Jump to content
The Education Forum

New York Times lies about JFK. Again.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Robert Burrows said:

Do you think that the events of September 11, 2001 would have happened if Al Gore had been allowed to become President?

No, I don't, Robert. 

My own belief is that 9/11 was a complex false flag op-- a PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" type event used to mobilize popular U.S. support for the Bush-Cheney wars in the Middle East. 

According to Paul O'Neill's 2004 memoir, The Price of Loyalty, Rumsfeld was talking about waging war on Iraq in Bush and Cheney's first Cabinet meeting in late January of 2001.

Shortly after 9/11, General Wesley Clark spoke to a Pentagon official.  This is what he was, allegedly, told.

TOP 25 QUOTES BY WESLEY CLARK (of 65) | A-Z Quotes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

No, I don't, Robert. 

My own belief is that 9/11 was a complex false flag op-- a PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" type event used to mobilize popular U.S. support for the Bush-Cheney wars in the Middle East. 

According to Paul O'Neill's 2004 memoir, The Price of Loyalty, Rumsfeld was talking about waging war on Iraq in Bush and Cheney's first Cabinet meeting in late January of 2001.

Shortly after 9/11, General Wesley Clark spoke to a Pentagon official.  This is what he was, allegedly, told.

TOP 25 QUOTES BY WESLEY CLARK (of 65) | A-Z Quotes

 

I've always thought along the same lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John said: However, I am not sure Larry is right when he says a capitalist country should be able to compete economically with communist China. It would be true if China was a communist country. However, it is more accurately described as "state capitalist". This is the most effective economic system ever and very difficult to compete with. Most importantly, the government controls "labor costs" and major investment in the economy (it also controls outside investment). 

This is really a cogent point. It's really a hybrid of Capitalism and a planned economy. For example, Two of the biggest issues in the U.S. now are 1) wealth inequality. The CCP are going after the billionaires and are going to be a lot more successful than the U.S. ever could be. 2) There's a lot of talk by  both parties in the U.S. about the power of social media. Europe has taken a more regulatory stance,  but The CCP is just sweeping in and taking control in a manner we would consider Draconian, and there's not a long history, or culture  of respecting individual rights to offer much resistance.

The weakness is it rests on critical decisions, by a very centralized group and if the judgment is wrong it could be, at some time disastrous, as for example it has occasionally been with overbuilding, as there are 100,000 people cities that are completely unoccupied. But up to now, the economy has been such a powerhouse, it can easily be absorbed.

 

The Chinese are everywhere funding foreign infrastructure projects. There is a total of about 800 foreign infrastructures projects in every major continent. In  Panama they are talking about the increased Chinese influence. There is still a loyalty or a willingness in Latin America  to look upon the U.S. as a big brother. I'm not sure why, but there is a perception that the U.S. could be their natural benefactor if the government didn't from time to time get in the way.  But that perception has to be changing.

I remember for many decades there was a grueling, bumpy 9 hour bus ride from Guatemala City to a remote region in the Guatemalan  rain forest and the Mayan temples of Tikal. I didn't go there over a decade and 15 years ago when I last went,  I found that whole route had now been paved. I wondered how the Guatemalan government managed to do that? And I found out it was an infrastructure project funded by the Germans. The Germans?  If the U.S. had done more of that rather than just selling arms to perpetuate a 5% middle class that preserved our corporate interests, they had the chance to be the benevolent super power that the West so much looked up to after WWll.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2021 at 10:53 AM, David Andrews said:

Maybe we need to incorporate Afghanistan into a "Greater Pakistan."  Let the Pakistanis handle the current Afghan state the way they handle the rebel Baluchs on their Iranian border.

There's a Pashtun dominance in Pakistani politics that can align with the Afghan Pashtuns.

Our Syriana plan now needs to be revised.

Here's a competing Pakistani view, for which I bump:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/24/pakistan-taliban-us-retreat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Here's a competing Pakistani view, for which I bump:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/24/pakistan-taliban-us-retreat

US interventionism has untoward results, is fantastically expensive, cruel, yet counterproductive.  A reverse Midas touch. 

Now embraced fully by both parties, perhaps even more so by the Donks than the 'Phants. 

Hard to explain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

US interventionism has untoward results, is fantastically expensive, cruel, yet counterproductive.  A reverse Midas touch. 

Now embraced fully by both parties, perhaps even more so by the Donks than the 'Phants. 

Hard to explain. 

Ben,

   It may be hard to explain because it isn't true.  The lion's share of the blame for our multi-trillion dollar military debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq surely belongs to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Neocon staffers.

   Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning-- one of the few.  It is true that he later acquiesced in the prolongation of the Afghan occupation -- begrudgingly, according to Robert Gates' memoir-- but Trump's administration killed more civilians in the Middle East, "collaterally," in their first eight months in office than Obama did in eight years.

   My only real disappointment with Obama as POTUS was over his somewhat surprising acquiescence in the phony "War on Terror"-- in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

   Obama's self-proclaimed approach to military policy was, "Don't do stupid stuff," but I read somewhere that Leon Panetta advised him early on in his Presidency that, "You can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the Joint Chiefs and CIA.)

    Unfortunately, he didn't.  Would he have met JFK's fate if he had said, "No?"

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

   It may be hard to explain because it isn't true.  The lion's share of the blame for our multi-trillion dollar military debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq surely belongs to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Neocon staffers.

   Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning-- one of the few.  It is true that he later acquiesced in the prolongation of the Afghan occupation -- begrudgingly, according to Robert Gates' memoir-- but Trump's administration killed more civilians in the Middle East, "collaterally," in their first eight months in office than Obama did in eight years.

   My only real disappointment with Obama as POTUS was over his somewhat surprising acquiescence in the phony "War on Terror"-- in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

   Obama's self-proclaimed approach to military policy was, "Don't do stupid stuff," but I read somewhere that Leon Panetta advised him early on in his Presidency that, "You can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the Joint Chiefs and CIA.)

    Unfortunately, he didn't.  Would he have met JFK's fate if he had said, "No?"

W.--

Yes, I agree the loathsome W crowd got us into Iraqistan. With Donk support. 

But then, LBJ was the prime mover in Vietnam. With 'Phant support. 

Obama had eight years on Afghanie. OK, maybe he wanted to get re-elected (ala Nixon), so Obama could have pulled out early his second term (as did Nixon fro Vietnam, effectively speaking). 

I am not here to defend the nut-creep Trump.  

I do wonder if the nut-creep Trump, on foreign policy, was any worse than the Donk-'Phant establishment. He may have been marginally better. 

Here is only a portion---just part of!---of Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) web-page regarding national security, which reads like she copy-pasted by Liz Cheney's page: 

 

 "We must invest in diplomacy; support our military, including our National Guard and Reserves; and defend democracy, freedom, a vigorous press corps, and the rule of law abroad.

...

Ensuring stability in the Middle East. We need a regional strategy in the Middle East that addresses the threats from Iran and extremism, while also supporting human rights and addressing the terrible humanitarian situations in places like Yemen and Syria. I am a strong supporter of the alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and believe we should find a constructive approach to advance a peace process that has buy-in from Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab world. This is the best route to direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and a two-state solution.
 

Combating Iran’s destabilizing activity in Syria. The Syrian conflict has led to one of the world’s worst ongoing humanitarian crises and the worst refugee crisis since World War II. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and more than five million Syrians have registered as refugees since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. This crisis requires an international response and clear U.S. policy to address Iran’s destabilizing activity in the region. I have repeatedly supported sanctions against Iran, which are an important part of our policy to counter Iranian support for terrorism. In particular, I supported the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act, which was signed into law on August 2, 2017. This bill called for a comprehensive regional strategy and imposed mandatory sanctions on those involved with Iran's ballistic missile program, those who fund terrorist organizations, and those who commit human rights violations.
 

Addressing the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The situation in Yemen constitutes another of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Out of a total population of 28 million, over 24 million Yemenis are in need of assistance and over 14 million are in acute need. Ongoing hostilities between the Saudi Arabia-led coalition and Houthi forces have only exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. We have a responsibility to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it. Doing so enhances our security by thwarting those who wish to radicalize youth in the region.
 

Support for Israel. America and Israel are close allies whose interests in the Middle East and around the world remain strongly aligned. The deep and enduring friendship between our nations is based on values rooted in democracy and mutual strategic goals, and we must remain steadfast in our commitment to Israel’s security. With dialogue, patience, and resolve, our ultimate goal of peace throughout the region can be realized. As staunch allies of Israel, we must also stand up again the resurgence of anti-Semitism and those who enable it.
 

