Bob Ness Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 In other news: Trump's surrender of Afghlanistan is almost complete! At least he didn't do it at Camp David. From Lawfare: Quote "The obligations on the U.S. are clear, specific and measurable: Remove all U.S. troops and vacate all military bases within 14 months. The Taliban’s obligations are, by contrast, vague and under-specified. The Taliban promise not to let any group use Afghanistan to threaten the United States, not to cooperate with or host any such group, and to “send a clear message” that The obligations on the U.S. are clear, specific and measurable: Remove all U.S. troops and vacate all military bases within 14 months. The Taliban’s obligations are, by contrast, vague and under-specified. The Taliban promise not to let any group use Afghanistan to threaten the United States, not to cooperate with or host any such group, and to “send a clear message” that such groups “have no place in Afghanistan.” The agreement contains no details and no means of enforcement or verification for the Taliban’s commitments.such groups “have no place in Afghanistan.” The agreement contains no details and no means of enforcement or verification for the Taliban’s commitments." https://www.lawfareblog.com/bad-deal-afghanistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Trump stated on TV just a few days ago exactly what he's doing on Afghanistan, and I haven't seen one comment about it in the media. He didn't say anything about peace, an agreement, enforcement, verification, or anything else about any kind of diplomacy or Taliban obligations. He said bluntly that the Afghanistan government has to take care of itself, "we can't hold their hand forever." I'm sure that was music to Taliban ears, just like the music to Erdogan's ears (played for him by Trump in their phone call, I assume) when Trump let him go get the Kurds in Syria. Trump was just showing again, to borrow a term from the late Joe McCarthy (I remember hearing Joe say it on TV, almost as shocking back then as Rhett Butler's parting words in Gone with the Wind), that he doesn't "give a tinker's damn" about the Afghanistan people or people anywhere else. He cares about nothing but Donald Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Brutal Wall Street Journal op-ed blasts Trump for his ‘chaotic’ response to the coronavirus pandemic https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/brutal-wall-street-journal-op-ed-blasts-trump-for-his-chaotic-response-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Peter Tertzakian: This crude war is about a lot more than oil prices and market share https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/peter-tertzakian-this-crude-war-is-about-a-lot-more-than-oil-prices-and-market-share?fbclid=IwAR1cDZ360sPCNHFeia_yjIrk-vc4dVKm_h4w-RK0XQtX0ozMbHJahMi4oqQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: I don't know if I would call it surrender. Business divestment maybe, or corporate restructuring of the Opium Division of the Deep State might be better. In any event, I know we are not supposed to draw parallels between President Trump and President Kennedy, or mention similarities between JFK's Coup and the attempted Coups against Trump. One easy parallel is opium production. In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, Opium production increased geometrically after the US had established a sizable military presence in each place. The other is of course "23 and Me". 23 and Me is the derogatory moniker given to those that find it interesting that the same family names, if not the same people, tend to show up each time there is a False Flag, Assassination or Coup attempt (domestic and foreign!) For example, way back in 1917, there is exiled Belgian banker Hector Prud'homme Sr. working the European side to get the US into WWI. George Herbert Walker was one of the Americans working the US side. The fortunes made from that War would keep the families in caviar for the next 100 years, and in power. So it's probably not a coincidence Hector Prud'homme Jr. is in Iran, working for the World Bank, for the 1953 Coup, there. Coincidence Probably The JFK Assassination of course occurred a long time ago. More time has passed between the Trump Coup Era and the JFK Assassination (56 years) than the time that passed between the JFK Assassination and the end of WWI (46 years) or maybe a Wilson coup, as some of have considered. Fifty Six years is a long time, and no one really expects to find JFK Coup plotting suspects involved in the attempts to take out Trump, at least since the death of George H.W. Bush (there's that Walker name again!) Still, sometimes the family business is handed down from father to son, or father to daughter, (uncle to niece, father-in-law to son-in-law, etc.) These days, when a family business is transferred to the next generation, it is called "23 and Me." It used to just be called a "legacy" transfer. (Legacy is a good word, because a legacy transfer includes, inheritances, formal pre-probate agreements, or just an informal pat on the back and wink from a father to a son. It doesn't have to be a business transaction, it could be a Club membership, or even just a family secret.) As George Bluth told Michael Bluth, "There's Always Money In The Banana Stand.") So maybe there are only a few apparent links between the JFK Assassination and the Trump Coups, given the separation in time. The Ray Cline to Stefan Halper connection suggests they were both members of the same Club. Sometimes the Connections Run Through Other False Flags The amateur conspiracy crowd will often entertain some discourse when considering possible JFK assassination connections to the events of 9/11. Once again, the Bush/Walker clan seems to be peering from behind a curtain. Then Christina Bagley-Rocca shows up in “non-google” Internet searches. It is hard to come up with a more CIA name than “Bagley-Rocca.” There is the daughter of Pete Bagley and the daughter in law of Ray Rocca, promoted to Under Secretary of State, after 20 years with the CIA, apparently negotiating with the Taliban in August 2001 over pipe-line rights of way. When one explains who Pete and Ray were, and what there role in the JFK assassination cover-up up was, people get indignant. The JFK Assassination cover up had Bagley, Rocca. The 9/11 Cover-up had Bagley-Rocca. Thirty-eight years separated JFK and 9/11. Nineteen years separate 9/11 and the Trump Coup. If we find Ted Shackley protégé Cofer Black checking up on the Taliban in 2004 with Christina Bagley-Rocca in 2004, then wondering if Cofer Black’s directorship on the Board of Burisma had anything to do with yet another Coup attempt; this time against Trump, hardly seems like a "23-and-Me" type ancestry exercise. That's all interesting and so forth but aren't you just obfuscating to divert attention away from the fact your boy just surrendered to a pack of terrorists? Without any input from the Afghan government?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) Wow, they had to sign non-disclosure agreements and now want to be released from them so that they can put their Bloomberg campaign employment on their resumes as they seek new jobs. Bloomberg’s Job Security Promises Are Falling Through, Campaign Workers Say Former campaign workers for Michael R. Bloomberg’s presidential bid reacted angrily on Monday to news that they would not work through the November election, as expected. https://nyti.ms/2IxZztBloomberg’s Job Security Promises Are Falling Through, Campaign Workers Sayk Edited March 10, 2020 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Has there been any news on the relation of the Trump withdrawal to any use of privatized forces in Afghanistan, perhaps in the hire of the oil and gas companies? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-erik-prince-blackwater.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/world/asia/trump-afghanistan-policy-erik-prince-stephen-feinberg.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 36 minutes ago, David Andrews said: Has there been any news on the relation of the Trump withdrawal to any use of privatized forces in Afghanistan, perhaps in the hire of the oil and gas companies? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-erik-prince-blackwater.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/world/asia/trump-afghanistan-policy-erik-prince-stephen-feinberg.html Hmmm. Not that I'm aware of but it wouldn't be a big shocker would it? Robert has a point it could be termed a divestment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Robert Wheeler said: It's not that interesting to some. It's something that had to be commented on to fulfill an obligation. Haha I suppose. I think we'll find that's a big reason why Bolton walked. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Bob Ness said: Hmmm. Not that I'm aware of but it wouldn't be a big shocker would it? Robert has a point it could be termed a divestment. If you read the articles, Erik Prince was proposing that the US hire privatized armies - so his selling the concept of "security forces" to the oil and gas industry would be the logical Plan B. Who's going to protect their infrastructure until we decide to go back in? Where does the withdrawal leave our opium poppy security? Edited March 10, 2020 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said: It's not that interesting to some. It's something that had to be commented on to fulfill an obligation. Yo, Robert, does this mean that you're working on contract for Erik Prince-- to infiltrate and influence "liberal" groups? 🤪 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 16 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Since this seems to be a catch all thread may I ask a curious question about this coronavirus? All my searches related to this question have come up empty. There are breakdowns of the coronavirus affliction and death numbers. By age, gender, over-all physical condition, pre-existing medical problems, etc. But I cannot find any based on race. I am curious if any of the deaths resulting from this virus have occurred in any race groups beyond Caucasion, Oriental and Middle Eastern? Surely with 100,000 plus cases reported and almost 4,000 deaths world wide you would think the WHO would have a breakdown of deaths by race? Are Hispanics and blacks getting hit as hard as other races in equal number racial mix areas? Joe: This is from John Hopkins Univ. and is the best overall survey of the virus that I am aware of: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 House Can See Mueller’s Secret Grand Jury Evidence, Appeals Court Rules The decision is a victory for Congress’s power to obtain information for an impeachment inquiry. The Trump administration is likely to appeal. By Charlie Savage The New YorkTimes March 10, 2020Updated 4:58 p.m. E WASHINGTON — The House has a right to see secret grand-jury evidence gathered in the Russia investigation, an appeals court ruled on Tuesday in a victory for Congress’s power to gather information for an impeachment inquiry. In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling that the House had a right to gain access to the information, which was gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, using a grand jury and blacked out in the report on his investigation released last year. The Trump administration had appealed that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) New York State sends the National Guard to Manhattan, because 29 people are dead nationally: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/new-york-coronavirus-new-rochelle-containment 95 people die every day of cancer in New York State. Where are you on that? +++ Members can take issue with me, but the martial law aspects scare me, and are moving faster than either the disease or the cure. Edited March 10, 2020 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said: Do court rulings mean anything more? It's not like they are actually going to get to see it. House Can See Mueller’s Secret Grand Jury Evidence, Appeals Court Rules The decision is a victory for Congress’s power to obtain information for an impeachment inquiry. The Trump administration is likely to appeal. By Charlie Savage The New YorkTimes March 10, 2020Updated 4:58 p.m. E WASHINGTON — The House has a right to see secret grand-jury evidence gathered in the Russia investigation, an appeals court ruled on Tuesday in a victory for Congress’s power to gather information for an impeachment inquiry. In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling that the House had a right to gain access to the information, which was gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, using a grand jury and blacked out in the report on his investigation released last year. The Trump administration had appealed that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now