Monday, September 30, 2019

This shows you approximately how that hand was. 

The other is just ridiculous.

Do you understand that human hands aren't built like that? 
I am not wrong about this. That is the thumb cutting across. And that other thumb is impossible. It appears to be parallel with the other fingers, but the thumb is not parallel with the other fingers. It is opposed to the other fingers. Our "opposable thumbs" is one of the cardinal things that distinguish us from the great apes.

That so-called hand in the Jackson phone, which is really a compilation of two hands, is a monstrous freakosity. What a childish thing to do, putting that ridiculous thing in there. And they only did it to cover the area of impact because OSWALD WASN'T REALLY SHOT. 
I just realized something: That goofy left hand of Oswald in the Jackson photo, supposedly being slapped to his chest after the shot, you can see the thumb on it. 

Do you see that thumb going across? That's the thumb of that left hand. The other thumb belongs to the right hand. There are two hands there, clasped together, as in praying.  

The Jackson photo is such a monstrosity of photographic fakery, and it is slapping you in the face. How did it ever win the Pulitzer Prize? They must have put pressure on the Pulitzer Prize committee. It was just a way to reward Robert Jackson for going along with the fraud. 

Oh Heaven help us from the evil in which we are immersed. 
This is a frame from the KRLD film that occurred right after the shot. It was the Wizard who found it. And it shows that after firing, the Garage Shooter immediately lowered the gun and did not try to fire at Oswald or anyone else again. 

 But now, let's consider the pack of lies that were told about this. There was Leavelle who went on and on about how LC Graves saved his life, that he wouldn't be here if not for his partner. And there were multiple detectives who quoted Ruby as saying that he didn't think anyone would be able to stop him before he shot the son of a bitch three times, as he intended. And they said these things not just to reporters but in court, under oath, at Ruby's trial. 

And I am really amazed that Ruby's lawyers, including the illustrious Melvin Belli, bought all that crap. I mean: they interacted with Ruby. They saw how he was, how submissive and childlike. However, I don't know about Belli, but I have to think that Tonahill was dirty. He spent the rest of his life defending not only the official story of the Oswald shooting, but the official story of the JFK shooting as well. And he stuck to the defense that he and Belli used in court, that Ruby shot Oswald due to an epileptic seizure, and that is ridiculous. If you know anything about epilepsy, you know that it is a random firing of nerves. But, he cited Ruby's use of his middle finger to fire the gun, as seen in the Jackson photo, as evidence that it was due to epilepsy, since there was no logical reason why Ruby would have done that. But, that's not it. The Jackson photo was staged in the garage BEFORE the televised spectacle, and the reason James Bookhout used his middle finger is because he and others must have mistakenly believed that it was Ruby's right index finger that was partially amputated. But, that was incorrect; it was his left- not his right. But, it was definitely something that Bookhout did, use his middle finger, because you can see it in the Beers photo as well. 

That is definitely the tip of his middle finger hanging out. 

So, did the go to Ruby and ask him why he used his middle finger? If they did, he undoubtedly told him that he didn't know, that he had no memory of doing it at all, and that he gave no thought to doing it with his middle finger. 

But remember that hot gases explode through the cylinder gap, and if his index finger were there, that it would have been affected. Here's an Aussie guy talking about, and he says that fingers have been amputated that way. Then he demonstrates with a piece of paper. 

And here he is with his index finger forward, the way Ruby's supposedly did it, and you can hear him say that you would at least scorch your finger. But, Ruby's hand was clean and unmarred. He didn't fire the gun that way. He didn't fire the gun any way.

There is a lot available on this. Here's a guy using a hot dog as a surrogate for the index finger. Guess what happens to it.

So, what happened to Bookhout? It depends on how much gunpowder there was in the blank he shot. As you recall, it didn't make much sound, just a little pop. And the Colt Detective Special is known to be very loud. But, I think we should assume there was some visible mark on his finger from having it exposed to whatever gases there were. 

Sunday, September 29, 2019

I think of MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND as, first and foremost, an anti-war movie. It protests the inhumanity of America's post-9/11 wars. And because of that I'd like to take a look at some other anti-war movies: my favorite ones. 

