Below is my recent column in The Hill Newspaper on the increased U.S. involvement in the fighting in Syria and Yemen. As usual, there is little concern (beyond Sen. Rand Paul) over the sending of troops into foreign conflicts without congressional approval or anything resembling a specific declaration of war. Indeed, when members insist that modern national security threats do not make specific declarations or authorizations practical, they sound much like “living constitution” advocates. Yet, we have now engaged in hundreds of military actions with only a small number of declarations and a small percentage of authorizations. As the Framers feared, war has become a continual and unilateral exercise of executive authority.
In recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary hearing, I supported the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch, despite my disagreement with some of his opinions. I specifically noted that his textualist approach to statute and the Constitution is no vice in a federal judge. While I hold many liberal views, I also believe in a formalist and fairly textualist approach to interpretation.
What is curious, however, is how the supporters of such textualism and formalism are largely silent this week as the Trump administration is planning to send more troops into Syria and to intervene in Yemen … all without the declaration of war required by the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Hundreds of more troops are planned for the Syrian conflict even though the government in the country has declared that any U.S. military operating in the country are “invaders.” We have been conducting extensive bombing raids with troops on the ground in Syria for many months. We have spent billions of dollars on the effort. All without a formal declaration by the Congress.
Now, Defense Secretary James Mattis has reportedly asked the White House to lift restrictions on U.S. military support in Yemen. The war against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels has not been going well for our Persian Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. The United States wants now to play a bigger role, but notably, the military is asking permission not from Congress but the president. It is his call. That is precisely what the Framers wanted to avoid.
The Constitution has long had its own unreliable allies in Congress. Adherence to the text of the document seems to be a forgotten value when it would take politicians to uncomfortable or inconvenient places. Politicians hate to declare wars. It is not that they hate wars. Wars are popular. Wars can be profitable.
The problem is that they can be blamed if wars do not go well. As a result, they have used open-ended resolutions that can be used by presidents to conduct wars at their whim while allowing politicians to later deny that they ever really supported interventions or were misled if the wars go badly.
This issue most famously came up with Hillary Clinton during her presidential runs. She was eager to express her support for the wars in Iraq and Libya until they became unpopular. Clinton then blamed others and insisted that she was misled, adding, “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong.”
Of course, the spin ignored the objections at the time that Clinton and others were unwilling to even listen to objections or demands for substantive hearings. These calls were ignored because the members did not want to hear anything that would make it difficult for them to vote for a popular war.
She is certainly right that she was not alone in discarding her duties under Article I. The vote was a popular choice and paraded before cameras … until the war dragged on with thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures. Democrats and Republicans share equal responsibility for reading out Article I, Section 8 from the Constitution.
The courts are equally at fault. They have accepted resolutions as substitutes for declarations and, more importantly, have allowed resolutions to become increasing general and vague, thus allowing (as we are now seeing) open-ended power to intervene militarily in virtually any country at any time. Indeed, challengers rarely get any judicial review at all. Years ago, I represented both Democratic and Republican members challenging the Libyan War, but the federal court barred consideration of the merits by the members as lacking “standing” to be even heard in federal court.
We were bombing the capital of a foreign power with a recognized government. We were spending billions in war funding. Yet, the Obama administration was allowed to simply call it not a “war” but a “time-limited, scope-limited military action” or a “kinetic action.” Indeed, the Administration insisted to the court that the President alone defines what is a war. Thus, as long as he does not use that noun, Article I effectively does not apply. You can call it a “police action” or a training exercise or a bean bag and that is all that you need to claim the right to go to war on a president’s sole authority.
Does that track with anyone even remotely familiar with our Framers? These were brilliant men who created a system of carefully balanced powers. Yet, Congress and the courts have made them into the world’s biggest chumps who can be circumvented by simply a change in nouns. Where the Framers wanted Congress to take ownership of any wars, courts now allow members to delegate that authority to presidents and sit as pedestrians watching whether wars prove to be popular or problematic.
History is now repeating itself. No one in Congress wants its own new intervention, but no one wants to be seen opposing interventions against terrorists. Suddenly all of the moral outrage over non-textualist readings of the Constitution are silent … just days after the last hearing. This is why moral outrage in Washington is something of a performance art. This performance, however, is nothing but a tragedy for those who believe in adherence to the text of the Constitution.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has litigated various national security cases.
Is there an operational definition for what qualifies as a police action, conflict or war? Barring some clarity on that then the default position should be EVERY use of military force would require a declaration of war from Congress. If that limits the President’s ability to pursue “national security” interests then the operative word should be limits.
If Congress lacks the spine to control their limited powers then that is a reflection on the People themselves. Entire generations have now grown up ignorant of US Civics thanks to our progressive education system. Take a bow issac, you and your ilk created this mess and you would be wise to get the eff out of the way so the grown ups can fix it.
Are you saying that the god emperor and his crown prince son in law have been poorly educated?
You’ll have to be more specific Dave, I don’t speak troll.
You speak Trump propaganda.
Dave,
What comment of mine are you referring to that is “Trump propaganda”? Either you will provide it OR the troll label stands.
There were combat operations conducted without a declaration of war as early as 1798. Something tells me that political contemporaries to those who drafted and ratified the Constitution did not conceive of every conflict as requiring a declaration of war.
Agreed. However those that drafted and ratified the constitution did conceive that the power should be expected to be abused, and therefore should rest in the hands of the Legislative branch, where it would require debate; not in the hands of the President where it would not.
Olly, Congress is not ‘commander-in-chief’ of the armed forces. The president is. There were repeated military operations contra the Barbary states and again during the period running from 1902 to 1935 in Latin American without any declaration of war at all. Is that some sort of misfeasance or nonfeasance on the part of the politicians and jurists of the day, or is it that maybe the line just isn’t where you and Turley are drawing it?
“Congress is not ‘commander-in-chief’ of the armed forces. The president is.”
dss,
And the President is not the “Lawmaker”, Congress is. In both cases, the President is supposed to faithfully execute what has been debated through Congress as the will of the people. Of course debate is not always practicable in matters of national security. Similar to warrants for law enforcement. I believe what Turley is arguing and that I support is the concentration of power in the Executive that is too easily exercised on the will of one individual.
To be clear; I’m supporting JT’s argument “against” the concentration of power in the Executive…
That’s not his argument. His argument is that the judiciary (and the law professoriate) should seize another piece of territory. Judges are peculiarly ill-suited to exercise any sort of war powers, and any judge who tries should have the appropriation to staff and equip his office impounded.
You fancy your remarks are responsive?
Olly, my suggestion is that you consider two possibilities: (1) that you’ve misunderstood what the provisions require or (2) a strict construction was never practicable to begin with, and so was not adhered to from the very beginning.
