The Biden affair - ridiculous

I am responding to this Politico article:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/30/biden-camp-david-family-debate-00165970

Ridiculous.

The man is 81.

There is nothing unusual for an 81-year-old to be somewhat slow-witted.

The point that needs to be emphasized is:

If he is like this at 81,

what is he going to be like as he gets even older?

Does anyone think the deteriation, of both body and mind, that comes with aging is going to stop, or reverse?

Time to stop making excuses for Joe.

He is just a normal 80-something.

Nothing wrong with that,

but he definitely should not be president after his current term ends.

Can't the Democrats do better?

And can't his family be content with all that he has accomplished in his past 81 years?

Why should they push this 81-year-old into four more years of the rigors of the presidency?

Can't they just let him relax and enjoy being a grandfather, and maybe even a great-grandfather?

And compliment and thank him for all that he HAS done.

Can't they be satisfied?

Must Joe do even more to satisfy them?

What a bizarre family.

And worst of all --

If the Russians should attack, 

and he has just a few minutes to decide how to respond, 

what happens if that occurs at one of those times when he is "not at his best"?

And consider that could occur not just now, 

but at any time in the next four years.

------------------------

According to the Politico article linked to above, 

Jill said

‘Look, Joe, we are not going to let 90 minutes define the four years that you’ve been president’.

What a ridiculous statement.

The poor performance in the debate doesn't "define the four years that you’ve been president".

What it does do is point the direction in which Joe is headed.

Give the old man a break.

This really is elder abuse.

For a newspaper column reflecting a similar point of view, see

https://nypost.com/2024/06/30/opinion/jill-bidens-delusional-if-she-believes-she-can-save-her-husband-the-country-after-debate-debacle

by Miranda Devine 

As to who influenced Jill, see

https://nypost.com/2024/03/12/us-news/powerful-white-house-official-anthony-bernal-jill-bidens-work-husband-is-a-metoo-nightmare-with-claims-of-bullying-sexual-harassment

"Anthony Bernal, whose status as the first lady’s top aide 

grants him enormous clout in both White House operations and Democratic politics ..."

---------------

People claiming Biden has Parkinson's disease and/or Parkinson's dementia:

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/a-neurosurgeon-diagnoses-joe-biden

https://youtu.be/fJ1P7gGfUUA

---------------

How well would he function in a situation where he was not reading a speech (almost certainly written by someone else), 

but responding to non-scripted questions, not known in advance?

There is a classical, traditional, way of answering that question.

Hold a press conference.

What do you think are the odds that Biden will hold a press conference in the future?

Question: When was the most recent traditional ~90-minute in Biden press conference?

I do not know.

I can't find it either using Google or YouTube.

Why is America so committed to battling Russia over Ukraine?

What difference does Ukraine make to American security or the American national interest?

In my opinion absolutely none.

So why is America literally risking a Third World War, fought with thermonuclear weapons, that would literally result in the destruction of much of America, over something of zero significance to America?

I asked, via email, a U.S. senator who has influence over U.S. policy with regard to Ukraine, 

and he (more likely his staff) responded with a statement about how bad the Russians are, how Ukraine is an innocent victim of Russia, and how we must fight authoriatism and autocracies.

Is Ukraine the only victim of aggression in the world?

Of course not.

So why get involved in this one case?

Compare: Russian invaded Ukraine, U.S. invaded Iraq

There are similarities and differences.

A difference: A Ukraine bristling with missiles (a real possibility given the U.S. support for Ukraine)

would have been a real threat to Russia.

OTOH, that Iraq would have ever been a real threat to the U.S. never seemed likely, except to the neocons.

A similarity:

Who has been advocating that the U.S. get involved in both those conflicts?

The neocons.

Of course they pushed for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

And now they are arguing that the U.S. take steps which have an uncomfortably high probability of leading to a war between the U.S. and Russia.

Some examples:

For a broad look at neocons support for U.S. involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, see

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/neoconservative-ukraine/

by Katrina vanden Heuvel

For Eliot Cohen, read

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/theory-victory-ukraine

Elliott Abrams gave a two hour video briefing (covering a variety of topics, including Ukraine), just two weeks after the invasion started, here:

https://youtu.be/R3R-hv2oCZU

The U.S. is hurting Russia. Russia has not (yet) hurt the U.S.

If you read the news, you will often see reports of Ukraine attacking sites in Russia.

Some of the attacks, likely a few, are using drones made either in Ukraine or China.

But the vast majority of the strikes are using weapons made in the U.S., notably the ATACMS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS .

Some strikes have been carried out by cruise missiles made in GB or France 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

And Ukraine has requested the German Taurus 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_KEPD_350 .

But the vast majority of the strikes have been made by missiles made in the USA.

The Russians are well aware of this.

"Russia blames US for Crimea deaths and vows response"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pppr719rlo

It seems to me the Russians are essentially right on this.

The U.S. supplies Ukraine with the weapons it uses to attack Russia, 

also, it is said U.S. personnel are involved with both preparation of the missiles and their targeting, 

and the U.S. has made no objection to the weapons it has supplied being used to attack Russia.

All this, effectively makes the U.S. a cobelligerent with Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war.

And this justified, IMO, the claim that the U.S. is harming Russia.

(Of course, outside of the world of kinetic weapons, the U.S. is openly trying to harm Russia through sanctions.)

OTOH, where has Russia ever tried to harm the U.S.?

I am not aware of any such efforts.

If  Russia does now try to harm the U.S., 

either directly or through surrogates,

they will no doubt claim that is just retaliation for the harm the U.S. has caused Russia.

Based on the above, 

it certainly looks to me like they would be right.

-------

Russia issues threat:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/29/russia-ukraine-offensive-00165926

"... has brought new threats by President Vladimir Putin to retaliate against the West — either directly or indirectly.

...

Washington and some NATO allies have responded to the [Russian] offensive by allowing Kyiv to use Western weapons for limited strikes inside Russia.

...

[Putin] declared that just as the West says Ukraine can decide how to use Western weapons, 

Moscow could provide arms to North Korea and 

“similarly say that we supply something to somebody but have no control over what happens afterward” — 

an apparent hint at Pyongyang’s role as arms trader.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, noted Moscow could arm anyone who considers the U.S. and its allies their enemies, “regardless of their political beliefs and international recognition.” "

The new domino theory: Ukraine is Vietnam, or Czechoslovakia

Recall the 1960s-era domino theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

<Blockquote>The domino theory is a geopolitical theory which posits that changes in the political structure of one country tend to spread to neighboring countries in a domino effect. 

It was prominent in the United States from the 1950s to the 1980s in the context of the Cold War, suggesting that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow. 

</Blockquote>

Now fast forward to 2024.

Compare the theory specifically stated by President Biden and many, many in the American elite:

<B>If we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, then much of Europe is at risk of going the same way.</b>

In my opinion, it is 100% clear that that is ignorant claptrap.

Why?

Because Putin has laid out several plans for a settlement which Russia will accept,

which primarily involve: 

Ukraine ceding four Russia-oriented districts to Russia, and Ukraine neither joining NATO nor letting missiles be put on the remaining Ukrainian territory which could pose a threat to the Russia 

(just as the U.S. would not allow the USSR to place missiles in Cuba which could threaten the U.S.).

These are specific, finite, and reasonable proposals.

I do not see how they presage further Russian demands.

Yes, it is definitely time for 

"Peace in our time",

to deliberately echo a well-known phrase from 1938.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia#The_Second_Republic_%281938%E2%80%931939%29

The point is that I, at least, don't think Putin is a clone of Hitler,

as some suggest.

Also, 

the worldview of Russians in the Putin era 

is nothing like that of 

the Germans in the Nazi era.

Patrick Buchanan also noted the similarity to the domino theory of the 1960s:

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-buchanan

If Russian and American geopolitical roles were reversed

I recently read a comment in a blog that said 

"NATO missiles a short flight away is just something that Moscow has to get used to."

Unfortunately, it is more than clear that many members of the U.S. political and media elite share exactly that sentiment.

Now, there is an old and good saying 

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Let us consider what it would be like if U.S. and Russian roles were reversed.

Here is the hypothetical:

Mexico, Canada, and Cuba all join the CSTO 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization, 

a military alliance with Russia.

Russia indicates that it is worried the U.S. poses a military threat to its allies in North America, so arms them to the teeth.

Hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, fighter-bombers.

All nuclear capable.

All just a short flight time from critical U.S. military facilities and major population centers.

(Think Cuba 1962.)

Obviously, very many in the United States would consider this a huge strategic threat.

How would the U.S. react?

One can't predict exactly, 

but at the very least the U.S. would request that those bordering states remove the weapon systems that directly threaten the U.S.,

and preferably declare neutrality by ending their military alliance with Russia.

I only present this so Americans can perhaps appreciate what Russia is concerned about, 

and develop some sympathy with Russia.

The Three Colonels

The title, of course, is a play on "The Three Tenors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Tenors

But it does refer to three very real retired colonels, all of whom had distinguished careers in the U.S. Army.

