mirrorspectrum.com/info/former-hillary-clinton-employee- arrested-on-...See MoreThe bill of charges contains numerous felonies and Claiborne, 60, is facing spending the rest of her life behind bars, as prosecutors warn she is “the first of many” corrupt Clinton-era State Department employees that will be bought to justice by a reinvigorated DOJ.
LuluOn 4/13/17, Here we go.. wrote: > The bill of charges contains numerous felonies and > Claiborne, 60, is facing spending the rest of her life > behind bars, as prosecutors warn she is
She was hired in 1999. It would be just as legitimate to call her a "former Bush employee".
This is why Pres. Trump did a 180 on putting Hillary in jail ...See MoreAlthough Ms. Claiborne is a small potato and probably does not count, I would love to see the Republicans put some top democratic officials in jail. That would mean, when the democrats are in power they would do the same to the Republicans - who are, undoubtedly, equally guilty.
This is why Pres. Trump did a 180 on putting Hillary in jail as he promised over and over. Both parties understand this unwritten deal, which is simply, "You don't put us in jail, and we won't put you in jail - except for the occasional small fry so the public will think we are trying to be honest!?"
Or the alternate point: Quit being so tribal as to think the other party is dishonest and your party is not!
Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria? Of course, ISIS is detestable and needs to be eradicated. But is it really in our interest to be focusing solely on defeating ISIS in Syria right now?
(End quote)
Friedman is suggesting that we fight ISIS in Iraq and other places, but not in Syria. Actually this is what we have been doing. Friedman is just preparing America for making this strategy public policy. Now mind you, Friedman wants you to think that there are two ISIS. As he says:
(Quote)
One is “virtual ISIS.” It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through the internet. . (Snip)
The other incarnation is “territorial ISIS.” (snip) Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies — and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.
(End quote)
Well, at least he admits the "caliphate" part. But let me answer why! Assad has never threatened the US. On the other hand, ISIS has done more than threaten. It has conducted bombings or other attacks from Paris to California. Plus, the "other ISIS" is an illusion. If you remove Assad the power vacuum will be filled with some brand of radical ISIS, because there is no power group of so-called "moderate members of ISIS."
I am not pretending that Assad is a nice guy. However, Pres. Trump had it right in saying the Syrian people should determine Assad's fate. Yes, he is a terrible choice. Yet, in the last American election, that is what we faced - a choice between two terrible candidates. The people of Syria should be given their chance to choose!
But we cannot do that, because everything is what America wants, whether the people of Syria like it or not!
Well, I would argue that neither Obama nor Trump have any intentions of changing America to make it great again. Or alternately, if that is their intention, neither has a clue.
This brings us to the question, what needs to be done to make America great again. I will start with some of comments.
1. America cannot be great when education is so expensive many poor, but very, very bright students cannot go. You cannot waste this talent and be great!
2. America cannot be great with personal, not government debt, burdening the economy. This prevents people from buying which is the other person's income.
3. America cannot be great again when we spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. This is money that should go for infrastructure and more.
You will notice we are doing none of the above. Thus, IMHO, there is zero chance America will be great again.
That's on you...when you make idiotic claims, people notice you made them. > Yet, the poster offers no - that would be zero - alternative > explanations. There is no link or quote to an economist.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. You want an alternative explanation for why it looks like Obama doubled the debt to $20 trillion? Maybe it was the deficit fairy!!
> Then when I explained that China cannot pay for its military > with the US debt, all we get is "Source? Link?" OMG, this > poster is too lazy to even check one of the numbers I used. > Just Google "China's share of the US debt", or alternately, get > off you lazy bu*t and look up some information for yourself.
Poor little tec never learned how to add a link. Now he wants to cry "its not fair". > There is just no point in discussing with someone who will look > up nothing! They are just another conservative who does not let > facts get in the way of what they want to believe.
Poor progressives can't accept any responsibility for their failures. Its always "conservatives" or "republicans" fault. Just look at the way you blamed them for everything that went wrong for Obama. That's a loser's mindset. Oh, and let's not forget you saying "America bombed a wedding". If you want to make such a foolish claim, you should have proof. Liberals don't like to prove what they say...
Let me help this poor conservative out! In the article "2008 Recession: Four Causes of the Huge Deficit," You find this (I had mentioned both number 1 and 2. I also mention number 4. The poster mentioned nothing!)
(Quote)
1. The biggest cause: Reduced tax payments
2. Automatic increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps, and people starting social security* early because they can’t find jobs.
3. Military spending also increased, but is now fading.
4. Bush’s TARP and Obama’s Jobs Stimulus (top layer) account for little of the deficit, and they are temporary.
Also, the House Ways and Means Committee is currently reviewing this bill. Call them at 202-225-3625 and tell them to move it out of committee to the floor for a vote.
When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed former US President Barack Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons, instead of responding with military force, Obama made a deal — but now former Obama administrations are saying it may not have worked.
