillion and produce almost 30 percent of global goods and services. This secure international position gives us the potential for achieving continent-wide energy independence. This would include developing a North American competitiveness agenda focused on fair trade; increasing cross-border investment, innovation, private-sector integration; and improving coordination on regulatory practices, border management, and energy. With countries working together, North America can more effectively export its products to new and emerging markets in Asia, South America, and Africa. As the chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I strongly supported including Canada in the previous Administration’s trade negotiations and worked with other senators to oppose efforts to exclude them. I also supported the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). With the additionally negotiated pro-labor and environmental changes and the elimination of a provision that would have benefitted pharmaceutical companies at the expense of consumers, I felt the agreement provided much-needed stability and economic opportunity for American farmers, producers, and consumers. A North American trading bloc is also an essential strategy to competing with China on a global scale.

---30---

There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP,  btw).  

If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP.  Sad to say. 

11 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Here's a competing Pakistani view, for which I bump:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/24/pakistan-taliban-us-retreat

US interventionism has untoward results, is fantastically expensive, cruel, yet counterproductive.  A reverse Midas touch. 

Now embraced fully by both parties, perhaps even more so by the Donks than the 'Phants. 

Hard to explain. 

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article253641358.html

I know nothing about Lucas Kunce except what is in this op-ed he wrote. 

Maybe 99 more Senators like him and something good would happen. 

2 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

Agreed. 

Agreed, but maybe LBJ-Nixon. Remember, perhaps six million people perished in the SE Asian wars and troubles. People are still stepping on cluster bombs in Laos. Who really knows what Agent Orange did? 

Vietnam set the tone that foreign wars had to be fantastically cruel and expensive, but counterproductive.   

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mills called it crackpot realism.  Great example being Walt Rostow.

In Vietnam, it was fear of letting the country go over to Ho Chi Minh.

In Afghanistan, it was really Reagan/Bush who created the war the first time.  And they decided to get in bed with the devil i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in order to defeat the USSR.  When Gorbachev decided to withdraw, he offered a perfectly reasonable resolution: a coalition government that would marginalize the radical Moslems, the mujahideen and the like. America turned it down. And this is what caused the country to descend into a horrible civil war.

 

"Crackpot realism"---what an expressive phrase. 

57 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Fun Fact: in JFK, Clay Shaw's butler is named Smedley.

SHAW It adds a taste of elegance for which I must confess a weakness now and then. I call him Smedley. His real name is Frankie Jenkins—but I could hardly imagine anything more uncouth during dinner than my turning toward the kitchen and hollering, “Frankie!”

Apart from amusing coincidences, Ben, I really don't see us as being "done" with Afghanistan, and predict we will be back in, early or late.  The current press outrage about Taliban danger to Afghans who helped during our occupation can seem like an incitement, or at least a marker on a longer road back to Kabul for us - one that may require a second "new Pearl Harbor"...

Egads, I hope you are wrong on another Pearl Harbor, of Gulf on Tonkin incident, or 9/11.  My guess is the public has had it with Afghanie. 

One thing is different from the Vietnam days: No draft.

We have a mercenary military now. I never supported a mercenary military and I do now now. This allows wars to go on forever. There are reasons to have a citizen-soldier military. If you (or I) had to send a son with Afghanie, the apathy would evaporate immediately. 

On "Smedley" it is too bad we are so many years behind in unraveling the JFKA. Well, Shaw was certainly an interesting card, a well-dressed swain in N.O.'s gay world, and a CIA asset, and globe-traveler, and house restorer before it was cool. Like a pulp fiction character.  Verily, he would have a "Smedley" under roof. 

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock 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....

You know what drives me crazy? I am a pro-business kind of guy. Yes, government can become too big and bloated. I like productive people. I love the best attributes of America.  I admire people who work for a living. 

Then I read these headlines about how huge Biden's infrastructure program is. Maybe too big! Waste! Although I can't tell it if is a $500 billion program or a $1 trillion program over the next eight years. 

You know what the US will spend on the DoD, VA and black budget and pro-rated debt in the next eight years? More than $10 trillion.

Our national conversations are not serious.  Trillions are spent in Afghanistan over 20 years, but the monologue is that Biden bungled it.

The relief pitcher that allowed a homer out of the park in the top of the ninth when the home team was down 17-4---that's Biden, and he lost the game.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-greenwald-knocks-media-changing-tune-biden

Glenn Greenwald is always worth listening to. 

Yes, lithium deposits, or a base for terrorist attacks, or women's rights are being trampled, or Russia and China will gain a leg up in a great global power game. 