Here they are:

Col. Richard Black 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Black_%28politician%29

https://youtu.be/ET5ZjNIU0dg

https://youtu.be/wbHLGZlKtN0

Col. Douglas MacGregor 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor

Col. Larry Wilkerson 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

https://youtu.be/0xV5qVEV-HY

In particular 

https://youtu.be/0xV5qVEV-HY?t=11m

What do those three men, all of about the same age, have in common besides being retired U.S. Army colonels?

All three are opposed to our support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

(For people with experience in the intelligence community who feel likewise, see

Larry Johnson 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

Karen Kwiatkowski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowsi

Ray McGovern 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern

Scott Ritter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter 

https://youtu.be/r8qiH_paYeQ.)

Why do these seven people, with extensive experience in either the military or the intelligence community, 

have such a different point of view than so many politicians and media figures?

For example, 

Max Boot 

Josh Rogin 

Bill Kristal 

Victoria Nuland.

I think the difference in background should be obvious.

Who has America's best interest in mind?

I know my opinion on that.

Why do those four people named above hate Russia so much?

That shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

See also this 2h25m press conference

https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2024/06/07/emergency-press-conference-the-danger-of-nuclear-war-is-real/

https://www.youtube.com/live/aOrmFJXyAVI

------------

Comment from Keith Harbaugh:

I am sure those 80-year-old retired colonels got some things wrong, or at least imperfect, in their remarks.

But the very important point is this:

Why on earth are we risking nuclear Armageddon over, God help us, Ukraine?

I think the answer is extremely clear:

It's the Jews, stupid.

One might ask:

Why did Victoria Nuland care so much about who controlled Ukraine?

I don't think the average American cared that much.

Why Max Boot is pure scum

Because he has worked assiduously to talk Americans into policies against their true interests.

See

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/20/russia-china-iran-north-korea-alignment/

He is a poison within America.

Harming the American national interest.

If nuclear war breaks out, you can blame the likes of Max Boot.

Max Boot and his "alignment of evil"

Referring to 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/20/russia-china-iran-north-korea-alignment/

the title of which is

"The Russia-North Korea pact bolsters a growing ‘alignment of evil’ ".

Let me say this:

I am extremely tired of Jews pushing America into hostility towards Russia.

Do they ever get tired of hating Russia?

Whom does Boot reference in his column?

"Yoel Guzansky, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studiesx

Yeah, I get it.

Whom we should listen to, and obey.

Arnold Toynbee, Karl Marx, and Max Boot

Arnold Toynbee asserted there had been, historically, around 20 world civilizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History

When he wrote the above-cited work, 

he asserted there were five civilizations still surviving:

Western, Orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Sinic.

We can argue over the proper names and precise extents of each, but the idea should be clear.

In the 19C, Karl Marx had a different way of dividing the world, into the oppressors and the oppressed

"Workers of the world, unite!".

Now, in 2024, here comes Max Boot, who writes of an "alignment of evil", which he defines as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, 

all of whom are united by "anti-Americanism".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/20/russia-china-iran-north-korea-alignment/

"The Russia-North Korea pact bolsters a growing ‘alignment of evil’

The democratic world needs increased solidarity to counter Russia, China, Iran and North Korea."

Well, Russia is the descendant of the Orthodox Christian civilization, China of course is the descendant of the Sinic civilization.

So Max Boot and his ilk would have us at odds with two and a half of the four non-Western civilizations.

I say, yuck!

Enough with your perpetual conflicts.

Some say, "But wait. Russia, China, and many of the Muslim countries aren't democracies."

I say, it is up to the people in those countries, nations, or civilizations to decide what form of government they desire, what works best of them.

It should not be up to the U.S. to decide for them.

Each society should be allowed to make its own decisions on how it should be run.

We see this clearly in Russia.

Some say Putin is a dictator, or an authoritan, or an autocrat.

But many say he reflects the majority view of the Russian people.

It seems hard to argue with that.

Against the U.S. strategic interest

It should clearly be in the interest of the U.S. to isolate North Korea, make it a pariah state.

But see this;

https://apnews.com/article/vladimir-putin-kim-jong-un-russia-north-korea-summit-ukraine-a6b8d2c12de7ee2ab6716d4747c9850e

Why is this?

Because Ukraine-loving politicians in the U.S. have pushed Russia away from the U.S., into the arms of North Korea.

Why did those U.S. politicians do that?

Well, various reasons can be offered, but one I think must have been significant was 

that was what their campaign donors wanted.

