Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[Grizzly]

"The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." ~ Quellcrist Falconer via Richard Morgan in the book Altered Carbon

The above is not intended for ANYONE on this board. Just to be clear. ...

[peartreed]

You're reading it wrong. The first line is a quote I disagree with from a prior post above. I doubt Hillary would "destroy the world". Regardless, Trump is an unqualified egocentric totalitarian that would be a complete disaster posturing and preening in the presidency for publicity. Clinton at least knows the ropes enough not to hang herself on hubris. Neither candidate is a good choice but the lady deserves the chance to try.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

This, from Saturday's Chicago Tribune, is like an RI post of years past when such thoughts were very far from mainstream. The times, apparently, they are a-changin'.

"It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened."

Chicago fucking Tribune, folks.

This article is worth reprinting in full:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

John Kass

Has America become so numb by the decades of lies and cynicism oozing from Clinton Inc. that it could elect Hillary Clinton as president, even after Friday's FBI announcement that it had reopened an investigation of her emails while secretary of state?

We'll find out soon enough.

It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.

This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution.

So what should the Democrats do now?

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

Since Oct. 7, WikiLeaks has released 35,000 emails hacked from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Now WikiLeaks, no longer a neutral player but an active anti-Clinton agency, plans to release another 15,000 emails.

What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.

The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee — should begin demanding it.

But what will Hillary do?

She'll stick and ride this out and turn her anger toward Comey. For Hillary and Bill Clinton, it has always been about power, about the Clinton Restoration and protecting fortunes already made by selling nothing but political influence.

She'll remind the nation that she's a woman and that Donald Trump said terrible things about women. If there is another notorious Trump video to be leaked, the Clintons should probably leak it now. Then her allies in media can talk about misogyny and sexual politics and the headlines can be all about Trump as the boor he is and Hillary as champion of female victims, which she has never been.

Remember that Bill Clinton leveraged the "Year of the Woman." Then he preyed on women in the White House and Hillary protected him. But the political left — most particularly the women of the left — defended him because he promised to protect abortion rights and their other agendas.

If you take a step back from tribal politics, you'll see that Mrs. Clinton has clearly disqualified herself from ever coming near classified information again. If she were a young person straight out of grad school hoping to land a government job, Hillary Clinton would be laughed out of Washington with her record. She'd never be hired.

As secretary of state she kept classified documents on the home-brew server in her basement, which is against the law. She lied about it to the American people. She couldn't remember details dozens of times when questioned by the FBI. Her aides destroyed evidence by BleachBit and hammers. Her husband, Bill, met secretly on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch for about a half-hour, and all they said they talked about was golf and the grandkids.

And there was no prosecution of Hillary.

That isn't merely wrong and unethical. It is poisonous.

And during this presidential campaign, Americans were confronted with a two-tiered system of federal justice: one for standards for the Clintons and one for the peasants.

I've always figured that, as secretary of state, Clinton kept her home-brew email server — from which foreign intelligence agencies could hack top secret information — so she could shield the influence peddling that helped make the Clintons several fortunes.

The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.

All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.

If a presidential election is as much about the people as it is about the candidates, then we'll learn plenty about ourselves in the coming days, won't we?

jskass@chicagotribune.com

Twitter@John_Kass

[Novem5er]

This article is worth reprinting in full:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

-snip-

The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.

All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.

Those two lines stood out to me when I read this article yesterday and they stood out to me again. To be clear, this isn't a Clinton-only problem, but it is representative of the hatred that a lot of Americans have for the "insiders". The Clintons are the perfect examples of this. Supposedly they came out of office the first time "dead broke" by Hillary's standards, but are now multi-millionaires with tens of millions of dollars to their name. Their personal wealth pales in comparison to Trump or other famous billionaires, but $70 million is still a king's ransom to most people on planet earth.

And for what? What did they do? At least Kim Kardashian has a clothing line and a best-selling app on iTunes. At least Kanye West makes music that millions of people listen to. Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood at least make movies that sell hundreds of millions of dollars and employ thousands of people. Lebron James sells stadium tickets, merchandise, and TV ad revenue.

