Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[W. Niederhut]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hang in there Kirk. And Cliff. All this Russia/Ukraine crap, all this Deep State conspiracy theory, is designed to distract and divide. Trump is clearly a horrible president, and in a country where the rule of law was not ‘Trumped’ by wealth the Donald would have been imprisoned long ago. What’s the point of intellectual arguments and historical connections based on once removed cousins (!!!) when what we really face is full on fascism and racism and sexism globally? Every clear thinking global citizen wakes up fearful of their future and the future of our planet, wakes up feeling powerless against the onslaught, all by design. Why would any Trumpers he arguing here? Goodness of their hearts, trying to educate us lest we forget that JFK and Trump are both victims of the same hidden force? How absurd. 

Amen.   Furthermore, what is the point in studying history if we can't even apply a proper understanding of history to our contemporary crises?

The alternative is to allow morons who can't remember anything to repeat the horrific mistakes of the past-- fascism in the 1930s and 40s, Vietnam, the Iraq War, etc.

[James DiEugenio]

Paul (and William, speaking of history):

From your description above, can you please explain to me how the policies and practices of Trump differ in any significant way from say W, or Reagan?

1. All three wanted to make the rich richer by cutting their taxes.

2.  All three were pro business and anti union.

3.  All three wanted to give more money to the Pentagon thereby militarizing the budget beyond what the next ten countries spend on that area put together.

4.  All three made appeals to xenophobia and racism.

5.  Under all three the Republican party made efforts to scrub minority voters from the rolls so they could not vote.  (How can anyone forget 2000 and Bush vs Gore.)

6.  All three made judicial picks from the Federalist Society lists and therefore have pushed the federal bench so far to the right that the court system and Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for Fox News.

The only difference I can see between Trump and the other two is that Trump is not as interventionist as they were (respectively, Central America and Middle East).  But  even that is marginal, considering what this administration, via Darth Vader Mr. Abrams,  allowed to occur in Bolivia and is still trying to do in Venezuela.  Plus what might happen in Iran.

So I don't see what the hue and cry about Trump is when one compares him to the GOP today.  That is what that party is about today.  That party was slowly but surely made a reactionary nest by the efforts of people like William F. Buckley, Richard Mellon Scaife  and Reagan and others. It wasn't that long ago when it had a liberal and moderate wing.  But people like Buckley, then Gingrich and DeLay,  were determined to wipe it out--and they did.

Trump is not  significantly different than what the rest of his party is about. Would you like MIke Pence?  Or Mitch McConnell in the White House?  From 1965-90, the Republican Party was hijacked and transformed by the 1964 Goldwater/John Birch Society rightwing nuts.  And they practiced a scorched earth policy against the Goodells and Javits types.  To the point that they simply do not exist anymore.  In fact Eisenhower would not get anywhere with that party today.  I am surprised no one here seems to understand that.  Because its a process called polarization and its right out of the CIA handbook.  

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Jim,

     I voted against Reagan twice, Dubya twice, and Trump-- the Trickle Downers.

     But, to answer your question, one notable difference between Trump and the other two Tricklers, IMO, is that-- for better or worse-- Reagan and Dubya, at least, hired and delegated the tasks of the Executive Branch to erstwhile brain trusts.

     In contrast, Trump staffed his administration with poorly qualified, wealthy grifters, then fired anyone who dared to disagree with his idiotic policy decisions.

     Now Trump is flying by the seat of his sh--- -stained golf shorts, without the advice of a functional Cabinet, National Security Council, or State Department.  He gets his intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends.

Edited January 5, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

William:

Although I understand your point about Trump coming from the outside, I would have to at least disagree a little.

IMO, if you look at Iran Contra, Reagan worked through a completely unqualified NSA, Poindexter, and bypassed other people like Schultz.  And he relied on that young New Right type, Abrams, on Central America.

As per W, in Iraq, he went against the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and proceeded with the so called Surge, and that just about eliminated any semblance of what any order there had been and essentially sent the country back to the Stone Age.  Making it a haven for things like ISIS.

I do understand that Trump appeared to run an outsider type campaign against the GOP establishment.  And they did not know how to deal with that. But in my view, this was largely a mirage created for salesmanship reasons, which is something Trump understands from his real estate business.

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William:

Although I understand your point about Trump coming from the outside, I would have to at least disagree a little.

IMO, if you look at Iran Contra, Reagan worked through a completely unqualified NSA, Poindexter, and bypassed other people like Schultz.  And he relied on that young New Right type, Abrams, on Central America.

As per W, in Iraq, he went against the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and proceeded with the so called Surge, and that just about eliminated any semblance of what any order there had been and essentially sent the country back to the Stone Age.  Making it a haven for things like ISIS.