Let’s see now; according to you I either understand incorrectly OR, I understand correctly and these constitutional limits are being ignored where “necessary”. I can assure you that the former is quite possible. That being said, history is on the side of the latter; so much so that the executive is afforded a standing ovation from the very entity he took it from.I fancy that is unconstitutional, but then again what do I know.
Olly, I heard a grossly funny story about a father and son driving around with the aid of a GPS. They follow instructions and drive over some railroad tracks. They were just able to get out of the vehicle before the train destroyed it. The reporter drily noted that the GPS hadn’t told them to get out of the car.
No, working politicians are not going to pay attention to constructions that tell them to drive over the tracks and stay in the car. You may wish to do that, but other people respond to their environment.
dss,
The construction, as you put it, is not there to tell them what to do; the framers knew what the politician would likely want to do. No, the construction is there to tell them what not to do. Don’t get in the car; if you have to get in the car, don’t trust the GPS; if you have to get in the car and use the GPS, then have an exit strategy. THEN, study why you needed to get in the car in the first place, why the GPS sucks and make changes so that you don’t make the same mistake again.
“This performance, however, is nothing but a tragedy for those who believe in adherence to the text of the Constitution.”
True, but the more pressing tragedy is to the millions of people (actual living breathing fellow human beings) killed by our military. So they take my tax dollars (bad enough and tragedy for me) and just it to buy weapons to kill people for no reason. Oh that’s right there is a reason. They are different than “us”.
Sad, so sad.
True, but the more pressing tragedy is to the millions of people (actual living breathing fellow human beings) killed by our military.
‘Millions of people’ are not being killed by our military, nor have they been at any point since 1945. You want to make the case for Nazi Germany?
issac – Hannibal was not defeated until Scipio moved the action to Africa. While in Italy he was able to control the countryside and defeat armies, but had no siege equipment so he couldn’t attack Rome or the larger walled cities.
Scipio was given the appellation of Africanus after he defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in Northern Africa. Oddly enough, Scipio used the same tactics that Hannibal had used in an earlier battle against the Romans.
Paul
Read the historical accounts. Scipio was the Roman’s Hannibal, first in Spain then by taking the war to Carthage. He was successful primarily because he had the full support of the various elements of Roman government which interpreted their constitution depending on their various interests, just as we do. Rome became a major sea power as a result of the First Punic War and illustrated how a government could create a fleet with immediacy when it put its mind to it during the Second Punic War. Rome was primarily a land army power and when the Senate added a powerful and effective navy, the tide turned. Carthage was primarily a naval power during the First Punic War and then with Hannibal developed powerful land forces. The navy was primarily directed by Carthage as the army in Italy was by Hannibal. Hannibal spent fifteen years stalemated in Italy against Rome, sometimes acquiring new cities/support and sometimes losing them. The lack of support from Carthage during this time was primarily due to the political goings on between the Carthaginian Senate and their interpretations of their Constitution. This is typical. That is the point. Had Carthage fully supported Hannibal during the early stages, bringing their superior navy to bear, when he was unstoppable, Rome would have fallen on more than one occasion. The stalemate was due also to the direction the other city states leaned. After a Roman victory or a failed Carthaginian attempt, cities allied with Rome and vise versa.
Hannibal’s lack of siege equipment, troops, etc is a result of his lack of support from Carthage. There were other associated reasons such as Carthage’s reliance upon and fear of Numidia, the attitude of subjugation applied to the tribes in Spain as opposed to Rome’s attitude of alliance, etc. Read your Livy.
Many parallels to this can be seen throughout history. France’s lack of interest in Canada contributed to a second relief fleet not being sent after the first relief fleet was defeated before it could leave Europe. The French military in the field were superior and more capable than their English counterparts. Montcalm had whooped the British many times, with fewer soldiers, and better tactics. One could also present an argument for the British not being fully behind keeping the Colonies, due to their interests in India and financial problems at home. Britain’s best ships and soldiers did not fight in the war to maintain control of North America. Were it not for a lack of interest in London, the US might have come about in a different way, perhaps more like Canada.
issac – I took a graduate course in Ancient Warfare and I did read Livy. Livy is a winner’s historian. Since you are completely ignorant of the American Constitutional government, I no faith in your knowledge of any others.
History is nothing to do with faith. It is what it is. Read your Polybius if you want a more objective perspective than the Roman Livy. However, it is what it is. Livy was not so much a winner’s historian than a Roman who was there when it was happening. He walked and talked with Scipio. Regarding American Constitutional government; this again is and has been entirely subjective. Every President is accused with violating the Constitution. The Constitution is there to be interpreted by the likes of Scalia. I am quite cognizant of the American Constitution and even more so of American Constitutional government. There is what it is as well as what one believes it is supposed to be. And, therein lies the rub, what one believes it is supposed to mean. Some one who claims an high IQ, such as yourself, should not have problems understanding that. You seem to be one of those who religiously believes, ‘do not fold, bent, or tear’, is there somewhere in the fine print.
issac – Polybius, who was a Greek writing for the Romans, is still writing winner’s history. Yes, I know he is be all and end all of Roman history for the period and a great influence. However, his style of history does not always tell the truth. He has a master to serve and he served him well.
BTW, you know little about the US Constitution and US Government. I am not joking when I advise you to get a high school civics book, read it, take the quizzes. You will be a more informed person.
From the Greeks, through the Romans, and pretty much every era up to and including today, societies have attempted to anchor their actions in something less transitory than this or that strong man in power. Sparta, Carthage, and Rome had constitutions-typically incorporating religious fabric. They also depended on strong leadership focused on the moment, sometimes at odds with that idealism framed in the constitution that was supposed to be greater than any one individual.
Hannibal occupied larges portions of Italy and terrorized Rome for fifteen years. The reason he could not defeat Rome was primarily due to the lack of support from the Senate in Carthage, the constitution of Carthage, that which was supposed to be greater than any one transitory person. The reason Rome defeated Carthage was the combination of the constitution/government of Rome coordinated with Scipio Africanus and other strong but transitory persons.
To engage in a conflict, war, or police action a nation(s) needs both the force of the government/economy/people as well as a strong and hopefully intelligent individual leader. Left to the constitution/governing body alone invites disaster as has been seen countless times throughout history and with the immediacy of today’s world, is even more dangerous. Left alone to the ‘personality’ in charge of the top job in the government invites potential disaster as well as success through the ability to act immediately in response to threats.
The problems in the Middle East are not the result of any one American or other government but stem from the internal dissent of a mix of dysfunctional religious governments that have expanded outside of their boundaries and then been driven back and contained and to some degree abused by a more advanced group of societies. The West is not only partially responsible for the mess but is still involved in its attempts to ‘fix’ things. This creates a seemingly impossible situation given the reality that the only part of the problem that can do any fixing is the dysfunctional society(s) itself.
