A "response" that was not proportionate, and an impeachment "trial" coming up that everyone knows will result in acquittal. At first the "players" involved with Iran were all hot to fight, but then backed off, just as the Democrats were all hot to impeach, but the Speaker has been backing off from sending the articles to the Senate. It gets harder and harder not to conclude that everything on the world "stage" is indeed "stage managed". Perhaps "stage manager" Shakespeare knew the real score, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars (of reality TV shows?) / But in ourselves, that we are underlings (sheep)." , from "Julius Caesar"(now where have I heard that name before?).
Just Saying Who's Trumping der Fuhrer?
- Thread starter Richard Stanley
- Start date
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the issue of the alleged airliner shoot down (and who allegedly pulled the trigger -- on the Russian made missile), the Iranian response seems consistent with their having stayed with the nuclear agreement until now, demonstrating that they will take the high road and Trump his consistent low road and BS rhetoric. And consistent with Trump's maniacal Agent of Kaos motif.
There is also a claim floating out there that Soleimani was supposed to meet with the Saudi's to ratchet down Iranian / Saudi tensions, and if true, then certain interests in the WH and elsewhere would benefit from the assassination. Pence is making a bizarre claim that Soleimani and Iran planned played a role in 9/11. Shades of Dick Cheney.
At Trump's ridiculous babfoon [sic] press conference he claimed that our missile defenses saved us from casualties, but, I understand that the Iranians warned the Iraqis, who informed the US military. So, yes, everything could be a staged shit show ... par for the course of history.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Wow, "when so many abnormal events happen at once ..."
"That men will interpret things as they will: "Indeed it is a strange-disposed time ..""
From: https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/juliuscaesar/section3/
Of course, Suetonius informs us that Brutus was at the 'Last Supper', where JC joked about his immanent demise (and the avatar JC told Judas to "go about his business").
Indeed men and women will interpret "as they will", and the interpretations of "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars" are manifold, as how can Cassius be both happy that the gods are informing us ... and that the stars (as the transition markers of the age?) are not? Or, is there a script being followed (again) as we suggest?
"That men will interpret things as they will: "Indeed it is a strange-disposed time ..""
From: https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/juliuscaesar/section3/
Summary: Act I, scene iii
Casca and Cicero meet on a Roman street. Casca says that though he has seen many terrible things in the natural world, nothing compares to the frightfulness of this night’s weather. He wonders if there is strife in heaven or if the gods are so angered by mankind that they intend to destroy it. Casca relates that he saw a man with his hands on fire, and yet his flesh was not burning. He describes meeting a lion near the Capitol: bizarrely, the lion ignored him and walked on. Many others have seen men on fire walking in the streets, and an owl, a nocturnal bird, was seen sitting out in the marketplace during the day. When so many abnormal events happen at once, Casca declares, no one could possibly believe that they are natural occurrences. Casca insists that they are portents of danger ahead. Cicero replies that men will interpret things as they will: “Indeed it is a strange-disposèd time; / But men may construe things after their fashion, / Clean from the purpose of the things themselves” (I.iii.33–35). Cicero asks if Caesar is coming to the Capitol the next day; Casca replies that he is. Cicero departs, warning that it is not a good atmosphere in which to remain outside.
Cassius enters. He has been wandering through the streets, taking no shelter from the thunder and lightning. Casca asks Cassius why he would endanger himself so. Cassius replies that he is pleased—he believes that the gods are using these signs to warn the Romans about a “monstrous state,” meaning both an abnormal state of affairs and an atrocious government (I.iii.71). Cassius compares the night to Caesar himself, who
Cassius enters. He has been wandering through the streets, taking no shelter from the thunder and lightning. Casca asks Cassius why he would endanger himself so. Cassius replies that he is pleased—he believes that the gods are using these signs to warn the Romans about a “monstrous state,” meaning both an abnormal state of affairs and an atrocious government (I.iii.71). Cassius compares the night to Caesar himself, who
He also calls Caesar “prodigious grown, / And fearful, as these strange eruptions are” (I.iii.76–77).
Casca reports to Cassius that the senators plan to make Caesar king in the Senate the following day. Cassius draws his dagger and swears to the gods that if they can make a weak man like Caesar so powerful, then they can empower Cassius to defeat a tyrant. He declares that Rome must be merely trash or rubbish to give itself up so easily to Caesar’s fire. Casca joins Cassius in his censure of Caesar, and Cassius reveals that he has already swayed a number of high-powered Romans to support a resistance movement.