[seemslikeadream]

Jagoff of the Week: John Kass
BY LUMPENMAGAZINE · AUGUST 16, 2015

John Kass

by Paul Dailing

This originally ran in our special Lumpen Field Guide to Chicago Jagoffs

Everyone I know at the Chicago Tribune says columnist John Kass is one hell of a guy — genial, incisive, and on the money about every backdoor deal in town. Too bad that guy’s never shown up in Kass’ bomb-throwing, right-of-Koch writing. He called Ferguson a “lynching.” A “legal lynching” of the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teen.
http://www.lumpenmagazine.org/jagoff-of ... john-kass/

Racist Chicago Tribune column blames ‘Democratic welfare state’ for ‘feral black boys’ with guns
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/racist- ... with-guns/

John Kass is the gossip editor for the Chicago Tribune, masquerading as an independent observer of the passing scene.

He is as right-wing as it gets, and should have his column on the Tribune’s editorial page. Instead, the conservative Tribune cleverly slots it on page two, where it receives 1/2 page, above the fold. He preaches against gun control, against pro-choice and against federal debt.

He recently wrote, “A guy that rich can’t be bought.” He meant, rich people are more honest than middle-class people. Really
https://mythfighter.com/2016/07/08/john ... ather-huh/

.

On The Radio Factor, Chicago Trib.'s Kass falsely claimed Rezko's wife "b[ought] the Obama dream house"
Research ››› December 11, 2008 2:55 PM EST ››› MATT GERTZ



0

On The Radio Factor, John Kass falsely claimed that Rita Rezko, wife of Antoin Rezko, "b[ought] the Obama dream house" in what Kass called "that shady real estate deal." In addition, Kass, who was also featured on ABC's World News and the CBS Evening News in reports about the scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich, suggested to Bill O'Reilly that President-elect Barack Obama must be tainted by corruption because he comes from Chicago.

Chicago Tribune's Kass affirmed Beck's baseless and false claims about Obama
Research ››› March 7, 2008 10:45 PM EST ››› KIRSTIN ELLISON



0

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass sat by as Glenn Beck repeated a baseless claim in Kass' column and added a falsehood of his own regarding Barack Obama's house purchase in Chicago. Beck repeated Kass' claim that Obama received "a $300,000 discount" on the purchase of his Chicago home and falsely asserted that indicted businessman Antoin Rezko "bought the property next door at $300,000 more." Kass did not dispute either assertion.




John Kass' lodestar is provocation—and that has taken the Tribune columnist into some pretty ugly, even quasi-racist territory. But his latest incitement represents a new low.
First off, here's how Kass chose to introduce the column, titled "Murder numbers don't tell the story in Chicago. Shootings do," and published Thursday morning:


"The shooters, these feral young men, aren't an accident. They are the direct product of the Democratic welfare state that helped destroy families. The government became the father, the fathers became irrelevant or were driven off, and black families that had withstood decades of Jim Crow segregation began to collapse.

Post-factual race-baiting has been made the new normal in 2016; and now Kass seems all too content to join the worst of the fray. That's the true feral nihilism. And it's especially loathsome when its delivered by a messenger parachuting from the outer suburbs. Notice the location stamp on his tweet: the hard front lines of Berwyn.
http://chicagoist.com/2016/09/08/john_k ... _a_new.php



the hard front lines of Berwyn.

[dada]

like an RI post of years past when such thoughts were very far from mainstream.

Well, I always knew the hidden vanguard hang out here.

Now the time is ripe for RI to hit big. The new cool. Everybody put on your sunglasses.

[Nordic]

You're reading it wrong. The first line is a quote I disagree with from a prior post above. I doubt Hillary would "destroy the world". Regardless, Trump is an unqualified egocentric totalitarian that would be a complete disaster posturing and preening in the presidency for publicity. Clinton at least knows the ropes enough not to hang herself on hubris. Neither candidate is a good choice but the lady deserves the chance to try.

I'm sorry but war with Russia and the TPP disqualifies her from being given the chance to "try". If we have to put up with Homer Simpson as president to avoid JUST those two things it's worth it. I really don't understand how people are thinking. If you were dying and trapped under a car bleeding to death would you really care about the character of the guy who dragged you out and called 911? It's about like that.