Every American President along with the Constitution and associated government of the moment that has slogged and stumbled through this quagmire can be seen to be lying, succeeding, failing, ignoring, acting too soon, etc or subject of any and every accusation hurled by a political or ideological opponent. America stopped the Israelis, French, and British from occupying Egypt. America went in, got blown up and left under Reagan. And so on. It all depends whose side one defends. The only valid criticisms focus on performance. Bush performed miserably. Take away the blame associated with the unnecessary invasion and chalk it up to misleading intelligence and no politician or advisor is to blame. This wipes out any criticism of Clinton, Trump, Bush, Cheney, et al. However, one is still left with the bungling of the Bush administration and the mistakes of the Obama administration. All politicians lie to cover their legacy. In the end it is the damage left to the upcoming candidate for failure that can be measured. All in all, Obama shines head and shoulders above Bush. It is too early to measure Trump but thus far, taking into context his life from the get go, he has proven to be incompetent, a liar of such exception there is no equal, and a friend of himself only.
Obama is there only to be measured. He did not cause the catastrophe that he did not completely correct. The inequality and failure of American society is the result of decades of illusion taking precedent over reality. The catastrophe that was Bush brought it to a head, but Americans are to blame. It is America that defends the illusion of freedom and democracy that is in reality a quasi monarchy and oligarchy at the same time. Pick your person to blame but remember the enemy is us.
“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Issac let that sink in when you think of your faultless hero Obama, the great innocent inheritor of quagmire.
i
First, both parties should be banned forever, or at least a half C.
If you add up all the war deaths and dismemberment related to Republicans since Roe v. Wade, it pales next to 60 million dead American citizen babies caused by Roe v. Wade. I fully realize that Republicans, to their great shame, largely give both direct and indirect support to this horrific law, and they often use it as bait for votes.
But I know of few to no Republicans who give vocal public support for taxpayer funded murder of unborn American citizen babies, up to any moment prior to part of the live baby exiting the vagina, which is exactly the doctrine of Obama and virtually every Democratic politician.
The proof that any and all abortion is murder is the fact that whatever scientific quality (not legal lingo) you assign yourself to support the claim that you are a human being, applies equally to a one-celled human being better known as a “zygote.” The unborn need only the same as every other human being to thrive: food, shelter, and proper care.
Even the Roman Senate went back and forth several times on this point, sometimes making abortion legal, other times making abortion illegal (Will Durant, Caesar and Christ).
Obama’s stooge HRC directly invented and caused the current human suffering in Libya, by hiring and arming alleged Islamic “moderates” who anal raped and beheaded the legal President Gaddafi. Why?
Earth’s largest store of untapped future financial growth and profit is Africa. Gaddafi spoke eloquently at an African Congress to unite all of Africa under one currency, to magnify Africa’s power in financial negotiations with the West. Obama, HRC, and the Western bankers they represent could have none of that.
Google “Libya rubble” images. Still to this day, not covered by Western bank owned media, Libyans die by the hundreds every week attempting to flee the hell hole created by Issac’s Baby Jesus Obama.
Obama also armed and aided the Al Saud Crime Syndicate to commit genocide and war crimes throughout Yemen, to support the Al Saud oil princes, who are increasingly surrounded by Arab Muslim enemies of the opposite religious sect. The USA supplied the Saudis with every single weapon they used to commit their war crimes in Yemen.
Making the world “safe for democracy” exactly as Democrat President Wilson specified.
Obama’s stooge HRC directly invented and caused the current human suffering in Libya, by hiring and arming alleged Islamic “moderates” who anal raped and beheaded the legal President Gaddafi. Why?
The real Col. Qadafi was a junior officer putcshist/tyrant of four decades who had never had any legal standing at all in Libya (and had never held the title of ‘President’). If you’re ignorant of a subject, why do you run your mouth on it?
Never-the-less an interesting character who actually tried to improve, at least in his own mind, the human experience in his country. It appears he took great personal risks to accomplish some of the things he did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi
Look what they do to just whistleblowers under our fascist oligarchy, even though we have The Whistleblowers Protection Act.
One should never call the kettle black unless they are first willing to take a honest look into the mirror.
Never-the-less an interesting character who actually tried to improve, at least in his own mind, the human experience in his country.
In my own mind, I could improve the quality of public discourse by tossing you off an 8 story building. I suspect various parties might wish to dispute that.
Obama also armed and aided the Al Saud Crime Syndicate to commit genocide and war crimes throughout Yemen,
There is no genocide in Yemen, nor any reason to believe the fighting there is any more pitiless than one would expect from competing bands of paramilitaries. The country has antique tribal rivalries and more recent political / factional rivalries and there’s nothing that originates in Washginton or Riyadh that generates either.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Exodus 20:13 KJV – God’s Commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.” Anything contrary to this is a lie. America sanctions killing and blasphemes God. Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” (Matt. 5:44), (Luke 6:27) Killing someone is not loving them. America sanctions killing its enemies which is Antichrist / Satanism. True Christianity is nonviolent.
America’s politicians, corporations, media, governments, churches and universities are deceiving our people. America is lost in hypocrisy and evil. Hold our leaders and other officials up to the following litmus test and they will prove to be hypocrites and liars. They swear vows of lies on the Bible to God. The Truth is not in them.
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/Truth.htm
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/BVM.jpg
The two most egregious errors of the Roman Church are interrelated errors. The first was the invention of Christian “sacralism” the first time The Church jumped in the sack w/the Emperor, which was Constantine. “Sacralism” is the belief and practice of assigning one religion to a particular geographic area. In this case, Catholicism became the sole legal religion assigned to the Roman Empire. Sacralism works like this: in geographic area X, one has two choices: “A” is to practice the religion chosen by the Emperor, “B” is to suffer some discipline up to and sometimes including death (lesser discipline might be banishment to some geography outside the city gate, often the same as a death penalty).
To this day, to the Roman Church’s shame, it has never acknowledged the above described sin/error. Jesus denies such doctrine with one simple quote repeated three times in one verse to Pilate at his sham trial. Pilate asked Jesus, “Art thou King of the Ioudious (wrongly interpreted ‘Jews,’ a word that did not exist till 1775 AD)?” To which Jesus replied, “My Kingdom is not of this world…My Kingdom is not of this world…and I say again, My Kingdom is not of this world.”
The second error is directly related to the first. Once the Pope jumped in the sack with the King, the Pope had to justify to the world its war mongering on behalf of the King. So the Pope ordered Thomas Aquinas to publish the so-called “Just War Doctrine.” The so-called theory goes like this: If/when war can not be avoided, then it is blessed by God. I am not as smart as the average Jesuit, but I am smart enough to notice the following.
The Pope has not outlawed “surrender” (as in time of war, or to avoid war). The Pope has not declared any specific occasion wherein surrender violated Church doctrine. That means that “surrender” is always a Church-authorized and allowed response to avoid war. If surrender is always allowed, then surrender is always a method to “avoid war,” thus nullifying any justification for war.