“If the Syrian government carried out the attack and the agent was sarin, then clearly the 2013 agreement didn’t succeed" in eliminationg Assad's chemical weapons, Robert Einhorn, the State Department special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control under Obama told the New York Times.
> Trump pulled the US out of the TPP agreement, positioning > China to swoop in and exploit the emerging markets in > Asia.
You need to stop watching that fake news network, CNN. Trump and China just struck a heck of a trade deal. After Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss several issues, including the massive trade imbalance between the nations, he came out on top with a heck of an agreement. Just my opinion, but it looks like Beijing is offering the Trump Administration greater market access to avoid an all- out trade war between the two powers.
They're already in violation. What if he restores sanctions? Seems kind of obvious that appeasement didn't work out in terms of making Iran more cooperative. I suspect Iran is worried that Trump isn't the pushover Obama was.
> You seem a bit confused about the agreement and the effect of > Trump denouncing it. To begin with, it's not a contract with > Trump or even Obama - it's an agreement between Iran and > eight other nations. There is nothing that Trump can do > there that would advance the interests you proclaim.
If it was such a good deal why didn't Obama seek the advise and consent of the Senate? >> And meeting with foreign leaders. And getting his Supreme >> Court nominee sworn in. And confronting Russian >> incompetence. He seems to be making a good impression >> with actual leaders. > > Does he? China's state media, after Trump's meeting with Xi: > > <i>Xinhua, the state news agency, on Saturday called the > strike the act of a weakened politician who needed to flex > his muscles. In an analysis, Xinhua also said Mr. Trump had > ordered the strike to distance himself from Syria's backers > in Moscow, to overcome accusations that he was "pro-Russia." > </i>
"After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.
Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump's allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the "unmasking" of US individuals' identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a "massive story." http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/intelligence- contradicts-nunes-unmasking-claims/index.html
#2 -- FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Carter Page
"The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials."
Say what? Trump was right. Obama was monitoring him.
> Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump's > allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan > Rice broke the law by requesting the "unmasking" of US > individuals' identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a > "massive story."
CNN has been sternly lecturing its viewers that there is NOTHING to see there and Rice, "never gave nothing to nobody" which is too clever...a double negative...really.
What it shows is that CNN is engaging in non-news propaganda > #2 -- FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Carter Page > "The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor > the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate > Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links > between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other > U.S. officials said.
Didn't this particular adviser work in Russia for Goldman Sachs a decade before? And didn't he have investments in Gasprom? Wow. Why would a presidential candidate select an adviser who had direct experience in a foreign nation? Its a puzzler.
> The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant > targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was > probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a > foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials."
"Acting as an agent of a foreign power"? Wouldn't that be a felony? Wonder why they didn't simply arrest him if they had evidence. Fine- if that's what the "unnamed source" alleges, let's see it proved. Don't hold your breath waiting for the proof to show up. It won't. drip drip drip
Remember how he and Kerry tried to sell the attack on Syria as incredibly small but the only alternative to all-out invasion? Obama's knowledge of history wasn't great and he never could figure out what he needed to do. Trump looked at the options and made a choice. He got a bombing that demonstrated America's resolve. No invasion.
Plus, would someone explain just what our national interests are in Syria! IMHO, America is being lead around by it's nose! We have no interests, other than humanitarian, in Syria, but Israel does, and the military industrial complex does. Courtesy of our mainstream media, you have been duped into supporting another war.
And about those "gassed children", is that any more horrible than the wedding parties that are blown to bits by our drone strikes. One day, America is doing this “bomb the sh*t out of them” tough guy talk. The next day, America is "Oh, those poor children, we should bomb the sh*t out of the people who did this."
And the amazing part, after the Ghouta 2013 gas attack in Syria, Pres. Obama was on the verge of entering the Syrian War on the side of the terrorists (Al-Nusra). This was averted when Putin and Obama agreed to destroy Assad's chemical weapons.
Now think about this, even with a very low IQ someone could guess that another gas attack would push America into the Syrian Civil War. If that is the case, why in the world would Assad do this gas attack?
Not saying we know for sure! However, this gas attack serves the purposes of the terrorist fighting Assad, and it serves the purposes of Israel and our military industrial complex. There were and are all sorts of groups that stand to gain from this attack but Assad is not one of them.
For those who think I am alone in this view, see the article " Ron Paul: ‘Zero chance’ Assad is behind the ‘false flag’ chemical attack in Syria. " The article says:
(Quote)
“Before this episode of possible gas exposure and who did what, things were going along reasonably well for the conditions,” said Paul. “Trump said let the Syrians decide who should run their country, and peace talks were making out, and Al Qaeda and ISIS were on the run.”
“It looks like, maybe, somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode, and the blame now is we can’t let that happen because it looks like it might benefit Assad,” he said.
“It’s not so easy though is it? What happened four years ago in 2013, you know, this whole thing about crossing the red line?” Paul continued. “Ever since then, the neocons have been yelling and screaming, a part of the administration has been yelling and screaming about Assad using poison gas.” (Snip)
“It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under these conditions to all of the sudden use poison gasses,” he said. “I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately.”