Hillary is a fucking menace to life on earth. And to the sovereignty of the country.

That's really all that matters.

Maybe she's president and by some miracle we avoid war with Russia. She's still gonna sign the TPP and hand the legal control of this country (thereby of all of us) over to multinational corporations.

But that's ok because Trump is a dick?

Give me the logic to this. I'm not seeing it.

[dada]

There's nothing to see. There's a system, it grinds on. The 'all-seeing eye' is blind. Authority is powerless to change anything. You know, Jackson is going to 'get the Sons out of guns.' Yeah, good luck with that, Jacky.

I hate quoting people, but you remember what Burroughs said. "The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident. Inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push."

And we go on climbing our termite infested totem poles. Playing games within games, within games. Call in our own experts. Push each others' buttons.

Only way out is to evolve. Or be subject to immediate de-rezolution. That is all. End of the line.

[Freitag]

Giuliani: There Is Enough Evidence Now For A RICO Case Against Clinton Foundation For "Racketeering"

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date October 30, 2016

Saturday evening on Fox News Channel's 'Justice with Jeanine Pirro' former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested that a grand jury already has enough evidence, from WikiLeaks and the FBI, to charge "Clinton Incorporated" with racketeering under the RICO laws that were originally designed to go after the mafia.

"I was shocked, back in July," Giuliani said about FBI Director James Comey's recommendation against charges for Clinton. "He laid out almost a prosecutorial memo and then came to a conclusion that he shouldn't come to--that the Justice Department should--that she shouldn't be indicted."

"A special prosecutor should be appointed. A special prosecutor --a non-Republican, non-Democrat-- should redo this whole investigation. And Obama should be requred to promise he is not going to pardon any of these Clinton Incorporated-- I think it's a racketeering enterprise honestly," he said.

"I have a whole bunch of statutes they've violated," he said. "This is racketeering. This is a RICO statute--Clinton, Inc. I think it was one of the WikiLeaks that said this was 'Clinton Inc.' He does the speeches, they put the money in the pocket, she does the favors in the government. It all links up. Why did they destroy 33,000 emails? Because it shows the link."

"Whatever caused this [FBI announcement] is something very serious," he concluded.

[seemslikeadream]

Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?

Rudy Giuliani ...Trump's pick for Homeland Security Chief
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.2625261


The day after the gold was found Giuliani stop looking for victims remains

Mr. Clear Away 9/11 evidence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyfyRYuS6Uo

After stepping down as mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani tried to launch himself as a national political leader on the back of the single defining event of his career.

In the end he failed miserably, with voters immediately seeing his ploy for what it was: base political pandering.

But what many do not realize is that Giuliani’s case is not just that of another ghoulish politician parading on the corpses of those who died on his watch for his own political gain.

On the day of 9/11, while the remains of the twin towers and WTC7 were still smoldering, one of Mayor Giuliani’s first concerns was clearing away the evidence from the crime scene.

https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspe ... -giuliani/

Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11
BY WAYNE BARRETT


Grand Illusion is the definitive report on Rudy Giuliani's role in 9/11 — the true story of what happened that day and the first clear-eyed evaluation of Giuliani's role before, during, and after the disaster.

Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 (2007) by Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins
Rudy Giuliani emerged from the smoke of 9/11 as the unquestioned hero of the day: America's Mayor, the father figure we could all rely on to be tough, to be wise, to do the right thing. In that uncertain time, it was a comfort to know that he was on the scene and in control, making the best of a dire situation.

But was he really?

Grand Illusion is the definitive report on Rudy Giuliani's role in 9/11 — the true story of what happened that day and the first clear-eyed evaluation of Giuliani's role before, during, and after the disaster.