Toppping the list is THE DEER HUNTER from 1978 directed and co-written by Michael Cimino, starring Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, and Christopher Walken. This movie has received tremendous praise but also quite a lot of criticism. One thing is for sure: it could never be made today the way it was made in 1978. The first 45 minutes are devoted to a wedding. You have to sit through 45 minutes of wedding with no plot advancement at all. So, it couldn't be done today because it's too expensive to make movies, and modern audiences, which tend to be younger, wouldn't stand for it. They want short scenes, short dialogue, fast pace, and lots of action. They want the story to move! 

Another complaint is that the Russian roulette element, which is so pivotal to the story, wasn't based on anything real; it was made up. But, I don't consider that a fault because it was used very effectively. When it jumped from the wedding in that small steel-worker town in Pennsylvania, tucked away high in the Allegheny Mountains, to the three buddies, now POWs in Vietnam, being forced to play Russian roulette, it felt real. 

More than anything, for me, this was a story of friendship, and how  the Vietnam War brought pain and loss to this little PA town half a world away. This movie, which started with a happy wedding, ends with a funeral, and when the close-knit group of friends are sitting around afterwards. trying to support each other, and they break into a sad rendition of God Bless America,, it was riveting. So despite everything, the movie worked; it got to me. I found it very moving, and of course, it could not have had better actors. 

Also made in 1978 was COMING HOME, starring Jon Voight, Jane Fonda, and Bruce Dern. It wasn't the first time Jane Fonda played a woman torn between two men. In The Chase, which occurs in a small Texas town, her character is divided between her wealthy boyfriend, who is the son of the town's richest man, and her husband, played by Robert Redford, who is in prison but then breaks out. But, in Coming Home, her division is between her Marine husband (Dern) who is deployed in Vietnam, and this paraplegic Vietnam vet played by Jon Voight, whom she meets while volunteering at the hospital. This movie is more directly 'anti-war" than The Deer Hunter. Voight's character actually denounces the war, and at one point, in his wheelchair, he chains and padlocks himself to the gate of a recruitment center in order to keep recruits from entering. Much of the story centers on the budding romance between Voight's character and Fonda's, and how they try to have sex despite his handicap. Again, the emotions were so strong in this story, and even Bruce Dern's character was not without sympathy. 

And finally, I shall mention the very first anti-war movie, made in 1930, just one year after the first talking movie, The Jazz Singer, and that is: All Quiet on the Western Front. This was an American movie, but it was a German story. It was based on a German novel. It's about several college boys, who, inspired by their professor to go off and "save the Fatherland" drop out of school to do that. It showed the horrors of trench fighting during World War 1 in gory detail. And in places, it directly confronts the insanity of the war. And it really was insane because one man, the Archduke Ferdinand, got assassinated in Sarayevo, and as a result, the whole world went to war and 45 million people were killed. Now, if that's not insane, what is? So you hear a German soldier say that, instead of a war, the Kaiser and the leaders of the other countries, should be stripped to their underwear and forced to fight it out with clubs. This is a very tragic story about three young men who find out the hard way that war is hell- on steroids. It has a very touching ending where this dying shoulder savors the beauty of a butterfly that rests on his arm in the last seconds of his life. He was played Lew Ayres, and when young Ginger Rogers saw the movie with her mother, she swore she was going to someday marry him, and she did! Sadly, the marriage didn't last. 

I don't compare My Stretch of Texas Ground to any of these great movies, but I do think we succeeded to show the horror of war suddenly intruding on the peace and quiet of a small Texas town, being part of the "blowback."  And, as far as I know, it is the first and only anti-war movie of the 21st century. So, until there is a better one, it will have to do.

The thumb of the left hand of the Garage Shooter is a piece of art that was added to the photo, and it makes no sense. 

You know the metacarpal isn't real. He's got his thumb tucked down, out of sight. That metacarpal is extra, and you can see it isn't connected to the wrist, which is below it. The proximal phalanx is too long, and the whole thumb is too long. So, why did they add it? Probably because the hand would look so small without it, and Ruby's hands weren't that small. It's just ridiculous. The whole thing is a bogus, clownish, farcial thing. Really, what an embarrassment it is. 

Saturday, September 28, 2019

This ridiculous image of Ruby's hair, with an impossible pattern of male baldness, is just one of many ridiculous renderings of his hair, no two of which are exactly the same. The thick narrow band of hair, being swept back to our left, is particularly phony. It's a very strange part, don't you think? Why would anyone with such a distribution bother parting it at all? 

