Dennis Berube

Have you seen oliver stones film on Ukraine wm? Your espousing directly opposite opinions on the matter, although congruous with MSM talking points. If you have, what is your opinion of it?

Jeff, didnt Assange offer to testify/ hand over what he had on the whole affair if he was granted immunity. I believe the state department declined him. Thats the kind of investigation Kirk, William, and the forgotten CV, champion. Of course that may have brought up the Seth Rich thing that Assange made comments about.

The first article about this said it was a ship owned by JP Morgan. They arent mentioned at all in hopsickers article. Pretty thin on direct evidence too, but im interested to see what happens.

Nice job evading the question put to you Kirk. I would’ve avoided it too as you couldn’t have had a reasonable answer. Holmes is a state department employee who claimed to overhear trump on a phone call. Bombshell stuff Kirk. I know whenever i hear state Department i assume the opposite of what they put out is the truth, experience, not paranoia. Meanwhile Obama cant stop giving speeches to the Carlyle group and all his other wall street friends, just like hrc did.

Have you 3-5 that believe in the US state department propaganda seen Oliver Stone's series of interviews with Putin (yes William, that modern Hitler you believe in)?? I'm willing to bet not. The VERY FIRST THING SCHIFF SAID was to repeat the complete lie that Russia invaded Ukraine. If you believe that, then this thread should basically die a confusing death. Read Ray McGovern's recent article. The title is perfect for some of the things that have been committed to the internet in this thread. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/14/ray-mcgovern-ukraine-for-dummies/ Bob for someone who "researches... espionage related subjects" you seem to agree with official western storytales quite often. The story of the investigation of MH-17 has been completely political. Even yesterday, the "investigators" released phone calls between Russia and Donetsk and they are claiming that is evidence that Russia aided in the shootdown, that is not evidence at all Bob, and you should know that having studied espionage.

I'm sure WM is about to tell us how Putin rigged the referendum and invaded Crimea. He is a white Russian and is unable to view history through any other lens apparently. Even though fascists have taken control of the Ukraine once the western sponsored coup succeeded, somehow our media is unable to present those facts/images to Americans. I have a feeling if Putin was backing these fascists, we would never hear the end of it. Well we didn't hear the end of the "Russian invasion" of Crimea anyway. That is totally different than having the Russians rig the 2016 American elections, which never happened. Your hyperbole was noticed however. Hillary and the CFR appreciates your support. The point though, would be that the "democratic establishment" is subservient to the deep state just the same as the republicans because of the top down methods of control emanating from the DNC, which has been dominated by the Clinton circles for years. Their networks would never allow someone in that establishment to question the big events, so effectively, they are the deep state. Once your compromised, the rest is just semantics. I couldn't agree any more with the first sentence and disagree any more with the second. Anyone who takes orders from the CFR is not a friend. The Clinton's crime circle clearly has major influence in the DNC. The current chair of the DNC was almost Hillary's running mate, so yeah I think their cadre is definitely a major part of the problem as to why the Democratic party consistently runs from truth and their best candidates (Gabbard, Sanders). I think it should tell us all something when Gabbard gets a polling boost after Hillary spreads false propaganda all over the place, namely, Clinton is an embarrassment and the country wants nothing to do with her.

Ok. Yours appear to be the DNC, the Clintons, the New York Times/WAPO, Obama/Biden, and the MSM. Hillary's flatulence regarding Russian "asset" Gabbard should have been a wake up call to some of you people. It should have made you realize you now faced a political crossroads. Either Hillary is honest and trying to safeguard the country against further Russian interference, or she is a completely vindictive and hopeless shill for the corporate wing of the Democratic party and a figurehead of the "deep state". Considering she brags about getting instructions from the CFR, id say its the latter. https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-brags-about-getting-her-marching-orders-from-the-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr/5504999 In case you don't manage to read it, here is a direct quote from your "advocate". I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.[5] But Russia must have made her say that... And Russia must have made her pay Fusion to concoct a story. If she was a New Frontier or New Deal democrat, she would've never needed any of this crap. Again, you Clinton people are reduced to basically saying "Trump is an animal and is unfit for the office". Clear that away and deal with the reality here. You can't just soak up the propaganda that you agree with.

Yes it is difficult, especially when one belongs to an archaic organization of white russians that have an eternal hatred for everything russian after the revolution. I imagine that makes it very difficult to be objective in a subject that involves Russia and Putin. WN, your citations are almost always specious. The CJR piece was literally written with David Mayer de Rothschild. To put it mildly, this is not a good source for information regarding the "deep state". Yes. A republican president being manipulated by the CIA (deep state if you will) is directly relevant and Jim Hougan did a fantastic job with it. Like WN, your analysis largely stems from animosity towards the personality of Trump, which I think all of us share, and MSM propaganda. Why hasn't the MSM done a thorough vetting of the Clinton/Wasserman scandal and attempted to destroy their careers? Instead, Scultz is now in Congress somehow. Its the DNC... https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/04/its-the-dnc-stupid-democratic-party-not-russia-has-delegitimized-the-democratic-process/

I read that book Paul, but I don't remember the part where RFK Jr describes Joe as a crook. In fact, he takes a few pages to detail why he wasn't a crook. If I remember correctly, no one accused Joe Sr of bootlegging until about 30 years later during the Nixon/JFK campaign and it was a mobster who had dealings with RFK who said it. Bonnano maybe? My detailing may be a little off, but that was the general gist of it.