A conspirator named Cinna enters. Cassius now divulges his latest scheme in his plot to build opposition against Caesar: the conversion of Brutus. Cassius gives Cinna the letters he has forged to place in Brutus’s chair in the Senate, and others to throw through Brutus’s window and place on Brutus’s statue. Cassius claims that Brutus has already come three-quarters of the way toward turning against Caesar; he hopes the letters will bring him the rest of the way around. Casca comments that the noble Brutus’s participation in their plot will bring worthiness to their schemes, for “he sits high in all the people’s hearts, / And that which would appear offence in us / His countenance, like richest alchemy, / Will change to virtue and to worthiness” (I.iii.157–60).
Analysis
This scene demonstrates the characters’ inability to interpret correctly the signs that they encounter. The night is full of portents, but no one construes them accurately. Cassius asserts that they signify the danger that Caesar’s possible coronation would bring to the state, while they actually warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. Meanwhile, Cassius plots to win Brutus to his cause by misleading him with letters; he knows that Brutus will take the written word at face value, never questioning the letters’ authenticity.
Casca reports to Cassius that the senators plan to make Caesar king in the Senate the following day. Cassius draws his dagger and swears to the gods that if they can make a weak man like Caesar so powerful, then they can empower Cassius to defeat a tyrant. He declares that Rome must be merely trash or rubbish to give itself up so easily to Caesar’s fire. Casca joins Cassius in his censure of Caesar, and Cassius reveals that he has already swayed a number of high-powered Romans to support a resistance movement.
A conspirator named Cinna enters. Cassius now divulges his latest scheme in his plot to build opposition against Caesar: the conversion of Brutus. Cassius gives Cinna the letters he has forged to place in Brutus’s chair in the Senate, and others to throw through Brutus’s window and place on Brutus’s statue. Cassius claims that Brutus has already come three-quarters of the way toward turning against Caesar; he hopes the letters will bring him the rest of the way around. Casca comments that the noble Brutus’s participation in their plot will bring worthiness to their schemes, for “he sits high in all the people’s hearts, / And that which would appear offence in us / His countenance, like richest alchemy, / Will change to virtue and to worthiness” (I.iii.157–60).
Analysis
This scene demonstrates the characters’ inability to interpret correctly the signs that they encounter. The night is full of portents, but no one construes them accurately. Cassius asserts that they signify the danger that Caesar’s possible coronation would bring to the state, while they actually warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. Meanwhile, Cassius plots to win Brutus to his cause by misleading him with letters; he knows that Brutus will take the written word at face value, never questioning the letters’ authenticity.
Of course, Suetonius informs us that Brutus was at the 'Last Supper', where JC joked about his immanent demise (and the avatar JC told Judas to "go about his business").
Indeed men and women will interpret "as they will", and the interpretations of "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars" are manifold, as how can Cassius be both happy that the gods are informing us ... and that the stars (as the transition markers of the age?) are not? Or, is there a script being followed (again) as we suggest?
Last edited:
Charles Watkins
Active Member
The US bases were given 6 hours notice that the attacks were coming.
They need time to plan their response. If it is a counter-assassination, it will probably be contracted out. Pompeo?
And while I've got you here, there's some good info on Moon of Alabama about the alleged missile strike on the Ukrainian plane.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Here's the top of the link you gave: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/open-thread-2020-02.html
Rudy Giuliani should be arrested for terrorist activities, as witnessed by his close association with MEK. And, Trump should be arrested as Rudy is both his lawyer and personal foreign affairs bitch. What is the likelihood of this happening? Well, airliners drop out of the skies at curious and odd times.
From your link:
For more on MEK (not the industrial solvent): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=giuliani+mek&t=ffsb&atb=v173-1&ia=web
Here is Rudy leading an MEK chant for "regime change":
Rudy Giuliani should be arrested for terrorist activities, as witnessed by his close association with MEK. And, Trump should be arrested as Rudy is both his lawyer and personal foreign affairs bitch. What is the likelihood of this happening? Well, airliners drop out of the skies at curious and odd times.
From your link:
There are also many Farsi/English Twitter accounts that are operated by the anti-Iranian MEK cult known for its cooperation with U.S. intelligence services. Whoever provided the pictures might have done so to falsely accuse Iran.
For more on MEK (not the industrial solvent): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=giuliani+mek&t=ffsb&atb=v173-1&ia=web
Secret MEK troll factory in Albania uses modern slaves (aka Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, NCRI ,Rajavi cult) US - MEK meddling poisons grassroots democracy in Iran ...