Compare it to this one? How could both be real? 

Add caption
Why did they do so much doctoring of Ruby's hair? It's because of the thick mop we see on the shooter in the Jackson photo.

Anyone with hair as long and as thick as that in back, where it's curling up at the bottom, has got to have abundant hair on top because a bald man wouldn't do that. That is OBVIOUSLY a wig. Notice that at no spot do you actually see hair growing out of his head. It looks like a wig, and it was a wig. Even the sideburn looks fake. It's way too long and heavy to be a real sideburn. Look how short and thick that guy's neck is. Ruby had a longer, narrower neck. He wasn't built like that.
Look at the distance between the bottom of the hairline and the shirt collar. Long on Ruby and short on the Garage shooter. 
It's time for everyone to admit that Jacky Ruby was not the Garage Shooter of Oswald, that it is clearly another man. But, notice that the Garage Shooter who is facing the camera and hiding with the detectives on the 3rd floor, does have a short neck like the Garage Shooter. 

Even from the front, you can see how short his neck was. He is NOT Jack Ruby. No one has any reason to think that that is Ruby. His neck is too short. His face is too round. His eyes have been blackened out. Why else do we see crude black stripes for his eyes in contrast to sharp photographic detail for the eyes of Boyd and Hall?  This was an accidental capture. They were hiding there on the 3rd floor, about to release Bookhout, when a reporter snagged them. 

It's over, people. The ruse that Jack Ruby was the Garage Shooter of Oswald has been exposed as the lie that it was. Jack Ruby was too incapacitated to defend himself, and there was no one else to defend him-  until now. 

Thursday, September 26, 2019

George Black I've watched almost every documentary film on building 7.
The experts agree it was controlled demo. Architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth over 3,000 expert members agree.
Only the gov't could perform this massive false flag operation.
Just like they performed the JFK assassination.
It's beyond reasonable doubt
Christopher Persson And if one of them was wired for demolotion falling the way they did, they all were wired for demolition. And you forgot Iraq. Iraq was invaded alledgedly because of 911. The invasion made the iraqi army unemployed and a decision was made to not support the sokdiers economically. That decision was the starting point for Isis.

And one more thing. During 911 the armed forces were running an exercise of the same scenario that made it difficult for soldiers to assess whether if it was real world or exercise. During what other important event was a similar coincedence prevalent, a miltary exercise being run with the same kind of scanario?

The assassination of JFK...
  • Ralph Cinque That is a very good point, Christopher Perssonher, that if Building 7 was a demolition, it would be idiotic to think the Towers 1 and 2 were not also demolitions.So, it's not just that that part of the story is a lie but the whole story. And I keep thinking about that they crossed an ocean and two seas to attack Afghanistan, and just a few days ago, after all the carnage of the last 18 years, they (the U.S.) killed 30 pine nut harvesters. Then they killed 70 people at a wedding party, and that was the 9th time they bombed an Afghan wedding party. And all of it based on a monstrous lie!
The Wizard has found what we believe to be another image of James Bookhout, and it's at the Midnight Press Conference.

So, as you see he is looking down. And there may have been some art done to his eyes to close them.

So, did they add a couple of stripes there, one light and the other dark? And why does he have such sparse eye brows? Is that another attempt at misdirection? But notice the bulging neck on our right. I do believe he is Bookhout. 

The Wizard made this gif which shows the good match between him and Bookhout from the parking garage walking behind Oswald's stretcher, as Bookhout said he did.

So yes, I dare say, that is James Bookhout, the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, in the 11/14/63 ruse, in which Oswald was killed for real afterwards. 
Wow. You have got to see this. In a recent interview, Ron Insana, of CNBC, said that Building 7 was taken down in a controlled demolition on 9/11. He said it as though he presumed everybody knows that it fell that way, and that it wasn't even in question. 

Then, the video features a compilation of witnesses who refer to explosions that went off, and even reporters who say, on 9/11, that they were told that the building was going to be brought down. 

And yet, the U.S. government had the nerve, the audacity, the unmitigated gall to say that the building fell due to "office fires". 

Do you realize what it means? It means that the official story of 9/11 is a lie, and yet, it was that story, and that story alone, that was used to wage war on Afghanistan, a war that has been raging for 18 years, with no end in sight. 