Joseph Jones …- Constantine did legalize Christianity…..he did NOT make it “the sole legal religion” of the Roman Empire.
Nor did he outlaw the pagan, or other, non-Christian religions.
Once the Pope jumped in the sack with the King, the Pope had to justify to the world its war mongering on behalf of the King. So the Pope ordered Thomas Aquinas to publish the so-called “Just War Doctrine.” The so-called theory goes like this: If/when war can not be avoided, then it is blessed by God. I am not as smart as the average Jesuit, but I am smart enough to notice the following.
Tolerance for the Church in the Roman Empire dates from the early 4th century. The end of lawful pagan practice dates from the late 4th century. Thomas Aquinas lived in the late 12th and early 13th century.
My suggestion is that you quit beclowning yourself. The simplest way to do that is to shut your trap.
The Local and National Media are Zionist Liars
According to U.S. and International Law all the U.S. / Israeli invasions are Wars of Aggression, War Crimes.
These are the same crimes the Nazis committed.
Millions have been murdered & maimed due to these invasions.
Washington, DC = Nazi Berlin
Anyone who supports the Republicans, Democrats, Israel & the Mainstream Media are accomplices to murder and have blood on their hands. They are Zionist Nazi Terrorists.
Congress, Justice Department, FBI & Court System are corrupt cowards else they would have indicted the Bush / Obama administrations & Israel for 9/11 and War Crimes years ago.
The International Criminal Court & U.S. courts are a joke. The U.S. and Israel are guilty of massive War Crimes for years.
“9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”
2841 Architects and Engineers are telling us the U.S. Government is Lying about 9/11.
The U.S. Government & Media are complicit in the murders of 9/11.
3 NYC SKYSCRAPERS WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ON 9/11
Our enemy does not want you to know about the 3rd building, WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
This issue exposes the wide and deep corruption of the governments, courts and media.
https://youtu.be/kQ2iVymP7hA
The ‘War on Terror’ is an Israeli / U.S. Fraud.
“If the government and media are lying to us about 9/11, it means they are controlled by the same people who carried out 9/11”
https://youtu.be/QqbrHhouTRM
Patriot – is there anyone you have positive words for?
I would guess Fred W. Phelps.
I have positive words for God and Jesus.
Here are some of those words, God’s Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”
http://buenavistamall.com/ShaltNotKill2.jpg
Patriot – We only have Moses’ word for it that it is from God. And, there were originally 15 commandments, but Moses dropped one tablet. See History of the World, Part Two.
https://twitter.com/Truthdig/status/848188217622798336
Dave, is it an easy promise to keep because congress won’t get in his way?
Trump said he would bomb the shit out of them and he is keeping his campaign promise. Since he needs no legislative approval for bombing it is an easy promise to keep unlike those that need legislative approval like healthcare.
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/846026889533775872
Dear Michael Aarethun, it’s what you just said! The legislators are acting like potted plants. And most of our laws seem to be coming from appointed people, not elected people. Your fellow citizens hold the senate an congress in very low esteem, yet they keep electing the same people election after election.
The congress has been not slow in giving power to the Executive Branch. Price you pay for electing secular regressives and their scientific governments….
The legislative MUST do what?
They can’t get out of bed in the morning much less do a days honest work and that’s what comes of hiring the mercenary Deep State and it’s Fourth Branch.
Watcha gonna do when the Military involkes it’s oath of office and starts the drum head courts martials
“Price you pay for electing secular regressives and their scientific government.”
Yes, the trouble is too much science and not enough religion. Brilliant.
The executive branch has.been slowly grabbing more and more power over a long period of time. The legislative branch must reassert itself over the executive branch. I say this not from a partisan point of view, but I do believe this is the way our government should function. The legislators must let the executive know who has the final say.
Jon Turley says: “History is now repeating itself. No one in Congress wants its own new intervention, but no one wants to be seen opposing interventions against terrorists.”
Of course history repeats itself. But nobody thinks to ask WHY it repeats itself. So, as a public service, I thought I’d ‘splain to you in simple, easy to understand terms why this history repeats itself.
First, there’s this thing called the military industrial complex (MIC). And, yes, it does exist. And there is this thing called an “Invisible Government” which pulls strings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y
Second, when John F. Kennedy became President, the MIC immediately went to work on him to urge him to embark on several military campaigns. He refused to start one in Cuba, and when they pushed him to turn Vietnam into a full blown war, he refused, and, in fact, he turned completely against from the idea. And if that were not enough, he threatened to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces.” This not only dissappointed the MIC, but enraged them. Who was this young, rich punk to tell the MIC what to do?
Third, in 1963, with JFK almost certain to win reelection, and with the likelihood that VP Lyndon Johnson would be dropped from the ticket because of his corrupt activitiers coming to light, the MIC took “Executive Action” and several plans were hatched to murder JFK, with one in Miami, another in Chicago in early November 1963, and a backup plan in Dallas in late November. Both the Chicago and Dallas plots used the exact same scheme, with an ex-Marine patsy placed into a high rise building to take the blame for killing the President, while expert marksmen strategically placed in the kill-zone arena took out the President while traveling in his motorcade.
Well before the Chicago and Dallas plans were in place, on November 9, 1963, Miami police audiotaped a conversation between one of their informants, William Somerset and a wealthy right-wing extremist named Joseph Adams Milteer. In the tape, Milteer reveals his knowledge of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy ( “it’s in the working” ) from a “building with a high powered rifle”. In this video, lead detective Everett Kay describes setting up the surveillance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdbVyhzCcq4
Fourth, immediately after JFK was terminated, by the weekend of his death, the MIC’s plans were in full swing to make Vietnam THE major war for nearly the next two decades, or as long as they could.
Fifth, EVERY president, whether hand-picked by the Elite Establishment, like the Nixon, Carter, the Bushes, or Clinton, or a so-called “independent” type like Reagan or an so-called “outsider” like Trump, has understood the lesson of the JFK assassination. Each has had a choice: Follow the wishes of the MIC or else. The late comedian Bill Hicks had a bit about this, and he’s not far wrong. It certainly explains history repeating itself better than any other explanation offered or conceived.
Ralph, great post. Bill Hicks RIP.
Check out Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of The United States.
Roscoe – Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of The United States is factually challenged.
Paul Schulte….
Oliver Stone is every bit as credible as a historian as Mel Brooks.☺
tnash – I will give you that one. 🙂
Any analysis that Stone and/or his co-author have done regarding JFK and the Vietnam is likely derivative of other scholars. However, there are some outstanding references that provide the evidence that JFK didn’t want to go forward with Vietnam but the MIC did. See, for example, John Newman’s “JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle” and James Douglass’s “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.” If anyone just wants a quick high-level view, this video has some useful material:
However, there are some outstanding references that provide the evidence that JFK didn’t want to go forward with Vietnam but the MIC
There is nothing of the kind. The ‘military-industrial complex’ is not some conspiracy with a common mode of action. It’s a descriptive term referring to a nexus of interests (and one which has proven far less potent than the public employee unions, to take one example). That aside, the military old guard (like Eisenhower) had no particular enthusiasm for VietNam. VietNam was a project of military innovators like Maxwell Taylor. And, of course, the notion that JFK and his advisors had a different take on Indochina than LBJ and the same advisors is a fiction.