Here is Rudy leading an MEK chant for "regime change":
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
The following explains why it is likely to be difficult to impossible to unwind the current Iran dynamic. Jimmy Dore agrees with the former head of the CIA, who is likely speaking on such terms because the Rubicon has been crossed, and doing so will demonstrate his prescience. The question is whether or not Trump has been led down the primrose path or not by the war machine. I say no.
Everyone has probably seen by now, but Iran has now admitted that they shot down the Ukrainian jet liner, claiming it was an accident. From MOA:
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp IRGC's Aerospace Commander Amir-Ali Hajizadeh just gave press conference. It was an IRGC air defense unit that shot the plane down.
Iran Front Page journalist Reza Khaasteh translated on Twitter:
What I find inexplainable is that the crew of Tor M-1 air defense system did not really consider that the Tehran airport was operating and that civil traffic was likely. More the ten planes had already taken off that before the Ukrainian flight took to the air. The accident happened shortly after 6:00 am local time. Pure speculation: I suspect that a crew change has happened at 6:00 am and that the overnight crew did not really brief the one taking over.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Maybe this is what happened, but perhaps the Iranians are being clever in removing this particular path of escalation as an option. Force Trump or his handlers to become even more obvious.
Even though there were no Americans on board, the next best thing would be Canadians as proxy Americans. It was being speculated that the Iranians wanted to do this for a long time as revenge for the USS Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner. So bad that they would even kill many Iranians and Canadians. As such, Trudeau was speaking out of one side of his mouth that the Iranians had shot it down, before it could be known for sure what happened.
When the Vincennes incident happened VP George Bush stated that America would not apologize or admit error. By contrast, Iran has taken the opposite tack in just two days.
Even though there were no Americans on board, the next best thing would be Canadians as proxy Americans. It was being speculated that the Iranians wanted to do this for a long time as revenge for the USS Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner. So bad that they would even kill many Iranians and Canadians. As such, Trudeau was speaking out of one side of his mouth that the Iranians had shot it down, before it could be known for sure what happened.
When the Vincennes incident happened VP George Bush stated that America would not apologize or admit error. By contrast, Iran has taken the opposite tack in just two days.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
The MAGA Church, courtesy of curious George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway:
It's 'funny' about just how much speculation there is about the dialectical Conways, yet I have not seen anyone else suggest it is a surface manifestation of divide and conquer. I suggest as a barometer to gauge the level of public slumber.
It's 'funny' about just how much speculation there is about the dialectical Conways, yet I have not seen anyone else suggest it is a surface manifestation of divide and conquer. I suggest as a barometer to gauge the level of public slumber.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Well, today we arrived at the next chapter of the unfolding saga of inanity. The senators and the Chief Justice have been sworn in to do their solemn duty to examine the evidence and render a just verdict, despite many having declared that they would do no such thing, oath to God or not.
While this is going on, Agent Orange Leaks sat on his throne before a crowd of religious devil worshipers, while crowing about his great messianic economic deeds. The Trump stock market is so high only because of the massive influx of printed money, the one time the monetary expansion halted the market crashed:
Trump's great deeds are mostly all rhetoric, the meager benefits to his base are trickle down from the massive corporate welfare programs. His campaign rhetoric of being about ending stupid wars forces us to merely recontextualize or redefine what the meaning of what a stupid war is.
It's all a shell game, and when one sees various MSM outlets wondering if the impeachment trial will indeed result in a dictatorship, then have I been so crazy in my predictions on this thread? Or, could we actually see some Trumpublican senators turn the tide? Don't hold your breath.
Curiously, Putin has chosen this time to alter his government, apparently to make major constitutional reforms. My sources report that Trump was wondering whether he should resign along with the rest of Putin's ministers, but Kellyanne Conway assured him that he did not need to.
While this is going on, Agent Orange Leaks sat on his throne before a crowd of religious devil worshipers, while crowing about his great messianic economic deeds. The Trump stock market is so high only because of the massive influx of printed money, the one time the monetary expansion halted the market crashed:
Trump's great deeds are mostly all rhetoric, the meager benefits to his base are trickle down from the massive corporate welfare programs. His campaign rhetoric of being about ending stupid wars forces us to merely recontextualize or redefine what the meaning of what a stupid war is.
It's all a shell game, and when one sees various MSM outlets wondering if the impeachment trial will indeed result in a dictatorship, then have I been so crazy in my predictions on this thread? Or, could we actually see some Trumpublican senators turn the tide? Don't hold your breath.