Curbing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly supported the sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. After extensive review, I concluded that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the agreement reached between Iran and the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China—was our best available option to put the brakes on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, and I opposed the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. Although the JCPOA was not perfect, Iran’s commitments under the pact—including an agreement to give up 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, disconnect two-thirds of its centrifuges, limit uranium enrichment to a single research facility, open its nuclear facilities to continuous monitoring, and allow stringent inspections of its uranium supply chain—represented a significant step in the right direction. I strongly disagreed with the previous Administration’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the JCPOA, since it was at odds with the guidance given by military leaders, diplomats, and our nation’s closest allies. The previous Administration’s withdrawal from the agreement has made monitoring Iran’s nuclear program more difficult, isolated us from our allies, and undermined U.S. leadership to confront Iran’s aggression in the region.
 

Deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have supported bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but we must do so responsibly and in keeping with the advice of our senior national security officials. We must also continue to work with each government to maintain stability and to ensure that the countries are not again used as bases for terrorism. This could include a limited troop presence focused on counterterrorism and training. This strategy puts the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in the lead for security and economic development and allows the United States to continue to conduct counterterrorism operations. The international community must work together to emphasize security and economic development for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to push for strong and necessary oversight of U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and a responsible approach to U.S. troop engagement to ensure that these countries cannot be used as a safe haven for terrorists again.
 

Combating aggression by authoritarian regimes. According to the Intelligence Community’s latest Worldwide Threat Assessment, authoritarian governments have intensified their efforts to undermine the United States through election interference, weapons proliferation, and cyberattacks. In response to this threat, we must continue to defend America’s democratic system and position in the world.
 

Russia. Our intelligence agencies have confirmed that the Kremlin attempted to use cyberattacks, espionage, and propaganda to undermine the 2016 and 2020 elections, and that Russia has continued to wage influence campaigns intended to undermine our democracy. Russia also launched an extended information war designed to divide our country and destroy Americans’ confidence in our political system. We must act to protect our democracy against this kind of foreign interference. As the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, I am leading numerous pieces of legislation to counter interference in our elections by foreign adversaries like Russia.

Since annexing Crimea, Russia has become even more emboldened and aggressive, and the Russian military maintains a significant presence in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s threatening behavior also includes large cyberattacks against the U.S. government and private companies’ computer systems and providing weapons to Iran and Syria. Our commitment to NATO is more important than ever. Our allies and adversaries around the world need to know that we will stand together to protect each other against military aggression. If President Putin continues to ignore international law and engage in hostile behavior, we must continue to escalate political and economic pressure on his regime and reinforce the global coalition against Russian aggression, not further isolate ourselves from our allies.

The United States and our allies should work to help the government in Kiev and deescalate the violence in eastern and southern Ukraine. I supported legislation that was signed into law in March 2014, which provided loan guarantees and other assistance to help support the new Ukrainian government and imposed targeted sanctions on Russian officials who have contributed to the crisis.

 

North Korea. North Korea’s accelerating nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a serious threat to the United States and our allies. The country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is a ruthless dictator who has committed horrible crimes against his own people. We need a comprehensive strategy on North Korea that includes diplomacy, economic pressure, and engagement with our allies in the region.
 

Strengthening relationships with North American trading partners. By working together, North American nations can improve our ability as a region to compete in the world economy and enhance our collective security. We need a revamped approach to our North American partnerships.
 

Seizing the opportunity for a new day in North America. As the three largest countries on the continent, the United States, Canada, and Mexico are strong democracies with a combined population of more than 490 million people. Our increasingly integrated economies are worth more than $20 trillion and produce almost 30 percent of global goods and services. This secure international position gives us the potential for achieving continent-wide energy independence. This would include developing a North American competitiveness agenda focused on fair trade; increasing cross-border investment, innovation, private-sector integration; and improving coordination on regulatory practices, border management, and energy. With countries working together, North America can more effectively export its products to new and emerging markets in Asia, South America, and Africa. As the chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I strongly supported including Canada in the previous Administration’s trade negotiations and worked with other senators to oppose efforts to exclude them. I also supported the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). With the additionally negotiated pro-labor and environmental changes and the elimination of a provision that would have benefitted pharmaceutical companies at the expense of consumers, I felt the agreement provided much-needed stability and economic opportunity for American farmers, producers, and consumers. A North American trading bloc is also an essential strategy to competing with China on a global scale.

---30---

There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP,  btw).  

If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP.  Sad to say. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

   It may be hard to explain because it isn't true.  The lion's share of the blame for our multi-trillion dollar military debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq surely belongs to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Neocon staffers.

   Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning-- one of the few.  It is true that he later acquiesced in the prolongation of the Afghan occupation -- begrudgingly, according to Robert Gates' memoir-- but Trump's administration killed more civilians in the Middle East, "collaterally," in their first eight months in office than Obama did in eight years.