“And, of course, the notion that JFK and his advisors had a different take on Indochina than LBJ and the same advisors is a fiction.”
There, you go again, desperatelyseekingleftism–speaking out of your nether zone. The historical evidence is overwhelming that JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam and was planning to do so after he got reelected.
For example, National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (NSAM-263), approved on October 11, 1963 by JFK stated, among other things, that 1,000 military personnel could be withdrawn from South Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that a “major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965.” The U.S. at this time had more than 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam.
On the weekend of JFK’s assassination, however, Johson met with top military brass to discuss Vietnam. Although the exact nature of their discussion is not known, the meeting clearly was not held so that Johnson could tell the top brass, “Sorry, fellows, but we’re going to follow-through on Jack’s wishes and are going to get out of Vietnam, no matter what you fellows want.” The fact that the war quickly escalated is proof of what the meeting was really about.
But to understand history, you have to read the facts and study the evidence. And I understand that those things both bore and disgust you. But that is your problem.
Ralph Adamo – there is a film magazine I used to take when I was teaching film that would allow readers to catch blunders in films. They finally decided that they were getting so many on Stone’s films that they were no longer going to take them on his films. Excellent filmmaker, crap historian.
I’m not sure what you mean by blunders, as that could mean many things. You could be talking about what IMDB refers to as “goofs” which involve errors in continuity, anachronisms, plot holes, etc. Or you could be talking about something inconsistent with historical fact. Insofar as Stone’s “JFK” movie is concerned, Stone had the benefit of working with Zachary Sklar, an accomplished JFK researcher, and most of the factual material was written by Sklar, not Stone. For example, many of the trial sequences weren’t really “scripted” at all and reflected the actual testimony given in the Clay Shaw trial.
Stone and Sklar also came out with a book of the movie, which is unique, called “JFK: The Book of the Film” (Applause Screenplay), 2000. The book essentially does three things: it provides the complete script of the movie (nothing unusual there); it provides the source information for all of the factual points raised in the movie (highly unusual); and it provides a compendium of some of the movie’s harshest critics, along with some rebuttals (highly unusual).
Thus, for example, in the opening sequences of “JFK,” Stone uses the Rose Cherami story to immediately raise the conspiracy flag alert, since the woman in the film is shown warning doctors and nurses at a hospital that she’s staying at that the President is going to to be shot, which were initially considered to be raving from the woman’s drug-induced state. The movie doesn’t go into much detail about the woman, but the story has been thoroughly documented.
The movie doesn’t address that immediately after the assassination, a police investigator sought more facts from the woman, Rose Cherami. The investigator was shocked to learn that every detail of Cherami’s story checked out. Based solely on information from Cheramie, the investigator, Lt. Francis Fruge, tracked down the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge, Mac Manual, who recalled seeing Cheramie with the two men she spoke of. Manual remembered the incident clearly, and picked out as Rose’s companions mug shots of Cuban exile Sergio Arcacha Smith and a man Fruge remembered as “Osanta.”
So, pulling on that trail, the next job was to find out who Sergio Arcacha Smith was. Investigators found that Smith had direct connections to David Ferrie (a key person relevant to the Clay Shaw trial, and played by Joe Pesci in “JFK”) and Carlos Bringuier, who knew Lee Oswald and had the famous scuffle with him on a street in New Orleans. Smith also knew Guy Bannister, another key character in “JFK,” played by Edward Asner. Smith also knew Edwin Walker, yet another key character in the JFK murder story.
Of course, to the deaf, dumb, blind, ignorant, or merely stupid, these are all merely wild coincidences, as was the fate of Cherami, which was to have her skull crushed in an “automobile accident.”
But for those who actually care about facts, evidence, the truth, and other such troubling matters when you’re committed to believing the official lies you’ve been spoon fed for decades by the CIA and its media allies, here are some very interesting facts indeed about Smith, the man who was with Cherami in the bar and then later dumped her on a road:
Sergio Arcacha-Smith was born in Havana, Cuba, on January 22, 1923. He moved to the United States in 1945 and attended college in Texas. He served as Cuba’s consul in India under Fulgencio Batista. After marrying Shelia Duarte he left the diplomatic service and became Assistant Manager of the Lago Hotel in Caracas, Venezuela (1954-57).
Arcacha-Smith returned to Cuba but after Fidel Castro gained power Arcacha-Smith went into exile. While living in New Orleans he joined with David Ferrie to establish the Cuban Democratic Liberation Front. Arcacha-Smith was also an associate of Guy Banister. Richard Case Nagell told Dick Russell that Arcacha-Smith was “strictly right-wing, into everything so-called anti-Castro”.
According to a FBI report Carlos Marcello offered Arcacha-Smith money in return for gambling concessions in post-invasion Cuba. In October, 1961, Arcacha-Smith introduced David Ferrie to Carlos Bringuier.
In January, 1962, Arcacha-Smith was expelled from the Cuban Democratic Liberation Front after being accused of misappropriating funds. Later that year he made a secret trip to Mexico.
Arcacha-Smith moved to Miami in October, 1962. The following month he settled in Tampa. The following year, after JFK was assassinated, he moved on to Houston where he sold air conditioners. Later he becomes Assistant Manager of the America Hotel in Houston. While in Texas he became friends with Edwin Walker and Haroldson L. Hunt.
Paul Schulte…
There are between 50-100 clear distortions and outright lies/ inventions in the film JFK.
One professor designed an entire course on the film’s inaccuracies.
There was an interesting interview with two men who served on the legal staff of the Warren Commision; I think it was on C-Span, shortly after JFK came out.
These guys challenged Oliver Stone, or any proxy for Stone, to debate the Warren Commision conclusions v. the fantasy that Stone promoted in the film.
One of them said that the debate would never happen, given that Oliver Stone was a liar and a coward and would never try to defend his fairy tale movie if seriously challenged.
Most of those involved in compiling the Warren Report are now gone.
To my knowledge, Stone never took these guys up on their offer.
He had a pretty good idea of what would happen if seriously challenged by the people he was attacking.
Jim Garrison’s “case” against Clay Shaw was so flimsy that it took the jury less than an hour to bring in an acquital.
One of Garrison’s witness fingerprinted his daughter before she went off to college, to be sure that the “same” daughter returned.
There were resons why Garrison, aka The Jolly Green Giant, was a laughingstock.