Curiously, Putin has chosen this time to alter his government, apparently to make major constitutional reforms. My sources report that Trump was wondering whether he should resign along with the rest of Putin's ministers, but Kellyanne Conway assured him that he did not need to.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
The following excerpted article discusses the messaging underlying Mike Pence's recent article in the WSJ last Friday. Pence's article calls for Democrat senators to be patriotic and courageous by rejecting this partisan impeachment by using the example of Senator Ross from the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial.
As I have discussed on this thread, any alert and concerned observer would have to conclude that the complete 'Republican' abandonment of their supposed bedrock principles in favor of one of the most corrupt humans to have walked this planet must be driven by some untoward motivation(s). I have offered up several possibilities, none of which have to be mutually exclusive. In the case of Pence's article, this 'principled' Evangelical Catholic (something of an oxymoron) is signalling that one (even a Democrat) can expect some nice reward(s) for violating the public trust in siding with Trump.
Was Pence ever 'principled'? Well, whatever the answer to that question, he is now deep in the dog doo of the Ukrainian swamp, and his fate is tied to Trump's mafiosi. That is, if enough are of the mind to serve the public trust. It appears that the deck is stacked the wrong way, and the deck stacking is barely veiled.
As I have discussed on this thread, any alert and concerned observer would have to conclude that the complete 'Republican' abandonment of their supposed bedrock principles in favor of one of the most corrupt humans to have walked this planet must be driven by some untoward motivation(s). I have offered up several possibilities, none of which have to be mutually exclusive. In the case of Pence's article, this 'principled' Evangelical Catholic (something of an oxymoron) is signalling that one (even a Democrat) can expect some nice reward(s) for violating the public trust in siding with Trump.
Was Pence ever 'principled'? Well, whatever the answer to that question, he is now deep in the dog doo of the Ukrainian swamp, and his fate is tied to Trump's mafiosi. That is, if enough are of the mind to serve the public trust. It appears that the deck is stacked the wrong way, and the deck stacking is barely veiled.
...
Vice President Mike Pence published a powerful, but deceptive article in Friday's Wall Street Journal that offers the White House position. Pence called for "courage" from Senate Democrats who, he contended, must be willing "to stand up and reject a partisan impeachment." He invoked former Republican Senator Edmund Ross who, during the trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, voted against the Republican Party to prevent the removal of the president. As Pence put it: "Ross was determined to render a fair judgment, resisting his own party's stampede."
Pence bought into the false notion that Ross was a "profile in courage" for refusing on principled grounds to be the final vote needed to remove Johnson from office. His account is historically dishonest on every count and it reveals the contortions the White House is willing to perform to protect its power at all costs -- precisely the attitude that helped to trigger impeachment in the first place. When a president and his closest advisers pathologically lie to the public, and Pence's article is yet another example, how can the American people (and our allies) believe anything coming out of the White House? How can a president lead when he has violated all foundations for public trust?
In this op-ed, Pence has distorted basic American history and civics into Soviet-style propaganda, where the facts are intentionally turned upside down. Numerous historians have written about President Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and Senator Ross' role in his trial -- including Manisha Sinha, Brenda Wineapple, David Greenberg and David Stewart. They all agree -- and no serious historian disagrees -- that Ross intended to vote for Johnson's conviction, but suddenly changed his mind. Ross did not experience an epiphany of conscience or a surge of courage. Evidence suggests he was bribed.
President Johnson's supporters promised Ross, who had only come to the Senate in 1866 through corrupt maneuvers in Kansas, that he could have appointments for his close friends in lucrative federal government jobs. In particular, Ross' financial supporter, Perry Fuller, was appointed collector of revenue in the Port of New Orleans. Fuller promptly used his position to steal $3 million, for which he was eventually arrested. Another Ross associate was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs in what is today Oklahoma. ...
As Vice President Pence was born and raised a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, could he have obtained this "false notion" about Senator Ross from "Profiles In Courage", supposedly written by Roman Catholic and Democrat John F. Kennedy? Senator Ross is one of the eight U. S. Senators featured in that book, with no mention of any bribery of his vote for the acquittal of President Andrew Johnson, of course.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I guess that's plausible.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Well, day 2 of the impeachment prosecution has ended, and it seems that the script is holding to form. While the Trumpublican senators complain about that they are hearing nothing new (compared to the House testimony that they claimed they weren't watching as 'impartial jurors'), Agent Orange Leaks explicitly crowed from Davos that this is because he is withholding all the relevant documents. The defense claims, made to the press, are all about what-aboutism, such as why Obama didn't give Ukraine military aid, why 4 of the Dem impeachment managers voted against such things, about what the Bidens were up or down to, etc..
