MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (193)
- artappraiser (164)
- PeraclesPlease (157)
- artappraiser (129)
- William K. Wolfrum (120)
Shoe Thrown at Hillary
By EmmaZahn on Thu, 04/10/2014 - 8:20pm |and she handled it very well.
URL:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/object-thrown-hillary-clinton-speech-23280934
- Add new comment
- 2673 reads
Comments
It makes you wonder how many threats she will get when she runs for President. There is some real haters in this country.
by trkingmomoe on Thu, 04/10/2014 - 10:07pm
Sure, like all the worry about threats to Obama, and the freakouts over whether Hillary or Sarah Palin or the Tea Party or xyz were inciting a crazed assassin.
Life goes on. It's only a shoe... or a bat, depending on which seat.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 8:26am
I see this incident as a good sign that people will actively display their distaste for Killary the Goddess Of War. If we are lucky all of her public appearances will require a chickenwire shield to screen her from the flying offal and rotten tomatoes she deserves.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 11:13am
So as a minority Senator voting for inspections, "Killary" is responsible for the wars 1 President got us into and her victorious opponent kept going?
What do you think the President who's still in office "deserves" if her just rewards are shit thrown all over her? or is he just a victim of his own success and female scheming?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 12:23pm
Hillary does tend to take a more hard line military approach.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 12:44pm
How?
"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated…It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."
- Obama to Bill O’Reilly in September 2008
But blame Hillary rather than the guy who's been President since 2009 and ran his own surge. Glad you're pursuing your tactic of sucking up to any old scum (Robert Gates? really?) as long as it defends your fav prez - first time I recall you ass-kissing a Repub though.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 1:10pm
I was pointing out positions that Hillary took. I would vote for Hillary ovér any Republican including your fave, Rand Paul. I did not lay blame, I linked to an article that documented her stance on use of the military.
Here is commentary from the Guardian. The Nation and the New York Times
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 2:12pm
Up yours with your Rand Paul shit. If you need any refresher on what I actually said, go Google the site for PeraclesPlease and Rand Paul. Would be surprised if there were 1 time I complimented him or agreed with him.
Re: Iraq, Obama left on Bush's schedule. Re: Afghanistan, he surged and we're still there.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 3:05pm
You are in a good mood today. If I point out where Hillary stood on some military issues and you response by slamming me about Obama, don't whine when I respond with something about Rand Paul.
Hillary does seem more hard line on the use of the military. I still would favor her over any Republican,
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 3:26pm
You jumped in on my comment re: "Killary" and Obama. I never backed Rand Paul in anything that I know of, so you're just simply stirring shit with "your fave, Rand Paul". I was nice though and toned down my original FU.
I still find it amazing that Hillary's the war bitch and not the commander-in-chief who expanded the war. Again, how she's more "hard-line" than a president that wants to personally decide on assassinations, no one's explained.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 5:10pm
Hillary had to walk back her comparison of Putin to Hitler
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 9:22pm
Hitler retook the Rhineland, then took Austria, then the West gave him the Sudetenland because of trumped up "abuse of Germans" claims, and once he was "appeased" with the Sudetenland, he took the rest of Czechoslovakia, and then headed on to Poland.
Putin's taken Crimea with bullshit claims of abuse of Russian ethnics, and now his goons are occupying different regional governments in eastern Ukraine with his army/air force standing by at the border, and there are some indications he intends to "defend the Russians" in Moldava on the west side of Ukraine bordering Romania.
Whether Hillary had to apologize (I don't see that she walked it back) or your hair caught on fire, the parallels between Hitler and his screaming about poor Germans in the Sudetenland and Putin's hollow screaming about poor Russians in Crimea & elsewhere are obvious - it doesn't take a rocket scientist, Brookings Institute scholar or Hillary Clinton to point out the obvious.
Putin also makes similar use of the "we wuz robbed" victimhood that the German military corps wallowed in after WWI ("knifed in the back") - not just about Kruschev giving away Crimea (which was partly to get Ukraine an extra vote in the UN), but also how politicians broke up the Soviet Union when it was perfectly fine.
Here's the Irish Examiner:
Crimean secession: A Russian remake of the 1938 Sudeten crisis?
Here's the BBC including the photoshopped image everyone's showing: Crimea seen as 'Hitler-style' land grab
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 4:41am
They are all bloodthirsty killers at heart PP and their votes do have consequences. Her actions as SOS are more demonstrative of her love of military power and violence. We'll have to wait until after the Revolution to see them pay the headsman's fee but she is competing for head Baby Killer now and deserves immediate attention.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 2:27pm
So all the hundreds of Congresspeople and Senators are blood-thirsty. That settles things.
