New York Times lies about JFK. Again.

[Robert Burrows]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

There certainly would have been no dearth of potential patsies to pin the blame on, if the CIA had opted to JFK Barack Obama... 🤥

 

Donald Trump's birther propaganda helped to fan the very real flames seen in the photograph on the bottom right. The damage that Trump has inflicted on this country precedes his presidency.

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I think Obama could have and  should have gotten out of Afghanistan in his first term. It would have put the blame on the War, squarely on the people who started it, Bush and the Republicans. As it is now, any online newbie from anywhere can parachute into, and be an expert on the American political scene and make no distinctions and  declare the Democrats just another war party. I don't really forgive Obama for that. I think of Obama as the "Jackie Robinson" of the Presidents, and he saw himself as that..

I think it has to do with Obama's psychological make up. I guess anybody can be an armchair psychoanalyst. There's an interesting anecdotal story about Obama. As a student at Harvard when Obama won editor  of the Harvard Review, later his leftist allies who voted for him over the conservative candidate became upset with Obama , for bending over backwards to the conservative he beat. Later as President, Obama was honorable and too concerned with being fair and got steamrolled by Mitch Mac Connell. There are numerous incidents of that, including one in the fall of 2016. Being the first black President he didn't want to be seen as uppity. Just my take.

I think you're spot on, Kirk.   Obama never seemed to openly express anger, even when blatantly provoked.  Some people used to  jokingly refer to him as, "Mr. Spock."  Perhaps he had learned from difficult experiences in his life, and was also blessed with a benign, positive temperament.

It bothered me, because Obama always bent over backwards to be cordial to his Republican adversaries in Congress who would respond by treating him with contempt.  The worst example was the July 2011 refusal of the House Republicans to accept what columnist David Brooks called Obama's "Mother of All No Brainers" debt-ceiling proposal.

One other psychoanalytic explanation is that people who are mistreated or abused in childhood often have blinders (denial) about abusive conduct that they experience as adults. They can't see it.   It's a childhood defense mechanism to protect and maintain the illusion that caregivers and associates are not abusive.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:48 AM, John Simkin said:

When I first became interested in politics in the 1960s the most important issue was the Vietnam War.  In 1965 I read Robert Taber's The War of the Flea. Taber is an interesting character and is slightly connected to the JFK assassination. He was one of the founders of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPFCC). 

The book should be read by all politicians. Taber points out that Germany was able to invade and conquer Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium and the Netherlands in six weeks in 1940. In April 1941 Germany tried the same tactic in Yugoslavia. The government of Prince Paul surrendered in ten days, but the people of Yugoslavia decided to carry on the fight. As a result the country was never conquered and the leader of the partisans, Tito, formed the new government in 1945. 

Taber argues that this example shows that however powerful you maybe, if the people decide not to be conquered and are willing to use guerrilla warfare, they will eventually win. This is why he predicted defeat for the US in Vietnam. He also predicted the same result if the US decided to invade Cuba. 

Afghanistan is only the latest example of a superpower being defeated by a smaller nation. At last a US politician has accepted this reality. Of course withdrawal has been done very badly and has been very embarrassing for all concerned (the UK government has also taken a terrible hammering over  Afghanistan - our press still thinks the UK is a world power). There is only one superpower left and that is China. They will now take control over the country. Not by sending in troops, but by economic investment. 

 

Afghanistan holds an estimated 1.4 million tons of rare earth elements (REEs), minerals crucial for the production of renewable energy technology. America needs rare earths, and China controls 90% of processing capacity.

 

I did not know about the Afghanistan REEs.  I don't know a lot about world affairs.  But this makes me wonder about several things.  First, are a shortage of REEs not part of the reason for a current microchip shortage (from China)?  These chips being needed for circuit board production, boards used in automobile production?  In turn auto manufacturing is down while demand is up pushing prices of a limited supply of both new and used vehicles up dramatically in the last year?  Second if these rare elements might represent a significant part of the known world wide supply of them why didn't we secure them permanently?  I.E., give the U S backed Afghan government everything they needed to eliminate the Taliban and secure the REEs forever?  Third, this makes me think of Greg Poulgrain's JFK vs Allen Dulles.  About Indonesia's treasures being kept secret until they could be stolen.  The Congo and weapons grade plutonium control.  Dulles knew about the Indonesian gold in particular since the 1930's but kept it secret for his benefactors until after he died, it not being mined in depth until the 1970's.  Iran borders Afghanistan.  Did Dulles know about REE's there.  Was the 1954 U S backed Iranian coup not just about oil?  Did maybe We want to keep a close side eye on Afghanistan without arousing suspicion way back then?  Fourth, did the Russians know about the REEs, is that really why they waged war there so many years?

Please feel free to correct my wandering mind.