BS, name one “clear distortion” and “outright lie.” You don’t because you can’t. To do so requires identifying facts and evidence, but those don’t support your BS, so you ignore them and pretend they don’t exist.
Ralph,
-Read “The JFk 100….100 errors of fact and judgement in Oliver Stone’s JFK.
I’m not going to list all of them for you, but you can review those criticisms of the JFK film.
The film omittted the testimony of the guy who fingerprinted his daughter, and I don’t think it dealt with the jury arriving a the acquital verdict in less than an hour.
Stone also forgot to,mention that Jom Garrison left the National Gaurd in 1952 after being disgnosed with “a severe and disabling psychosis”.
It would have been inconvenient for Stone to address these facts, so like you, he merely dismisses them.
Good luck to you and Patriot.
I’ve read the so-called 100 “errors” and they are total BS. You have no idea of the depth of knowledge that I have of the JFK assassination, and I can easily spin circles around any lone-nut believer. You belive any piece of crap put before you as long as it confirms to the story that the CIA programmed you to believe and accept. You are in the minority, fortunately, however. Most Americans are smart enough to know when the government has lied to them// You aren’t. That’s obvious. As I said, you don’t name as much as a single fact to dispute anything I’ve said because you can’t. And you can’t because it doesn’t exist. That’s the bottom line here.
Actually Ralph, I have a very good idea of your “depth of knowledge”.
Your self-proclaimed expertise is what makes your loony conspiracy theories so funny.
Ralph Adamo – here are a list of the problems with JFK
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm
John McAdams is a well known Warren Commission coverup artist and has been repeatedly discredited by experts in the JFK. I’ve personally eviscerated him on more than one occasion in online debates. He merely does all the usual tricks that liars use: if a witness/fact goes against him, he claim the witness/fact is not credible or ignores that witness/fact; if a witness does lack credibility (such as changing stories constantly over time), but the witness support his case, argue that the witness is rock solid.
McAdams selects only those facts/presentations from JFK that he thinks he can best try to dispute, but ignores the strongest ones going against his thesis where he knows he’s on shakey ground. For example, for the category of “sinister connections in New Orleans” he totally ignores the Rose Cherami story that Stone used at the very beginning of “JFK” to lay the groundwork for a conspiracy leading directly to New Orleans. I’ve already explained above how Rose Cherami proves that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK and that the conspiracy led to New Orleans. It’s such powerful proof that Stone used it at the very beginning of the movie. McAdams ignores that scene precisely because it is such powerful proof.
Now, let’s look at an example of his purported inaccuracies. Here is a line discussed from the movie, as given by Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner): “544 Camp Street. Same building as 531 Lafayette, right … but different address and different entrances both going to the same place — the offices on the second and third floors.” McAdams disingenuously claims this is an inaccuracy because “Guy Banister’s office could not be reached from 544 Camp.” However, the Garrison character does not refer to Banister’s office, merely the offices on the second and third floors. Moreover, McAdams uses that red herring to totally ignore the compelling fact that Banister was linked to the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy because on August 9, 1963, Oswald distributed leaflets that supported Fidel Castro and his government in Cuba and his leaflets had the address 544 Camp Street, New Orleans, which was also the office of Carlos Bringuier, an anti-Castro exile, who had had a staged argument with Oswald on the Street to get some public attention. Bringuier was also a friend of Sergio Arcacha-Smith’s, who was one of the men who through Rose Cherami out of a car in the opening scene of JFK when she told doctors and nurses that there was a plot to murder JFK taking place soon–days before the event happened. Around the corner from 544 Camp Street, located in the same building, was 531 Lafayette Street, which housed the detective agency run by Banister. (Yeah, I know, these are all just a series of amazing, wild coincidences.)
I could go on and on, but McAdams is simply a fraudster.
Ralph – you are saying the same thing about him that he is saying about some of the witnesses. 🙂
Oliver Stone is best known for promoting the thesis that the military-industrial complex took out Pres. Kennedy by subcontracting the job to a crew of French Quarter homosexuals. Somehow, I doubt he’s the most perspicacious student of how the world works.
Can’t you indulge your fantasies and lunacies somewhere else?
But why would you lose your easy targets to ejaculate your noble punctilious corrections upon?
Let me guess, you are retired agency or a Catholic priest.
You don’t happen to live in Virginia and own a collection of opium pipes do you?
I think I have met you.
desperatelyseekingleftism–Although you are not the kind of person who examines evidence, nor are you the kind of person that has the ability to analyze evidence and to draw persuasive inferences from the evidence, perhaps you can make a bare attempt to do so one time before you spout your mouth off about “fantasies” and “lunacies” (which say much more about you then they do about anyone that you may criticize).
So, here’s what I’d like you to do–as an experiment.
First, I’d actually like you to view the video above entitled “Threat in Miami: The Milteer Tape.” Yes, I know what you thinking: “How DARE he ask me to actually look at evidence. . . I despise evidence, and they greatly INTERFERE with my own beliefs, predilections, fantasies, and lunacies!”
But, indulge me anyway and FORCE yourself to do something you hate: i.e., study facts, absorb them, and then analyze them.
Second, please note Milteer’s actual statements made weeks before the Dallas assassination. Now, since you believe the official lie that Lee Oswald murdered JFK all by himself, please explain how Milteer was above to describe a plan that was in the works involving a gunman placed in a high-rise building and a disassembled rifle brought into the building that would shoot at JFK, and that the plan also called for a patsy being picked up within hours of the murder to throw the public off. Finally, also explain why the headquarters of the US Secret Service never advised the Dallas detail about Milteer and a plot from Miami, nor about the plot in Chicago. Go ahead. Give it your best and try to come up with a plausible explanation for these things that is still consistent with a non-conspiracy view of the assassination.
And if you don’t want to do this, then can you at least shut up about things that you are totally ignorant about?
desperatelyseekingleftism–Although you are not the kind of person who examines evidence,
I know the difference between ‘evidence’ and a daisy chain of discredited memes, most of them generated by hobbyists and fantasists who would not know documentary history from tiddly-winks. You do not know the difference. Which is why you talk rot at length.
Like, I predicted. You REFUSE to look at the evidence I asked you to look at. You’ve merely confirmed that you are exactly the kind of person that I described above.
I refuse to read science fiction as if it were history. If you wish to read science fiction, that’s your hobby. Stop pretending it’s anything but a diversion.
The conspiracy discourse is founded on taking something straightforward and turning it into something rococo in an exercise driven by self-aggrandizement and diversion. Jim Garrison’s method of doing this was to take a copy of a city directory, see who was living near whom, and then ‘connect the dots’ between people hardly acquainted or to spin some elaborate scenario and then tell his staff to find ‘proof’ of the scenario; inductive reasoning was something quite alien to him (see Tom Bethell, once of Mr. Garrison’s staff, for a primer on how his mind worked). The end product was the absurd Clay Shaw trial.