While the pictures of a soot-covered Giuliani making his way through the streets became very much a part of his personal mythology, they were also a symbol of one of his greatest failures. The mayor's performance, though marked by personal courage and grace under fire, followed two terms in office pursuing an utterly wrongheaded approach to the city's security against terrorism. Turning the mythology on its head, Grand Illusion reveals how Giuliani has revised his own history, casting himself as prescient terror hawk when in fact he ran his administration as if terrorist threats simply did not exist, too distracted by pet projects and turf wars to attend to vital precautions.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/featured ... _and_9_11/

August 13, 1981 or Before: PROMIS Oversight Committee Formed at Justice DepartmentEdit event
A PROMIS oversight committee is formed at the Justice Department to supervise the implementation of the PROMIS software at US attorneys’ offices. The committee’s members are initially Associate Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani, Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris, Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys William P. Tyson, and the Justice management division’s Assistant Attorney General for Administration Kevin D. Rooney. The associate attorney general is the chairman of the committee. The date on which the committee is established is unclear, but it will be mentioned in a memo dated August 13, 1981, so it must be at this date at the latest. Lowell Jensen will also be significantly involved in the committee, first as the associate attorney general for the criminal division until early 1983, and then as associate attorney general, meaning he also chairs the committee. The main official who reports to the committee is PROMIS project manager C. Madison “Brick” Brewer, although he will not be hired by the department until the start of the next year (see April 1982).

1996: Mayor Giuliani Creates Office of Emergency ManagementEdit event
Jerome Hauer
Jerome Hauer [Source: Public domain]
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani establishes the city’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM). This is tasked with coordinating the city’s overall response to major incidents, including terrorist attacks. [GOTHAM GAZETTE, 9/12/2001; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 83-284] It will also be involved in responding to routine emergencies on a daily basis. [9/11 COMMISSION, 5/18/2004 pdf file] OEM comprises personnel drawn from various City agencies, including police and fire departments, and emergency medical services. It begins with a staff of just 12, but by 9/11 this will have increased to 72. Its first director is counterterrorism expert Jerome Hauer. [NEW YORK TIMES, 7/27/1999] Richard Sheirer will take over from him in February 2000 and will be OEM director on 9/11. [NEW YORK MAGAZINE, 10/15/2001; JENKINS AND EDWARDS-WINSLOW, 9/2003, PP. 12; 9/11 COMMISSION, 5/18/2004 pdf file] OEM is responsible for improving New York’s response to potential major incidents by conducting regular training exercises involving various city agencies, particularly the police and fire departments (see 1996-September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 283] According to Steven Kuhr, its deputy director from 1996 to 2000, one of the key focuses of the office is counterterrorism work, “responding to the consequence of a chemical weapons attack, a biological weapons attack, or a high-yield explosive event.” [CNN, 1/16/2002] Furthermore, OEM’s Watch Command is able to constantly monitor all the city’s key communications channels, including all emergency services frequencies, state and national alert systems, and local, national, and international news. It also monitors live video feeds from New York Harbor and the city’s streets. [9/11 COMMISSION, 5/18/2004 pdf file; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 283, 542] In June 1999,

1996-September 11, 2001: New York Office of Emergency Management Practices for Terrorist Attacks, but Not Using Planes as MissilesEdit event
New York City’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) was created in 1996 by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to manage the city’s response to catastrophes, including terrorist attacks (see 1996). In the years preceding 9/11, it holds regular interagency training exercises, aiming to carry out a tabletop or field exercise every eight to 12 weeks. Mayor Giuliani is personally involved in many of these. The exercises are very lifelike: Giuliani will later recount, “We used to take pictures of these trial runs, and they were so realistic that people who saw them would ask when the event shown in the photograph had occurred.” Scenarios drilled include disasters such as a sarin gas attack in Manhattan, anthrax attacks, and truck bombs. One exercise, which takes place in May 2001, is based on terrorists attacking New York with bubonic plague (see May 11, 2001). Another, conducted in conjunction with the New York Port Authority, includes a simulated plane crash. Just one week before 9/11, OEM is preparing a tabletop exercise with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), to develop plans for business continuity in New York’s Financial District—where the World Trade Center is located—after a terrorist attack. Jerome Hauer, OEM director from 1996 to February 2000, later testifies, “We looked at every conceivable threat that anyone on the staff could think of, be it natural or intentional but not the use of aircraft as missiles.” He tells the 9/11 Commission: “We had aircraft crash drills on a regular basis. The general consensus in the city was that a plane hitting a building… was that it would be a high-rise fire.… There was never a sense, as I said in my testimony, that aircraft were going to be used as missiles.” [TIME, 12/22/2001;