Re: her actions as SOS, care to identify a single one? especially one that she picked that Obama didn't want? I thought the Commander-in-Chief was the final decision maker in targeted assassinations and the like and enjoyed that role.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 3:07pm
Have you already forgotten the cold but clever quip, " We came, we saw, he died" during the Libya incursion or her support for torture as recently as last year. She may not have been making policy on these issues but she is now competing to ride the Pale Horse and continue the bloodletting in the name of Empire.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 7:32pm
It was a fucking quip - the rebels did an extrajudicial killing, not the US. Debate the actual invasion of Libya at least, not a stupid joke.
Re: supporting torture, how about pointing to whatever the fuck you're talking about? If you're going to say stupid shit like "continue the bloodletting in the name of the Empire" at least give us a reference or link for the stupidity so I can mock you properly.
For bonus points, explain how things have improved since she retired, proving it was her Lucrezia Borgia tactics that powered the ruthless empire.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 4:51am
Actually, I think that they see themselves as saving lives. Do you let people die in a Syria, or do you arm the rebels even though you may be arming Islamists. Do you work to remove Morsi from Egypt, or do you stand back because they held an election to elect Morsi? Keep in mind that the man who helped fuel dissent via use of social media was vehement that the United States stay out of interfering in Egyptian affairs.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 3:33pm
I think Hilary has to bear some responsibility for the Iraq War, since she voted "yes". By October, 2002 it should have been clear--it was clear to me--that Bush wanted war, not inspections. Authorizing Bush to make war guaranteed that there would be a war.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 04/12/2014 - 6:42pm
She was a minority senator voting for both *INSPECTIONS* and authority to use force and enforce UN resolutions some *5 1/2 months* before the war was launched.
The vote passed with 77 votes - not even close - with 29 Democrats supporting, including Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, Lieberman, Feinstein, Max Cleland, Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, Mary Carnahan, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd - including almost all the 2008 Dem presidential candidates, her successor at state/2004 nominee, and the minority leader.
A month later, the UN passed a similar resolution 1441 unanimously 15-0, *INCLUDING SYRIA* (see below).
It was clear to me at the time and probably to Clinton and much of the UN as well that Bush wanted war. At the same time, in September 2002 Hussein was resisting any cooperation and even Hans Blix thought that he still had some WMD program going on (not nukes) - he only became convinced in Jan/Feb 2003. So what should a responsible Senator or UN diplomat in Oct 2002 do to straddle between a manipulative murderous Mideast dictator and a manipulative dissimulating US president & VP, especially in light of the 9/11 attack & fallout from the year before?
If UN inspections had not taken place before the war, Bush would have gone in anyway, and we wouldn't have had any record of the fraud to go in.
Hillary might have to "bear some responsibility", but she largely lost the 2008 election over this vote and Barry's fucking 2003 streetcorner speech for his small 90% black Illinois legislative constituency, so how about give her a break already. As it is, Barry followed Bush's timeline in exiting Iraq, and never voted against funding as a Senator, so I still don't get why she gets continual shit, but people like John Edwards were considered compassionate and properly liberal.
There are 2 Democratic Senators that have been holding hearings & asking for more information on the dragnet/surveillance for years - been lied to continually, had docs withheld from them, et al. 2 others had the FBI walk out on them rather than answer questions. That's with a supposedly cooperative Democrat in the White House. Why exactly was Hillary supposed to have any sway with the White House in 2002? Kennedy's "no" vote was laughed at as expected - the only way Democrats had any sway was going along with the pre-ordained vote and making sure UN cooperation happened, which it did. I would have figured all this was blatantly obvious & settled over the last 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US resolution: The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN resolution:
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 5:45am
Well, Peracles, you've agreed that it was clear that Bush wanted war rather than inspections, so I don't see how all the stuff you've cited changes anything. Clinton knew--or should have known--that a yes vote was a vote for war. I don't know if Bush would have invaded without Congressional authorization, but there is a chance he wouldn't have. And even if the war had happened anyway, Clinton would have kept her hands clean of it if she had voted no.
Later, dude.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 6:38am
Huh? If Hussein was a serious danger, Bush wanting war is good.
Even Blix thought Hussein was illegally restocking WMD's until Hussein finally allowed inspections & improved cooperation in Jan 2003 - doesn't that change the issue any for you?
I thought our invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea - our staying was braindead stupid. I thought our threatening Iraq as a crazed son of Papa Bush was a good idea - carrying through with the attack was trifecta stupid.
