Shirtless Pundit Retweeted
The woman who voted for the illegal war in Iraq, which gave rise to ISIS, and spearheaded the unconstitutional war on Libya, which brought slave-selling jihadists to power, wants to lecture us about the “rule of law”.
It really is amazing how, day after day, Hillary thinks she can lead but just proves how stupid she is.
Too many people saw through her and that will always be the case.
She's a monster and the world sees it better than some Americans -- mainly because she's targeted the world more.
Her name is dirt and it will only get worse as the years go by.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 16, 2018. The war machine grinds on and Michelle Obama
clutches Bully Boy Bush while Elizabeth Warren tugs her own hairy nuts
to attack someone who avoided war and not the criminals who start wars.
The Women's March on the Pentagon is this weekend, it's time to stand
for freedom.
Let's start with a bit of Evan Hill's argument at SLATE that the Barack Obama administration failed the Middle East:
Is that what it stemmed from? Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was against the Arab Spring from the beginning. She was very close to Saudi Arabia. As Amy Chozick and Steve Eder (NEW YORK TIMES) reported in August of 2016:
Saudi Arabia knew what they were buying: Influence. Hillary knew what she was selling as well. And she sold a great deal for the millions donated.
Around the world, people suffer for positions Hillary advocated -- whether it was her war hunger for Libya or her embrace of dictators. In Iraq, right now, women are suffering and those expressing any level of autonomy tend to be targeted and murdered. As Zahra Ali (WASHINGTON POST) explains:
How are the two topics connected? The failures of Barack and his administration. The Righteous League is the League of Righteous. They are a terrorist organization. Their leaders were in custody -- US custody -- for the murders of American service members. They were released when Barack Obama decided to make a deal with the terrorists. Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
No one's ever had to answer to that. Not even when The League of Righteous publicly -- and repeatedly -- mocked Barack.
Their leaders were in custody and the group was neutralized. Then Barack decided to release them and, today, The League terrorizes Iraqis.
Actions have consequences. You can bury your head in the 'feel good' sand but that's not reality. Actions have consequences.
Let's start with a bit of Evan Hill's argument at SLATE that the Barack Obama administration failed the Middle East:
By refusing to label Sisi’s
takeover in Egypt as a coup in order to avoid severing a useful
decades-old relationship, Obama’s top advisers accepted the emergence of
a new military junta in the Middle East as a fait accompli. In a new book about
the Egyptian uprising and its fallout, David Kirkpatrick, the New York
Times correspondent in Cairo at the time, persuasively portrays the
administration as an abettor of the counterrevolution, happy to see
stability return at any cost. Weeks after the coup, Secretary of State
John Kerry would infamously claim that the military was “restoring democracy.”
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel,
ordered to talk Sisi down from massacring his opposition, instead told
him that he knew what was best for his country, later explaining to
Kirkpatrick that officials from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates had inundated him with complaints, telling Hagel it was time to
“extinguish” the Brotherhood.
Sisi did just that, orchestrating
the Aug. 14, 2013, massacres in Cairo that left more than 900
protestors dead, the worst such incident in modern history.
[. . .]
U.S.
acquiescence to the death of the Arab Spring stemmed from both the
cynical realism of key Obama officials and heavy pressure from the
Saudis and the Emiratis, both of whom viewed the regional uprisings as
mortal threats to their style of monarchical rule. The reactionary kings
and princes of the Gulf did all they could to smother Egypt’s democracy
movement, funneling billions of dollars to Sisi and his supporters.
Such was their antipathy to the Arab revolts and the political Islamists
they empowered that they viewed even the Obama administration’s tepid
openness to the Muslim Brotherhood as a foul conspiracy.Is that what it stemmed from? Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was against the Arab Spring from the beginning. She was very close to Saudi Arabia. As Amy Chozick and Steve Eder (NEW YORK TIMES) reported in August of 2016:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia
donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the
son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely
criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A
Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as
much as $5 million.
For years the Bill, Hillary and
Chelsea Clinton Foundation thrived largely on the generosity of foreign
donors and individuals who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the
global charity. But now, as Mrs. Clinton seeks the White House, the
funding of the sprawling philanthropy has become an Achilles’ heel for
her campaign and, if she is victorious, potentially her administration
as well.