(8:47 a.m.-9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Mayor Giuliani Learns of First WTC Crash, Yet Doesn’t Go to Special Emergency Command CenterEdit event
Rudolph Giuliani.
Rudolph Giuliani. [Source: Publicity photo]
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is promptly informed of the first WTC crash while having breakfast at the Peninsula Hotel on 55th Street. He later claims that he goes outside and, noticing the clear sky, immediately concludes, “It could not have been an accident, that it had to have been an attack. But we weren’t sure whether it was a planned terrorist attack, or maybe some kind of act of individual anger or insanity.” Only after the second plane hits at 9:03 will he be convinced it is terrorism. After leaving the hotel, he quickly proceeds south. In his 2002 book, Leadership, he will claim that he heads for his emergency command center. This $13 million center is located on the 23rd floor of Building 7 of the WTC, and was opened by Giuliani in 1999, specifically for coordinating responses to emergencies, including terrorist attacks (see June 8, 1999). Referring to it, he writes, “As shocking as [the first] crash was, we had actually planned for just such a catastrophe.” At around 9:07 a.m., Giuliani meets Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik at Barclay Street, on the northern border of the WTC complex. [GIULIANI, 2002, PP. 3-6; 9/11 COMMISSION, 5/19/2004; BARRETT AND COLLINS, 2006, PP. 7] Yet they do not go to the command center. According to Kerik, “The Mayor and I… determined early on that the City’s pre-designated Command and Control Center… was unsafe because of its proximity to the attack.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 5/18/2004 pdf file] Instead, they head to West Street, where the fire department has set up a command post, and arrive there at around 9:20 a.m. However, in his private testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004, Giuliani will apparently change his story, claiming he’d never even headed for his command center in the first place. He says, “Even if the Emergency Operations Center had been available, I would not have gone there for an hour or an hour and a half. I would want to spend some time at the actual incident, at operations

October 28, 2007: Presidential Candidate Giuliani’s Foreign Policy Adviser Says US Must Bomb Iran; Would Take ‘Five Minutes’Edit event
Neoconservative founder Norman Podhoretz, a senior foreign adviser to Republican presidential frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani, says the US has no other choice than to bomb Iran. Podhoretz says heavy and immediate strikes against Iran are necessary to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons. “None of the alternatives to military action—negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection—can possibly work,” Podhoretz says. “They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them.” Podhoretz says that such strikes would be effective: “People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set [Iran’s nuclear program] five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions.” (Podhoretz does not identify the people he has “talked to.”) “I would say it would take five minutes. You’d wake up one morning and the strikes would have been ordered and carried out during the night. All the president has to do is say go.” Giuliani has echoed Podhoretz’s belligerence towards Iran; last month, Giuliani told a London audience that Iran should be given “an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years.” Podhoretz says he was pleasantly surprised to hear Giuliani make such assertions: “I was even surprised he went that far. I’m sure some of his political people were telling him to go slow…. I wouldn’t advise any candidate to come out and say we have to bomb—it’s not a prudent thing to say at this stage of the campaign.” Podhoretz has given President Bush much the same advice (see Spring 2007).
'Irrational' 'Insanity' - Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel blasts the “immorality and illegality” of Podhoretz’s “death wish,” and notes that such “military action would be irrational for both sides. The US military is already stretched to the breaking point. We’d witness unprecedented pandemonium in oil markets. Our troops in Iraq would be endangered.” Vanden Heuvel cites the failure to destroy Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles during six weeks of bombings in 1991 (see January 16, 1991 and After), and the failure of the Israeli bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor (see June 7, 1981) to curb “regional [nuclear] proliferation.” She concludes, “Podhoretz and his insanity will embolden Iranian hardliners, plunge the region into even greater and darker instability and undermine our security.”