Did Manson ever talk about Reeve Whittson in any way and did he goto the crime scene before the police got there?

In the current form, I view the republican party as overtly fascist and a disgrace to American history. Ok, then the two best presidents of the last 56 years were not good for this country or the world in most ways. There is a huge difference between Clinton/Obama and JFK. If you dont' understand that then I don't know what else to say. JFK had everyone telling him to act a certain way on several fronts and he decided to fight against what is normally considered our allies and "noblemen" of big wall street/pentagon/CIA types. That is something that the democratic party never regained after JFK (at the POTUS level). In other words, on a simplified level, this democratic party that is currently in power will never challenge the power that keeps the major structures in place, starting with covert operations. That is fundamentally different than JFK. And he absolutely looks like a saint compared to those other guys, I don't see how to get around that mentally, and I'm not even considering Bill's white house debauchery. Coming from a guy who believed Oswald did it for 56 years, I don't know how to take this WN. Based on your earlier suggestions, I do not have an interest in learning about how Soros and big banks view the current political climate. If I want that, I can read the NY Times or watch CBS, MSN, CNN news. Jim DiEugenio has made it clear that the foreign policy changes from JFK to LBJ were much more involved than most people are aware of and its extremely important in my view. There simply couldn't be more of a difference between the democratic party of 1963 and todays party, I don't view them as the same. Much like the republican party of 1863 is nothing like it is today. If you wish to cling on to the light neo con party, fine, I don't.

I just saw this the other night. I am admittedly not very familiar with the details of Kiriakou's case beyond a few articles and this documentary, but I still came away with a strange feeling about Kiriakou. As the documentary stated, there were other news stories about torture in the press when he went public, but at the height of the attention to the torture subject, he somehow gets on national tv and says that he thinks the torture actually saved lives and is useful. Granted he retracted that later on and said it was a lie, but not when the public's attention was at its zenith. There are other things that kind of made my head cock to the side a bit. His general demeanor and attitude shown in the film was confusing at times. At one point, Kiriakou goes out of his way to call his wife and tell her that he heard a rumor that he would essentially be kidnapped by an intelligence agency and then right after that says "don't worry". I know there are many possible explanations for that scene including scripting, but it struck me as odd. When I think of whistleblowers getting network air time, I can't help but ask "why is he/she on tv?" And I think of Michael Hastings and Dorthy Kilgallen. I'm not suggesting Kiriakou is some kind of disinformation agent, but there is certainly some level of his being allowed to say what he said, and his message didn't threaten anything (except maybe his comment about how 99% of Al-Qaeda never read the koran and didn't care about geopolitical issues at all) and it actually gave a boost to the pro-torture crowd at a critical juncture in the public discourse. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Oh please, you "Clinton" cabal supporters are pretentious to the point of ridiculousness. Shall we go back and examine who voted for the patriot act in the senate that began the modern tear down of our "founding principles"? Feingold was actually attacked by the R who ended up beating him on this very point. I can't recall the massive uproar in the democratic party to defend Feingold as a wise visionary and not a "soft liberal terrorist sympathizer". You can't even handle the fact that no one here supports Trump, yet 3 or 4 of us are continually mentioned as such. You all essentially take the position of "Anyone but Trump" regardless of how it happens. The same lightweight biased political discussions have happened on the "left" with every republican president I can remember. Remember the move to impeach Bush anyone? I'm not trying to compare here, but just to point out that this form of opposition that boils down to "we need the clintons/bidens/obamas people because they are the only ones who can win and trump is crazy". In other words, its politically safe to the "establishment".

Paul, The Clinton/Obama/Biden wing of the Democratic party should be destroyed. They have played a nefarious role and prevented any resurgence of the "New Deal" type democrat that Tulsi is at least close to. I think these people explain themselves clearly every now and then and Obama recently did that for me. "This idea of purity, and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke, and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said. "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws." Can you imagine JFK or FDR saying that? Those guys empowered people with their speeches "I welcome their hatred" and "we all breathe the same air" etc... This wing of the democratic seems to primarily exist to prevent that from happening, and they've done a great job.

Ugh.... sure? Prescription mix up Sandy?

Interesting, I didn't know that about Gore. I always wondered what the KGB had on Oswald, especially considering Nagell's story. Did anyone ever get the full KGB file?

WN, please explain the part of the quote that the article doesn't mention. "And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset." Who is the other Russian asset here WN? Oh right, Ms. Gabbard. That Stein/asset comment was right after the favorite of the Russians comment. I I think what might have happened here was the media's response to her statement was actually quite negative on the whole and this is her pathetic way of backtracking to save face, but I believe her strategy was to paint Gabbard as a republican and link to her the Russians at the same time. It reminds me of an attorney who knows he will get an objection, but does it anyway because the jury will hear it. In this case, the jury is all of the democratic party faithful who somehow still believe the clinton family represents the American public's interest.