Oh my God! The evil that surrounds us. 
Amazon is including My Stretch of Texas Ground in a collage of their top-performing Action/Adventure movies. I didn't have to pay for this. 
And I doubt there is any human intervention involved. It's a computer-generated thing. But, I actually did get a letter from Amazon congratulating me on having a top-performing indie film. And a person signed it.  

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

George Black Bush's wars are crimes against humanity and he should be on trial.
One thing Vincent Bugliosi got right was his book
No photo description available.
  • Oswald Innocence Campaign Good point, George. Thank you. Americans need to wake up and realize that we have some reckoning to do with the people who did this, starting with Bush, because it was done in our name and with our money. It's just too grotesque to ignore.
Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach Trump for talking to the President of Ukraine about looking into Biden's son, but not George W. Bush for crossing the ocean, twice, to attack two impoverished third world countries, and bomb them to hell, killing well over a million people, to where they are still hell holes today, and all based on lies. Don't you get it, Nancy? Those wars, which you supported, were the epitome of evil, and you, like everyone else who condoned them, have blood on your hands, and it does not wash off. 
The utter phoniness of the U.S. demanding over, and over, and over, and over, again, ad finitum, that the Taliban guarantee that Afghanistan be free of terrorists is belied by the fact that we've been there for 18 years, with as many as 100,000 troops on the ground, and yet, Afghanistan today is teeming with Islamic State and Dasesh fighters. So, if we can't keep them out, how do we expect the Taliban to do it?

And why does it even matter? Afghanistan is so remote, so primitive, and so far away from the United States, that what could anybody there do to attack the United States? They could jabber about it, but that's about it. Jabbering and doing are two different things. 

And even if you could monitor every cave and canyon in Afghanistan and know with certainty that no terrorists abound there, how is that going to make us safe when there are 194 other countries in the world? 

It's all just spin. It is face-saving. It is just an attempt to justify having launched our monstrous war of terror against Afghanistan in the first place. And for that, more Americans have to die? I tell you that if I had to choose between letting all of Afghanistan be a haven for terrorists from the Iran border to the Pakistan border or losing one more American soldier, I would say, "Let the terrorists have it." They can't do anything to us from over there. It is just a dastardly attempt to justify the heinous war and the official story of 9/11. Oh, what we have done, and oh, what we have wrought.     

I didn't this collage, and I don't know who did, but I certainly agree with it. The Zapruder film was highly altered, and the Moorman photo, rather than being taken by her was taken by Babushka Lady, who was an insider. And it's easy enough to tell. Mary said many times and demonstrated many times that she took her picture when the President was directly across from her and even with her. But, the Moorman photo was taken by someone who was behind the president, meaning east of him on Elm Street.

You know that size is determined by distance, right? The reason why the motorcycle cop Hargis is so large in the photo is because the photographer was close to him, and the distance to the President had to be added. 

The Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal, while Mary shot at a perpendicular angle. There is no doubt about that. Look who is holding a camera and shooting at a diagonal angle from behind. 

Finally, why'd they add the thumbprint? And you're not buying that it was an accident, are you? They added the thumbprint to take out BJ Martin. Look above. Now look below. 
That's how that picture must have looked before they messed with it, and Mary could not have captured it shooting perpendicular. If you look closely, you can see the other helmet there. 

So, what we're seeing in the Moorman photo is Martin's motorcycle but not him. That front wheel is the front wheel of Martin's motorcycle. 

Hargis, whom we see, is on the adjacent motorcycle that is deep to it. 

And notice that Jackson's motorcycle, in the farground, looks more like a riding lawnmower. There is no back to it. And Bill Newman's left arm is missing. That edge of the photo must have caught a sliver of the head of Charles Brehm, which they had to take out. There is art there. You can see how sketchy it looks. 

Why do people accept such an obviously bogus, manipulated photo? Mary Moorman's photo must have shown something that they didn't want the public to see. I don't assume it was the shooter because he would have been far enough away that they could probably have taken him out easily enough. Perhaps it showed the back of the President's head blown out. Or perhaps it showed a look on his face that they didn't want the public to see. Whatever it was, they couldn't fix it. They apparently tried repeatedly because they kept borrowing Mary's photo and returning it to her. Finally, they gave up and started from scratch with an image from Babushka Lady. 