Mid-July 2007: Giuliani Stacks Foreign Advisory Team with Neocons, War HawksEdit event
Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is running a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination centered on strong national security and aggressive foreign policy, surrounds himself with a group of hardline neoconservative advisers:
bullet Neoconservative eminence Norman Podhoretz (see October 28, 2007). Podhoretz says, “I decided to join Giuliani’s team because his view of the war [on terror]—what I call World War IV—is very close to my own.” Podhoretz has said he “hopes and prays” President Bush attacks Iran. [NEWSWEEK, 10/15/2007] Giuliani says of Podhoretz’s advocacy of US military action against Iran, “From the information I do have available, which is all public source material, I would say that that is not correct, we are not at that stage at this point. Can we get to that stage? Yes. And is that stage closer than some of the Democrats believe? I believe it is.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/25/2007]
bullet Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and current American Enterprise Institute scholar who argues that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomacy is “dangerous” and signals American “weakness” to Tehran and advocates revoking the US ban on assassination;
bullet Stephen Rosen, a Harvard hawk who wants major new defense spending and has close ties to prominent neoconservative Bill Kristol;
bullet Former senator Bob Kasten (R-WI), who often sided with neocons during the Reagan years; and
bullet Daniel Pipes, who opposes a Palestinian state and believes America should “inspire fear, not affection.” Pipes has advocated the racial profiling of Muslim-Americans, argued that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not morally offensive, and has, in his own words, advocated “razing [Palestinian] villages from which attacks are launched” on Israel. [NEWSWEEK, 10/15/2007; NEW YORK TIMES, 10/25/2007; DAILY TELEGRAPH, 11/1/2007] Pipes is even “further out ideologically than Norman Podhoretz,” writes Harper’s Magazine reporter Ken Silverstein. [HARPER'S, 8/28/2007]
Support for Israel's Likud - Some Giuliani advisers, including Kasten, former State Department aide and political counselor Charles Hill, and Islam expert Martin Kramer (who has attacked US Middle East scholars since 9/11 for being soft on terrorism) indicate Giuliani’s alignment with the right-wing hawks of Israel’s Likud Party, notes Forward Magazine: pro-Israeli lobbyist Ben Chouake says Giuliani is “very serious about his approach to ensuring the security and safety of Israel.” [FORWARD, 7/18/2007] Giuliani has a long record of supporting Israel’s right wing; as early as 1995, he publicly insulted Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and in 2001, told an Israeli audience that the US and Israel are “bound by blood.” [NEWSWEEK, 10/15/2007] Giuliani says he wants to expand the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) and invite Israel to join. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/25/2007] A Republican political operative calls Giuliani’s advisers “red-meat types” chosen to cloak Giuliani’s near-complete lack of foreign experience. The operative says that Giuliani is also trying to head off criticism for his departure from the Iraq Study Group (see December 2006) before it finished its report. Republican attorney Mark Lezell, who supports Giuliani opponent Fred Thompson, says, “The concern with that particular team is that they have been at the forefront of policies that have yet to succeed and could well qualify as political baggage.” [FORWARD, 7/18/2007]
'Out-Bushing Bush' - Not all of Giuliani’s foreign affairs advisers are neocons. His policy coordinator, Hill, takes a more centrist view and says, perhaps disingenuously, “I don’t really know much about neoconservatives,” adding, “I don’t know of a single person on the campaign besides Norman [Podhoretz] who is a self-identified, card-carrying member of this neocon cabal with its secret handshakes.” Hill says the US should “deliver a very clear message to Iran, very clear, very sober, very serious: they will not be allowed to become a nuclear power,” but stops short of advocating a military solution. Richard Holbrooke, a foreign policy adviser to Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), says jocularly that Giuliani is “positioning himself as the neo-neocon.” Dimitri Simes of the Nixon Center says of Giuliani’s team, “Clearly it is a rather one-sided group of people. Their foreign-policy manifesto seems to


