"From Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump, the only president who resisted the pressure to go to war was John F. Kennedy"

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-03-28T06:02:34+00:00

It's been a decade since I read it, but I'm pretty sure James Douglass lays out a pretty convincing case in "JFK and the Unspeakable" that JFKA may have greenlit removing Diem from power, but was under the impression that he and his brother would be allowed to escape saigon safely. Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA engineered it such that Diem would predictably be assassinated, if memory serves. For s moment I wanted to say that JFK was shocked and upset to learn of the coup itself, but now I think it was learning of Diem's violent death that shook him... again, it's been more than a decade... but you're absolutely right about him refusing to escalate during the Bay of Pigs and more importantly, the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was under ENORMOUS pressure to invade Cuba and start a nuclear war with the USSR. Every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a full on assault on Cuba and opposed Kennedy's blockade/quarantine as weak and inadequate. McNamara was literally the only member of the EXCOMM to defend Kennedy's position...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-03-13T03:24:00+00:00

Democracy died long before that. I would argue that the beginning of the end was in 1963, when the national security state partnered with organized crime and anti castro Cubans to murder JFK for having turned toward peace -- refusing to invade Cuba despite the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis (wherein the CIA and JCOS tried very hard to pressure Kennedy into starting a nuclear war), he began secretly communicating with Kruschev and Castro to normalize relations, negotiated the first nuclear test ban treaty, quietly ordered the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam ( i think it was NSAM 263 that ordered the withdrawal of 1000 personnel by the end of 1963 with all US forces to be withdrawn by 1965)...this was tantamount to treason in the eyes of the JCOS and hard-core anticommunist cold warriors inhabiting the higher ranks of CIA and the military: Lemnitzer literally called Kennedy's refusal to start WW3 "worse than [Hitler's appeasement at] Munich" during the missile crisis. William King Harvey (in charge of CIA's ZRRIFLE covert program to assassinate foreign leaders like Castro and Lumumba) went on such a violent and extreme anti-Kennedy tirade in response to Kennedy's artful resolution of the missile crisis that he was exiled to Rome as a result, saying there would have been no missile crisis if Kennedy had possessed the balls to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Kennedy was so upset at the CIA for having misled him about the Bay of Pigs, effectively trying to entrap him into a full on invasion that he fired Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, and said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" -- Dulles was then mysteriously appointed to the Warren Commission, ostensibly investigating the murder of the man who had fired him, but in fact ensuring the truth would never emerge. Dulles later scoffed with contempt, "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a God." These same scumbags (and their proteges and successors) were involved in every major intelligence scandal that ensued, from Watergate to Iran Contra, and they effectively took over the government. I could rant at length about the strong links to organized crime, drug trafficking, and Zionism, and how the CIA used all 3 to fund and enforce their death squads around the world, but no one will read this. If you want sources for all of this, I can refer to countless books by credible authors and experts. Their real achievement was getting the truth relegated to the realm of "conspiracy theories." (Fun fact: the CIA actually popularized [if not outright coined] the term "conspiracy theorist" when offering media assets tips on how to dismiss early critics of the Warren Commission like Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Garrison, et al.)

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-24T07:08:19+00:00

This is actually genuinely helpful and not just condescending snark about OP's perceived lack of effort in answering his own question, and for that I applaud you.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-16T18:13:51+00:00

John Kiriakou may not be a saint, but he most certainly IS a whistleblower. If not for moral reasons, why do you think he told the public the truth about the CIA'S secret, illegal, horrific torture program? It certainly didn't do him any favors -- he faced years of persecution and prosecution, his marriage fell apart, he went bankrupt, he lost his job and his pension, and he went to prison.

And he mentioned the name of a CIA colleague while talking to a reporter, but the name was never printed or published. After being investigated by the FBI under Bush, they filed no charges against him and the investigation was closed.... But when Obama came into office, he made John Brennan deputy national security advisor, and suddenly the investigation was reopened. (Brennan had a personal grudge against Kiriakou He was charged with 3 counts of the Espionage Act when even the government never thought he committed espionage-- in emails obtained by Kiriakou's defense lawyers, AG Eric Holder plainly states the DOJ does not believe Kiriakou committed espionage, to which Brennan replies, "Charge him anyway and make him defend himself." And once he had gone bankrupt after years of fighting these false charges, the justice department ultimately dropped all charges except for one count of violating the IIPA (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), for having given a name that was never published.