Re: keeping her hands clean, with the vote it was really irrelevant what she did or didn't do - farting in a hurricane. Does anyone care that Kerry voted for the war (inspections)? No, they're creaming themselves right now about how great a grownup he is going in to Syria and Iran and whatever. It's just the Clinton distortion field - everyone's forgotten anyone else involved - she'll be forever the warmongering bitch. Frankly I detect more venom towards her than towards Bush.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 8:55am
The vote in October, 2002 made it inevitable that Iraq would be invaded, not just "threatened". Anyway, I opposed war even when I didn't know whether or not there were WMDs. I could live with the risk of WMDs being used more than I could live with the CERTAINTY of an invasion and a lot of people dead.(We know now that the war wasn't about WMDs, although I'll concede that Clinton couldn't have known that then
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 9:14am
No it did not, just as all the assurances were given to both Congressfolks & UN members that diplomatic measures would be exhausted first. Of course sensible people were wary, but really, you dismiss all the ways that people tried to assure that this wouldn't happen. Presumably Bush's team gave these reassurances to have an effect, no? Colin Powell's misleading speech was to ensure an easy UN vote, and when that turned unlikely, the US simply skipped the 2nd vote. Some were truly surprised.
We also presumably could have invaded and left without leaving the chaos and extreme number of dead and civil war that we did, though wars are never pretty. I don't think many imagined the invasion would be that incompetent, and while it was obvious in hindsight set up to stay a while and divide Iraq's resources (read: oil), beforehand it wasn't unreasonable to think that regime change would be roughly like Egypt's or other, without a long-term presence.
Anyway, probably bludgeoned that one to death.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 9:40am
Since we now know that Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before 9/11, it is clear, if only in hindsight, that the vote made war inevitable. Anyway, some of us believed at the time that Bush had his heart set on war, just as his father did before, and we were right.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 1:39pm
Again, agreed on all of those points. Now, consider if Al Gore were president and 9/11 happened. We'd still be asking the same questions about whether Hussein'd reconstituted his weapons programs, and whether that risk and the threats on neighbors and energy sources* are acceptable in a post-9/11 world, and whether no-fly zones are a sufficient deterrent to non-cooperation. Gore would still probably have to go through the UN, and still likely have to threaten Hussein militarily - with actual troop movements, not just cruise missiles that failed before - to get sites opened up to be sure.
So just because Bush was an asshole didn't mean our politicians could drop security concerns and their basic duty to manage our interests.
*as we see with Putin's energy bullying, with doubling-tripling of Ukraine energy prices and chance they'll cut Ukraine off completely, is a kind of terrorism. Mass starvation in Ethiopia & other countries is typically caused by war, not natural disasters, and cutting off energy supplies especially in the dead of winter can cause significant freezing and starvation.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 2:40pm
I think Gore would have either a) let the inspections work, or b) stayed out of it altogether. That is a big difference, and would have served our interests much better than war did. And this is the last I will write on the subject, at least this month.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 3:11pm
The point re: inspections is it wasn't until January 2003 that they really started working, and they were almost finished in March when inspectors were thrown out.
Enjoy your month holiday, I need a break too ;-)
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 3:26pm
I agree with you about the slamming of Hillary.
She voted to give Bush the option-if...she didn't vote to go in.
But the shift in focus to Iraq was a distraction. He hadn't attacked us. He wasn't harboring AQ. He had no, or virtually no, relations with OBL.
What was the point in going there instead of going after AQ?
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:43pm
The point wasn't "instead" - it was to do both.
Presuming Hussein really was a WMD menace and the key point of instability/danger in the Mideast, it's not unreasonable to take him out.
As he hadn't reconstituted WMDs, harbored AQ or slept with OBL, that logic of course was untenable. Ironically, our overflights & sanctions of 10 years had worked very well, but post-9/11 we were much less likely to rely on that effectiveness without on-the-ground verification.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 1:39am
But whose point? Bush's?
Assuming that AQ was primarily in Afghanistan at that time, then what was the point in sending our entire military into Iraq and leaving a sort of shiftless force in Afghanistan?
Of course, AQ, it quickly became clear, was/is transnational, but that makes the invasion of Iraq even weirder. Though Saddam kicked out the inspectors, they'd seen enough to raise strong doubts about his reconstitution plans. Not to mention all the other bogus points about tubes and yellowcake.
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:43am
Everybody but Bush's / the neocons. The real adults locked out of the room.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:10pm
But it was their show.
(That's a bit like saying that all the actors were great except the stars who occupied 99% of the screen time.)