With Mrs. Clinton facing
accusations of favoritism toward Clinton Foundation donors during her
time as secretary of state, former President Bill Clinton told foundation employees on Thursday that the organization would no longer accept foreign or corporate donations should Mrs. Clinton win in November.
But while the move could avoid
the awkwardness of Mr. Clinton jetting around the world asking for money
while his wife is president, it did not resolve a more pressing
question: how her administration would handle longtime donors seeking
help from the United States, or whose interests might conflict with the
country’s own.
The Clinton Foundation has
accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State
Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary —
criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other
human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.
Saudi Arabia has been a
particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million
and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations are typically
reported in broad ranges, not specific amounts.) At least $1 million
more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by a
Saudi prince.
Saudi Arabia knew what they were buying: Influence. Hillary knew what she was selling as well. And she sold a great deal for the millions donated.
Around the world, people suffer for positions Hillary advocated -- whether it was her war hunger for Libya or her embrace of dictators. In Iraq, right now, women are suffering and those expressing any level of autonomy tend to be targeted and murdered. As Zahra Ali (WASHINGTON POST) explains:
These deaths cannot be disconnected from social and
political developments provoked by the U.S.-led invasion and occupation
of Iraq and the political economy and mechanisms of the “war on terror.”
The
2003 U.S. invasion provoked an ethno-sectarian fragmentation of the
country and a cycle of violence, creating the conditions for the
emergence of armed groups, including the Islamic State. The war against
the Islamic State in Mosul and parts of northern Iraq exacerbated Iraq’s
militarization by arming and strengthening various political groups,
paramilitary forces and militias.
Many Iran-backed militias have been armed and institutionalized
through their involvement in the war against the Islamic State in
Mosul. These armed groups are deeply connected to the corrupt sectarian
political elite that came to power after 2003. And through their
participation in the parliamentary elections in May, groups such as the Badr Organization, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (Righteous League), Ashura Brigades and Kitaeb Hezbollah have been further normalized.
Leaders
of paramilitary forces and militias are now institutionalized members
of parliament who participated in negotiations to form a new government.
Yet some of these same leaders are accused of bearing responsibility
for the threatening, kidnapping and killing of civil-society activists as well as for human rights violations in Mosul and elsewhere. Some of these groups have also fought alongside Bashar al-Assad’s Baath regime in neighboring Syria.
How are the two topics connected? The failures of Barack and his administration. The Righteous League is the League of Righteous. They are a terrorist organization. Their leaders were in custody -- US custody -- for the murders of American service members. They were released when Barack Obama decided to make a deal with the terrorists. Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
No one's ever had to answer to that. Not even when The League of Righteous publicly -- and repeatedly -- mocked Barack.
Their leaders were in custody and the group was neutralized. Then Barack decided to release them and, today, The League terrorizes Iraqis.
Actions have consequences. You can bury your head in the 'feel good' sand but that's not reality. Actions have consequences.
On a day like today, 2002, US Congress authorized the invasion to Iraq because it allegedly had and kept WMD. There were no such weapons. It was an excuse for appropriation of Iraqi oil. Today Iraq is a ruined country that lost more than 1 million people during such invasion
Actions have consequences. The consequences for Iraq? They remain an occupied country with leaders selected by foreigners. The selected are always cowards that fled the country years ago and only returned following the 2003 US-led invasion.
Let's talk cowards by the way. Elizabeth Warren is a coward and an idiot. No, we're not going to talk about how her embarrassing claim to be Native American exploded in her ugly face.
He demands military parades in his honor but cheats our veterans out of charitable donations, attacks their families, ducked out of Vietnam, & can't even be bothered to visit the troops that he refuses to bring home from Afghanistan or Iraq.
I read that and think, "Maybe Cher's right and some woman do deserve to be called the c-word?"
"Ducked out of Vietnam."
I'm sorry, Elizabeth, if you can get your hands off your nuts and out of your pants, want to explain that one?
I don't know what world that lying idiot lives in -- maybe DANCES WITH WOLVES? -- but she's gone over to the danger side as have so many in our society.