So, we witness a puppet narco-state whose soldiers run away from battle and leave all their weapons behind.

If Afghanistan is worth fighting for, then anybody, anything and anywhere is worth fighting for.

That is the message from the establishment. 

7 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

War Is A Racket. 

Smedley Butler said so. 

Dien Bien Phu. de Gaulle know of what he spoke. 

JFK was not going to make a major mistake in Vietnam. LBJ did, and eventually knew it. Nixon/Kissinger knew within months after 1968 they had to get out.

I give Biden credit. He got out.  Everyone is beating up on Biden. But how did Biden inherit such a mess?

51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glad he did this.

 

Pat Speer in underappreciated in my view.

There are many top-notch researchers in the JFKA community, and Speer is certainly one of them. 

On 8/18/2021 at 12:19 AM, Pamela Brown said:

I wouldn't get too excited about FoxNews. When I was the limo researcher on their 03 JFK/A program, with everything going smoothly, everything stopped for an entire afternoon when I explained to them, through faxes and phone conversation with the producer Peter Russo how the WC reenactment of the assassination was flawed, and even the diagram about it incorrect. They were stumped. After that, they shut me out and did not air the limo segment.  

Then in 2013, after trolling conspiracy, they had Geraldo Rivera claim at the end that it was all done by 'that silly little Communist."...

Don't let your guard down...

Pamela--

Good advice. I am getting my hopes up...but will keep the guard up too. 

Meanwhile, the Deep State is alive and thriving in US media:

16 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

I started to wonder last night: is this the payback for releasing Murder Most Foul?

The thought occurred. 

But also, a rich celebrity male, or a prominent political figure, are targets for lawsuits and accusations. I am not here to defend rich celebrity males or pols, many of whom I am sure deserve even worse than they get. 

But we must adhere to the innocent until proven guilty in a court of law standard. 

Government impeachments and investigations can be smear jobs and nothing more. Accusations can be total fabrications. 

The Carter Page story is interesting. 

6 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

This woman waits 56 years to accuse Bob Dylan of abusing her. Ridiculous. How does one defend oneself when the media keeps telling people that you HAVE  To believe all accusers?

 

Witch hunts.  The accusation is a conviction.  The perfect way to torpedo political rivals, and the media is eager to play along. 

Some people are accused of sex abusers, others of being Russian agents. 

An investigation found LHO guilty, and a loner.  

Show me a conviction in an open court law, where an aggressive defense is provided, before a jury of peers.

The rest is just jibber-jabber. 

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

And the way he phrased it, "the shells at the scene indicate.....", meaning he looked at the shells. There's no way he could have made that error because automatic shells are marked "38 auto" and revolver 38 shells are marked "38 cal". He wants us to believe that he only read the "38" and assumed they were auto. Why would you assume the shells were automatics when the more common 38 ammo was revolver ?

And remember...this was the murder of a brother officer.

I assume Dallas is like Los Angeles, and the one crime that is taken more seriously by the LAPD than any other is the murder of a brother officer. Besides that, the bottom of a shell is rather small (about one-quarter inch in diameter). It would be hard to read "38" and not see the word "auto" or "cal." 

I know humans make mistakes, and even experienced professionals make mistakes. Simple mistakes may explain some flubs in the JFK evidence. It happens. 

But when a brother officer is murdered....I would think the officer gave a long, long, serious look at the shells. Even the department dullard would make sure to ID the shells properly. 

6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Biden, the State Department and the Pentagon will be all blamed for this historic disaster and deservedly so.

The next Gallup Poll will not be kind to Biden.  His whole agenda is now in jeopardy.  

This could have been easily avoided. Rachel Maddow sounded the alarm five weeks ago and brought guests on her show to emphasize the imminent peril. I and my friends talked about it and were worried. The morale of the Democratic Party's rank and file will suffer greatly. 

I am both outraged and sickened by this development. 

 

 

Give Rachel Maddow some jodhpurs and high black boots. She wants her big epalauts. 

21 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

I was in Saigon on 11/22/63, I finally called for full disclosure in '92! Where's my credit? And, they FAUX don't "report", they comment on other's theorizing, commentary and reporting... so enjoy their "reporting," as far as saluting FAUX: nah!

Have a good one!

I give you credit for calling for full disclosure. 

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Thanks Ben. I'm going to do a narrative on the shells separately. I'm working on it right now.

Great. As I recall, the experienced police vet who picked up the shells said they had the word "auto" on the base of shell, or vice versa from what he had to say later.  I have not known many cops, but the cops I have known know all about ammo and guns. Part of the job. And in Texas no less.