The main thing of value, so far, has been the timeline of events, but there is much repetition. Including all the various statements made that a failure to excercise impeachment over this matter will necessarily result in a monarchy. A dynastic one at that.
One humorous episode, yesterday or the day before, was when Jay Sekulow went off on a tirade about the Dems wanting to eliminate "lawyer lawsuits". Nobody knew what the fuck he was talking about. Turns out one of the Dem managers was talking about FOIA lawsuits that the House was struggling with.
Interesting to learn, as well, that it is believed that Sekulow was one of the so-called "Four Horsemen" that maneuvered behind the scenes to get John Roberts nominated to the Supremes.
On Wednesday, Nadler got into a tiff with the defense team after Nadler called them out for repeatedly lying, for instance over the claim that the Trumpublicans were blocked from the House hearings and data in the secret underground SCIF.
The main thing of value, so far, has been the timeline of events, but there is much repetition. Including all the various statements made that a failure to excercise impeachment over this matter will necessarily result in a monarchy. A dynastic one at that.
One humorous episode, yesterday or the day before, was when Jay Sekulow went off on a tirade about the Dems wanting to eliminate "lawyer lawsuits". Nobody knew what the fuck he was talking about. Turns out one of the Dem managers was talking about FOIA lawsuits that the House was struggling with.
Interesting to learn, as well, that it is believed that Sekulow was one of the so-called "Four Horsemen" that maneuvered behind the scenes to get John Roberts nominated to the Supremes.
On Wednesday, Nadler got into a tiff with the defense team after Nadler called them out for repeatedly lying, for instance over the claim that the Trumpublicans were blocked from the House hearings and data in the secret underground SCIF.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
The following is a discussion about the recent attention that has come Jim Comey's way, around the nature of revelations relating to his role in Russiagate and his 'timely' announcements on the investigation in Hillary's email server problem.
Late in the discussion are comments about the Mueller Report failing to discuss certain matters, which reminded me to follow up on a mention elsewhere about Robert Mueller being a member of the Club of Rome. I will try to follow up on this in another post, perhaps on a new thread. Suffice it to say that this new material is confirmatory of my conclusion that the entire Trump tableau, including the Clintons, Putin and more, is indeed a staged shit show.
In any case, Mueller's 'prodigious' efforts of failure are consistent with every one of his prior investigations, aka coverups. One has to wonder whether his mentally disabled affect during his Congressional testimony was staged as well, the easier to sell what was being sold.
Late in the discussion are comments about the Mueller Report failing to discuss certain matters, which reminded me to follow up on a mention elsewhere about Robert Mueller being a member of the Club of Rome. I will try to follow up on this in another post, perhaps on a new thread. Suffice it to say that this new material is confirmatory of my conclusion that the entire Trump tableau, including the Clintons, Putin and more, is indeed a staged shit show.
In any case, Mueller's 'prodigious' efforts of failure are consistent with every one of his prior investigations, aka coverups. One has to wonder whether his mentally disabled affect during his Congressional testimony was staged as well, the easier to sell what was being sold.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Well, the door is still cracked open for the dying Republic, as the sham impeachment drama is being milked to the very last moment, making cognescenti Hollywood blush crimson.
Lamar Alexander even admitting on Twitter that Trump is guilty as charged by the House impeachment managers. Yet, he goes along with the Republican (Trumpublican) mob to deny hearing witnesses and seeing actual documentary evidence, all the while various 'players' (Bolton, Kelly, Parnas) are bombarding them with a fast drip of devastating revelations of guilt. Et tu Lamar?
But wait, 'et tu' is still too early in the typological process, no? The Dictator has not yet ascended to this official role. Albeit, an opera singer was shot at by the Secret Service, outside of Mar-a-Lago, and then she picked up her mother at the airport (before being arrested). They didn't have airports in pre-Imperial times.
What happens if the Senate votes in a tie (not likely) for Guilty, and Roberts now saying that he will NOT break a tie vote? Will the House bring up more articles of impeachment, and/or investigate the new issues raised recently?
In the meantime, the Orange Beast has offered up an insane Peace Plan guaranteed to fail, not long after having carried out a long aim to kill a man, Soliemani, that perhaps did the most to thwart ISIS, our black-ops agents in Syria. Syria, where the prior apocalypse was started almost 2,000 years ago (if you're reading our other threads).