If you would just think about it, you'll realize that Mary was waiting there for hours, and she certainly would have snapped the shudder while their faces were in view. She would not have waited and shot the back of their heads. She was looking through the viewfinder from the time they rounded the corner. So, she was prepared to shoot the whole time. She would not have waited until they passed her.  

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Jeff Weber has won! He has been named Best Actor in a Feature Film at the Fall 2019 Alternative Film Festival in Toronto. This is the laurel they sent me. 
Jeff is so deserving of this award. His Sheriff Joe is as noble and towering a screen lawman as any you can name. I am so happy for him because he richly deserves it. And his Sheriff Joe Haladin must live on. In a world bereft of heroes, Jeff has given us one we can really look up to. We need to see more of Sheriff Joe.

Monday, September 23, 2019

I want to thank OIC member Richard McHugh for sending me this video of Jack Ruby, which I hadn't seen before. 

First, I'll point out that once again, there is lots of doctoring of Ruby's hair. This doesn't even look natural. It looks like there is a thick tuft of hair in front that is short, then also extremely long strands swept back. And then there is a narrow but dense finger of long hair streaking back the other way. Look: this is NOT how men go bald. Have you ever seen such a thing as this on any other man? Because I sure haven't. They had the need to give Ruby hair because the Garage Shooter in the Jackson photo has such a thick carpet of hair. This is bogus.  

And note that the quality of the image is very poor. It's hazy; it's blurry, with poor contrast. That was done deliberately so that the hair additions would blend better. 

But, let's talk next about what Ruby said. He said he never spoke to Lee Oswald in his life. And there is no reason to doubt him. He wasn't lying. Yet, admittedly, there are Oswald/Ruby sightings. What does that mean? It means those sightings are false. 

You have to realize how clever they were, although diabolical is surely a better word. They knew that some people were not going to be buy the lone nut story about Ruby. But, the way to keep the snoops far away from the truth that Ruby was innocent was to paint him as being even more guilty. Impugn him for the JFK assassination as well. Link him to everybody, including Oswald. Give the buffs that sandbox to play in, and it will distract them from ever pursuing the truth, which is that Ruby was innocent. 

Then, Ruby said that the word "angry" is not in his vocabulary. He was referring to the fact that at the trial, Dallas detectives testified repeatedly about how angry Ruby was, talking trash about Oswald. "I'm glad I killed the son of a bitch," etc. Listen to Ruby because he's telling you that it wasn't even his nature to talk that way. It's not the person that he was. It was all made up. 

He said he was more remorseful than angry. And what he meant was that it never dawned on him to try to hurt or kill Oswald. There is absolutely no doubt that he went to that garage without the slightest glimmer of thought to shoot Oswald. And you can't doubt him. If he was bent on killing Oswald, he would have shown up in time for it, and the only time they ever gave was 10 AM. He said that he had no expectation of even seeing Oswald, let alone shoot him. 

And think about the defense that his lawyers used, that he had "psychomotor epilepsy" and shot Oswald like in a sleep-walk. Why would they resort to that defense? It must be because they asked Ruby what happened, and he said, "I don't know! I went to the garage, and the next thing I knew, the police were all over me. Then, they hustled me up to the 5th floor and told me I shot Oswald, but I don't have the slightest memory of doing it, and I never, for a second, had such a thought in my mind." 

So, from that, his lawyers concluded that he must have gone into some kind of trance, and as soon as it was over, he snapped out of it. 

But, it was a ridiculous defense. Epileptic seizures can't cause motor responses as intricate as reaching for a revolver and pulling the trigger. The problem was that his laywers had blinders on. Or, you could say that they had a wall in their mind that was preventing them from considering that Dallas Police were lying. The reality of the situation, that Dallas Police and FBI were the ones who killed Oswald, and the hapless Ruby was just their patsy- that they could not conceive of. They just couldn't go there. The disease of Americana had a grip on their minds- a lock on their minds. 

The video ends with Ruby crying and saying that he doesn't understand how such a great man as that (JFK) could be lost.

Ruby was childlike and innocent. He had no deceit in him at all. And until quite recently, the framing of Ruby so that the State could murder Oswald before he could speak to a lawyer, was one of the best kept secrets in the history of secrets. Over 50 years had passed with the only hostile suspicions being that Ruby was MORE involved in the whole assassination plot, not less. So, the naysayers were moving farther away from the truth, not getting closer to it.