"Ducked out of Vietnam." Little Liar Lizzie, that was the bulk of the US. Any who could did. And good because the issue is not that they "ducked," the issue is that it was an illegal war based on lies. Note that the WHORE calls out those who "ducked out" and not the liars who started that war.
As someone who remembers that time very well, let's not that Liar Lizzie isn't speaking to a huge group of voters. Yes, I'm for peace. But even those who weren't for peace aren't represented by Lizzie's remarks.
The Republican turned Democrat has apparently never absorbed a moment's honest truth.
I am glad for anyone and everyone who did not go to Vietnam. I wish no one had gone there. It was a war based on lies and it destroyed lives -- both in Vietnam and in this country.
Lizzie's been nuzzling at the crotches of too many Big Warriors today if she doesn't grasp that. The fumes have apparently left her deeply confused.
And the government, the same government, that lied to the country and sent innocents to die in Vietnam gets a pass from her today as she acts as though the great crime was being someone who legally avoided the draft.
Elizabeth Warren is problematic for so many reasons but chief among them is that when she sees a huge crime, she refuses to blame the actual criminals and instead blames minor players. Donald Trump did nothing illegal by avoiding the draft.
As someone who knew many US service members killed in Vietnam, I wish everyone had avoided it. I wish the ones who started the illegal war had been put in prison. It might have prevented the lies that led to the war on Iraq.
There are many reasons to call out Donald Trump and I've called him out plenty of times. I have never called him out for not serving in the war on Vietnam. I'm not that desperate or stupid. Elizabeth Warren clearly is that desperate and stupid.
You'll note her silence on those who carried out the crime of the war on Vietnam and those who carried out the crime of the war on Iraq.
Iraq was an example to the world. Strongest education system, top professors, doctors, artists & architects. Decades of imperialism & war drained the minds of its citizens & now strong women are being hunted down in the country.
Self proclaimed western feminists where tf are you?
The Elizabeth Warren's can't admit reality. All these years later, the Iraq War remains an illegal action, a war of choice that violated every aspect of the long accepted premise of Just War. All these years later, she and so many others who present themselves as informed refuse to call out the ones responsible.
That's why Michelle Obama can shower War Criminal Bully Boy Bush with praise, as she did last week. Nick Barrickman (WSWS) provides the walk-through:
Asked about a friendly
interaction caught on camera between the two as they sat together during
the recent funeral for Republican Senator John McCain, Obama explained:
“President Bush and I are forever seat mates because of protocol;
that’s how we sit at all the official functions.” Rather than ending it
there, Obama continued, gushing: “He is my partner in crime at every
major thing where all the formers gather. I love him to death. He’s a
wonderful man. He’s a funny man.”
Any belief that Obama was
speaking merely in personal terms about former president Bush was put to
rest when she explained: “Party doesn’t separate us. Color,
gender—those kinds of things don’t separate us. It’s the messages we
send. And if we’re the adults and the leaders in the room, and we’re not
showing that level of decency, we cannot expect our children to do the
same.”
Obama’s statement is an even more
explicit version of what Barack Obama said days after the November 2016
election: “We’re actually all on one team,” referring to the election
contest between Trump and Clinton as “an intramural scrimmage.”
Bush is “my partner in crime” and
“a wonderful man” … What can one say? Bush is in fact a criminal of the
highest order, responsible for overseeing the invasion of Iraq based on
lies, which led to the death of at least 1 million people. Following
the attacks of September 11, his administration launched the “war on
terror” as a pretext for ripping up the Constitution, expanding illegal
domestic spying, and introducing torture as an instrument of US foreign
policy. He deserves to be arrested and prosecuted for war crimes.
Terms such as the “war on
terror,” “shock and awe” bombing of civilian populations, the
“extraordinary rendition” of accused terror suspects and “water
boarding” will forever be associated with Bush’s name. To any list of
crimes must be added Bush’s domestic policy, including a massive attack
on social programs, tax cuts for the rich and the initial response of
the ruling class to the 2008 financial crisis—the bailout of the banks.
That Michelle Obama can speak in
such terms about Bush is an expression of the fact that, however bitter
their differences, the political representatives of the ruling elite are
united. It is not a matter of personal friendship, but shared class
interests.
Indeed, the right-wing policies of the Bush administration carry like a red thread through succeeding administrations.