Lamar Alexander even admitting on Twitter that Trump is guilty as charged by the House impeachment managers. Yet, he goes along with the Republican (Trumpublican) mob to deny hearing witnesses and seeing actual documentary evidence, all the while various 'players' (Bolton, Kelly, Parnas) are bombarding them with a fast drip of devastating revelations of guilt. Et tu Lamar?
But wait, 'et tu' is still too early in the typological process, no? The Dictator has not yet ascended to this official role. Albeit, an opera singer was shot at by the Secret Service, outside of Mar-a-Lago, and then she picked up her mother at the airport (before being arrested). They didn't have airports in pre-Imperial times.
What happens if the Senate votes in a tie (not likely) for Guilty, and Roberts now saying that he will NOT break a tie vote? Will the House bring up more articles of impeachment, and/or investigate the new issues raised recently?
In the meantime, the Orange Beast has offered up an insane Peace Plan guaranteed to fail, not long after having carried out a long aim to kill a man, Soliemani, that perhaps did the most to thwart ISIS, our black-ops agents in Syria. Syria, where the prior apocalypse was started almost 2,000 years ago (if you're reading our other threads).
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Is this really fake news?
If Julius Caesar is used as typological, he crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, thus leading to war with his Senate opposition, becoming dictator, and eventually assassinated five years later. On the other hand, if his "son" Octavian is used as typological, in 32 BC the Senate declared war on Cleopatra (but not Mark Antony officially), whose son Ptolemy XVI Philadelphus had been awarded Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia, and within five years Octavian vanquished his "foreign" enemies, made a show of returning full control to the Senate, and became the "Augustus" of 27 BC, ushering in the Imperial "Pax Romana", and everyone lives happily ever after, for a while, anyway. Starting now, within five years the present administration will end of its own volition regardless - unless the term limit amendment is overturned by that time.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Yes. No matter what there are chronological comparison problems if strict adherence to 'timelines' are an issue.
Separately, the following presentation by Kim Iverson starts discussing the issue of the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call, an aspect I have paid little attention to. While Iverson is generally correct about her complaints, the larger tableau of this seems very problematic, as did Russiagate become to be revealed.
The problem(s) for me are, for instance, that if the MIC and the related CIA (aka portions of the "Deep State") are trying take Trump out, then why doesn't the Trumpublican Senate committee leaders, like Burr, investigate instead of leaving it all to Rand Paul to threaten to reveal the name of the already known whistleblower? Why doesn't the Great Pumpkin make better use of his faux news organization to expose the evil doers? .........................
This is similar to the problem about impeachment witnesses, in that the Trumpublicans have the express power to call the Bidens or whoever else they want. Almost every aspect of the Trump phenomenon has similar issues.
Separately, the following presentation by Kim Iverson starts discussing the issue of the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call, an aspect I have paid little attention to. While Iverson is generally correct about her complaints, the larger tableau of this seems very problematic, as did Russiagate become to be revealed.
The problem(s) for me are, for instance, that if the MIC and the related CIA (aka portions of the "Deep State") are trying take Trump out, then why doesn't the Trumpublican Senate committee leaders, like Burr, investigate instead of leaving it all to Rand Paul to threaten to reveal the name of the already known whistleblower? Why doesn't the Great Pumpkin make better use of his faux news organization to expose the evil doers? .........................
This is similar to the problem about impeachment witnesses, in that the Trumpublicans have the express power to call the Bidens or whoever else they want. Almost every aspect of the Trump phenomenon has similar issues.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
The following is a discussion of the background to today's situation with Iran. Claims are that 'dovish' Trump ("I'm the most militant person there is".) is fighting off the malfluence of such hawkish zealots as Bolton and Pompeo, yet we can only observe his actions regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia, including the Kushner 'piece' plan which seems guaranteed to provoke the opposite of peace.
Perhaps the most notable item discussed for me is that the use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq accelerated when General Petraeus decided to pursue a policy of attacked the Shiite forces of Sadr instead of seeking to reduce tensions with them. The use of these devices was blamed upon Suleimani as a pretext to attack him on Iraqi soil, of which our 'dove' was quite happy to crow about.
Perhaps the most notable item discussed for me is that the use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq accelerated when General Petraeus decided to pursue a policy of attacked the Shiite forces of Sadr instead of seeking to reduce tensions with them. The use of these devices was blamed upon Suleimani as a pretext to attack him on Iraqi soil, of which our 'dove' was quite happy to crow about.