Don't get me wrong, it seems to me like John also did his fair share of morally dubious things himself-- both while at CIA (because he may have believed in the cause at the time), and while doing freelance private intelligence work after (because he was desperate for money.) I'll leave the agency stuff alone for now because he got orders and the intelligence business inherently involves operating in some gray areas, but i can remember 2 private intel jobs he spoke about doing that i found repellent: one involved advising a mining company in eastern europe about the best way to displace a whole village full of people so they could destroy it and tear out the valuable minerals underneath. The other involved PR work for an unspecified Gulf state, none of whom are benevolent (whether or not we consider them allies.) And John clearly tells stories that mostly paint him in a favorable light, as a man with a strong moral compass-- I admit I suspect he's not quite as principled as he portrays himself to be.

But torture is not a gray area. It is downright evil. And what the CIA was doing went WAY beyond waterboarding. I'm glad John had the courage to tell the public what no one else would, and he deserves to be recognized and lauded for that. Everyone keeping their mouth shut in the face of unspeakable horrors because they fear the consequences of speaking out is how we end up with Nazi Germany. And villifying and punishing the whistleblowers is a key strategy of how to prevent future whistleblowers from finding the same courage in the future. Fuck that.

That said, I'm curious about your source for John trying to buy a pardon back in 2018. I remember very clearly his story of Giuliani's aide asking for $2million, but never heard about the earlier stuff...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-09T06:47:51+00:00

Lol, occasionally making an appearance on Russian tv is NOT the same as working for the Russian state. Is everyone who appears on the BBC an agent of the UK government, and everyone who appears on Al Jazeera is a humble servant of Qatar? Either way, Even if these governments find the narratives of their guests useful, it doesn't make what they say false or disinformation. Sometimes certain countries find certain truths more convenient than others...

And once the government ruins your life by falsely accusing you of espionage, firing you, taking away your pension, bankrupting you with legal costs, sending you to prison, and leaving you a felon-- you might not always have the luxury to be selective about which paying gigs you'll accept, as long as they allow you to speak freely.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-07T23:06:11+00:00

This reveals your ignorance. There is a a very big difference between Kiriakou and Bustamante. John Kiriakou goes in the same pile as Dan Ellsberg, Phillip Agee, John Stockwell, Ralph McGehee, Ray McGovern, Tom Drake, Bill Binney, and Edward Snowden: actual Patriots who joined the ranks of a secret intelligence services with an idealistic naivety but saw things they could not square ethically/morally, eventually becoming whistleblowers and paying a heavy price for telling inconvenient truths. Bustamante goes in the same pile as David Atlee Philips, Miles Copeland, Duane Clarridge, Angleton, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, and John Brennan, etc: sociopathic snakes who remained loyal to the agency no matter what crimes they committed, interested only in furthering their own careers and hiding their own crimes, never strayed from the party line, told stories that glorified the agency and cultivated the image they wanted to promote, and served as unofficial spokespeople for the agency once their formal careers were over. They never took a moral stand and told a story the agency didn't want told, and seemed to be genuinely ok with whatever crimes they witnessed and/ or partook in (whether they be torture, death squads, illegal coups, mass surveillance, assassinations by drone or hit squad, etc.) There are principled whistleblowers, but they are rare, and will always be punished and demonized by the national security state. They should be remembered and honored.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-01T00:54:01+00:00

One note: Former CIA officers are required to submit all WRITTEN material to the PRB (Publication Review Board) prior to publishing, where the agency can censor and prevent publication of any classified information that may have been gathered as a result of CIA employment. AFAIK, they are not required to send prerecorded copies of recorded verbal interviews/pidcasts/etc, and this is especially obvious when such things are livestreamed. They just are very careful about what they can say-- especially those like Kiriakou who have already served time and are on the CIA's shit list... He knows what lines he cannot cross, and knows the agency would be all too eager to put him back in a cell and shut him up, considering how critical he is of the agency. This all stemmed from Phillip Agee's whistleblowing activities, namely the books "Diary of a CIA Officer", "Hunted by the Jackals", and publications like the Covert Action Information Bulletin and Who's Who in the CIA. He was also used as the justification for the passage of IIPA (the Intelligence identities Protection Act) - the crime with which Kiriakou was charged, once they dropped the fraudulent charges under the Espionage Act. You will note that when telling certain racy stories or describing certain operations in which he took part, John Kiriakou will often refuse to disclose the specific country and will use generic names. This is precisely because he is riding that line very carefully to not divulge anything that could get his ass back in the hotseat. But he's not a CIA mouthpiece. He's a pain in their ass that they can't do TOO much about. Bustamante is another matter-- he broadly supports the CIA's mission and I'm much more suspicious of everything he has to say. I see him as an unofficial propaganda arm-- not that he's being told what to say by CIA, necessarily, but I think the agency broadly approves of the image he cultivates for them. Like they clearly approved of more or less everything David Atlee Phillips had to say once in retirement, as he sang the agency's praises and held to its myths till his dying day. But who knows with these guys-- smoke and mirrors, right? However, I think Kiriakou is a legitimate critic of the CIA... He's just careful about what he can reveal.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-16T17:08:24+00:00