The politicians surely are sensitive to the desires of their campaign donors.

This is yet another example of how 

love for Ukraine is 

harming the United States.

There are two groups in America:

Russiaphobes, and 

campaign donors.

Unfortunately, I suspect there is a positive correlation between those two groups.

In whose interests is war with Russia, thermonuclear or otherwise?

Certainly not America's.

How to rebuild relations with Russia

1. Return the Russian assets that have been confiscated.

2. End all the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia.

3. Persuade, or strong-arm, Zelenskyy to accept, on the nose, the peace plan that Putin offered on 2024-06-14.

4. End U.S. military support for Ukraine.

I don't think those would instantly rebuild friendship with Russia.

They've had to accept too much hostility from the U.S.

They couldn't be confident we were sincere.

In English we have a saying "The leopard doesn't change his spots."

I imagine the Russians have an equivalent saying.

But over time, they might accept that we really wanted to end the period of misguided American hostility to Russia.

Putin issues another warning: 2024-06-14

Putin's warning is quoted, and commented on, by Larry Johnson here:

2024-06-14

https://sonar21.com/vladimir-putin-puts-west-on-notice/

"American and her NATO allies are fools if they dismiss or ignore Putin’s stark message today."

I want to add two comments:

1. People who buy stocks are familiar with a common slogan coming from brokerage houses'

"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

I want to modify that to 

"Past restraint is no guarantee of future restraint."

We are told over and over again, by "experts", 

that Putin has issued threats in the past and not followed through on them.

True, but this is no guarantee.

We might recall an old saying 

"There's always a first time."

2. We really are now in uncharted territory.

The U.S. and Russia, or its predecessor the Soviet Union, have on at least two occasions, been on opposite sides of shooting wars.

In Vietnam, not only did the U.S. back the South Vietnamese militarily, but we were heavily involved ourselves, with ground troops and aircraft, to the tune of 57,000 casualties, 

against the North Vietnamese backed, and supplied, by the Soviet Union.

But this never involved U.S.-supplied weapons directly striking the Soviet Union.

Likewise in Afghanistan the U.S. and the Soviet Union backed opposing sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

But again, there were no direct attacks on Soviet territory using U.S.-made weapons.

Now, in 2024, that critical line has been crossed.

U.S.-produced weapons are being used, with the approval of the U.S., to attack military targets in Russia-proper.

And there is clamor from politicians, the media, and various "experts", on both sides of the Atlantic, to strike more targets in Russia.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/13/democrats-pressure-ukrainian-strike-rules-00163201

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/14/europe-presses-us-to-lift-ukraine-weapons-limits-00163443

Some "experts" are claiming that Russia's real red line will be if their population centers, e.g. Moscow and St. Petersburg, are attacked.

I think this is absurd, and belied by Russia's own statements.

The Russian military, like that of the U.S., has various facilities critical to its strategic deterrence, 

some of which are within Ukraine's striking range.

If those facilities come under attack, they have said they will respond strategically, to what is behind the attack.

Like Larry Johnson, I think they are dead serious in that.

I want to stress that this is the most fateful thing I have seen in my 77 years.

Putin, like his predecessors as leaders of first the Soviet Union and then Russia, has the complete power to destroy the civilized world.

We, the U.S., never gave his predecessors any cause to start a global thermonuclear war.

Correspondingly, they never threatened one.

Now, in 2024, the West is clearly giving Putin cause for retaliation, and he is quite clearly saying, 

if you don't stop provoking Russia, you may get exactly what you don't want.

How stupid do you have to be to not see the danger the West is getting into?

Nuclear fears: who and what is leading us towards WWIII?

See, e.g.,

2024-06-02

Paul Craig Roberts 

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/06/02/watching-washington-foment-nuclear-war/

2024-06-03

Larry Johnson and Judge Napolitano 

https://youtu.be/3hXoM-vV_VY

2024-06-04

Scott Ritter and Judge Napolitano 

https://youtu.be/lOsW84wYdzg

2024-06-04

Larry Johnson

https://youtu.be/BDXN2kt2CLc

In the Ritter video, the part dealing with the threat of WWIII starts at 135s

https://youtu.be/lOsW84wYdzg?t=14m35s

In that video, Ritter goes into quite a bit of detail about war-fighting techniques, and U.S. policies thereon.

I don't know how accurate his claims are.

I have assembled the three YouTube links above into a playlist, which I may expand later if appropriate.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZlQy6FlDBO2EpvgkZr1PJyLbTFGAxm0O

I have already added a Larry Wilkerson video to that playlist.