That 1% is not a reflection of how many people like Tulsi's ideas, it is much more a reflection of how our media controls who is allowed to proceed to the presidency. Most people didn't know who she was until Hilary disgraced herself with the Russian stuff. Tulsi is not a favored choice by the DNC which controls the party.

Here is a direct quote of what she said WN. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've (Russians) got their eye on somebody whos currently in the democratic primary, and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's a favorite of the russians. " If she's not talking about Gabbard then please let me know who it is. I would say its absolutely Gabbard and she's saying it because of Tulsi's stance on Syria and foreign policy in general, which the Russians would probably prefer to the fasces of the Clinton networks (Biden, possibly Warren) and Trump's erratic embarrassments. Sure, even though her stance on the DNC was cemented 3 years ago when she wasn't on FOX at all. FOX has her on their network because they know she will never be allowed to be a primary candidate for president and her views are generally opposed to the DNC at this point. Therefore, it is a smart political strategy to promote her. Is Tulsi supposed to turn down national air time that she barely gets on the "liberal" networks?

She introduced legislation to this effect and advocated for it in public. I don't know how much more one could do than that. Ugh... did you see the garbage that Hillary just spewed about Tulsi being a Russian asset? Plus Hilary was one of the worst and most militant sec of state we have ever had, she is a neo con with foreign policy that is indistinguishable from the CIA's. Yes I do, I never voted for him or wanted him. If anyone owns Trump it is Netanyahu, and it's disgusting. The democrats are just as bad on that subject. But Trump stopped short of invading Iran or Syria for Israeli interests, would Hilary do the same? If you haven't seen Tulsi's many critical posts about Trump, follow her in social media I guess.

Exactly wrong. She fell out with the DNC mainly for 2 reasons. She resigned from a prominent DNC position because of shillary's networks in taking down Sanders for the nomination. Equally important, she actually went to Syria, met with Assad and told the public we are supporting terrorists. Her former feelings about homosexuality are not significant at all in this context. The point is that a US politician cannot have a "bright future" with the DNC if they don't tow the line on foreign policy/covert operations issues. Tulsi recently stated that the American people deserve to know the truth about who was involved in 9/11 and has been reading Jim Douglass. These are the non starters that prevent the msm from endorsing her, not her somewhat dicey religious upbringing.

Slightly off topic but, did anyone else see Tulsi with Jim Douglass' book? She's clearly not afraid of history and understands that the power structures of the US goes beyond an "R" or a "D". Unfortunately, it seems many on this forum do not understand that concept at all.

Besides JFK's foreign policy, I feel that the Israeli connection to this case is the most overlooked subject in the community and the scant public discussions that took place (echoing Penn Jones). In my opinion, as far as motives go, between Cuba, Congo, Indonesia, and the Steel crisis, JFK's stance on Israeli nuclear weapons is at least as powerful as those others. When you factor in the close networks between the CIA and Mossad through Angleton, Permindex, CMC, etc... There is some smoke there. It's also interesting to note that according to Avner Cohen, De Gaulle went through a similar episode in regards to Israeli nuclear proliferation. I don't think he was demanding inspections, but he supposedly withdrew official French support of Israeli nukes. I haven't dug into it, but I'd be curious if the OAS assassination attempts started after De Gaulle moved against Israeli interests or not. Obviously Algeria is the main motive normally attributed to the OAS, but wasn't Permindex linked with the OAS as well? Also, I wonder if Robert has any info on the uranium connection through the Dal Tex building? According to Piper, the owner of the Dal-Tex building was a major ADL financier and that multiple firms in the building are linked to Morty Freedman who is linked to the Dallas Uranium and Oil Company.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/camp-david-donald-trump-mike-pence-taliban/index.html According to Cee No News, at least Pence and Bolton openly disagreed with Trump, whom Trump overruled because he believes " "I always think it is good to meet and talk, but in this case I decided not to," the President tweeted Monday. But the main reason he "decided" that was surely because... "Trump eventually scrapped the event after a Taliban car bomb killed a US soldier and 11 others last week. But that decision came after heated debate within the administration over the venue for the summit -- an outgrowth of larger, more substantial disagreements over the wisdom of negotiating with the Taliban at all. " The Gary Powers incident immediately popped in my head when I read this. Sometimes the best we can hope for in 2019 is that evil fights evil, and if Trump is arguing with the likes of Bolton, Pence, and the US military commanders, I consider it a small victory. Notice that Pence represents a noticeably more hawkish position than Trump. Dangerous conditions for Trump, I'd expect more "scandals" to appear if the impeachment inquiry doesn't give the DNC choice (Biden/Warren) enough of an edge.

There was an interview, I believe foreign, with a high ranking French (maybe German, can't remember) diplomat who said this is the exact scenario. I tried searching for it briefly to no avail, anyone recall this as well? That basic concept seems to fit just about everything we've seen since the conflict started.