The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

Biden Says Putin Can’t Remain in Power After Ukraine War

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/biden-warns-of-long-fight-ahead-for-ukraine-calls-for-resolve

Is Biden practicing "Speak loudly, but carry a small stick"? 

[Kirk Gallaway]

It is absolute garbage, Ben's always a sucker for big words. Talk about journeying into the realm of pseudo intellectualism! I guess, in  Ben mind. He was trying to  fight fire with fire.

We have to keep Ben focused, or he'll spill off on endless Fox news tangents. But it's always important to keep in mind, W. that 5 of us collectively don't have the time to keep Ben up to the speed on life in America. We can only hope for some sort of osmosis.

Keep in mind, 2 of Ben's repeated journalistic heroes, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate are hardcore Putinista non apologists. So he's come somewhere. Even though I think his rather mild characterization of Putin as a "thug" in a "scrum" and not a war criminal means he still feels he has to do some fence sitting. That's politics!

 

To Ben,

[Benjamin Cole]

32 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It is absolute garbage, Ben's always a sucker for big words. Talk about journeying into the realm of pseudo intellectualism! I guess, in  Ben mind. He was trying to  fight fire with fire.

We have to keep Ben focused, or he'll spill off on endless Fox news tangents. But it's always important to keep in mind, W. that 5 of us collectively don't have the time to keep Ben up to the speed on life in America. We can only hope for some sort of osmosis.

Keep in mind, 2 of Ben's repeated journalistic heroes, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate are hardcore Putinista non apologists. So he's come somewhere. Even though I think his rather mild characterization of Putin as a "thug" in a "scrum" and not a war criminal means he still feels he has to do some fence sitting. That's politics!

 

To Ben,

I like big words. Polysyllabic nomenclature. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

He's not wrong...

Yes, but be careful of mission creep, which often defines US military engagement anywhere in the world. See Afghanistan for how that turns out. 

I wonder if tiptoeing around in the real world to avoid antagonizing Putin (no No Fly Zone over Ukraine, no heavy weapons for Ukrainians) but then calling for regime change in Moscow...is that really the plan? 

Is the US mission mutating onto a Saddam Hussein plan? Putin has WMD, and may be accused of using them. 

Biden was florid and and nearly prolix in citing God in his call for regime change in Moscow.  A Holy War?  

Time to re-stock the bomb shelters? 

[Matt Allison]

Ben- haven't you been saying Biden needs to do more? Are you changing your mind now that he's doing just that?

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Ben- haven't you been saying Biden needs to do more? Are you changing your mind now that he's doing just that?

Bloomberg:

• Biden Calls For Putin’s Removal in Risky Escalation Over Ukraine.

 

Yes, I have been saying that following Poland's lead on Ukraine might be the right course. That involves peace-keeping forces, or boots on the ground in Ukraine, representing an international body. I assume air cover and some heavy weapons as well, although I am a layman on military matters. Poland is close on the scene, probably knows the ground and adversary better than the White House. 

I would delighted with regime-change in Moscow. However, publicly calling for it is inflammatory, to put it mildly, with the one person we want to withdraw from Ukraine.  

Putin is a thug, that kind who may respond to some real military losses by withdrawing. The bully personality. But if Putin equates a loss in Ukraine with a regime change in Moscow...

I am also uncomfortable with Biden citing God when secular policies are being made---is Biden intimating he is on God's side, or a representative of God? Sure sounds like it. 

Man have said you can't let Biden off the teleprompter.  Egads. 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ben, What might be lost in the humor of the first picture. Is that you've taken a hard core stance that Trump could nor  be influenced by Putin. You and others. But you've never looked at the broader picture.

This started at the beginning of Trump Presidency as result of Russia Gate and an early perception that it was fueled by the "Deep state" and the MSM. And it became a matter of stubborn resistance, and they've been stuck ever since.

For 20 years prior to Trump' running for President, he'd only on occasion weigh in on political events of the day. They were either big issues , such as 911 and the second War on Iraq, (where he was first in favor and then bailed),or they were small "hot button issues", involving local crime, or tabloid NY Post type stuff he'd weigh in on.

He was always trying to make points on the hot topics. Trump never talked of Nato before he ran for President.  That was too involved a topic for him to touch. When you understand  Trump's involvement with Russian Oligarchs as a money launderer.  When you understand  Trump's massive debts and terrible business mismanagement. And why Putin's derision of Nato, and Trump's turnaround.

Before the invasion, respect for Nato was at an all time low. The morale and unity was awful and each nation had carved out their own niches of their own national interests.The phony thing that Stone, Greenwald, Mate, Di Eugenio, Carter accepted was that Putin's kool aid about encroaching on Russia's territory , but NATO had only accepted 2 new wimpy countries in 18 years! Putin didn't publicly even make it known that he disapproved of a stronger Nato until 2007 and never mentioned it personally to Obama until 2014!