I do understand that Trump appeared to run an outsider type campaign against the GOP establishment.  And they did not know how to deal with that. But in my view, this was largely a mirage created for salesmanship reasons, which is something Trump understands from his real estate business.

 

Jim,

        The one positive thing I saw in Trump's candidacy in 2016-- compared to Hillary-- was his position on disengaging from our Neocon war agenda in Syria and the Middle East.  He even hinted during the GOP primary debates that he was a 9/11 Truther, saying, "When I'm President, the American people are finally going to learn who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11."  I was surprised, and hopeful.

       But, as with so many of his 2016 promises, (e.g., a "terrific healthcare plan," no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) Trump has done a 180 on his professed opposition to the Neocon agenda in the Middle East.  True, he did pull the plug on funding for CIA Operation Timber Sycamore in July of 2017, but his first trips abroad were to Riyadh and Tel Aviv.  Then he bombed Syrian government positions in response to the two false flag "chemical weapons" attacks, and withdrew from the Iranian nuclear disarmament deal.

     He moved our U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.

     Now he's stumbling into a U.S. war against Iran-- something that Douglas Feith and the Neocons have been trying to foment since Feith left the Pentagon in disgrace 15 years ago, for his role in falsifying intelligence to start the Iraq War.

     Michael Wolff's claim, in Fire and Fury,  that Trump was bribed by Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, et.al., to become a "Neocon mule," seems to be accurate, in retrospect.

      And, meanwhile, Trump never said a word after 2016 about "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11."

[Joe Bauer]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:50 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul (and William, speaking of history):

From your description above, can you please explain to me how the policies and practices of Trump differ in any significant way from say W, or Reagan?

1. All three wanted to make the rich richer by cutting their taxes.

2.  All three were pro business and anti union.

3.  All three wanted to give more money to the Pentagon thereby militarizing the budget beyond what the next ten countries spend on that area put together.

4.  All three made appeals to xenophobia and racism.

5.  Under all three the Republican party made efforts to scrub minority voters from the rolls so they could not vote.  (How can anyone forget 2000 and Bush vs Gore.)

6.  All three made judicial picks from the Federalist Society lists and therefore have pushed the federal bench so far to the right that the court system and Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for Fox News.

The only difference I can see between Trump and the other two is that Trump is not as interventionist as they were (respectively, Central America and Middle East).  But  even that is marginal, considering what this administration, via Darth Vader Mr. Abrams,  allowed to occur in Bolivia and is still trying to do in Venezuela.  Plus what might happen in Iran.

So I don't see what the hue and cry about Trump is when one compares him to the GOP today.  That is what that party is about today.  That party was slowly but surely made a reactionary nest by the efforts of people like William F. Buckley, Richard Mellon Scaife  and Reagan and others. It wasn't that long ago when it had a liberal and moderate wing.  But people like Buckley, then Gingrich and DeLay,  were determined to wipe it out--and they did.

Trump is not an significantly different than what the rest of his party is about. Would you like MIke Pence?  Or Mitch McConnell in the White House?  From 1965-90, the Republican Party was hijacked and transformed by the 1964 Goldwater/John Birch Society rightwing nuts.  And they practiced a scorched earth policy against the Goodells and Javits types.  To the point that they simply do not exist anymore.  In fact Eisenhower would not get anywhere with that party today.  I am really surprised no one here seems to understand that.  

 

I agree with Jim Di's assessment above.

However, I feel Trump is in a special category all by himself versus the other Republican Presidents mentioned. 

One that sets him far apart in the area of emotional, psychological and moral make up.

One that makes him and his power and actions more potentially dangerous and damaging to our national well being.

On top of Trump's clear promotion of the top 1% ( of which he is a member) over the rest of our society, to me he is the greatest mental case afflicted President in modern times. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Cliff Varnell]

9 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

It doesn't take a grand jury investigation to determine very quickly that Cliff is not a positive poster in any way  and simply fires invective off at every chance. 

Someone who doesn’t read my posts knows what they are all about?

...What does the word “deep” mean in the classic use of the word by Peter Dale Scott?  That which is meant to be kept hidden.  Wall Street Banksters keep their influence in the National Security State hidden by control of the mass media. Theocratic Fascists keep their influence in the National Security State hidden by promoting the narrative that the “deep state” only works for the Banksters.

Left non-fascists repeat the myth that the ruling elite is a monolithic “High Cabal”. This is an egregious mis-analysis which begs to attract withering ridicule.

[James DiEugenio]

William, I would have to agree that Trump did do a pirouette on the Israel/Middle East/ Palestine issue.

And I would probably have to agree that it was because of the hugely  wealthy ZIonists backing the GOP.

But I hope you are aware that the same thing happened with Obama?  He was saying things about Palestinian rights during and before the campaign.

That pretty much dissipated after the election.