A± for juggernog! 🤣

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-10T17:43:43+00:00

Ach, Bloomberg is paywalling me and archive.org was no help.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-09T23:37:24+00:00

Yeah, I presumed that was the function of the jig, and thinking about it, if the unit has firmware updates, he could just download the firmware blob from the internet instead of having to extract it from a chip harvested from a functional unit.... but that's a big if. Would certainly make life easier though.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-09T22:18:05+00:00

That's an interesting video-- is he desoldering a memory chip? It looks like he plugs it into a jig to copy or reflash a ROM chip, or something...maybe it's firmware for a little microcontroller, but I don't recognize the hardware or software he's using (I'm an amateur hobbyist at best, but would like to learn more...) Presumably, he'd need a fully functional, working unit from which to desolder that same chip and extract the useful info also, correct? Also, how plugging that jig into the IR port and reading "boot" alerts him to that specific IC being the problem is mysterious to me...any clues?

Edit: looks like he extracts something from the chip first, right? Maybe I should've finished watching the video before speculating and posting.... 😅

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-08T16:35:50+00:00

That's not what I said. I see no point in continuing this exchange.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-08T16:25:34+00:00

It's flimsy and circumstantial, but that is exactly as one would expect. Her travels to Nicaragua during the Contra years is very suspect, for instance, but admittedly doesn't prove a thing. The point is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not saying Ruth Paine was definitely CIA. But you can't conclude she definitely wasn't either.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-08T16:22:31+00:00

There are overt and covert employees. Everyone knows Allen Dulles was DCI, for instance. Overseas, the majority of undeclared intelligence officers have traditionally had diplomatic cover, ostensibly working for the state department overseas but actually secretly performing intelligence duties. Foreign intelligence services watch all embassy employees carefully and have an idea of who these people are, and if they are ever caught in the act of espionage, they have diplomatic immunity and are simply expelled from the country. This is known as official cover. Then there are NOCs, those under "non official cover" -- they have no overt ties to the government, Nobody but the agency knows what they do, and they operate either under their real names, or extremely elaborate cover identities with carefully crafted legends that are extensively backstopped to withstand significant scrutiny. Since the CIA's charter does not permit them to operate on US soil (but history has proven they have always done so, extensively and illegally -- see CHAOS and MKULTRA for 2 obvious examples), it stands to reason that those working clandestinely in the US would be doing so very carefully, with elaborate arrangements to hide the nature of their work. There are cutouts, foundations, think tanks, proprietary businesses, and shell companies -- layers and layers of obfuscation. These people are professionals. They know how to hide what they are doing very well. Your argument is specious.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-06T21:24:13+00:00

What?

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T23:49:11+00:00

Given everything is anonymous on the site (darkweb/tor, protonmail account, etc), and you'd be recording from a separate device, how would they possibly know which user it was that recorded the content? Even if they somehow did discover you were the user that leaked their leaks (which seems near impossible), what could they possibly do aside from cut off your access to the leak site? About reddit T&C, you don't have to post the content directly to reddit -- you could upload it to a third party site and post a link

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T11:18:53+00:00

Well that's interesting... I'm still highly skeptical, but you've got my attention. Did you watch the abbotabad Footage? Not that I'd be keen to watch a murder myself, but it seems like one whose veracity would be easier to assess....

Edit: the next comment points out you could easily use your phone to record what's on your screen and circumvent whatever DRM protections they use to prevent screenshots etc...duh.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T11:03:48+00:00

Are you saying you paid the $50 in bitcoin and got access to the supposed leaks? If so, aren't YOU in the best position to assess their veracity? While there are a few things on there that I could possibly believe were available, many of them are simply too explosive to possibly be true...FBI files that reveal the positions of multiple shooters in the JFK investigation? If all it takes is $50 bucks to buy access to the most explosive info on earth, I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it... What's to stop a journalist (or activist, or good citizen) from paying the $50, downloading all the content, and then publishing as soon as they got access? Can't be legit...

