Lindsey Graham Wanted Putin Assassinated, Did Putin Strike First?

For more than four years, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was among the most outspoken American politicians advocating an increasingly aggressive approach toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. From publicly suggesting Putin should be removed from power to championing crippling sanctions against Russia, Graham became one of Ukraine's strongest allies in Washington.

His final overseas trip underscored that commitment.

Just days before his death, Graham traveled to Kyiv, where he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and toured SkyFall, one of Ukraine's leading drone production facilities. During the visit, he praised Ukraine's rapidly expanding drone program and encouraged greater cooperation between the United States and Ukraine in military technology. He also continued lobbying for tougher economic sanctions designed to further isolate Russia. 

The visit came after years of increasingly forceful rhetoric toward Putin.

In March 2022, shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Graham posted what became one of the most controversial statements of his political career.

He asked whether there was "a Brutus in Russia" or "a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg," historical references widely understood as calls for someone inside Russia to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Graham concluded by saying, "The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out."

The remarks generated international backlash. Critics argued that a sitting U.S. senator appeared to be encouraging the assassination of a foreign head of state, while supporters defended the comments as rhetorical frustration directed at Putin's invasion rather than a literal call for U.S. action.

Graham never substantially retreated from his position.

Over the following years, he repeatedly argued that Putin represented the greatest threat to European security since the Cold War. He consistently called for stronger military support for Ukraine, tougher sanctions against Russia, and increasing international pressure designed to weaken the Kremlin economically and politically.

His outspoken support for Ukraine also made him a target of Moscow. In 2023, Russia issued an arrest warrant for Graham following remarks praising Ukrainian resistance and criticizing the Russian government.

Even during his final diplomatic mission, Graham remained focused on increasing pressure against Russia. While meeting with Zelenskyy, he expressed optimism that new sanctions legislation targeting Russia would gain additional support in Washington and argued that sustained economic pressure remained essential to ending the war. 

The timing of his visit proved remarkable.

Within hours of Graham touring the SkyFall drone production facility, Russian forces launched another wave of missile and drone strikes targeting Ukrainian defense-industrial infrastructure, including facilities involved in drone manufacturing. Ukrainian officials described the attacks as part of Russia's continuing campaign against the country's defense industry. 

Whether viewed as principled leadership or dangerously provocative rhetoric, Graham's approach to Russia remained consistent throughout the war. He argued that Putin's government should face overwhelming military, economic, and diplomatic pressure until Russia ended its invasion of Ukraine.

His final trip to Kyiv, meeting with President Zelenskyy, touring advanced drone manufacturing, and once again advocating stronger action against Moscow, reflected the foreign policy position he had maintained since the conflict began.

Supporters remember Graham as one of Ukraine's most steadfast allies in the United States Senate. Critics contend that his repeated comments about removing Putin and his uncompromising posture toward Russia risked escalating tensions between two nuclear powers.

Regardless of perspective, Lindsey Graham's legacy on the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to be defined by his unwavering support for Ukraine and his repeated insistence that Vladimir Putin's leadership posed a threat that demanded an aggressive international response up to the assassination of Vladimir Putin.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Dies at 71, Closing the Chapter on One of Washington's Most Controversial Republicans

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who spent more than two decades in the U.S. Senate, died Saturday at the age of 71 after what his office described as a "brief and sudden illness."

His death ends the career of one of the most influential—and, to many conservatives, one of the most controversial—figures in modern Republican politics.

While Washington leaders are expected to celebrate Graham's decades of public service, many voters will remember him far differently: as a senator who consistently supported foreign intervention, expanded military spending, and what critics viewed as the growth of an increasingly powerful federal government.

For years, Graham was one of the Senate's loudest advocates for U.S. involvement overseas. He supported military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and remained one of Congress' strongest backers of continued military aid to Ukraine. Critics argued that these policies helped prolong costly conflicts, increased the national debt, and diverted attention and resources from pressing problems at home.

His foreign policy positions earned him the reputation of being one of Capitol Hill's leading "war hawks." America First conservatives frequently accused him of placing the interests of Washington's foreign policy establishment ahead of the needs of American taxpayers and service members.

Graham also faced repeated criticism for what opponents described as shifting political principles. After being one of Donald Trump's harshest Republican critics during the 2016 presidential campaign, he later became one of Trump's closest Senate allies. Supporters called it pragmatism; critics called it political expediency.

Fiscal conservatives likewise questioned Graham's record, arguing that despite promises of limited government, he repeatedly supported spending measures that contributed to rising federal deficits while rarely challenging the overall growth of Washington.

Throughout his career, Graham defended his positions by arguing that American strength abroad protected national security and that compromise was necessary to govern effectively. His supporters credit him with helping shape the federal judiciary and maintaining a strong national defense.

His detractors, however, contend that his legacy is one of endless foreign commitments, mounting federal spending, and a Republican Party that drifted away from the limited-government principles many voters expected it to uphold.

With Graham's passing, the debate over that legacy is unlikely to end. For supporters, he was a steadfast defender of American leadership. For critics, he became a symbol of the interventionist, establishment politics that many voters have spent the last decade trying to replace.

Lindsey Grahams War Tour How U.S. Power Is Being Harnessed to Normalize Permanent Conflict in Israel and the Occupied Territories

TEL AVIV When U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham stood before cameras in Tel Aviv and declared that the wars of the future are being planned here in Israel he was not issuing a warning. He was delivering an endorsement.

