Sandy Larsen Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 On 7/11/2024 at 5:22 PM, Matt Cloud said: And by the way, I heard the exact same things as we stormed the steps of the Capitol on Jan 6. You were part of the Jan 6 attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: ... the three witches--HRC, Power and RIce-- used NATO to bomb Africa. (Wow... talk about misogyny) In defense of Hillary Clinton: Conventional wisdom in the first decade of this century, was that a woman couldn't win the presidency because she'd supposedly be weak on defense. That's the reason Hillary was made Secretary of Defense and was hawkish. As for the bombing of Libya... not a good idea, but Hillary & Obama were not alone. Ten members of the UN voted for the bombing and none voted against it. Fourteen NATO countries -- including the U.S., Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. -- participated in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 Di Eugenio: Therefore men like Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas MacGregor have attracted large followings in the alternative media. Viewers trust their coverage of what was and is really happening in the war in Ukraine. I would say this is dated, as of a couple of years ago. Then I see Jim wrote this last month! I once really liked Scott Ritter for his asking where was the WMD in the Iraq war. But Ritter very early after Putin's invasion was licking his chops, childishly scoffing at Nato and crediting Putin for exposing that Nato will be too weak to mount any kind of consensus against the Putin invasion and the war will end very soon! And here we are 2 and a half years later! And viewers now should "trust his coverage?" Ok, Di Eugenio, rather than coming out with his politics, simply gives links that his followers sometimes re post that express his political views. Yet somehow they're not considered political views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: (Wow... talk about misogyny) In defense of Hillary Clinton: Conventional wisdom in the first decade of this century, was that a woman couldn't win the presidency because she'd supposedly be weak on defense. That's the reason Hillary was made Secretary of Defense and was hawkish. As for the bombing of Libya... not a good idea, but Hillary & Obama were not alone. Ten members of the UN voted for the bombing and none voted against it. Fourteen NATO countries -- including the U.S., Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. -- participated in it. As VP, Joe Biden opposed NATO's Libya operation. You won't hear that from Mr. DiEugenio, of course. Edited July 16 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) To say the bombing of Libya was not a good idea is being rather mild. It was a horrendous idea. It threw Libya into becoming a slave auction state. And it has nothing to do with feminism. Reportedly it was those three who pushed that bomb of an idea on Obama. Then Obama later said he was not going to go into Syria with an invasion. Well, technically that was true. But he did approve a giant covert operation against Syria's secular leader. And this might have succeeded if Russia and Iran did not come to Assad's aid. In the latter two parts of my series I will show how these indicate that the Neocon creed came to power in both parties. And how it contrasts with what JFK did in comparable situations. PS Matt was part of the Insurrection? Edited July 17 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 On 7/15/2024 at 3:00 PM, James DiEugenio said: What ultimately happened was that the Neocons ended up taking over both parties. This is a theme I will get to in part 4. A perfect example is that the three witches--HRC, Power and RIce-- used NATO to bomb Africa. Let me repeat: NATO to bomb Africa. When Kennedy intervened in Congo, he went to the UN. We will also see that although Obama tried to say he fended off the attempt to invade Syria, he did not. He approved Timber Sycamore, a 1.2 billion CIA covert action which used Moslem Fundamentalists to get rid of a secular MIddle East leader, Assad. Kennedy advocated the contrary with Nasser. He wanted to use a secular socialist who went to war with the Moslem Brotherhood to westernize and modernize the Middle East. This is what I mean about Kennedy being buried and the Neocons taking over both parties. The "centrist position" in both the Democratic and Republican parties was to allow/encourage/enable Israel to mass murder Palestinians following the Hamas terror attack of October, 2023. As for the GOP position on Israel, "Genocide" Joe Biden was not good enough for them. The new possible death toll might be as high as 186,000 or more deaths (not everyone dies from a bomb, ... starving, disease kills too): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Ben Cole likes to pooh pooh the USS Liberty "conspiracy theory" ... boy has he got a lot to learn about that completely intentional and heinous ZIONIST crime and who really was behind it: Lyndon Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) Said Varnell: Quote Kennedy green-lit the overthrow of Diem, one of the most calamitous foreign policy decisions of the post-WW2 era. I think folks need to stifle the hero-worship. Not so fast ... Kennedy was tricked on an anti Diem path, he tried to back off ... his contingency plan in case of a Saigon Coup included to pull out the Diem brothers by a commercial airliner. Victor Krulak was involved in that plan. When the Diems at last surrendered they called Lodge a Last time, which offered them to pull them out. The next thing Lodge did, he called Conein who was with the Coup- Generals to gave them the location of the Diem brothers. To pick them up. The Colon Church. Two motorcades headed to that church. The first picked up the brothers but was intercepted by second motorcade only 500 meters north of the Church. A member of that second motorcade, Major Nhung was ordered to kill the Diems on the spot. Three months lather during the Saigon January coup Nhung was detained and tortured to death. There is a very interesting detail to this: In Francis X. Winters book about Vetnam THE YEAR OF THE HARE, he wrote: Quote In 1985, shortly after Lodge’s death, Mike Dunn, Lodge’s