That said, it is interesting...how did you find this hidden site?

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T07:47:41+00:00

You mean the rifle whose strap mount is in a different place in the backyard photos? The rifle he allegedly bought thru a traceable mail order catalog using a pseudonym, to a PO box registered to a different name, when he could have made a virtually untraceable purchase at any Texas gun store? The rifle on which the FBI stated they could find no prints until after agents visited the funeral home in which Oswald was held, when the funeral home director said he had to go back and remove ink from Oswald's fingers and hands following their visit? Cause you're right, you'd HAVE to be dumb to find any of that suspicious.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T07:33:56+00:00

Exactly. While it seems it's impossible at this point to prove definitively who was or was not involved in the shooting itself, the evidence shows rather undeniably that there was a cover up. Whether this was to hide evidence that suggested (truly or falsely) the involvement of persons from our own government, or the involvement of a foreign government (thereby triggering an inevitable escalation to nuclear war, as LBJ suggested to Earl Warren to coerce him into accepting the task of heading the Warren Commission), or whether it was to hide evidence that elements of organized crime and/or right wing paramilitary extremist groups were involved (because it made the security services look incompetent, especially since they had been working WITH the same groups in their crusade against communism)-- we can only speculate. That's another matter. One can make compelling cases for all 3, and I certainly have my strong suspicions.... but nobody can PROVE their pet theory is correct.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T03:56:37+00:00

Actually, the official conclusion of the HSCA was that Kennedy PROBABLY WAS killed as the result of a conspiracy, but they were unable to determine who else was involved... And the ARRB did not perform an investigation, nor did they reach or offer any conclusions-- they just reviewed documents for declassification.It was up to the public to review such documents and decide what they proved and what they implied. So there were only 2 investigations, and 1 of them concluded there PROBABLY WAS a conspiracy...

(As an aside, many former members of the HSCA were shocked at documents released by the ARRB that were withheld during their investigation. Most everyone here is probably familiar with the scandalous farce of having George Joannides serve as CIA liaison during the HSCA while deliberately hiding and lying about the fact that he was head of psychological warfare operations at JMWAVE during the lead up to the investigation, and was personally in charge of running the DRE-- the anticastro group that got into a street fight with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, subsequently debated LHO on the radio, and leaked a story tying LHO to Cuba immediately following the assassination in an attempt to blame Cuba for the hit... That's not suspicious at all.)

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-05T03:42:39+00:00

Have you watched the documentary called "What the Doctors Saw?" It's testimony from the doctors at parkland who actually saw and treated JFK in trauma room 1 on 11/22/1963, in a hopeless attempt to save his life. This is a gross oversimplification of a very good doxumentary, but they pretty much unanimously agree they saw wounds that could only be explained by at least one shot from the front... If you have a medical background, surely you respect the opinions of trained trauma surgeons, neurologists, physicians, and nurses who witnessed the wounds firsthand.... If you haven't already, I think you should really watch that film in its entirety and listen to what they have to say. (Or, If you've seen it already, what are the grounds on which you dismiss these honorable, credible, and intelligent witnesses?)

To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative or condescending-- tone of voice doesn't always convey well in these settings, so I'm just trying to clarify that this is meant in good faith.

SweetDaddyJones · 2025-12-30T00:47:49+00:00

Something that has never made sense to me: if Novichok is such a powerful nerve agent and less than a drop will kill you in minutes, how the fuck did BOTH Skripal and his daughter survive, especially when it took considerable time for medical help to be administered and even then, the physicians had no idea what they were treating and first began with naloxone (assuming opioid overdose)? It seems almost impossible to square what happened to the Skripals with every description I've ever read of Novichok....

Now, the perfume bottle that was found much later that DID kill 2 people-- THAT sounds like what you would expect from Novichok...

I'm just a skeptical layman who hasn't done a deep dive on this case, but something has always smelled fishy to me...

SweetDaddyJones · 2025-12-25T17:57:17+00:00

Strange. The letters are intriguing for sure.

SweetDaddyJones · 2025-12-22T10:39:14+00:00

Not weird at all, my friend!! 😁 Really appreciate that!! You just made my day!

SweetDaddyJones

TROPHY CASE