Everyone else played a bit part and thus had to calculate whether it would further or hinder their show.
I'm not stomping on Hillary or Bill--so I'm with you on that.
I agree that Hillary didn't vote to invade, but...
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 1:15pm
Taking your line of thinking a bit further...
I guess we have to assume the "real adults" would have taken out Saddam without invading? Targeted assassination? A more "competent" invasion?
What were the adults arguing for at that time other than a continuation of sanctions, etc., which I gather were weakening and killing Iraqi children?
Not sure what the good alternatives were relative to Iraq.
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 1:18pm
Hussein launched a war that killed perhaps 1 million - more on the Iranian side than Iraqi. What's your adult solution to this bloody act of aggression, aside from saying "war is bad"?
Should we have assassinated Hussein to remove the need for child-killing sanctions? (note that the sanctions killed far fewer than the famous Lancet study - search for PLOS Medicine one in 2013.)
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 2:40pm
You're being combative here when I'm just discussing.
So it's a little hard to know how to respond here or even get what you're saying.
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:09pm
I'm combative when you start out with "liberal hawk" and all war is bad and the US is worse than Russia ever?
We shift into debating the attack on Hussein - I point out the awful things Hussein did, the mass killings, to balance the complaint about the children - our choice was to
a) do nothing and let another Mideast tragedy take place, or
b) do something and have side deaths take place, (or
c) Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld option 3: fuck it up completely, get lots of unnecessary deaths and still don't achieve any goals or help Mideast security
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:33am
I think you've got the wrong "Peter".
An easy mistake to make.
Also, I stuck my nose into your discussion with l'otro Pedro.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 04/15/2014 - 10:26am
Aw shit, now I've got to go back & scrub these blogs down with whiteout - lo siento.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:10pm
PP, you surprise me, I didn't realize you were such a cold Liberal Hawk. Anyone who thinks war is " a good idea" is lacking some fundamental part of their humanity even if it is a justified war which Afghanistan was not. I guess for some people mass murder, of The Other, is just an intellectual exercise or an " idea" to be casually debated by the Exceptional Amerikan. Your outburst of honesty does help to explain your obsequious defense of this harridan since she seems to embody your ideals.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:49pm
Not sure why you think Afghanistan not justified harboring criminals using their territory to launch attacks on us. Is it a lack of humanity to refuse to be a sitting duck?
I didn't invent war, and would prefer to avoid it through clever diplomatic means, but I live in a country that was overrun by several countries in the not-too-distant past - with some mass murder involved and massive repression of the people - and would much prefer killing the fuckers to living under their brutality. If you have a better alternative to prison labor and brutal killings and the like, out with it.
I don't know where you get off judging me as the "Exceptional Amerikan" - whatever your cute fascist 'k' has to do with it, though it is ironic I'm involved with a memorial for a village that was destroyed man, woman and child - the children gassed to death - do you know anything about these kind of atrocities, or are you just spouting off with some typical passivist detached-from-the-world liberal rhetoric? Because that's part of what I think of when I hear "Exceptional American", the other part being bastard corporatists and Cheney-like neocons thinking they're owed obeisance from the world.
So yes, vicious countries like Russia do attack, and terrorist rebels like the Shining Path and Khmer Rouge do warrant war as a "very good idea" to crack down on. I'm not really against war or the mass murder of mass murdering terrorists, even if I prefer Al Gore's focus on international policing & courts as 1st resort for civilized behavior.
BTW, "harridan" is rather agist & sexist - perhaps you should wake up to 2014 when this kind of Archie Bunker bullshit (or lame Victorian equivalent) is frowned on. Maybe you'd like the works of Jerome K Jerome, a really shallow pedant with a rather patronizing & puerile view of the sexes, such as On the Care and Management of Women.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 2:52pm
Your first paragraph resembles a propaganda release from the War Department with all the appropriate fear inducing words included and it is reactionary. The Taliban agreed to turn over these "criminals" to a third country but we decided that massive bombing of everyone but those criminals was preferable and when OBL was trapped in Tora Bora he was allowed to escape to Pakistan. I respect and admire strong and wise women but I don't tolerate brutish and arrogant behavior from women or men. The US has outdone Russia in the vicious attack category and while the USSR may have been guilty of aggression Russia will never match our record.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 6:30pm
I'm not writing more about Hillary and Iraq, but this is a different subject.