(End quote)
And then we have the article, "Pentagon Trained Syria’s Al Qaeda “Rebels” in the Use of Chemical Weapons." The article says,
(Quote) Link below!
The Western media refutes their own lies.
Not only do they confirm that the Pentagon has been training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons, they also acknowledge the existence of a not so secret “US-backed plan to launch a chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime”
London’s Daily Mail in a 2013 article confirmed the existence of an Anglo-American project endorsed by the White House (with the assistance of Qatar) to wage a chemical weapons attack on Syria and place the blame of Bashar Al Assad.
The following Mail Online article was published and subsequently removed. Note the contradictory discourse: “Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al Assad”, “White House gave green light to chemical weapons attack”.
Let me help you. A death threat by a country whose people kill westerners and other non-conformists as part of their religion is not a "business deal."
> And finally ETS wrote this strange comment, "It's true the Obama > regime did a great deal to weaken this country, but that's about > to change." Well, not strange! In America, our hammer is > bombing and other forms of military destruction. And the worst > part, everything America sees is a nail! > > PS: ETS does not get playground rules as he says, "That only > works when the bully isn't ready for it!"
> An anonymous poster wrote, "As was pointed out, The current > president didn't bomb a wedding." No, America bombed that > wedding! A change of Presidents does not wash away atrocities.
Actually, it does. Atrocity? A change in policies goes a long way towards correcting errors. I think pretty much everyone except tec understands that bombing a wedding was a tragic mistake. Do you have some evidence it was done maliciously?
> Next, the poster wrote, "Now you're just being willfully blind." > Yet, who knows what this poster is referencing. There was no > explanation beyond the comment.
You're pretending no one understands that the Syrian gov't was responsible for the nerve gas attack.
> Then the poster wrote, "I can find dozens of articles pointing > out how they're expanding their sphere of influence." Yet, this > is all bluster, because the poster presented zero - that would > be nada or zilch - articles.
I posted a number of articles the other day which we all noticed you ignored since they completely refuted your claims that no one knew who used nerve gas.
> Then things get worse! I reference an article to show that > others agree with me, and the poster wrote, "Do you bother > reading the news?" Yet, no reference! The poster goes on to > say, "I'd rather listen to the people at the center of the > events." And who would that be? Oh wait, the poster does not > tell us - again, no references.
You keep missing the OBVIOUS point. Read the news. You reference some blog as if it proves something. If you bothered reading the news you'd understand why you're wrong.
> Next, when it comes to women and children dying, the poster > wishes to be very selective. The poster likes to talk of the > gas attacks, but says, "What the comment indicates is that you > introduce irrelevancies like weddings to distract from the > fact you aren't informed." > That would be a big fat "No!" We are talking about innocent > people dying!
Innocent people die all the time. Is it worse when they're at a wedding? Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and you're claiming its justified because someone cuts someone else head off. > And finally, it is clear this poster does not like challenged > thinking, particularly, if the idea being presented can not be > properly rebutted. In such a situation, the poster simply says, > "Why should anyone give a hoot for the opinions of the Bolivian > ambassador?" That tactic is called, "Attack the Messenger!"
I'm sorry if I attacked the Bolivian ambassador. I think I dismissed his opinion as unimportant. Is that an attack? I can see why you think it means something but the ambassador wasn't an eyewitness to the attacks. Those people already spoke out in the news. You probably missed it.
> PS: About the comment, "In this case, the bully is Assad > backed up by Iran and Russia." > > Between America, Assad, Russia, and Iran, which country is > violating International Law by bombing Syria? Answer: That > would be America! Given that Syria could not be a threat to > America, why are we there?
Now see? Here's where reading the news would provide you with an answer to your question.
> Then the poster wrote, "A gov't that murders a half million of > its own citizens isn't a legitimate gov't." Well, this is a > civil war, and in the American civil war 600,000 deaths occurred > - notice that is more than "a half million."
The American civil war occurred in 1861 to 1865. No one used nerve gas and the US govt didn't use aerial bombardment to exterminate a populace. Facts seem to confuse you.
> The point, civil wars happen, and a government kills its own > citizens. Yet, the amazing compartmentalization going on here > is the Assad government, as bad as it is, is fighting against Al > Nusra, which is also called Al Qaeda of Syria. This poster does > not get it. In fighting Assad, as bad as he is, we are > supporting terrorists.
You keep insisting "we're supporting terrorists" but it isn't clear who you're talking about. What evidence do you have that the US is "supporting terrorists"? You've offered NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO.
> This is an insane foreign policy designed to create perpetual > war for the sake of the military industrial complex - and it is > amazing that so many Americans can not see the truth.
What's amazing is that you think anyone would agree with you.
"Russian television station RT reported that Levashov was arrested under a U.S. international arrest warrant and was suspected of being involved in hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year's U.S. election."
She was hired in 1999. It would be just as legitimate to call her a "former Bush employee".