Grahams statement made during a high profile visit with Israeli leadership amounted to a public affirmation that the United States should bind its military future to a state already under international scrutiny for settlement expansion land confiscation and prolonged occupation. Rather than calling for restraint de escalation or adherence to international law Graham framed Israel as a laboratory for next generation warfare and urged Washington to invest accordingly.

A 21st century Manhattan Project without accountability

Grahams proposal to formalize U.S. Israeli weapons development as a 21st century Manhattan Project is among the most alarming aspects of his remarks. The original Manhattan Project produced nuclear weapons under conditions of secrecy moral compromise and irreversible global consequences. Graham now invokes that same model not in response to an existential world war but in the context of ongoing regional conflict and occupation.

This comparison signals an embrace of perpetual militarization where technological dominance replaces diplomacy and where civilian consequences are treated as collateral to innovation. Graham offered no public discussion of oversight international law or civilian protection only the insistence that staying one step ahead of the enemy justifies everything that follows.

Iran Gaza and the push toward preemptive war

Graham further escalated tensions by warning that military decisions regarding Iran could be made within weeks stressing total alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv. Such statements delivered by a sitting U.S. senator abroad effectively pre signal support for preemptive military action bypassing Congress the United Nations and the American public.

On Gaza Graham reiterated that Hamas must be fully neutralized before any stabilization effort can occur endorsing a sequencing that has already coincided with massive civilian displacement humanitarian collapse and regional destabilization. Missing entirely from his framework was any acknowledgment of civilian governance reconstruction or Palestinian political rights.

Calling Israel the best investment as the West Bank is taken

Grahams praise of Israel as the best investment for American national security came as eight Arab and Muslim nations issued a joint condemnation of Israels latest actions in the occupied West Bank.

Jordan the United Arab Emirates Indonesia Pakistan Turkey Saudi Arabia Qatar and Egypt denounced Israels decision to designate occupied West Bank land as state land and approve settlement registration for the first time since 1967. These governments cited clear violations of international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and the International Court of Justices advisory opinion.

These actions are not abstract policy disputes. They involve the confiscation of Palestinian land the entrenchment of permanent occupation and the systematic undermining of any viable Palestinian state. Yet Grahams remarks made no reference to these developments instead doubling down on unconditional military alignment.

Undermining international law while claiming stability

The contradiction is stark. While Graham speaks of reshaping the Middle East and expanding the Abraham Accords Israel is unilaterally altering the legal and demographic reality of the occupied territories moves widely recognized as illegal under international law and destabilizing by definition.

The foreign ministers joint statement warned that such actions threaten Palestinian self determination erase the basis of a two state solution and heighten regional tensions. Grahams response implicitly was to argue that more weapons more integration and more preemptive power will somehow produce peace.

History suggests otherwise.

The broader implication

Grahams visit was not diplomacy. It was not mediation. It was not statesmanship. It was a declaration that U.S. military power should be further entwined with an occupation condemned by much of the international community and that future wars should be anticipated engineered and won before political solutions are even attempted.

By championing a militarized future while ignoring ongoing violations of international law Lindsey Graham is not merely commenting on Middle East policy. He is helping normalize a world where permanent conflict is treated as strategy and where accountability is treated as an obstacle.

That is not security. It is escalation by design.

Is Trey Gowdy Actually A Fraud?

Trey Gowdy / Marco Rubio

First Gowdy said all confederate flags should come down.

Then Gowdy voted for Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Followed by Gowdy’s Benghazi hearings that were a complete failure as nothing has come out of them.

After voting for Boehner, Gowdy introduced the nomination of Paul Ryan as the new Speaker of the House.

Now Gowdy is backing the gang of 8 Amnesty Sponsor Rubio for president. The gang of 8 was McCain, Lindsey Graham and Rubio pushing to give blanket welfare checks, and grant citizenship to, an estimated 30 million illegal alien lawbreakers.  Rubio’s voter absenteeism is the worst in the Senate.

Is he being threatened or is he showing his true colors?

Jeb Bush Desperate - Sends 18 Year Old Female Plant To Try To Derail Donald Trump

How pathetic and desperate is Jeb Bush?  Well as we found out yesterday, he is pathetic and desperate enough to send one of his staffers into an event where Donald Trump was speaking and tried to derail him.  

Lauren Batchelder, 18 years old,  the woman who made media waves with her televised harsh questioning of Donald Trump during a Jon Huntsman “No Labels” campaign event in New Hampshire, was just outed as a paid political operative of the Republican Party and a campaign staffer for White House hopeful Jeb Bush. 

Batchelder quizzed Trump at his campaign stop on his views of women, demanding he give an example of how exactly he respects the female gender.

Batchelder stood with her hands on her hips and told Trump, “I don’t think you’re a friend to women.”

She then asked, “If you become president, will a woman make the same as a man, and do I get to choose what I do with my body?”

This was a funny question for Batchelder to ask especially

since she has worked for many pro-life candidates including Kelley Ayotte.

"Within minutes of her scripted performance at the event," the news site wrote, "the producers of CNN were quickly editing soundbites and framing a narrative. That story was pushed into the media stream within hours. CNN's Jeanne Moos was the delivery vehicle for the hit piece."

There are eight candidates remaining in the race specifically

to assist Jeb Bush and help him win the nomination.  They are:

• Jeb Bush
• Marco Rubio (FL)
• Carly Fiorina (VA)
• Chris Christie (NJ)
• John Kasich (OH)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Mike Huckabee (AR)
• George Pataki (NY)
• Jim Gilmore (VA)

A vote for any of these fraud candidates will only result in a later endorsement of Jeb Bush and the transference of delegates to assist his nomination efforts.   This was/is the original design of the road map created to help Jeb win in 2016