If you make use of inductive reasoning, you’re going to search where the bullets came from, where a man was witnessed by multiple private citizens in the window with a gun, where a sniper’s nest with a rifle was found right after the murder, where an employee had showed up for work that morning carrying ‘curtain rods’, which same employee disappeared from work, which same employee was observed by scrum of people murdering a Dallas police officer with a pistol, the wife of which same employee when interviewed sad, oh yes, her husband owned a rifle, he keeps it out in the garage here ‘ere discovering it was missing, which rifle was revealed by invoices to be the same make and model of the one found at the School Book Depository.
dds – science fiction as a genre is a misnomer. It is more often correctly referred to as science future.
Oaul Schulte “Propaganda” is more accurate.
Now, since you believe the official lie that Lee Oswald murdered JFK all by himself,
There is no ‘official lie’. The notion that someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy is silly. The notion that a no account like Oswald was some international man of mystery is equally silly.
Again, as I predicted. You REFUSE to look at the evidence I asked you to look at. You’ve merely confirmed that you are exactly the kind of person that I described above.
I’ll review all of Ralph’s “evidence” once I’m finished reviewing all of the evidence presented by Patriot, our other great conspiracy expert.
You present no ‘evidence’ to review. You don’t know what ‘evidence’ is or how to rank order competing claims.
Again, as I predicted. You REFUSE to look at the evidence I asked you to look at. You’ve merely confirmed that you are exactly the kind of person that I described above. In fact, I’m the ONLY person here discussing the facts of the JFK murder as is obvious to anyone who knows how to read, understand the evidential material, and is capable of genuine thinking.
Your last bout of ‘evidence’ was a conjecture by some guy in Georgia. The man in question was notable because he was a member of some odd little political sects sects and the FBI kept an eye on him for several years. You’re contention is what? That friends of friends of this guy Jedi-mind tricked sorry-assed Lee Harvey Oswald into shooting the President?
False again, desperatelyseekingleftism, Milteer’s statements are not conjecture. They are evidence. In the weeks before JFK’s murder, Milteer did not say in the tape recorded conversation that “he wishes there was a plot to murder JFK.” Nor does is state or suggest that the plot he referred to was a hypothetical example. What Milteer did state was a plot that he knew to be “in the working.” And the plot he described turned out to be a virtual blueprint of the crime right down to the plan calling for the police to pick up a framed suspect within hours of the murder to throw the public off. Now, how did Milteer know such details weeks before the crime? The only way is that he had heard of the plot from someone connected to the plot.
And if you bothered to watch the video, which I’m sure you didn’t because you hate facts and the truth so much that it repulses you and makes you physically ill, you would have observed the ending where even the US Government admits that the Secret Service leaders, which knew all about Milteer, gave the information about the Milteer threat against the President to SS agents in several cities, but DELIBERATELY FAILED to give the information to the SS agents on the DALLAS DETAIL.
And if the US Government was really concerned about finding JFK’s real killers, they would have followed up with such witnesses as Milteer and Rose Cherami, whom I’ve also discussed above, after the murder. But, again, the FAILED to do so because the CIA and the FBI were part of the conspiracy and coverup. The Milteer story is best addressed in a book written by Don Adams, who was the FBI agent assigned to look into Milteer.
So, to sum up, consider the following facts, which more than five decades after the JFK assassination are now well-established:
● Weeks before the assassination Milteer confided to an old friend that there was a extant plot to murder President Kennedy by shooting him with a rifle from a tall building; and there are very good reasons for believing Milteer knew what he was talking about.
● The FBI was apprised of the alleged plot and took the matter seriously, but carried out a rushed investigation of Milteer and then closed its files prior to the assassination.
● After the assassination, FBI officials assigned a rookie agent to investigate Milteer and withheld vital pieces of information from that agent. The agent was not even told of Milteer’s conversation with Somersett.
● It was not until five days after the assassination that the agent, after intensive searching, found Milteer.
● During Milteer’s brief interview by the FBI agent on Nov. 27, 1963, the agent, as he had been instructed, put only five questions to Milteer, only one of which related to the assassination, and none of which inquired whether Milteer had known about a plot against JFK. Nor was he asked where he was on Nov. 22, 1963.
● The official report prepared by the agent disappeared down the memory hole and has been replaced or supplemented by other reports that are false or misleading.
● The House Assassinations Committee briefly investigated Milteer. It did not independently investigate whether Milteer had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination. It did ask a panel of experts to examine the Altgens photograph, but the panel’s work product was flawed by its incorrect information about Milteer’s height and head hair.
● Milteer was not in Georgia on the day of the assassination. He was in Dealey Plaza in Dallas watching the presidential motorcade pass by only moments before the gunfire began. Following the assassination Milteer’s whereabouts were unknown until he returned to Georgia five days later.
● By any objective standard, the FBI investigation of Milteer was unprofessional. Atypically for the FBI, especially when the murder of an American president was involved, the investigation was lackadaisical and superficial.
He was a person of no importance who dabbled in sectarian politics. He knew nothing demonstrable. The notion that he was in Dealey Plaza, which was based on a single long distance photograph of someone who looked vaguely like him, has been discredited.
And the assassination attempt on FDR was probably what frightened him into getting the U.S. into WWII.
Lee Harvey Oswald was an anti-social, unsuccessful misfit who disliked living in the U.S., disliked living in the Soviet Union, disliked life in the U.S. when he returned, and probably would have disliked life in Cuba had he been able to defect there.
The psychiatric evaluation of Oswald when he was 13 years old points to Oswald’s clear dislike of most people.
He was court martialed twice while in the Marines.
After shooting JFK, he alone flees the Texas Book Depository before it is sealed off with all other employees present.
He then shoots and kills Officer Tippett and is seen by at least 6 witnesses either firing at Tippett, ejecting the shells from his .38 after firing, or fleeing the immediate area.
He ducks into doorways near a movie theater to stay out of view of police racing to tge scene of the Tippett murder, then sneaks into the theater without paying.
His behavior is reported, and as officers approch him in the movie theater, his hits a cop, pulls his .38, and tries to shoot the cop.
Even IF all of this behavior can be somehow explained away, there are numerous additional problems with trying to clear Oswald’s involvement in the two murders he committed that day.
Oswald, or almost any defendant in a murder trial, could have been convicted on a fraction of the evidence against him.
The ” rehabilitation” of Oswald and clowns like Jim Garrison is one of the great historical con jobs.
And the assassination attempt on FDR was probably what frightened him into getting the U.S. into WWII.
Come again? Mayor Cermak was killed by a nut nearly nine years before Pearl Harbor.
DSS….
The “point” was made earlier that all presidents after the JFK assassination got the message and became pawns of the military- industrial complex.
Because of what happened to JFK, and their concern for their personal safety.