It was completely the opposite, Putin saw an opportunity to invade Ukraine, not out of any great security threat. He knew the U.S. would never unilaterally invade Ukraine. It wasn't a matter of Biden "giving away the store"  by saying the U.S. would not invade. He had one goal in mind, to force Nato's hand,  and forever render Nato useless. Many so called experts in the west thought  that is exactly what would happen.This would have been infinitely easier if Trump had won in 2020, according to plan, but he didn't. That's what's going on.

People can disagree, but I'd say there's a stronger case made for this than at least that Alan Dulles specifically was at the forefront of a plot to kill JFK.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

29 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben, What might be lost in the humor of the first picture. Is that you've taken a hard core stance that Trump could nor  be influenced by Putin. You and others. But you've never looked at the broader picture.

This started at the beginning of Trump Presidency as result of Russia Gate and an early perception that it was fueled by the "Deep state" and the MSM. And it became a matter of stubborn resistance, and they've been stuck ever since.

For 20 years prior to Trump' running for President, he'd only on occasion weigh in on political events of the day. They were either big issues , such as 911 and the second War on Iraq, (where he was first in favor and then bailed),or they were small "hot button issues", involving local crime, or tabloid NY Post type stuff he'd weigh in on.

He was always trying to make points on the hot topics. Trump never talked of Nato before he ran for President.  That was too involved a topic for him to touch. When you understand  Trump's involvement with Russian Oligarchs as a money launderer.  When you understand  Trump's massive debts and terrible business mismanagement. And why Putin's derision of Nato, and Trump's turnaround.

Before the invasion, respect for Nato was at an all time low. The morale and unity was awful and each nation had carved out their own niches of their own national interests.The phony thing that Stone, Greenwald, Mate, Di Eugenio, Carter accepted was that Putin's kool aid about encroaching on Russia's territory , but NATO had only accepted 2 new wimpy countries in 18 years! Putin didn't publicly even make it known that he disapproved of a stronger Nato until 2007 and never mentioned it personally to Obama until 2014!

It was completely the opposite, Putin saw an opportunity to invade Ukraine, not out of any great security threat. He knew the U.S. would never unilaterally invade Ukraine. It wasn't a matter of Biden "giving away the store"  by saying the U.S. would not invade. He had one goal in mind, to force Nato's hand,  and forever render Nato useless. Many so called experts in the west thought  that is exactly what would happen.This would have been infinitely easier if Trump had won in 2020, according to plan, but he didn't. That's what's going on.

People can disagree, but I'd say there's a stronger case made for this than at least that Alan Dulles specifically was at the forefront of a plot to kill JFK.

Kirk--

Well, with this missive you have set off more signals than a blind dog gets in a meat-house. 

The fact that Russia-gate is hoax-work, does not make Putin a nice guy, and I never thought or said so. I have always regarded Putin as a thug. That said, I doubt Russia influenced more than 10 votes in the 2016 or 2020 elections. The real-world examples of Russian attempts to sway US elections are laughable. 

There is also another danger afoot---that anyone who dissents from certain US policies is not tagged as a "kompromat" or "Moscow stooge" or even a treasonist. 

Russia and Ukraine have been the same nation on and off for 1000 years. To be sure, Russia has 1000 times the legitimate interest in what happens in Ukraine than the US.  

That said, there is no excuse for an armored column into Ukraine or turning Mariupol into rubble, or other crimes. 

We should turn to Poland for leadership, but leave God out of it. 

Allen Dulles? Who knows? I doubt it. My guess is JM/Wave, and Cuban exiles, maybe some Mob money. It has been pointed out here Hermininio Diaz and Eladio Del Valle worked for both the CIA as assets and also the Mob, and I suspect them as Dallas triggermen. 

But hey, that is suspicion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ben, you're all over the map, but you didn't deal with anything I wrote.

43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Russia and Ukraine have been the same nation on and off for 1000 years. To be sure, Russia has 1000 times the legitimate interest in what happens in Ukraine than the US. 

A little hypocritical Ben. If you're so compassionate about Russia's historic ties to the Ukraine, how come you're the biggest "hawk" here and essentially championing America's interests.

 

43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is also another danger afoot---that anyone who dissents from certain US policies is not tagged as a "kompromat" or "Moscow stooge" or even a treasonist. 

That's all in your mind. Nobody's accusing anybody.Maybe your reaction is because I don't have hallowed heroes?

 

Let's see, "Putin a thug" , I didn't misquote you, I said "a thug in a scrum".