Peter, after the bombing started, the Taliban said they would extradite him to a third country if we provided evidence of his guilt and if the third country came under "no pressure" from the United States.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Would the Taliban have accepted any evidence that came from the Great Satan? And would they be satisfied that the third country wasn't coming under pressure? And did they have the right to forbid the U.S. to exert any pressure in regards to the murder of our citizens? I doubt the answer to any of these questions would be yes.
What evidence is there that the military wanted Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora? I hope it isn't the old "the American military and the American government are so superhumanly efficient that they can't fail at anything unless they intend to fail".
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 7:06pm
Also, extradition of Bin Laden wouldn't have done much good if the other four to five thousand members of Al Qaeda were left where they were. It would be rather like extraditing Hitler while leaving Himmler and Goering in charge.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 04/13/2014 - 7:12pm
I have trouble believing anything the Great Satan says and would still like to see real evidence proving OBLs connection to 9/11. Getting back to the real subject of this diary, which we have been cleverly diverted from, is it a good thing to throw shoes at Hillbillary? I say yes and I am also in favor of tar and feathers for nasty politicians and we ought to revisit running them out of town on a rail.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:50am
There is plenty of evidence of Al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11, and I shall provide the links in time. Bin Laden claimed responsibility in 2004, which Noam Chomsky fatuously said had no more credibility than if Chomsky were to claim he won the Boston Marathon.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 6:31am
Links to Government statements, based on classified, never to be released, if they exist, documents, are not evidence that can be presented in court to prove an accusation. It's interesting that the FBI Most Wanted poster for OBL never listed 9/11 as one of his crimes. I am not saying that I believe that he wasn't involved but now that he has been executed, without trial, we will never see the evidence in this case that lead us to destroy another country for questionable reasons. I wonder if Killery has a copy of the OBL Snuff Film to show to her close confidants to brag on her accomplishments as SOS.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 1:14pm
What's your hard-on over Hillary?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 2:48pm
I certainly don't have a "hard-on" over HRC but I do despise most everything she represents. She has publicly displayed many of her inhumane and ignorant attitudes and since she feels entitled to run for President I feel entitled to support people who throw shoes at her.
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:25am
"entitled" is a bullshit dog-whistle used to knock her out in 2008. She served as Senator 2001-2009, Secretary of State 2009-2013, and worked on a number of White House initiatives in her 8 years as 1st Lady - a fair bit more federal experience than Obama had in Jan 2009. Additionally, she persuaded almost half of Democrats to vote for her in the primaries, which is typically called "earned" rather than "entitled".
Still you don't say - what are her "inhumane" and "ignorant" attitudes that aren't policy of the current president? Who is your hero that doesn't share these attitudes, since most of Congress seems farther to the right?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:09pm
We've seen a good deal of evidence, and I'm not talking about unsupported statements by the government. I'll provide some of it, either today or tomorrow.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 4:29pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2249984.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/10/alqaida.september112001
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/world/middleeast/08tape.html?fta=y
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1590350.stm
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/08/atta-a10.html
I'm having trouble finding the 2002 Al Jazeera interview in which two Al Qaeda operatives claimed credit for 9/11, but I'll keep at it. The video our military provided in 2001 may be suspect, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 5:07pm
One more.
http://www.peterdalescott.net/qfhawsawi2.html
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 5:11pm
Aaron and I believe neither Bush, nor his administration, would ever lie when American lives are on the line.
by NCD on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:10am
Don't be so damn silly. I believe Bush has told lies, as have other presidents. Saying "Governments lie" does zero to prove the theory that Bush ordered 9/11.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 4:27pm
Just wondering why something like this video wasn't good enough for you. I.E., do you think Bin Laden a liar? Or is it something more byzantine along the lines of the tape being created by the C.I.A. because they wanted to affect the U.S. election and worked in league with the government of Qatar/Al Jazeera?
by artappraiser on Fri, 04/18/2014 - 12:00am
Wanted him to escape from Tora Bora? You're treating this as fact?
"The US has outdone Russia in the vicious attack category and while the USSR may have been guilty of aggression Russia will never match our record." - Jesus, the USSR imprisoned Eastern Europe for 40 years and wiped out some 20 million people in its mass starvation and purges. Take just Poland where Russia worked with Hitler to divide the country in 2, took the full officer corps out to the forest and shot them, waited 2 days at the city limits during the Warsaw uprisings to let the Poles get butchered before entering... You're completely mad.
" I respect and admire strong and wise women but I don't tolerate brutish and arrogant behavior from women or men." - uh no, you don't respect women or you wouldn't use ugly terms that get transferred to all women. You don't use such sexist terms for male politicians - presume there are 1 or 2 you dislike as much as Hillary.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/14/2014 - 1:35am