   My only real disappointment with Obama as POTUS was over his somewhat surprising acquiescence in the phony "War on Terror"-- in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

   Obama's self-proclaimed approach to military policy was, "Don't do stupid stuff," but I read somewhere that Leon Panetta advised him early on in his Presidency that, "You can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the Joint Chiefs and CIA.)

    Unfortunately, he didn't.  Would he have met JFK's fate if he had said, "No?"

Obama in a limo in Dallas, he had no choice, as no president since JFK has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Obama in a limo in Dallas, he had no choice, as no president since JFK has.

Ominously sad that we ( including probably a million others who lived through the JFK event ) could even have such thoughts in our minds. Yet, JFK's improbable murder forced our inquiring rational minds to consider new realities such as this.

The postings above are so enlightening and informing regards our involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere globally the last 75 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben: Concerning his exhaustive research into Amy Klobuchar talking points.

BEN:There is more, but your eyes would glaze over. A big section on China (I loathe the CCP,  btw).

China is a real economic threat. It's the one thing Trump got right. If you loathe the CCP, then why are you putting her down for that?

But my eyes are already glazed over. I'm not sure why you chose a midwest Democrat Amy Klobuchar's  sort of boiler plate foreign policy statement to mean anything. She actually ran for President in 2020 and was beaten soundly. So she doesn't represent a sizable chunk of the dems. About the only good foreign policy things I can say about her is that she was for the U.S, Iran multi national agreement,( that actually was backed by Putin and Russia  if that validates it for you,) and that was opposed by Cheney and was jettisoned by peacenik Trump. She also favored Obama opening up relations with Cuba, again opposed by Cheney, and Trump dumped that as well.. These are substantive issues. Unfortunately in the U.S. there are only 2 parties, so they cover a lot of ideological ground.

 

Ben:If there is anybody opposed to the national security state today, it is the populist wing of the GOP

On the surface, that may seem so , but you're confusing the pablum that Tucker is directly feeding you, but Steve Banon was the architect of, as reality. You talk about the "populist wing of the GOP".  Do you have anything specific on who you're talking about? Can you name me one person that you'd like to defend?  The great majority of the "populists" you're mentioning were never really  on record espousing anti national security state views, (maybe the Paul's,)  and if you look through their history in public statements, were pro Bush's War in Iraq. They're just blindly following whatever Trump says. There is a character element in all this stuff as well. So there's a bit more going on under the surface.

Ben I get from you there's one big issue and that's the U.S. National Security State. Oh and of course "identity politics".  But since you were probably the last person here to predict Biden would get out of Afghanistan, you can now see there's a lot more resistance in the U.K. and Europe and throughout the world than just the U.S, "Deep State". But there's also a myriad of other issues that we citizen's of the U.S. face; there's issues of Environmental Protection and climate change. There's a struggle for civil rights and voting rights.  In the U.S.. there are severe  income inequality issues and some of us are trying to build a more equitable health care system. We're going through a pandemic and there's been a massive economic displacement here and throughout the world. These problems do exist whether Tucker and Glen Greenwad talk about them or not.

 

 

 

No I don't agree with that either Ron. So Biden has a choice, but Obama didn't have a choice, because he would have been assassinated.?

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

   It may be hard to explain because it isn't true.  The lion's share of the blame for our multi-trillion dollar military debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq surely belongs to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their Neocon staffers.

   Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning-- one of the few.  It is true that he later acquiesced in the prolongation of the Afghan occupation -- begrudgingly, according to Robert Gates' memoir-- but Trump's administration killed more civilians in the Middle East, "collaterally," in their first eight months in office than Obama did in eight years.

   My only real disappointment with Obama as POTUS was over his somewhat surprising acquiescence in the phony "War on Terror"-- in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

   Obama's self-proclaimed approach to military policy was, "Don't do stupid stuff," but I read somewhere that Leon Panetta advised him early on in his Presidency that, "You can't just say, 'No,' to these guys" (i.e., the Joint Chiefs and CIA.)

    Unfortunately, he didn't.  Would he have met JFK's fate if he had said, "No?"

I think that repeated messages were sent to Obama early on to remind him that he was vulnerable if he didn't watch his step.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna215751

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Robert Burrows said:

I think that repeated messages were sent to Obama early on to remind him that he was vulnerable if he didn't watch his step.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna215751

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

For all those people saying nobody protested Obama's elections. - Album on  Imgur

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Burrows said:

I think that repeated messages were sent to Obama early on to remind him that he was vulnerable if he didn't watch his step.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna215751

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.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...