January 8, 2010: Giuliani Denies Any Terrorist Attacks Took Place during Bush AdministrationEdit event
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a 2008 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, tells an ABC audience that the US experienced “no domestic attacks” during the Bush administration. Giuliani is forgetting, or ignoring, the 9/11 attacks, the most lethal and costly terrorist attacks in US history, a curious omission considering Giuliani was mayor when two hijacked jetliners struck New York City’s World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001, eight months into the Bush administration. In recent months, two former Bush administration officials have also denied that 9/11 took place during the Bush presidency (see November 24, 2009 and December 27, 2009), as has a Nevada newspaper publisher just days ago (see January 3, 2010). Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos begins by asking Giuliani about his opposition to trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts instead of in military tribunals (see November 13, 2001 and January 29, 2009). Giuliani asks “why stop” torturing suspects instead of putting them on trial, saying that the US may continue to get “good information” from them, presumably about plans for future terrorist attacks. Giuliani says that while Bush “didn’t do everything right” in the “war on terror,” what Obama “should be doing is following the right things [Bush] did. One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror, we had no domestic attacks under Bush, we had one under Obama.” Stephanopoulos notes that Obama has “stepped up” actions against terrorists, but does not correct Giuliani’s claim that the US “had no domestic attacks under Bush.”

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... ph_(_rudy_)_giuliani

[Novem5er]

You're reading it wrong. The first line is a quote I disagree with from a prior post above. I doubt Hillary would "destroy the world". Regardless, Trump is an unqualified egocentric totalitarian that would be a complete disaster posturing and preening in the presidency for publicity. Clinton at least knows the ropes enough not to hang herself on hubris. Neither candidate is a good choice but the lady deserves the chance to try.

I'm sorry but war with Russia and the TPP disqualifies her from being given the chance to "try". If we have to put up with Homer Simpson as president to avoid JUST those two things it's worth it. I really don't understand how people are thinking. If you were dying and trapped under a car bleeding to death would you really care about the character of the guy who dragged you out and called 911? It's about like that.

Hillary is a fucking menace to life on earth. And to the sovereignty of the country.

That's really all that matters.

Maybe she's president and by some miracle we avoid war with Russia. She's still gonna sign the TPP and hand the legal control of this country (thereby of all of us) over to multinational corporations.

But that's ok because Trump is a dick?

Give me the logic to this. I'm not seeing it.

I think it's safe to say that Hillary supporters simply don't believe that either of these things will happen (war with Russia or multinational corporate control of the US). If you take out those doomsday scenarios, then she's likely to be a middle of the road Bureaucrat in Cheif. Most people don't believe in the extreme possibilities, just like most Trump supporters don't really believe that he'll turn America into the next Fascist Italy. We've trained our brains to disbelieve the worst-case scenarios conjured up by the opposition. FEMA camps were being prepared by G.W. Bush . . . and then they were being prepared by Obama.

Personally, I think it's a big risk putting Hillary in office. That's why I've spoken out against her, even though I can't stand Trump. But all my friends and family who still support Hillary aren't idiots and they're not insane . . . they've just immunized themselves from worst-case scenarios for their candidate.

[km artlu]

Holy Shit slad...your last few lengthy posts are definitive examples of ad hominem argument. An attack, justified or not, on the personal character of a source of information does not refute the information. Can you see how that's true?

If Charlie Manson says 2+3 = 5, the math isn't negated by pointing out how disreputable he is.

[peartreed]

Nordic, Novem5er nailed it.

I’m one of the optimists that eschew extremist fear mongering, like the inevitability of Hillary hitting the red button to launch war with Russia. I also thought she flipped on her original support of TPP to oppose it now. To me, she is a safer bet than The Donald drooling over the nuclear codes to consider an even bigger and lasting impression of his megalomaniacal imprint on the world.

Trump has already outlined his xenophobic vision of America as an island unto itself, curtailing immigration, building border walls, canceling trade deals and operating a virtual police state to control dissidents in his personal fiefdom.

It sounds more like North Korea than the free enterprise beacon of the Western World. While you justifiably fight multinational corporate monopoly of global commerce you also might play right into the hands of the tyrants like Trump who have a legacy of lust for precisely that kind of power. If he stays true to form he will want to "make deals" to benefit from such takeovers himself. The only difference is he, yet again, wants his personal brand with the proceeds ultimately ending up in his own privileged pocket. A presidential seal is not going to change his stars or stripes.

[8bitagent]

NA:

I was talking about the Paul Craig Roberts piece-- and featured the link-- which is a ranting paranoid disjointed mess. It should be dismissed because it's shit, IMHO. I don't see Nordic as 'right' or 'left' anyway, he's just going after Hillary with everything he can get his hands on 'cause that's his mission, but this article is just stupid.