Why stop there? If the “logic” is that assassinations or assassination attempts drive military decisions by the President, why not go whole hog with that game and argue that the FDR was playing ball with the military industrial complex because of an assassination attempt? 😏
Maybe another Oliver Stone film will run with that.
Wow, you are just a “fount” of ignorance and CIA propaganda, trash80hotmail. Not a shred of truth to anything you’ve said.
No, he’s reciting the actual history. You delve into bad historical fiction to amuse yourself.
Again, like, I predicted. You REFUSE to look at the evidence I asked you to look at. You’ve merely confirmed that you are exactly the kind of person that I described above.
Ralph Adamo…
If you can explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald with a wave of the wand, you are a defense lawyer’s dream and probably incapable of ever finding any defendant guilty.
Just discredit all the evidence because of a CIA plot, then discard it.
You don’t know s*** from shinola.
There’s an old saying that applies to you: Ignorance can be educated; craziness can be medicated; but there’s no cure for stupid. In your case, we have a triple play.
Ralph,
Those characterists often apply to those wedded to farfetched conspiracy theories.
Facts and logic are poor counterbalances to the cherished beliefs of conspiracy loons.
You and Patriot should form a club.
Again, as I predicted. You REFUSE to look at the evidence I asked you to look at. You’ve merely confirmed that you are exactly the kind of person that I described above. In fact, I’m the ONLY person here discussing the facts of the JFK murder as is obvious to anyone who knows how to read, understand the evidential material, and is capable of genuine thinking.
And YOU are the one who has everything in common with Pseudo-Patriot. You each believe the CIA’s spoon-fed crap that they’ve dished out for you.
I wasn’t aware that the CIA promoted the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Ralph.
Thanks for the news.
You weren’t aware that the CIA promoted BS 9/11 conspiracies designed to fool dopes, dupes, and dolts into believing another false narrative because you don’t study facts and evidence, and even if you did, you’d have to go trolling into the nether world of the internet. Pseudo-Patriot is one of those dopes, dupes, and dolts who believes that 9/11 was perpetrated by Israel or “Zionists.”
There are many Judeophobic and anti-Israel websites that promote this false narrative. If you should go to these websites and look at what individuals they often feature to give “credibility” to their false narrative, you would note that several of them are “former” CIA agents/officers.
The most visible of these are Michael Scheuer, Ray McGovern, Steve Pieczenik. They frequently appear on conspiracy websites like Infowars and Prison Planet, which are favorite websites of the anti-Israel and Judeophobic crowd, as exemplified by Pseudo-Patriot. McGovern and Pieczenik have frequently referred to 9/11 as an inside job, and all of them argue that ISRAEL controls the US Congress and, effectively, the entire US Government. Thus, dolts, dupes, and dolts, quickly connect the dots and conclude that Israel/Mossad/Zionist committed the 9/11 crime through their control of the US Government.
Still not getting it?
Then, see this video where CIA’s Michael Scheurer falsely says that Israel owns the Congress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMczkQ3507w
Then, see this video where CIA’s Ray McGovern says that “the 911 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this [Bush-Cheney] administration. . .”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3M5G3zZhcU&t=211s
Thus, the only reasonable explanation for all this is that the CIA is promoting a false agenda to feed dolts, dupes, and dolts, so that they conclude that Israel/Mossad/Zionist committed the 9/11 crime through their control of the US Government. And, at the same time, the CIA causes many others, such as yourself, to call ANY investigation into 911 the work of crackpots.
I leave “the work of crackpots” to people like you, Ralph.
You’re very dedicated to promoting your pet crackpot conspiracy theories.
It’s not just the ducking of accountability. It’s the egregious transfer of power to declare war from the sole institution granted said power by the Constitution (Congress), to POTUS, who now acts as if he occupies a throne. If the Constitution is followed, Congress, directly representing their constituents, declares war on their behalf.
I respectfully suggest you thoroughly consider the abject hatred for the throne and King against whom the Founding Fathers risked life and limb in revolt. They took every possible caution to make it absolutely impossible for some future POTUS to set up another fiefdom west of the prior one.
The very crux and foundation of Obama’s 2008 campaign was to end the two wars started by Bush, which Obama declared the worst foreign policy blunder in the nation’s history. Not only did BO lie about ending the two prior wars, he started two more in Libya and Syria.
Even Trump himself promised during the campaign, that he would only “fight wars to win.” If anyone believes the USA shall ever “win” a ME war, I have a red bridge for sale in San Francisco Bay.
hey HEY Ho Ho how many smart bombs can YOU throw! Antoher example of the Congress ducking their responsibilties. War Power Act put into place by the Democrats was used twice Bush I and Bush II and ignored by it’s sponsors the left wing fascist warmongering Democrats.
As a reward they had 80% of their combat arms vote against them. Along with other unrepresented Constitutional Centrists they won Hillary dumped. the Democrat as a coalition of splinters and all thst’s left are the cave on command RINOs.
These politicians are so stupid they don’t recognize a counter revolution of both military and civilians when they are forced to drink melted yellow snow.
The Congressionals cannot get off the dime and toe the line or read the signs of the times. Maybe another combat boot up their donkeys will do the trick if not no problem supply has plenty more in stock. Maybe we should make 20 plus years military service with real combat time a requirement for holding public office.
Nice Photo! Whose the Commie?
Nice photo of plane dropping ME Brand Easter Eggs. The Commie was the guy with the blunt. pretending to look smarter than Michael Moore. No yolk.
This is nothing new. In my ROTC textbook, neither Korea nor Vietnam were referred to as “wars.” If I remember correctly, it was the “Korean police action” and the “Vietnam conflict.” Or maybe the other way around; it was quite a long time ago…..
Politicians ducking accountability. Thanks for a spot on analysis.
Sorry for double posting.
I’d like to hear Isaacbasonkovich’s reply to Obama guaranteeing “no boots on the ground in Syria,” quickly followed by 300 Special Forces “boots on the ground in Syria,” followed by the press cornering Obama’s Press Secretary on Obama’s lie, followed by Mr. “Earnest” looking them all in the eye while saying “Special Forces are not boots on the ground.”
To the MSM, it’s not a lie when a Democrat does it.
Homer Simpson’s reply when his wife Marge accuses him of lying: “…Marge, it takes two to lie: one to lie, and one to listen…”
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/848604743148736512
Months prior to the election I accurately predicted that no matter who won the election, three things would come to pass:
1. More war
2. More debt
3. Less personal freedom
The war in Yemen explained in 200 seconds:
https://youtu.be/SyWJfqpx370
It’s not going to be ‘explained’ by a snotnose with no scholarly or professional knowledge of any aspect of the political problem in Yemen.
Jonathan Turley, I thoroughly agree!
Do something. Go talk to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, housed over by the Representatives’ offices.
The Founding Fathers did not realize they would be followed by weasels.
Who? Thomas Jefferson?
dds – I was thinking more of Obama.