personal assistant and close friend, revealed in an interview that Diem called Lodge once more, at 7:00 a.m. on November 2, just minutes before his arrest and assassination. Asking for Lodge’s help in his last hour, Diem was literally “put on hold” by the ambassador. Returning after a few mo¬ ments to the telephone, Lodge offered the brothers asylum, but with no promise of transportation until the following day. Dunn then volun¬ teered to go personally to save the brothers from the coup leaders. Lodge adamantly refused: “We just can’t get that involved.” Dunn sug¬ gested in the same interview that when Lodge had put Diem on hold, he immediately notified Lucien Conein, the CIA officer at the coup headquarters, of Diem’s (previously unknown) whereabouts. Conein later vigorously denied this account of Diem’s discovery at the Chinese church.15 Now you are free to make a guess: Who gave the death penalty to the Diem brothers? And was that person a "Necon to the bone?" Edited July 18 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) edit Edited July 18 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) I think I should add this. The reason I have not been able to complete my series on JFK vs the Neocons is that too many people asked me to reply to this hatchet job book, by Maureen Callahan, on the Kennedys. When you are doing these kinds of things its always more difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube than it is to spray it out. So its taking awhile, had to send away for books etc. Once that is done I will complete the series with a focus on Nasser, the Middle East and the Henry Jackson defections to Reagan. The latter really jump started the Neocon revolution. Edited July 19 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 On 7/11/2024 at 11:34 AM, W. Niederhut said: James DiEugenio has published two new essays about JFK's agenda to restore FDR's anti-colonial policies and de-escalate the Cold War. I was unaware that Churchill and the British Ambassador to the U.S. were involved in the push to replace Henry Wallace on FDR's 1944 Presidential ticket. It looks like these two essays are the first in a history series about the rise of the Neocons. Definitely worth reading. JFK and the Rise of the Neocons, Pt. 1 (substack.com) JFK and the Neocons Pt. 2 - by James Anthony DiEugenio (substack.com) Efforts to remove Wallace from the 1944 ticket were nothing compared to British efforts to get the US into the war in the first place with FDR’s approval. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541742141/?coliid=I18L7CH0QTVI2D&colid=1LLH1ZZ3NP50V&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 26 Author Share Posted July 26 4 hours ago, Kevin Balch said: Efforts to remove Wallace from the 1944 ticket were nothing compared to British efforts to get the US into the war in the first place with FDR’s approval. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541742141/?coliid=I18L7CH0QTVI2D&colid=1LLH1ZZ3NP50V&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it Kevin, FDR had long aspired to get the U.S. involved in WWII, but he was dealing with a reluctant population. In his radio talks, he used the metaphor of a "neighbor's house on fire." As for Wallace's ouster from power in 1944, the critical issue was the survival of FDR's post-war anti-colonial policies, and prevention of the Cold War-- which JFK tried to revive, as described in the DiEugenio essays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: Kevin, FDR had long aspired to get the U.S. involved in WWII, but he was dealing with a reluctant population. In his radio talks, he used the metaphor of a "neighbor's house on fire." As for Wallace's ouster from power in 1944, the critical issue was the survival of FDR's post-war anti-colonial policies, and prevention of the Cold War-- which JFK tried to revive, as described in the DiEugenio essays. So that was OK? If this had been public knowledge, he would have and certainly should have been impeached and removed from office. If you believe it was OK for the Brits to help FDR lie to the American people, you surely must condemn our future Soviet “allies and peace partners” for their efforts using groups under their influence or control for trying to keep the US out of the war between the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The population was isolationist then because it was not isolationist in 1917 (and there some very good questions about our entry in THAT war). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 27 Author Share Posted July 27 3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said: So that was OK? If this had been public knowledge, he would have and certainly should have been impeached and removed from office. If you believe it was OK for the Brits to help FDR lie to the American people, you surely must condemn our future Soviet “allies and peace partners” for their efforts using groups under their influence or control for trying to keep the US out of the war between the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The population was isolationist then because it was not isolationist in 1917 (and there some very good questions about our entry in THAT war). Kevin, I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that FDR was wrong to support Britain's war against Hitler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Balch Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Kevin, I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that FDR was wrong to support Britain's war against Hitler? Yes. If he couldn’t make the case before the American people, he should have respected the overwhelming sentiments. Remarkable that those that that lament “foreign interference” in US affairs and the sanctity of democracy are very likely to support FDR’s subterfuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 On 7/18/2024 at 2:27 AM, Karl Kinaski said: Said Varnell: Not so fast ... Kennedy was tricked on an anti Diem path, he tried to back off Where did the buck stop? He got tricked by WASP elite types. Same thing with the Bay of Pigs. The buck stopped with JFK -- and the hero worship is over the top. 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