The influence that AIPAC has in America is simply awesome.  

DId you know RFK wanted them to register as a foreign lobby?

Edited January 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, I would have to agree that Trump did do a pirouette on the Israel/Middle East/ Palestine issue.

And I would probably have to agree that it was because of the hugely  wealthy ZIonists backing the GOP.

But I hope you are aware that the same thing happened with Obama?  He was saying things about Palestinian rights during and before the campaign.

That pretty much dissipated after the election.

The influence that AIPAC has in America is simply awesome.  

DId you know RFK wanted them to register as a foreign lobby?

 

       I knew that JFK had been concerned about the anti-Palestinian agenda of American Zionists in the Middle East, and didn't want Ben Gurion to acquire nukes, but I didn't know about RFK's position on AIPAC.  

      As for Obama, I was surprised and disappointed that he retained Robert Gated as Secretary of Defense, and cooperated so readily with the MIC agenda in the Middle East-- drone warfare in Yemen, Timber Sycamore, etc.  I read somewhere (?) that Leon Panetta told Obama early on that, "(you) can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the CIA & Joint Chiefs.)

     But Obama and Netanyahu, apparently, could hardly stand to be in the same room with each other, and Netanyahu was bitterly opposed to Obama and John Kerry's Iranian nuclear disarmament deal.

    See, for example;

www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/magazine/iran-strike-israel-america.html?login=email&auth=login-email

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Definitely people can learn from history. But from what I've heard here, I don't trust anybody's 50 year old ongoing conspiracy theory much less a 200 year old conspiracy theory. I'm into dealing with the facts as I perceive them now.

The office of the Presidency of the U.S. is more powerful now than ever. This year's events have shown it graphically. In the Ukraine situation, the Government Deep State was corrupted  by the President, NOT the other way around, until finally a whistle blower came forward. Trump is the swamp.

In the Trump ordered hit it was signed off by one person, yes there was also 2MP, Pompeo and Pence, but it was a Presidential action that was passed on by GWB and Obama, and largely astonished the Pentagon. This is another case of the Government Deep state being a restraining , not a propelling force, and Trump's motivation in pulling out of the Treaty could have been for no other reason than to undue an Obama accomplishment,  and now it's a tactic in Trump's mind to help him win re election as it has been pointed out in another thread that in 2011, he thought that would be an effective tactic for Obama to use to win re election.

Does anybody here realize that Trump has the power to wake up tomorrow and order a nuclear strike on China and none of us could do anything about it? I heard a military expert say it on the radio. Check into it. I say its time to curb the office of the Presidency.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cory Santos]

Deleted 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Cory Santos

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Re: General Flynn. "Prosecutors’ filed a 33-page sentencing memorandum today in Federal District Court of the District of Columbia." Link to Summary write-up (also links to original filings.)

So, Mueller throws the book at Flynn.

The pro Trump Twittersphere screams "witch hunt" against Flynn for 3 years.

Mueller recommends no Jail.

Now the prosecution is looking for Jail.

This is a good thing.

What do the "experts" think?

 

 

 

 

"Throwing the book" at Flynn about if I recall correctly: backing out of an agreement, torpedoing another prosecution, lying repeatedly to investigators, acting as an agent of a foreign power while DNI, perjoring himself and I forget what else ends up with a 6 month sentence (max if Sullivan doesn't go outside sentencing guidelines). The poor fella.

Try taking $50 out of a til at a gas station. See what you'd get.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Douglas Caddy]

From the article: Data is the new oil. Who has it and how do you distill the insights from it, and then productize and monetize those insights, is the new economic driver that in the long run will determine a country’s wealth and security in the 21st century — not black crude. That is why former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani’s old warning — the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones; it ended because we invented new tools — is more relevant today than ever.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/trump-iran-attack.html

[Douglas Caddy]

Trump’s DOJ quietly ends two-year fishing expedition on the Clintons — and admits it found nothing

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/trumps-doj-quietly-ends-two-year-fishing-expedition-on-the-clintons-and-admits-it-found-nothing/

[Ray Mitcham]

Interesting criticism,  a couple of years ago, of Trumpkof by ex C.I.A. director John Brennan.

 

" The esteem with which I held the presidency was dealt a serious blow when Donald Trump took office….Many have condemned my public criticism of Mr trump, arguing that as a former C.I.A. Director, I should bite my tongue. My criticisms, however are not political; I have never been and will never be a partisan. I speak out for the simple reason that Mr Trump is failing to live up to the standards that we should all expect of a president. As someone who had the rare privilege  of directly serving four presidents, I will continue to speak out loudly and critically until integrity, decency, wisdom— and maybe even some humility— return to the White House.”

When are the members of the Trumpican party going to wake up?

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Ray Mitcham