But, all that has changed now. The truth has been moored, and it is not going to drift away. The work that I and the Wizard and Amy Joyce have done, following the lead of Maxsim Irkutsk from Russia, and with help and support from quite a few others, is not going away. And time is on our side because no matter how slowly it grows, it will grow. Ultimately, there will be JFK truth, and that includes both Oswald innocence and Ruby innocence. 

I have said before that in My Stretch of Texas Ground, the Sheriff points out that when the U.S. bombed a wedding party trying to kill the Taliban, they killed children. Actually, he could have said that the U.S. bombed 8 wedding parties in Afghanistan trying to kill the Taliban and killed children each time. So, why didn't I write it that way? 

Well, it just seemed too incredible, and so hard to believe that a viewer might have stopped to wonder if it's true. 

Well, it is true, and now the number has jumped to 9 wedding parties. 

Reports of Wedding Party Bombing Indicate US Forces Have Massacred at Least 70 Afghan Civilians in One Week 

So, here we are, having crossed an ocean and two seas to attack Afghanistan in 2001, and now, 18 years later, we are still killing women and children at weddings. The war was NEVER justified in the first place, but what we are doing now 18 years later, and solely for the purpose of saving face, of not wanting to leave Afghanistan under terms that would look like we lost, that is the ONLY thing we are fighting for there now. Don't talk to me about having to make Afghanistan free of terrorists. That is just spin. When you kill women and children at a wedding, you ARE a frickin' terrorist.   

The plain truth is that they just don't want it to look like another Vietnam, where we lost. That, and that alone, is what America is fighting for in Afghanistan. 

Note that those two guys in the middle did all the warring that the Deep State wanted. Isn't it ironic that the most warring nation on Earth is the United States of America, and by a wide margin. 
I entered a film festival called the Out of Africa Film Festival, which is out of Kenya, and they sent me this message. 

Thank you for giving us such a brilliant and pleasant surprise and profound cinematography experience.

Well, I don't know about brilliant, but My Stretch of Texas Ground is definitely profound. It gets people to think long and hard about war, the consequences of war, and the ethics of it. And, I truly believe that no movie has ever been made that is more impassioned than this one. 

Those of us who were central to the project know very well that there are imperfections and shortcomings to the film, which is fodder for those who want to attack it. Still, what we did is a very unique accomplishment, and we succeeded, meaning that, despite its flaws, the movie tells its story effectively. And that's what matters. 

So, I thank everyone who was involved and everyone who has supported us. And I hope, for the sake of furthering peace, that more people watch the movie. 

This is incredible. It's an article from the New York Times which berates Trump for calling off the strike on Iran after they shot down our unmanned drone. It pits him as a coward, that he blinked, and that his people, like Pence, Pompeo, and Bolton, were shocked and incredulous. It claims that Trump never asked about the expected casualties, that he was told from the beginning that 150 Iranians were expected to die. Then, it quotes this Rear Admiral Boyle who said they were all ready and eagerly waiting, "but the order never came" like he was going to cry over it.  Please read this because it is incredible. 

So, how did the U.S. media get to be so war-mongering? And are they blind to reality? If we had struck at Iran and killed 150 Iranians, it's extremely likely that Iran would have retaliated, and next we would have been at full scale war with them. But, the United States can't beat the ragtag Taliban in Afghanistan, which has no Navy, no Air Force, and even its ground forces have no tanks and no mechanized anything. They are just a bunch of guys with rifles and hand-held missile launchers, and with a lot of adeptness at using improvised IEDs and suicide bombers. Iran has a modern military with everything except nukes. And considering the disastrous outcomes of all the U.S. wars, why would anyone want another one?  

The article presumes that Iran attacked the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, even though Iran has profusely denied it, and a militant group from Yemen has taken responsibility. 

No mention was made of the fact that Russia determined that the U.S. drone shot down by Iran was indeed within Iranian air space. 

Every single Democratic candidate for President, plus the Republican candidate Trump, say that the Iraq War was a "mistake" which is quite a euphemism considering that we killed over a million Iraqis. But, a war with Iran would be a much bigger mistake, considering Iran's ability to fight back. 

This article is credited to three authors plus two other contributors, so it took five people to write it. It goes to show how pervasive the war mentality is at the New York Times and throughout the U.S. mainstream media. And they just may get their wish.