I wonder if the right are gaining traction because the left dismiss them so casually.

The whole left vs right business has been so askew this year. In the 2000's Bush era, you had both fringe/conspiracy/"patriot" right wingers and liberal/progressive/activist types pretty much
on the same page when it came to exposing the Bush war lies, torture, even to some degree 9/11. Anti war vs pro war. Pretty clear. Then, in the 2009-2015 era it was the Tea Party/Birther stuff and Occupy Wall Street at opposite ends
while some on the left(the Democracy Now/Scahill types) opposing Obama's own war policies. A lot on the left supported Wikileaks exposing Bush (and some Obama/Clinton) crimes while the right wing called for Wikileaks hackers to be jailed or shot. But it was a clear liberal vs "right wing/evangelical" type of scenario, be it the gay marriage or abortion thing.

And here we are, 2016. And boy what a weird switch has happened.

Im seeing, post Bernie Sanders defeat, a lot on the "left" embracing and vehemently supporting Hillary Clinton even tho the Bush family and most of the neocons/Iraq war architects are endorsing her.
Support for Hillary despite her and Kaine's deep support and embedding of Wall Street and corporations. And despite her obvious hawkishness that dwarfs Obama and may end up rivalling Bushes

But Im also seeing some on the Trump/Breitbart/Alex Jones/Drudge side in the wake of Orlando flip the script. Embracing gay rights, even if its just a ruse to oppose Islam. The entire right wing
behind Trump seems to be, save for ISIS, pushing a narrative that they are for peace while Hillary wants war with Russia/World War 3. And of course were seeing much of the same left who loved wikileaks as Ive often mentioned, while Wikileaks is embraced by some on the right.

There's so many types of "left" and "right" in 2016...Democracy Now and Counter Punch are the only liberal alternative news sites even willing to give any air time or digital ink to anything damaging to
Hillary Clinton. While the majority(Huffpo, DailyBeast, Mother Jones, etc) are 100% in the tank for Hillary despite the endless corruption.

In the end if Weiner's weiner cocks up Clinton's final thrust toward the election, that would be quite surreal in an already surreal election. Or we shall see if Billy Bush's Trump tape trumps up the Donald.
Either way we'll see if a Weiner or Bush is the October surprise that dooms one of these candidates. But continual surprises down the final stretch don't surprise me.

[Nordic]

Nordic, Novem5er nailed it.

I’m one of the optimists that eschew extremist fear mongering, like the inevitability of Hillary hitting the red button to launch war with Russia. I also thought she flipped on her original support of TPP to oppose it now. To me, she is a safer bet than The Donald drooling over the nuclear codes to consider an even bigger and lasting impression of his megalomaniacal imprint on the world.

Trump has already outlined his xenophobic vision of America as an island unto itself, curtailing immigration, building border walls, canceling trade deals and operating a virtual police state to control dissidents in his personal fiefdom.

It sounds more like North Korea than the free enterprise beacon of the Western World. While you justifiably fight multinational corporate monopoly of global commerce you also might play right into the hands of the tyrants like Trump who have a legacy of lust for precisely that kind of power. If he stays true to form he will want to "make deals" to benefit from such takeovers himself. The only difference is he, yet again, wants his personal brand with the proceeds ultimately ending up in his own privileged pocket. A presidential seal is not going to change his stars or stripes.

No fearmongering from me. Just reason.

Top generals say declaring a no fly zone in Syria = war with Russia. Hillary goes on and on about how she wants a no fly zone.

Therefore logic dictates Hillary wants war with Russia.

She practically wrote the TPP. Obama made sure it was fast-tracked. He went on Jimmy Fallon campaigning for it. He's a Democrat. He's campaigning for Hillary.

Therefore logic dictates Hillary will sign the TPP.

It's not fearmongering that the TPP hands over the legal sovreignity of the US, and the other western nations that sign it, to multinational corporations.

That's just a simple fact.

No fearmongering, just looking up and seeing a piano falling towards our heads.

Seriously WTF. Anything less than this is willful denial. Or willful ignorance.