43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That said, I doubt Russia influenced more than 10 votes in the 2016 or 2020 elections.

Just to avoid silly arguments like that, I referred to Russiagate only in a historic context. It was at the beginning of the Trump Presidency, a polarizing event by which some never returned to a clear assessment of events afterward. Which was sort of a commentary on everything  that eventually transpired.

Re Dulles, then you agree with me.

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

52 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben, you're all over the map, but you didn't deal with anything I wrote.

A little hypocritical Ben. If you're so compassionate about Russia's historic ties to the Ukraine, how come you're the biggest "hawk" here and essentially championing America's interests.

 

That's all in your mind. Nobody's accusing anybody.Maybe your reaction is because I don't have hallowed heroes?

 

Let's see, "Putin a thug" , I didn't misquote you, I said "a thug in a scrum".

Just to avoid silly arguments like that, I referred to Russiagate only in a historic context. It was at the beginning of the Trump Presidency, a polarizing event by which some never returned to a clear assessment of events afterward. Which was sort of a commentary on everything  that eventually transpired.

Re Dulles, then you agree with me.

 

More important than this conversation: Did Ginni Thomas wear buffalo horns on Jan. 6, or has she ever worn buffalo horns in support of an insurrection? 

 

[Steve Thomas]

This is beginning to look like the Battle of Kursk in WW II.

Battle of Kursk WW II July 5th - 23rd, 1943 Largest tank battle in history.
http://https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/battle-of-kursk-tank.html?andro=1&chrome=1
The Soviets claimed to have destroyed 1,500 German tanks and killed or captured 500,000 men. The Germans claimed to have destroyed 1,800 tanks on the southern flank alone. But while the Germans had inflicted more casualties, their losses were far heavier relative to equipment

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Attack On Europe: Documenting Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine
Tanks (300, of which destroyed: 128, damaged: 4, abandoned: 42, captured: 126)

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

Ginni Thomas’ West Wing contacts raise new questions for another Trump ally: John Eastman

The Jan. 6 select committee has evidence that Eastman expected Justice Clarence Thomas to back his dubious legal theory to block Joe Biden's victory.

By Kyle Cheney 03/26/2022

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/26/ginni-thomas-west-wing-trump-john-eastman-00020675

“The select committee has evidence that when a top Pence aide challenged Eastman’s plan on Jan. 4, 2021, Eastman initially told him he believed two Supreme Court justices would back him up. One of them was Ginni Thomas’ husband, Justice Clarence Thomas.

Eastman’s assertion, described by Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob to the select committee earlier this year, appeared to be a guess based on analysis of Thomas’ long legal career. Eastman had reason to know Thomas’ views well: He clerked for the George H.W. Bush appointee in the 1990s before becoming a mainstay in deeply conservative legal circles.

But the revelation that Thomas’ wife kept in contact with Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows in the weeks after Trump’s defeat — pressing him to keep trying to overturn the election — adds a new wrinkle to the timeline.”

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Ai Weiwei on the new Silk Road: ‘This is China’s counterattack in a global game of chess’ | China | The Guardian

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Albert Einstein Writes the 1949 Essay “Why Socialism?” and Attempts to Find a Solution to the “Grave Evils of Capitalism" | Open Culture

 

[W. Niederhut]

7 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

This is beginning to look like the Battle of Kursk in WW II.

Battle of Kursk WW II July 5th - 23rd, 1943 Largest tank battle in history.
http://https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/battle-of-kursk-tank.html?andro=1&chrome=1
The Soviets claimed to have destroyed 1,500 German tanks and killed or captured 500,000 men. The Germans claimed to have destroyed 1,800 tanks on the southern flank alone. But while the Germans had inflicted more casualties, their losses were far heavier relative to equipment

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Attack On Europe: Documenting Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine
Tanks (300, of which destroyed: 128, damaged: 4, abandoned: 42, captured: 126)

Steve Thomas

Steve,

   The Battle of Kursk was the biggest tank battle in world history.  Massive.

    In a weird way, the current Russian military debacle in Ukraine reminds me more of the Battle of Tannenberg in eastern Prussia at the beginning of WWI, which is the subject of Solzhenitsyn's first Red Wheel novel-- August 1914.

   At Tannenberg, the bureaucratic Russian military command was completely disorganized and inept.  The Russian troops were poorly supplied, exhausted, and hungry, and Samsonov's entire Russian Second Army was encircled, massacred, or captured in the fateful battle.

    The Russian Army in 1914 was managed by a bunch of corrupt sycophants, similar to Putin's flying monkeys.

    The technology is vastly different, but the Russian empire, 108 years later, is still governed by a corrupt, inept autocracy.