Democratic President Barack Obama
only deepened the anti-democratic and militarist policies of his
predecessor, refusing to hold any member of Bush’s cabinet responsible
for violations of domestic and international law, even retaining and
promoting some of them in his own administration. Initially campaigning
with mild criticisms of the Bush administration’s occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan, Obama continued these wars while beginning wars of his own
in Libya, Syria and Yemen, which have led to untold misery and
suffering.
Elizabeth Warren attacks Donald Trump for avoiding Vietnam -- something so many did (including Bruce Springsteen) -- when, in fact, it may have been the best thing he ever did in his life. She doesn't attack the ones who started that war. She's drawing a line, making it clear where she stands: You will not question your government, you will only comply.
And she thinks she's ready to be president?
A lot of people are expressing similar sentiments. Monica Lewinsky is being called a "slut" and far worse. Because Hillary's little feelings are hurt. Reality, Hillary went on NBC's TODAY and attacked Monica as a liar, calling her part of the "vast right-wing" conspiracy. Monica was an innocent. Bill and Hillary held all the power. How telling that the knee jerk reaction from some who are supposed to be politically aware is to attack the innocent and not the rulers.
This is happening over and over in the United States. It needs to stop.
The Women's March on the Pentagon this weekend is one way to support accountability, to call for an end to these never-ending wars.
Hey #Fresno! Stand in solidarity with the Women’s March on the Pentagon at your local action!
peacefresno.org
marchonpentagon.com/local
Hey #Milwaukee! Stand in solidarity with the Women’s March on the Pentagon at your local action!
peaceactionwi.org
marchonpentagon.com/local
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
This Saturday & Sunday, join me and many others in marching, rallying and planning against the military industrial complex - both here and abroad.
@WomenMarch4Paz
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
The U.S. is a war economy. We continually spend our money on useless things for the war machine, which we’re now bringing to space. Can privatization of the space industry save us from bringing the world to war? #mondaymotivation #mondaymorning [WATCH] youtu.be/wvC9-TiF9hU
Hey #LosAngeles! Stand in solidarity with the Women’s March on the Pentagon at your local action!
marchonpentagon.com/local
Join us at the Pentagon on October 21st. Hear from @Green42020 and others as we call for an end to the bipartisan war machine. #WomenRise4Peace marchonpentagon.com/march
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
Solidarity events are popping up across the US:
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Fresno
Minneapolis
Asheville, NC
Madison,WI
Cleveland
Seattle
Buffalo, NY
Patchogue, NY
Montclair, NJ
Las Vegas
Don't see one near you? Organize your own! marchonpentagon.com/local
The Women's March on the Pentagon is one week away. Please share! #WomenMarch4Peace
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
#Seattle Solidarity Rally for the Women's March on the #Pentagon, 1PM on Sunday October 21st at Boeing Headquarters, 7755 E Marginal Way
MARCH FOR PEACE AND AGAINST THE WAR MACHINE
facebook.com/events/2700521…
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
Women's March on the #Pentagon , October 20-21
on the 51st anniversary of the 1967 big antiwar event in #WashingtonDC & subsequent march on the Pentagon that had 50,000 people
WE MUST MARCH FOR PEACE AND AGAINST THE WAR MACHINE
@WomenMarch4Paz @OccupyWallStNYC @AMarch4OurLives
Women’s March on the Pentagon Retweeted
This is NOT a pink-pussy-hatted event to only oppose Trump and Get Out the Vote for the treacherous and warmongering Democrats (or Republicans): This is a principled non-partisan march on the bi-partisan US war machine.
@WomenMarch4Paz #WomenRise4Peace
Join us at the Pentagon on October 21st. Hear from Walter Teague and others as we call for an end to the bipartisan war machine. #WomenRise4Peace marchonpentagon.com/march
We did it! 1,001 followers. Thanks for following and for supporting this movement. Head over to our website to get involved if you haven’t already! #WomenRise4Peace
The following community sites -- plus BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated:
As the song says, everybody's talking
9 hours ago
Hillary is tone deaf
9 hours ago
How sad
9 hours ago
Not watching THE CONNORS
9 hours ago
Awful Hillary
13 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment