Am I a Hillary Cheerleader?
By Larry Johnson on December 22, 2007 at 10:12 PM in Current Affairs
Several of you are wondering who I am backing to be the next President. I have not decided on a final choice because, to be candid, I have little say in the matter. I live and vote in Maryland. By the time primary season rolls around in my neck of the woods and bay inlets, the die will be cast.
Of the current field of democratic candidates I like three in particular–Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. If I were participating in an Iowa caucus or voting in New Hampshire, I’d go for Joe. But he is not getting any traction. So that leaves me with Hillary and Edwards.
I favor giving Hillary more coverage at No Quarter for a very simple reason–no other candidate for president in my memory has been subjected to as many vile, baseless attacks as this good woman. You don’t have to be a rightwing nut to know or believe some of this garbage. According to these critics Hillary is a murderer, a practicing lesbian who is getting it on with her Saudi chief of staff, a swindler, a cheat, and a coverup artist. Oh yeah, her and Bill employ, so we are told, their own hit squad who run around silencing critics.
What I find amazing is how inept that Clinton “hit” squad is? If they were worth a damn (or REAL) then critics like this bozo in Texas, Robert Morrow, would be a worm buffet by now (I will not link to anything written by Morrow). Ain’t it amazing that Bill and Hill are known to kill their opponents and yet so many opponents and critics are still walking around unscathed?
The evil witch, bitch caricature of Hillary is a lie readily embraced by many in America. But it is not the Hillary I have met. I am not a good friend nor a close advisor. And I am not lobbying for a slot in a Clinton Administration. I’m not ready for a pay cut and I like to sleep until 9am. But I have been in her office twice and briefed her on issues concerning terrorism and Iraq. If you had asked me before my first visit in 2005 if she could be president I would have said, “There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”. Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.
The briefing occurred shortly after I had testified on the Hill about the harm done to Valerie Plame. Senator Clinton was aware of my testimony and congratulated me on standing up for Val. The Senator was very gracious, engaging, and charismatic. And she does not have fat legs (the number of guys who have dissed her for not having great gams is obscene). She is an attractive 60-year-old woman. But that was not what stood out for me. She is scary smart.
I was not alone at the briefing–there were two other participants who are well-known experts on the Middle East and Iraq. We had not submitted our briefings in advance. We made our respective presentations and had a genuine, in-depth discussion about viable options. She asked us tough questions and could think on her feet without having to look at notes. She focused on what could be done to achieve U.S. interests in Iraq without bleeding our country’s treasury and military.
As we talked about the limits and efficacy of using military assets to go after terrorist targets, the Senator brought up the book, Not a Good Day to Die by Sean Naylor. She did more than bring it up. She described in detail the challenges that special operations military forces actually face on the ground. I was stunned. This is not an easy book to read. It is an excellent work and provides enormous detail on special operations and CIA military activities in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. But it is tough sledding for folks not familiar with military terminology. She had it nailed, and it was not a mere pre-planned politician’s trick. She knew what she was talking about.
I came out of that meeting and realized I could be seeing the next President. If people could always see the real Hillary she would win in a cake walk. I admit her main failing is to over-think the politics of every situation and, as a result, she has at times appeared rigid, robotic, and programmed. But that is not the real her. She’s funny, quick, and can think and talk on her feet without choking on a pretzel.
So if No Quarter appears to be a pro-Hillary site, it is simply me trying to balance out the mountain of shit tossed her way.
I also like John Edwards. But he has not tasted even a hint of the personal and political attacks that have been launched against Hillary. Therefore I do not feel as much of a need to “defend” him. However, I have given my friends–Wayne Williams and Brad Parker–full permission to publish any John Edwards piece they want. They are rabid Edwards promoters.
Who would be the strongest national candidate for the Democrats? I think it is Edwards. That’s my analytical conclusion. I worry that the hatred and prejudice against Senator Clinton is so deep that it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. But then I think back to a time when I had accepted the anti-Hillary propaganda and what subsequently happened to my thinking after meeting her. The Hillary I saw behind the closed doors of her office is a genuine, smart, very likable person. If America is permitted to see that woman then she has a chance.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
This goes a long way in explaining your position and I thank you. However it does not explain her blind support of the DLC, or her support of the AIPAC. When you can do that I’ll reopen my mind. I am goddamned tired of being snookered by elite bullshit.
How the bloody hell are you going to run from NY with its 36 electoral votes and not support AIPAC?
How about being honest? Is that so fucking out of reality? What country has been caught spying on this country more than any other in the last 20 yrs? Care to venture a guess? Why is it an American has to fear speaking out against the influence of an other country on our goddamn government?
Couldn’t agree more! It’s so out of control with support for Israel that even the chickens in the USA lay white eggs and they want to charge you extra for healthier, “organic” brown eggs. Eggs are white because the US poultry industry uses the Kosher/Israeli standard of not allowing the chickens to see daylight. Don’t elect anybody that supports AIPEC!
Oh for heaven’s sake — white eggs are not the result of some zionist-kosher-jewish plot. Egg color depends on the breed of chicken laying them.
AIPAC maybe be dictating our foreign policy, but they’re not dictating the color of our eggs.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Only chickens that do not see daylight lay white eggs. If the minority Koshers want white eggs, then let THEM pay extra! Why should the majority pay extra for brown eggs? Brown eggs are the natural standard around the world!
Centrocita, gypsy is right. The colour of the eggs depends 100% on the breed of the chicken, not on whether they ever see daylight, for heaven’s sake.
Oh - and the colour of the eggshell is irrelevant to whether an egg is or is not kosher. Brown eggs most certainly ARE kosher. The general rule is that eggs from kosher chickens are kosher, eggs from non-kosher chickens are not.
You can’t blame “the Jooz” for everything, Centrocita.
Of course, Americans wouldn’t know the difference, but brown eggs have more protein and a dark yellow, almost orange yolk. That’s because chickens that lay brown eggs receive sunlight. Shirin, please don’t tell me the chickens in Iran lay white eggs because I wouldn’t belive it for a second. When I was growing up in the USA in the 50’s, store-bought eggs were brown — but that was before the Israeli lobbies took over our country. You’re probably not old enough to remember that American chickens also used to receive sunlight.
Centrocita, although I have been to Iran, I did not buy eggs there, or pay attention to the colours of the eggshells, so I don’t know what colour eggs chickens in Iran lay. I CAN tell you with absolute certainty and from direct experience what colour eggs chickens lay in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Pakistan, in Britain, in Mexico, and in the United States.
You see, I have at various times, kept chickens myself here in the U.S., and in Iraq we had a lot of chickens on the agricultural lands we owned. My chickens here ran around loose all day, and were shut up in a pen with a house at night. Some of the chickens at the villages in Iraq were completely free, and others lived in large open enclosures with houses to roost in. The mukhtars from the villages would come to the city several times a year to settle the accounts, and each time they would bring us dozens and dozens of eggs from the hens in the village. The eggs ranged in colour from white to dark brown and every shade in between, depending on the breed of the hen that laid them. The same is true of the chickens I kept.
In Pakistan the overwhelming majority of chicken eggs are white. Brown eggs are considered superior, but they are difficult to obtain and about twice as expensive as white eggs.
My recollection is that in Lebanon eggshell colours are as they are in Iraq - a big variety of colours, ranging from white to dark brown.
In Britain, the eggs I bought in the market were white.
The colour of the eggshell, and the shade of the yolk has nothing - NOTHING to do with sunlight. It has everything - EVERYTHING - do to with the breed of the hen that lays them.
And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with “the Jooz” or Israel, or kosher, or AIPAC, which is in any case a secular organization that deals in political matters, and has nothing to do with imposing kosher standards on anyone.
And, in any case, as I have said before, brown eggs are completely kosher as long as they come from kosher chickens.
So, you are wrong on all counts.
PS The reason most of the eggs sold in the United States now are white has to do with the breed of hens used in the majority of the mass-production farms are from a breed that produces eggs with white shells. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with sunlight, it has nothing to do with “the Jooz” or AIPAC (for heaven’s sake!) imposing kosher standards on U.S. egg production.
Shirin, I’m from Delaware. Delaware is a chicken state. The University of Delaware football team is called the Delaware Blue Hens. The Blue Hen is also the state bird. I can assure you that the chickens raised for the poultry industry on the East Coast are kept in covered houses that never get any sunlight. They produce stark, white eggs with pale, yellow yolks. Only chickens that are “free range” produce brown eggs.
Centrocita, your logic is flawed. If the chickens in Delaware are producing white eggs it is because they are Single Comb White Leghorns, not because they are kept in closed houses.
Fact: For mass production of brown eggs, instead of keeping White Leghorns in closed houses, they keep Rhode Island Red, New Hampshire, and Plymouth Rock hens in exactly the same types of closed houses, and voila! Brown eggs.
Fact: The purpose of light control in laying houses is all about maximizing egg production and has nothing to do with the colour of the eggshells.
Fact: Free range White Leghorns produce white eggs.
Fact: Brown eggs are every bit as kosher as white eggs are, therefore there is no need for “the Jooz” to try to force United States egg producers to produce white eggs.
Fact: AIPAC is a secular, political organization that has nothing to do with religion, food, kosherness, or anything else to do with eggs, except that probably most of its members eat eggs.
Fact: You just can’t blame “the Jooz” for the colour of eggshells.
centrocitta, you have truly jumped the shark here. This is the stupidest fucking thread I’ve ever read. Shirin is correct on every count, and you are wrong on every count. And frankly, your continued blather about a subject which you clearly don’t know the first thing about, and one which is so obviously and easily fact-checked, together with your effort to make a political connection between the ‘Joooz’ and AIPAC and the color of EGG SHELLS for god’s sake, rather undermines your credibility on all the other “facts” you’ve put forth here in the past, on other subjects. You’ve dug a bit of a hole here. Do yourself a favor - admit you’re talking out of your ASS on this particular subject and stop digging.
I have have learned a lot on this site about a lot of things but I have to admit that the egg debate tops them all. Actually I had a delicious 3 egg omlette this morning but I cannot remember what color the eggs were or what state they were from but they were good.
Now I believe after hearing from the egg experts I can safely ask the age old question which came first the chicken or the egg?
(Only joking people and just trying to add a little levity to the egg discussion!!!)
But were they KOSHER eggs, Bill?
Seriously, I have heard The Jooz accused of all kinds of things in my lifetime, but never ever could I have imagined that I would hear them be accused of undue influence over egg shell colours!
Oh yeah - and I forgot to mention something. You know that state bird of Delaware, the Blue Hen Chicken? Well, that was rather a - ummmmm - red herring? See the Blue Hen Chicken is not a hen at all, and it has nothing to do with eggs. The Blue Hen Chicken is really a rooster, and its claim to fame is cock fighting, not egg laying.
Shirin, I enjoy your debates, however, you can take the girl out of Delaware but you can’t take Delaware out of the girl! So I don’t agree with you about the state bird. At any rate, you are loads of fun and I must give you credit for trying. Merry Christmas and I hope Santa treats you well. Sincerely yours,
The Woman in the Leopard Print Slip
Centrocita, you are free o disagree with the facts as much as you want, but they will remain the facts.
“The Blue Hen Chicken has been the state bird of Delaware since 1939. This gorgeous chicken originally came from Kent County and was used in cockfights.
“It was during the Revolutionary War that soldiers from Kent County brought along chickens for amusement during their down time. The fierceness of the chickens became the namesake for the tough-fighting troops, and a symbol throughout Delaware.
“This rooster is tall with black legs and big black tail. The chest is grey. The mantle is yellow changing to red at the top of the head, with a bright red comb.”
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art24222.asp
“The second company was composed of men from Kent County…. The troops often amused themselves by staging cock fights with a breed known as the Kent County Blue Hen, recognizable for its blue plumage.
“The renown of these chickens spread rapidly during the time when cock fighting was a popular form of amusement, and the “Blue Hens’ Chickens” developed quite a reputation for ferocity and fighting success.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Hen_Chicken
“Mr. Caldwell produced a strain of fighting gamecocks noted for their blue plumage and fighting ability that were descended from a famous Blue Hen.
“It’s said that heroics during the battle of Long Island firmly established the connection between the Delaware soldiers and their fighting gamecocks. Again, at White Plains, New York, the Delaware regiment distinguished itself, earning the reputation of fierce and courageous warriors like the ‘Blue Hen’s Chickens’ they had brought with them. When not fighting the enemy, the officers and men amused themselves by pitting their Blue Hen Chickens in cock-fights. The fame of these cock-fights spread throughout the army and when in battle, the Delaware men fought so valiantly that they were compared to these fighting cocks“.”
I looked and looked and looked, and not a single word about eggs in connection with the Blue Hen Chicken.
Chickens, egg-shells and AIPAC!? LOL. What will AIPAC and Israel think of next?
AIPAC is part of the Jooz scheme to rule the world, starting one eggshell at a time.
But which came first: the eggshell or AIPAC?
….This gorgeous chicken originally came from Kent County….
Now, with this I must heartily agree. We Delaware chics are very good looking! Maybe that’s why our commuting Senators have been known to lend assistance in carrying our bags off the train.
….I looked and looked and looked, and not a single word about eggs in connection with the Blue Hen Chicken….
Very interesting. Did you read then that they were cloned?
Well, Leslie, that certainly is ONE good question!
Centrocita, did you miss the point deliberately? Blue Hen Chickens are not now and have never been used in egg production. Their claim to fame is as fighting cocks, not egg layers.
Did I accidentally fall through the Looking Glass or something?
And what about the Araucana chickens, and similar South American breeds? They lay BLUE or GREEN eggs! Whose fault is that, the Ukranians’?
Nah - that’s the doing of lazy American Christians who want their Easter eggs to come pre-coloured.
bill, please go check the garbage so you can ascertain the color of the eggs and report back to us. inquiring minds and all of that.
nat’l security and eggs.
~~~
omg, this thread has provided great comic relief.
lions, and tigers and bears, oh my.
OK, eggsperts, so it’s the breed of chicken that determines egg color. Well, like I said before, when I was growing up in Delaware in the 50’s storebought eggs from big grocery chains such as A&P were BROWN! So eggsperts, please tell me why the breed of chicken has been changed? Could it possibly have been changed, for some odd reason, to the same breed of chickens used in Israel? Could it possibly be because the idea is to give everybody Kosher eggs because non-Jews wouldn’t know the difference anyway? Could this possibly be it or am I just even further out in left field? Who are the lobbyists for the poultry industry in America? And by the way, if brown, free range eggs wern’t a healthier choice, why do they cost more?
I can’t resist but here is where it all started:LOL
The Egg Basket of the World!
http://www.sonic.net/~tdn/Pet1.html
Centrocita, what part of “brown eggs are as kosher as white eggs are” has not been clear to you so far?
Here’s the deal, Centrocita:
Fact: Brown eggs that come from kosher hens are kosher.
Fact: White eggs that do NOT come from kosher hens are NOT kosher.
Conclusion: Egg colour does not determine whether or not an egg is kosher.
Here’s another little tidbit for you, Centrocita. It is not only brown eggs from free range hens that are more expensive. White eggs from free range chickens are more expensive as well, and organic eggs are even more expensive. The reason is simple. They cost more to produce and there are fewer of them available on the market.
Now, how about letting go of your “Eggshell Protocols of the Elders of Zion” fantasy, and moving on to a new one, please? This was fun for a while, but it’s getting a bit boring.
Ciao tutti. Buon Natale!
I believe we could add a few other countries who spied on our country more than Israel in 20 years. And getting caught doesn’t show much mastery in spying, so maybe we might be paranoid and figure out how many time Britian spied on us, Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, Russia, India, etc. Then we say, “Israel” spied on us more than anyone, we’d at least be accurate.
I can’t make much sense of your demand of Larry to do something so you’ll have an open mind. You want Truth!? well, when you say convince you and then you’ll open your mind, I can only respond truthfully with, I’d prefer your mind was wide open. WIDE. If you don’t wish that, don’t put that condition on Larry, or anyone else. You are busy implying that Clinton has to have integrity, but you don’t display integrity so how will you recognize it?
Clinton and others play these politician games and I’m busy watching them thinking about them as kids, Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Roy Blunt, etc, as awkward teens who think they know so much, and see their faces get old and fat. I see how they talk with such seriousness but their heart isn’t in it. I also see tons of humble professionals who would do a much better job, but don’t want it. Once in a while the blowhard politician is useful if you are playing off the board.
Venture if you will to a place above the board where the king and queen aren’t the main objects of affection and defense. When the moves are made, which ones are more powerful? I don’t think we should forget the bishops, knights, rooks and of course pawns. Will an unknown like Congressman Robert Wexler of the Florida 19th be the one who successfully introduced a bill to discuss impeachment hearings.
Who is your representative? What is their voting record, is it consistent with your values/principles? are you in the political minority where you are?
Look MEP, I’m sick of king and queen making. I’m sick of stamping my name to their game and seeing much of the same including the outing of plame, and there will be nobody to blame, but me, if I spend too much time expecting Hillary Clinton to get it.
Thanks for your fiery passion, but be mindful if you aren’t getting real results towards your real goal, if its independence and happiness for people.
chris you mention other countries spying on hte u.s.
i will point out the israel attacked the uss liberty with 34 killed and 170+ wounded. and the lavon affair. thought about/tried to assassinate our ambassador to lebanon in ‘79. gave the soviets the jonathan pollard material, which was only the mother of all goldmines for ivan. ad naseum.
nice “allies.” they are in a league of their own.
ps. and virtually all americans know jack squat about the uss liberty…to include naval academy officers!
I agree, and it is a shame
Isn’t this more a necessity than a failing?
Awesome post. Sums up my feelings as well (that is, I think Edwards is the strongest national candidate) but helps allay me fears and concerns over Senator Clinton, whom I want to like, but find cold and triangulating in public. Thanks very much!
Edwards IS potentially the strongest national candidate and the one the ReubliCONS fear the most - which explains the focus on bashing Hillary and Obama - “don’t throw me in da’ ‘der brier patch!!!” - There is no doubt that Hillery is up to the job, it’s just that She and Obama will raise the NeoKKKons faster than Rush with a handful of Viagra and Oxyies in a Dominican Orphanage at lights out . . .
Lets talk about the Constitution. Lets talk about the Country that my father earned 13 fucking battle stars from the U S Navy during WWII. Hillary can’t get elected if she goes against the AIPAC? Who gives a fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Goddamnit!
MEP, tidbit, they do make decaf brands that taste just as good as the real deal. Just a thought. And, what about the Constitution? While you may be tired of people caving into the whim of AIPAC or whatever, I’m getting tired if impotent citizens who are so busy yelling at their representatives and getting nothing in return, then continuing the same course of action the very next day. What is up with the citizens of these days and this country that so many of these changes can be done in front of them and they simply don’t care.
My second tidbit would be in how you would get those citizens to sit up and take notice to the shredded paper around them that used to be their Constitution and Bill of Rights. What happened to their Executive Branch, their Legislators, and Judiciary? Or perhaps, was it always like that?
You say you hate elites, and many would agree with you there, but can you convert the masses?
but can you convert the masses?
An example might be The Revolution of 1789.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-FrenchRe.html
I was totally decided not to vote for her and most likely stay at home or cast a blanc vote. I might just vote for her if she wins the primary. Until then, Edwards is my first choice.
And no, I don’t think you are a Hillary cheerleader.
The influence of the AIPAC? Gee why is it we can’t have a serious conversation? Larry, please give me and others an answer, or an attempt at one.
MEP, Gore was an even bigger AIPAC lover than Hillary is! He used to make his annual speech at their convention, and he would go all weepy and talk about his great love for Israel.
Her connection to AIPAC is just one part of what concerns me about her. She has no intention of letting all of Bush’s efforts on Iraq go for nothing. She will finish the imperial job for him.
Shirin
I don’t give a shit about Gore. We are talking about NOW! I do not always agree with you and others but I admire your honesty and your heart. We are talking about the survival of our WORLD! You, me and the goat herder in Oman. The rice farmer in Nepal. The Mayan farmer in Central America, who according to many was a Commie and the poor little bastard was just trying to protect his family from rape and pilage. Where does this shit end?
Part of my point was that you aren’t going to find a successful politician in Washington that goes against AIPAC.
Darlin, I understand your statement, I do not except the outcome. I’m a southern white former redneck. If I can see a different course, others can also. I will not lay down as a doormat for what is proscribed as the “easy path”. I will rail and raise hell whenever, in the hope that sanity will prevail. Its late and I’m tired if my spelling is at fault oh well. And just to let you know, for me to call you Darlin is a term of endearment cause you have balls.
And just to let you know, for me to call you Darlin is a term of endearment cause you have balls.
Priceless!
If you have something to say in my direction say it. If not, she has the balls and you don’t
Relax MEP - you’re flying off the handle for no damned reason. Are you just searching for reasons to fight?
My point in saying “pricelss” is that your comment was funny — it made me laugh — not for any other reason.
And I agree with about Shirin. Her depth of knowledge and presence here is worth me visting this blog everyday.
Sheesh. Touchy, touchy.
You are right I am touchy, cause I am just fucking sick that thousands of people have died and many more will. if that makes me a fool I gladly wear it.
I forgot to add Fuck off!
You are making a fool of yourself. I intended no insult.
Now you can apologize for behaving like a paranoid jerk.
Larry - thanks for elaborating on your perspective.
I have never doubted HRC’s intellect or detailed grasp of issues. And yes, I have heard from people who’ve met and traveled with her that she is every bit as personable and charming as you say.
My problems with her remain: her embrace of corporations and their needs — to the detriment of citizens, her willingness to “negotiate” with insurance companies and big pharma in creating a fair and equitable health care system, and her habit of playing both sides against the middle on practically every issue, which results in a lack of opennesss about her real views.
To me, she represents the past, the good ol’days of the 90’s. So many of us knew in 2000 that her carpetbagger gig in New York was just a jumping off point to presidential run. Then there was her push for a flag burning amendment, her vote for the AUMF, her long-drawn out refusal to acknowledge any mistake in judgment…
These things all add up to the image of a very calculating politician, something I am not comfortable with.
As I’ve said many times, if she is the nominee I will support her candidacy in the GE, because I cannot abide the thought of any more outright criminality and corruption such as I have seen with the Republican party of the last seven years.
But the prospect of it does deflate me, just as I felt deflated working for and voting for Kerry when my first choice, Howard Dean, lost the nomination in 2004.
HI there, Shoephone. Still using that fabulous lotion you brought me at the hospital. Thank you again. It was special to meet you.
I keep thinking about 2003-2004 too. A friend came over today, and we reminisced about our Meetups — the huge gatherings here, in such a small town, for Howard Dean. Those were the days. It was hard to work for Kerry, but every time I saw George Bush, it helped me campaign for Kerry.
Now, I think about the Supreme Court, Social Security, the environment, energy, and international relations.
My big worry about John Edwards: His commitment to public financing through the general. That’d really cripple him in a GE. I cannot fathom why he went for that. (And I saw that he failed to get the FEC to give him matching funds for those millions of dollars people donated to ActBlue’s site.) Kos has written about the huge problem this poses for a Edwards nomination. I wish he could get out of it. Is there a way?
“There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”.
Word for word I heard this from a cohort a work.
With no explination as to why he felt this way.
I guess I’m just totally out of touch with reality. And no I will never learn to gush on command. Good night.
Hi Susan - I’m so glad you like that lotion, I do too! Mostly because it makes your hands feel like silk and there is no lingering strong frangrance to it.
I’m also concerned about the challenge Edwards faces because of the public funding scenario. I think he felt he had to do it because at the time he wasn’t pulling in nearly as much $ as either Clinton or Obama and figured this option would help him. And the ruling on Act Blue donations really stinks. It’s NOT a PAC and I can’t understand why the judge defined it as one.
I’m not clear, though, on whether this move was only intended for the primaries or the whole campaign enchilada, if you will.
If Edwards were to win the nomination, the 527’s (which he has said he doesn’t approve of) would have to gear up for advertising in a monumental way.
As someone who has been working for public campaign financing at the state and local level, I should check into the particulars of Edwards’ situation more.
*I’m having a hard time with our incessant dark days and constant rain the last two weeks. How ’bout you?
Happy Holidays Shoephone…which Judge?
On another note : And I agree with about Shirin.
Shirin: Sorry if I made you batty…Thanks.
Well, right now, you are all making me blush. :o}
Oops - Sorry. It wasn’t a judge (doh!). It was the FEC…
And I just checked and, of course, Act Blue IS registered as a PAC.
I guess what this means is the blogs sponsoring Act Blue pages are going to have to remind and strongly urge Edwards supporters to contribute to his campaign directly.
***HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU TOO***
shoephone, excellent suggestion about support for Edwards.
Shoephone
If the shoe does not fit, you have my apology. Yep I’m a bit testy. Learned tonight that a family member is at risk of being deployed. If I lashed out and hit the wrong target, I am surely at fault. My point now is that soon it may be someone close to you and yours. I should have been more “targeted” with my venom. I just do not have any more leash available for parsing. I do not want to see another American of Iraqi killed for bullshit reasons. Someone explain to me why another American or Iraqi should die for the policy of another country. i’ll let you or who ever fill in the blank as to what country I’m referring too.
Apology accepted, MEP. Hoping for the best regarding your relative.
They shouldn’t. I hope your relative is not deployed.
Have you seen the latest from Scott Ritter?
December 17, 2007
US Must Reevaluate Its Relationship With Israel
by Scott Ritter
The insidious manner in which the current Israeli government has manipulated the domestic political machinery of the United States to produce support for its policies constitutes nothing less than direct interference in the governance of a sovereign state. The degree to which the current Israeli government has succeeded in this regard can be tracked not only by the words and actions of the administration of President George W. Bush and the American Congress, but also by the extent to which a pro-Israel lexicon has taken hold within the mainstream media of the United States. Witness the pro-Israel bias displayed when discussing the situation in southern Lebanon, the air strike in Syria, or the Iranian situation, and the retarding of any effort toward a responsible discussion of anything dealing with Israel becomes apparent.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=12064
Scott makes some excellent points in that article, but also makes some nauseatingly fawning comments along with them.
Israel is a country that could not have been created, and could not continue to exist without massive and continuously ongoing ethnic cleansing (I recommend The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe). Its expansionist ambitions are part of of the documentary record, and are demonstrated in its behaviour, continuing until today. Israel has also, from before it became a state, displayed contempt for international law, human rights, and the community of western, democratic states, of which it claims to be a member. Israel has consistently shown contempt even for its own agreements, including the famous UNGA 181 that allotted 56% of the land to a European immigrant community that comprised barely 30% of the population, and opened the door to the ethnic cleansing of some one million indigenous people, whose families had inhabited the land for centuries. When Israel’s founders agreed to 181 they had no intention of honouring it. Israel’s human rights record ranks among the worst. Israel is a racist ethnocracy that, in many cases officially, in other cases, merely with a wink and a nod, provides one level of privileges, services, and rights to its Jewish citizens, and quite another to its Palestinian citizens. Israel’s Palestinian citizens are, in fact, considered above all else a “demographic threat”. Israel’s record of aggression and blatant provocation against its neighbors is well known.
And of course, Israel has a propaganda and P.R. machine that has no rival anywhere.
(I recommend The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe).
Read it. Isn’t he living in the UK now?
I was justed stunned to learn all that I did after years of conditioning.
In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.” (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Yes, Cee, the understanding that it would be necessary to “transfer” (aka ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinians began right at the very beginning, has continued throughout Zionism’s/Israel’s history, and is still very much in force today pertaining both to Israel’s own “equal” Palestinian citizens, and more openly to the Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
For those of us who have studied the Zionist/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nothing in Pappe’s book comes as a surprise. It is a very valuable book because he finally calls it by its name, and presents it as what it was.
For the best accounting of Zionism’s history in regard to ethnic cleansing, read Expulsion of the Palestinians by Nur Masalha.
“a pro-Israel lexicon has taken hold within the mainstream media of the United States.”
Scott makes it sound as if this were something recent! On the contrary, it has been the case all along. And Israel has mechanisms intended to squash any attempt at an honest portrayal of Israel’s less pretty face. The organization C.A.M.E.R.A. is part of that mechanism.
And then, of course, there is MEMRI, the ultra-right-wing Zionist group whose raison d’etre is to comb through Arabic and Persian media to find items and snippets that they can use to demonize Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims. They then translate them, deceptively, if “necessary”, and get them into the American media. They are wildly successful. Just about anything negative you see or hear about in the U.S. MSM that comes from the Arabic media probably comes from MEMRI.
One of the techniques that MEMRI uses to change the meaning of something is malicious translation. In a malicious translation, when there is more than one way to translate a word or phrase, the translator ignores context and intent, and chooses the worst available translation. But, as you will soon see, MEMRI does not stop there.
I to have noticed MEMRI used as THE source on CNN and Fox and it always looks bad. Arabs= terrorist is what is pointed out endlessly at a intellectually lazy public. In fact our whole media has been doing this forever. When is an Arab ever portrayed as a good guy or even human-like? NEVER, they’re always wild eyed AK- 47 wielding and screaming as they commit homicidal acts against helpless women and children. this is a carefully crafted view of Arabs but it is no where near reality. It is the equivalent of showing an endless video loop of KKK meetings and deducing that all white people or Americans are racist bigots. My wife’s father a (Lebanese man) fought against Hitler’s army in WW2. I bet that will never be mentioned on MEMRI’s “Arab 10 minutes of hate”.
the best way to know what Arab people are like is to go out of your comfort zone and actually talk to them. (Oh yeah and eat their WONDERFUL food). I know farfetched, talk instead of shoot.
Ah one can dream?
Your father-in-law can probably confirm my translation and analysis of MEMRI’s deceptive, ugly mistranslation.
I wish he ( my father in law) could, but he has passed on. I hope we have other translators working for our media/government OTHER than MEMRI or we are screwed. can you do this site a favor? whenever you hear the next installment of the boogieman chronicles, can you translate it so us uneducated in the arabic language can hear what is really being said? it would be a great service to all.
thank you if this is possible Shirin
another question…..Shirin,
Are there any Arab PAC’s or law firms in the USA that can go after these guys (MEMRI) in court for falsely translating arabic to suit their agenda ( slander or whatever)? there ought to be some claim of them being anti Semitic as well since they propagate the “Arab Myth”. why are they allowed to get away with it?
if we can’t hear what is truly being said, we have no ability to make an informed decision on what to do with this information.
Sorry your father-in-law is no longer around!
Regarding the translations, I will do what I can, but in all honesty, I don’t usually pay much attention to this stuff unless someone gets in my face with it.
Apparently there is not a whole lot anyone can do legally about MEMRI’s agenda of demonization. If there were, I would think one of the Arab or Muslim advocacy groups would have tried by now.
Here is an example of MEMRI’s fine work, which many of you probably have seen.
Do you remember some months ago seeing a horrifying clip from a Palestinian children’s show that featured a Mickey-Mouse-like character? It was all over the MSM for a week or so - I think even John Stewart did a bit on it. Scandalous wasn’t it, and bordering on child abuse? Well, that was translated and then generously provided to the U.S. media by - you guessed it! - MEMRI.
Here are a few excerpts from it, first in transliterated Arabic, then the correct translation, then MEMRI’s “translation”.
Sanabel is the little girl in the clip:
Arabic: “Sanabel, enti shoo hate’mali … ya’ni … min ajl el-Aqsa? Shoo hatefdi … ya’ni roohek min ajl el-Aqsa? Shoo hate’mali?”
Correct translation: “Sanabel, what are you going to do … like … for the sake of Al Aqsa? What are you going to sacrifice … like your soul for the sake of Al-Aqsa? What are you going to do?”
“MEMRI mistranslation: “Sanabel, what will you do for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? How will you sacrifice your soul for the sake of Al-Aqsa? What will you do?”
This is a good example of a malicious translation. Here the incorrectness in the MEMRI translation may seem subtle, but it changes the sense of the question that is being asked of the little girl.
_________________________________
Sanabel: “B’di arsem soora.”
Corrrect Translation:” I will (lit. I want to) to draw a picture.
“MEMRI Mistranslation: “I will shoot”
There is exactly zero chance that this is an honest mistake. Draw a picture and shoot are not even remotely similar in Arabic.
_________________________________
Arabic: “Aish hane’mal ya’ni kaif ehna bedna ya sanabel enharrer …”
“Correct Translation: “What are we going to do … Sanabel, like how are we going to liberate …”
“MEMRI translation: “Sanabel, what should we do if we want to liberate…”
Sanabel answers:
Arabic: “Bedna enqawem.”
Correct Translation: “We will (lit. want to) resist.”
MEMRI Mistranslation: “We want to fight.”
It is not possible to confuse the two verbs. Resist and fight are two completely different Arabic verbs conveying two completely different concepts. Resistance may include violence, but most often does not. (In fact, Palestinians have always used more nonviolent than violent resistance in their struggle, though the nonviolent resistance is hardly ever reported.)
____________________________
And then there is this brazen corker from MEMRI (Sanabel is speaking here):
Arabic: “Betokhoona el yahood.”
Correct Translation: “The Jews will shoot us.”
MEMRI Mistranslation: “We will annihilate the Jews.”
Unbelievably blatant, and clearly intentional! Even a first-year Arabic student could not make this mistake. The words for shoot and annihilate are completely different, cannot be confused with one another, and grammatically, it is not possible to confuse the direct object and the subject.
Need I say more about the trustworthiness (not to mention the obvious intention) of MEMRI’s work?
keep it up Sharin,
thanks for translating …. Nothing should be translated with an agenda behind it.
The truth is all we need, not invented enemies.
MEP: You were out of line..
I have a son in Falluja and you are correct..your venom was misplaced..
Thanks for apologizing to the bloggers here..
MEP, your family member, unlike the Iraqis, has a choice. Your family member can say “hell no, I won’t take part in this criminal enterprise”.
But will your family member have the courage to do that?
MEP,
I’m going to emphasize something about change here, and forgive all my arrogance and shameless ways.
If you want to convert people to your thinking, you have to know their minds, not get them to know yours. You can’t get them to a new thinking by shaming their existing thinking.
You do give a shit if people think you are a fool, and I know what you meant. I think you should buck up a bit and learn to make the government system to work for your aims.
You can resent AIPAC all you want, if you can do the same as they can do, then you won’t have to resent. Resentment comes from powerlessness, imho.
The people who are being deployed are at the end of a long string of bad decisions. Looking to Hillary Clinton to fix it all isn’t as logical as my heart wants my mind to be convinced of. But I respect the shit out of Larry Johnson. I don’t always agree with him, which is one way I know he’s actually earned my respect!
If you are a southern man, then you should know some manners, and I hope I need not call it out, but this community is pretty damn respectable. Hang out a while, share your wares. Open your mind and see what these good folks have to say.
And Happy Holidays.
Don’t suffer so much, life is long. We have many serious issues to face, and we can do it with dignity and integrity without fanatacism, ignorance, and tyranny.
All I want for Christmas is impeachment and incarceration of Richard Cheney and his accomplices.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18926.htm
My neighbor brought this up tonight. Made no sense to him. Me either. Do we really need to totally piss of the Russians as well? The Russian people don’t get it either according to my neighbor.
And Bush looked into his soul? Didn’t Bush’s DADDY tell his son ex-KGB not have souls? Condi is so good at that Russian affairs dung, they has to remove her name from the oil tanker for security reasons.
This crowd does not have the collective intellect to figure out where the exit signs are. How can they be given credit for estimating anything?
So, the new Team B crowd will get their wish and have the US take on Russia.
This is also from the Ritter article.
Israel at present can have no friends, because Israel does not know how to be a friend. Driven by xenophobic paranoia and historical grievances, Israel is embarked on a path that can only lead to death and destruction. This is a path the United States should not tread.
I also wanted to add this gem to the talk about Putin.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Do NOT Mess With An Original Gangsta
As a public service to the President and Vice-President, I’m gonna lay this out for you real simple-like.
DO. NOT. FUCK. AROUND. WITH. VLADIMIR. PUTIN.
Okay?
Now, I know you want to fuck with him, but let’s be clear—he ain’t like you. Meaning, that for all the tough talk you guys have spit out over the years with the aid of handlers and broadcast transmitters hidden in your suit jackets, this son-of-a-bitch—Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin walked the walk—and probably shot the bullets, and car-batteried the gonads of people who got in his way.
Actually did it, okay?
To you, Mr. President, Putin was in the KGB when it was your daddy’s job to see to it that as many members of that organization ended up face-down in Gorky Park with poisoned shivs in their backs. And it was Putin’s job to make sure he piano-wired the carotid arteries of anyone trying to poison-shiv his KGB buddies. You ducked conflict. This guy dipped it in his borscht and ate it, happily.
And to you, Mr. Cheney, for all your diabolical thinking, your hand-rubbing and mordant chuckles over evil plans set in motion via dark-roomed, “cigarette-smoking man” calls from you, understand that Putin worked as the kind of low-level spook who handled the dirtiest of the dirty work. Tail a guy, brace him, beat the living shit out of him, dope him up, torch his place, torch his nads. He’s everything you are—minus the innate cowardice to actually do the evil with his bare hands. Say what you will, but that does something to a man. It’s what separates a button pusher, from a trigger man. And that trigger-man runs the only place that has near as many nukes as we do.
You see, there are “Original Gangstas”, and there are “Posers”.
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2007/10/do-not-mess-with-original-gangsta.html
Haven’t read this article in full yet, but it seems pertinent!
Is Hillary or Obama More Vulnerable to Right-Wing Attacks?
Wow - you really should read it. It’s pretty devastating. Here’s a snippet that encapsulates the theme of the piece:
The author gives some stunning examples of Reagan/Bush episodes that went undisclosed, or univestigated by the Clinton DOJ simply because the Bushes had SO MUCH DIRT ON BILL.
So, my answer to the question in the title is: Obama’s youthful indiscretions only had consequences for Obama, while Bill Clinton’s decisions to not allow investigations on Daddy Bush had major repercussions for the whole country.
No one is perfect and everyone has some skeletons in their closet, but this kind of article hits home with the reality of promoting a candidate whose skeletons rattle the loudest.
I worked like a dog for John Kerry and hoped against hope that he would mention Iran contra and do what Bill wouldn’t do.
He could have removed this tumor from our political body once and for all.
He stayed silent. Here we are.
Hey Mep,
Right On brother (or sister), I am so incredibly sick of seeing my country held hostage to the policies and desires of another that it literally makes me sick to my stomach. Of course, pointing this out makes us both anti-Semitic, which is the biggest scam of all.
IMHO, the only way we extricate ourselves from the untenable situation in the ME is to begin to act in our own best interests regardless of AIPAC’s urgings and influence. Unfortunately, that’s little more than a pipe dream as long as candidates like Hillary continue to prostate themselves on that particular altar.
I like Hillary. I admire Hillary. But, I would much rather vote for Edwards, if given the opportunity.
tbh, on just the gut/emotional level I’m pretty much done with the whole two family dynasty thing going on with the White House…fed up with it is more like it.
On the intellectual side…I like Joe Biden too, however, he’s unelectable…because no one in the Democratic party wants him up there in the White house, Lyndon Johnson don’t you, the Dem’s really don’t want a repeat of that one…which leaves Clinton/Obama/Edwards…and basically, Hillary lost me when she voted for the Kyl Leibermen bill…dam girl, the Iraqi vote you can be forgiven for, but the Iranian one, haven’t you ever heard of “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!” ? Other than that vote, I’m indifferent to her…she’s a little to socialistic for me, but I’m old school fiscal conservative Republican…so I can be dismissed for my oldman’s viewpoint.
On the flip side of the Clinton issue is the rabidity of the Right in it’s doom and gloom mentality every time someone names the C word…for some reason the Republicans hate, viscerally hate the Clinton family…and I would love an Author to do some research, write a book, and explain to me wth is up with that!
I’d vote for her just to see the Republicans explode at the seams, but seriously…she is far to polarizing a figure, and as a country, we certainly don’t need another nationally polarizing individual in the White House. Maybe in another four years, or eight she could run, but not right now…now is not a good time for the country.
Obama…I dunno…I really dunno…could be bad, could be good, could be better than Bush, but there is no possible way under G-d’s bright sun that he could be worse than Bush. Other than that…I’m just not all impressed with the speeches and the words…old school political observer here, everyone talks great on the campaign trail, but there is the history of political deeds that can be referenced as a guideline to what that they’ll be like as President…and Obama…Obama just doesn’t have that history.
Which leaves Edwards, and tbh once again…not really excited, but he isn’t part of the family dynasty which is a plus, and he’s been in the Senate for a few years which is another plus…hmm…I’m thinking some more, and nope, nothing there that sings to me…I’m just not excited about Edwards, but I think of the three he’s the better choice.
Either way, I’m voting Democrat…I want the Republicans gone, out, flushed down the Potomac, sent packing, loaded up on a USAF Cargo flight, and dropped off in Saudi Arabia.
And the last words I want the Republicans to hear from the American people is, “Good bye, and good riddance!”
Cee and Shirin posted link above regarding :
for some reason the Republicans hate, viscerally hate the Clinton family…and I would love an Author to do some research, write a book, and explain to me wth is up with that!
What lies below the surface…
actually the book’s been written. joe conason and gene lyons. think the title is “the hunting of the president.”
David Brock did write about it:
“Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.” The B&N interviewer (www.bn.com) asked Brock why he thought conservatives hated (and still hate) liberals such as Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Brock: “Clinton-hating is a complex phenomenon, more an emotional aversion than an intellectual one.” (Translation: too hard for ignoramuses on the right to understand.)
Also: “Clinton-hating is a psychological phenomenon: They see in the Clintons the very qualities that they hate in themselves.”
Deerhunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America’s Class Wars by Joe Bageant
MEP, All, allow me to heartily recommend one of the most important books about America that you will ever read. It is in bookstores today.
There is an old Army paratrooper cadence that goes: “If I were the President and had my way/there’d be no legs in the Army today.” (”Legs” are non-Airborne qualifed personnel.) Well, if I had my way, every Democrat running for office this election would read Deer Hunting With Jesus. Read it and heed it. They would make it a part of their stump speech, and hold it aloft to every audience, and encourage them to read it, and talk it up. They wouldn’t do a media interview without discussing it. We only have one country and it is a hurting puppy right now.
Bageant grew up in Winchester, Virginia. His kin had been there forever, and knew George W., that would be Washington, as he headed West to do some surveying in his youth. Ron Kovic was, appropriately enough, born on the Fourth of July; Bageant partook in the “Southeast Asian War Games” serving on the aircraft carrier USS America. He got out of the Navy and became a journalist. Instead of the Appalachian mountains Joe worked near the Rockies. Around 2000, his career over/winding down, he returned home and had a severe WTF moment. His hometown, and his people, never well heeled but once vibrant, had been devastated during his decades away. He set out to find out why. Deer Hunting With Jesus is the end product.
Bageant could be read strictly as literature…what a voice! He is also incredibly insightful. He wrote for onlinejournal.com (a great website with about 7 insightful articles a week) and became an internet cult figure. As Orwell stated: “in a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Reading him is a pure delight.
Here are 2 blurbs from the Amazon.com review…and I leave out Studs Terkel’s comment.
“Joe Bageant is the Sartre of Appalachia. His white-hot bourbon-fuelled prose shreds through the lies of our times like a weed-whacker in overdrive, (emph. wethornet)
. Deer Hunting with Jesus is a deliciously vicious and wickedly funny chronicle of a thinking man’s life in God’s own backwoods.”
—JEFFREY ST. CLAIR, author of Grand Theft Pentagon and co-editor of CounterPunch
http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198400466&sr=1-1
wethornet
…..The Senator was very gracious, engaging, and charismatic. And she does not have fat legs…..
Katherine Harris, the woman who was responsible for the 2000 election fraud in Florida, is the one with the fat legs — and the pea-sized brain!
Larry,
the way i see it, no matter who we vote for, be it either a dem or a gop, either way it will mark continued wars and further erosion of our constitution and liberties. both dem and gop candidates with the exception of one, all appear to be owned or bought off by one special interest entity (i.e. aipac, etc.) or another. the only one who has a track record (on the surface that is) of not accepting lobby/special interest money is congressman ron paul, and the only one who has said point blank that if he was elected would be to un-entangle the u.s. from all the war commitments (iraq, etc.) and war alliances that the corporate money machines have entangled the u.s. in.
i think the whole lot of today’s ‘candidates’ are a prime example of how dirty that u.s. politics (poli - many, tics - parasites = politics - many parasites) has become.
Larry,
here’s the answer to the question on what would solve all our nation’s woes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztKmRaA2QmQ
Martha Tilton - “What the Country Needs” (Soundie, 1941)
enjoy.
Ron Paul for President! Absolutely! He’s the only candidate worth listening to. He really kicked it on Meet the Press.
Hi Larry,
I am really really going out on a limb here and I sure hope the hell my identity is kept quiet as NH winters can be longer and colder than in Alaska if your neighbors are P/O’d at ANY violation of what they consider confidence or putting “furriners” over NH native opinion.
I do agree with you on the crap that has been thrown Hillary’s way - those of us who watch the news closely are more aware than others.
I am about to explain the backlash that is now happening in NH - and no, I am not going to spend time justifying nor apologising for NH ‘think’ - I am simply going to lay it out - so please take it as an ISNESS - like water IS wet - okay?
A few things have happened in NH that are negatively effecting Hillary right now and she needs to make a real sudden tactical shift to stop the backlash.
First some History:
1. In 1992 Bill rented a ‘porn’ shop on Elm St- In Manchester that the police has closed the week before Christmas in 1991. The fact that his people did not check this out is remembered.
2. The less than charming people hired by the Clinton’s; Dee Dee Myers, Rham Emanuel, James Carville, Paul begalia and others treated the PAID NH help terribly - 15 people left by the end of the first week in January 1992 - a record - and NH was truly hurting at the time from the Savings and Loan fiasco. The ONLY decent person in that crowd was George Staphanapooulis. Also, it was the first time ANY NH people had heard the type of vile, disgusting comments coming in over the phone regarding Hillary and Bill!
I can’t print them here or homeland security will come knocking for sure. Rather than address this major upset - the Clinton’s both Bill and Hillary laughted it off. Lastly Hillary was cold to most and “turned on” the charm only to those she thought would benefit her goals. All things NH remembers.
3. NH people HATE public scandals - recent events have stirred those memories from the past.
Now to the Present issues:
1. Rochester NH incident - Rochester is an old mill town of about 30,000 people. The guy who invaded Hillary’s office was a local ‘crazy” who lived in a mostly blue collar town, Somersworth, just west of Rochester. He is essentially a harmless fool who had been molested as a child by Massachusetts priests and covered up by the former Cardinal Law. NH people loathe pedophiles to the extreme, so NH people saw him as a VICTIM, who had been screwed by the Federal Govt over the health care issue.
2. Instead of coming up immediately to NH - there was what NH people consider bad and emabarrassing publicity by Hillary in DC. First she made great ‘drama’ according to local ‘think’ about being in close touch with the police and letting them do their jobs. Well yeah - the police did their jobs and without anyone getting killed or shot as happened in OK and CO in the next couple of weeks. Hillary’s tactical error here was making a much biggger to do about it than it was - and also she allowed the Secret Service to pull out the old fear cards.
3. NH people despise the bullying by the Secret Service - They are more than willing to SHARE their roads, but deep resentment builds when these damn bullies block access for hours and people are not able to pick up their kids from activities or get to the store for dinner necessities. People, including myself, believe the mandate of the Secret Service is to keep their charges ALIVE, not bully, harass intimidate, cut off free speech, access of everyone else, and all the real nasty habits they have gotten into under the Bush Regime.
4. Hillary played into this resentment and further compounded it by allowing the WHOLE state to find out she was not using locals in her Rochester office, but ‘furriners’ from out of state. In that isolated area of NH good paying jobs are hard to come by.
5. Close on the heels of this, Jeanne Shaheen’s husband pulled his crap about Obama’s youthful drug use. Jeanne was actually a good governor. What was not generally known was that her husband was co-director of Hillary’s national campaign.
Couple of things there - First of all having Jeanne run for Senate and then finding out that her husband was co-chair of a national campaign made NH people feel badly manipulated - hence the dramatic drop in Jeanne Shaheen’s polls.
Secondly - what most do not realize is that the Shaheen’s are from Ohio - and are not Native to NH. Therefore, Bill once again drawing negative press to NH, by a ‘flatlander’ no less, royally pissed people off.
A couple of things need to happen and quickly to offset the papers endorsing Obama.
1. Hillary needs to ge to the state quickly and start doing local church and people’s home things - thus subjecting herself to some really up close and personal tough questionning. Make really nice with local reporters - honor customs - Ben and Jerry’s ice cream is a big hit and the annual sugaring season - maple syrup and candy - are upon us.
2. Hillary supporters who live in NH need to immediately write letters to the editor - not dis’ing Obama but asking questions - why he felt a need not to travel to Europe given his spot on the Foreign relations sub committee - why he waited to the last minute, after the rest of the Senate voted, to cast his vote against war funding, why he never takes time to just talk and be with people, and is only seen up on stage - those kinds of things.
The questions need to be asked keeping in mind strong NH values such as openess, a willingess to work FOR the people, willing to be accessable to the people, strong integrity, good character qualites, staying until a job is done rather than racing off like 10 year old kids for ‘recess’, vactions or campaigning.
Hopefully this helps.
Whoops one more thing.
Timeliness is VERY imprtant - NH people consider beyond 10-15 minutes late extreme rudeness and WILL NOT hang around. Therefore, it’s best to have a well known surrogate in place to be visibly seen taking a call on a cell phone, and the surrogate better be able to give a definitive time and good reason for the lateness.
Nellie, that is utterly fascinating. I’ll send this on to some people.
Funny: While that hostage crisis went on in NH, I was wondering what Sen. Clinton should do, but it seemed wisest to let the police do their job, which they did BRILLIANTLY, imho. It was quite something to watch live as they brought him out, “disarmed” him, and took control of him physically in a highly professional way.
It also occurred to me that if she’d gone to NH, she might have been accused of trying to make political points out of the crisis — or that is surely what Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough would have said.
Great observations. Keep ‘em coming.
Hi Susan,
Yes the ‘hostage crisis’ went well as NH police do something called ‘community policing’ instead of cowboy whatever!
As to Hillary, she knew within minutes that this guy posed no harm and despite what Chris Matthew or any of the other no-nothings on national MSM, Hillary would have scored big going into Rochester! It is action - not a national embarassment in the MSM that speaks volumes in NH.
Hell, I heard about the Rochester situation within the first hour, and the minute I got home, I called an old friend at WMUR -channel 9 TV. Right away I learned the guy was just a mess, and scared of losing his home and wife. Foolish yes! However, he defintely became creative in getting himself some much needed mental health care. This to NH voters is key - the guy was screwed by the catholic church as a child - then screwed by Bush Govt on needed care - Yet he figures out a way to get himself some help, while not having the money to pay for it.
There was absolutely no need to upgrade this to a national ‘hostage crisis’ - when in reality was it was a cry for HELP.
I am sure the police and Gov Lynch were equally as direct with Hillary - hence she created upset, not warmth, by playing the victim in DC for the national MSM.
Also, Nellie: I specifically recall reading in a newspaper account that, within minutes of hearing about the hostage crisis, Sen. Clinton was on the telephone with your governor. She was highly responsive … and in touch with all of the families. (What a contrast to a president who kept reading a story to children after planes hit the WTC towers.)
Excellent comments. If Hillary can’t hire people smart enough to have an equal measure of common sense then she will forfeit her chance to be President.
Larry,
Happy Holidays to you and yours…
Since Obama has hired former folks from the Clinton Camp what impact do you think that had for Hillary? It seems they would know the playbook and be able to frustrate Hillary’s efforts. Also, what is too made from the fact they decided to work for other candidates to begin with? Doesn’t that fragment certain lines of support needed to win in the General, when those former Clinton folks look for the next Band Wagon that is being “jumped on”? Nellie points out that people don’t forget and that the universe of seasoned veterans is a finite.
Frank Rich has an interesting piece about about the former Clinton advisers, who is working for whom, and what it might signify. I’ll post some excerpts - and probably have a few comments of my own - after I have a chance to digest it. But first, I have to replace a light fixture in my kitchen. When I tried to replace a bulb in it, the base broke off in the fixture, and I can’t seem to get it out, so - excuse for a new fixture.
And by the way, speaking of former Clinton advisers working for Obama, when that came up in the last debate, Hillary unleashed a really long, nasty, sarcastic, derisive cackle that she has used before on Obama, and that does not help her image as a cold, hard, calculating, disrespectful bitch. My objections to her presidency has nothing to do with her personality or the way she conducts her personal life, but I have to tell you hearing that, and seeing the look on her face, especially in that context, gave me serious pause. Her handlers need to tell her to control her impulses. If I were a supporter of hers, I would be rethinking.
Good luck the lamp. Two wine corks works for me or …..
I don’t have dog in this hunt ’cause as Larry said, buy the time the Band Wagon gets to the wine country the cool-aid will have already been bottled. Oak chips and all.
As I have commented before, the top Clinton people working for Obama are Tony Lake and Susan Rice. I challenge anyone to find me Lake or Rice speaking out against the invasion of Iraq. Lake and Rice were disasters for Clinton’s first term. They sat on their asses doing nothing about Rwanda. They are very much like Obama.
Best
LJ
Larry, there is a beautiful scene in one of Robert Baer’s books. Meeting key Dem. senators and staffers with key Clinton staffer. Tony Lake was about to be nominated for (?) some job. Maybe NSA/CIA Director. Don’t know. Anyway, Clinton staffer told on the QT that Lake would be DOA, Dead on Arrival, on the Hill.
The admin. never put Lake up for that job.
I don’t know if you know Baer, but, given his centrality to Obama, it would be worth checking out. As well as why Lake was thought so poorly of by fellow Dems.
Fair enough, Larry. And now that I have my new light fixture installed and working (and have gone out and bought a bunch more new ones because that one new one made all the rest look old and shabby), here is the other side of that story, according to Frank Rich:
“…the Clinton players were not homogeneous, and who ended up with which ’08 candidate is instructive.
“The principal foreign-policy Clinton alumni in Mr. Obama’s campaign include Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state, and Tony Lake, the former national security adviser and a prewar skeptic who said publicly in February 2003 that the Bush administration had not made the case that Saddam was an “imminent threat.” Ms. Rice, in an eloquent speech in November 2002, said that the Bush administration was “trying to change the subject to Iraq” from the war against Al Qaeda and warned that if it tried to fight both wars at once, “one, if not both, will suffer.” Her text now reads as a bookend to Mr. Obama’s senatorial campaign speech challenging the wisdom of the war only weeks earlier that same fall.
“Mrs. Clinton’s current team was less prescient. Though it includes one of the earlier military critics of Bush policy, Gen. Wesley Clark, he is balanced by Gen. Jack Keane, an author of the Bush “surge.” The Clinton campaign’s foreign policy and national security director is a former Madeleine Albright aide, Lee Feinstein, who in November 2002 was gullible enough to say on CNBC that “we should take the president at his word, which is that he sees war as a last resort” — an argument anticipating the one Mrs. Clinton still uses to defend her vote on the Iraq war authorization.
“In late April 2003, a week before ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Mr. Feinstein could be found on CNN saying that he was ‘fairly confident’ that W.M.D. would turn up in Iraq. Asked if the war would be a failure if no weapons were found, he said, ‘I don’t think that that’s a situation we’ll confront.’ Forced to confront exactly that situation over the next year, he dug in deeper, co-writing an essay for Foreign Affairs (available on its Web site) arguing that ‘the biggest problem with the Bush pre-emption strategy may be that it does not go far enough.’ ” (Word choices are important, and I wish people would stop using the word preemption to describe Bush’s attack on Iraq, and his wished-for attack on Iran. Neither rises to the standard for preemption. If one is afraid to be accurate and call it aggression, then at least call it prevention, not preemption.)
Larry
WOW!! A guy with basic common sense who hangs out in DC! Quick - get the Smithsonian to preserve him in perpetuity - a rare one of a kind specimen.
Yes plain old fashion common sense works wonders -just assess a situation - RESPOND (not react) at the level it deserves - do not interrupt the lives of others -and for the love of God, do not make a national soap opera out of nothing and everything.
Larry from you I have learned so much in the last year - and you have just given me prima facia evidence as to why you deserve to be highly thought of and listened to. There is an expression in NH - God gave you ONE mouth and TWO ears-it means he wants you to do twice as much listening as talking!
Thank you for ‘getting it’ and I wish you and yours the happiest of holidays!
Nellie, love that post.
Makes me homesick. Surely after all those years in Arkansas they would have someone to make a list of what not to do to offend the homefolks (almost impossible - umbrage and grudges are what make life worth living).
Washington Post sees coded racism. Next week it will be antisemitism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201762.html
WRT no. 4 used from away folks rather than locals.
That’s tricky. Hiring locals from one local faction will piss off the other factions which will consist of at least half the people in town. Hiring members of all all factions makes for pissing contests in the office.
Not really -
NH people are pretty definte about their preferences in politics. So neighbors would actually be happy to see one their own hired by the candiate of their choice.
Disagreements on politics aren’t viscious up there - everyone knows where everyone stands once they make up their mind - they may disagree with their neighbors - but it does not become open warefare - more an unsaid agreement to agree that they disagree and life moves on.
Now to the store to get some liquid refreshment for my guests soon to arrive.
Larry, you knock down a lot of straw men in your piece but you don’t take on any of the substantive issues that cause most progressives to dislike Hillary Clinton.
That’s why I’m unconvinced.
I have to concur here, reggie.
[...] figured you’d like something local. But anyways, I wanted to point out to you a great post on No Quarter, former CIA Agent Larry Johnson’s blog offering a progressive point of view on national [...]
Shirin, I can’t debate you in Arabic translation, so I’ll offer a bit of common sense. Farfour (sp?)Mouse was not by any stretch of the imagination a benign Disneyesque character. It was a mouse with an agenda/a propaganda device to insure the hatred wd continue into the next generation. The concept was a cheap shot: first you get the kids to love & empathize with the mouse & then you have a mean Isralie slaughter the mouse. No doubt next the bee will kill an Isralie to avenge the mouse. PLEAZZZZE! Oh, while your at it, why not sugar coat & sanitize all the photos of Palestian toddlers dressed in their little suicide belts. I’ve seen out takes of enough of those hate filled kids cartoons, glamorizing juveniles who blow themselves up to kill Isralies. You have previously refurred to yourself as a grandmother, do you honestly think these hate filled animations & skits are good for young children? Seems like no matter what the topic at hand, in your hands it can easily become an opportunity to expound, fan, fuel anti Isralie hatred. You’re good at it too. Who can blame you? This crowd is so easy, so willing. For someone who claims to be secular you’re quite the cheerleader apologist for the frothing fundamentalists.
it can easily become an opportunity to expound, fan, fuel anti Isralie hatred.
Nonsense. She gave a dispassionate translation of the show. MEMRI has the agenda that you should be worried about.
Do you remember the Rocky and Bullwinkle characters named Boris and Natasha?
No, you cannot debate me on Arabic translation, and it was specifically and solely Arabic translation that I was addressing. One really does have to ask, if the Arabs and Muslims really are as horrible as Israel propagandists like MEMRI want you to believe, why do they have to pick and choose the worst they can find, then take things out of context, mislead, fabricate and lie? Why not just provide an accurate, true translation in context of a balanced collection of items?
Now, if you want to discuss the concept, purpose and actuall effect of the Farfour TV program, and what my view is of it, and if you can do so without hurling all kinds of ad hominem bullshit at me, then we can do so. I will happily talk about this matter as long as the discussion is rational, and non-personal. But if you are going to use this as a forum for your irrational anti-Arab, anti-Muslim ravings, or if you are going to try to turn it into another one of your pissing contests, no thanks. In the case of a pissing contest, I have no chance against your superior skill and experience, nor do I have any desire to win.
Even if Just Someone is not interested in a civil, rational discussion, his remarks do warrant some response:
“Farfour (sp?)Mouse was not by any stretch of the imagination a benign Disneyesque character.”
1. Farfour Mouse is redundant. Far is mouse in Arabic, and Farfour is sort of a diminutive or “affectionate” form that could be translated, I suppose, as “Mousie”.
2. No one here has claimed, have they, that the Farfour character is a benign, Disneyesque character? Of course, there is nothing either benign or Disneyesque about the lives of Palestinian children under Israeli occupation, so perhaps a benign, Disneyesque character would be a bit out of place - just a suggestion.
On the other hand, what is interesting based on the few clips I have seen is the juxtaposition of the Farfour character with the real children. Farfour wants to shoot, the girl Sanabel wants to draw a picture. I do not know whether it is a consistent theme in the series because I have not seen all of it, but while the mouse comes off as rather hot-headed, and in the end is murdered by an Israeli (and being murdered by an Israeli is hardly something foreign to the reality of Palestinian children), the child comes across as more thoughtful and rational in her approach. So, for all we can tell, one of the lessons is, if you want to stay alive, get your feelings out by drawing pictures instead of shooting.
I am not prepared to make either a negative or a positive judgment about the series’ intended message without knowing a lot more than I do, which is already a hell of a lot more than you know.
3. You really are not in a position to interpret either the character or the program since, having depended on MEMRI’s obviously seriously distorted version of a very limited selection of excerpts, you have no realistic idea either of the true content or the context.
“It was a mouse with an agenda/a propaganda device to insure the hatred wd continue into the next generation.”
You are simply not in any position to judge the program or its message, or the desired effect of that message. Nor do you have any clue as to the reality the children who are its audience endure twenty four hours a day seven days a week. You may, however, rest assured that the children living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories do not need a televised mouse character to make sure the hatred continues. It is their everyday experiences with the occupation and with the illegal Israeli colonists that ensure that.
“The concept was a cheap shot: first you get the kids to love & empathize with the mouse & then you have a mean Isralie slaughter the mouse.”
It is easy enough to interpret an entire program any way you like based on seeing deliberately distorted and fabricated translations of a few selected clips.
Without defending the program, I would point out to you that there are very few children living under Israeli occupation who have not had friends or family members killed or wounded, or detained and often tortured (yeah, there are reliable reports from Israeli and other organizations of the torture of children) by Israeli occupation forces. Some of the kids have witnessed other children being killed or wounded, or grabbed and hauled away by Israeli soldiers. Some have even seen their schoolmates shot while they were sitting in their classrooms or playing in the schoolyard.
The horrors these kids live with every single day are probably beyond anything you are capable of imagining. And the discussions and events that took place on the Farfour program are little more than a reenactment of that reality.
Setting aside the question of whether that program represents the best way to help Palestinian children cope with their horrible reality, one of the worst things you can do for kids who are forced to live in that kind of a situation is to ignore it or pretend it is not happening. The reality must be acknowledged, and kids need to be given ways to express their experiences and their feelings about those experiences.
“the photos of Palestian toddlers dressed in their little suicide belts. I’ve seen out takes of enough of those hate filled kids cartoons, glamorizing juveniles who blow themselves up to kill Isralies.”
So, in addition to being a fan of MEMRI, it looks like you also frequent the Little Green Footballs site?
The monkey-turd-hurling exercise with which you conclude your comments is not worthy of a response.
Wow, great blog. Facts. Common sense. Straight talk.
Strategy for us who would like to get the GOP out of the White House. Hillary is 60, Bill may need more heart surgery in a few years. Now may be our only chance to get their service — and to get the White House back, since they are the only real winning Dems in decades.
Obama is 45 and will be more electable in future years than he is now.
Edwards — recently was on a losing ticket, and is young enough to try later.
To mangle the rules of bridge a little…. The king has been played. Let’s lead with the queen now. Then the jack/s will be good in future. If we lead with a jack now, we lose both jack and queen.
Also the Clintons cleaned up after Bush Sr. If we let them clean up again — especially the vote-counting process — then lighter weight Dems will have a better chance in future.
http://1950democrat.livejournal.com
I find it fascinating that so many in the rah, rah Hillary camp are not talking about her record and her statements on important matters such as Iraq, Iran, foreign policy, the military (she plans to enlarge it significantly - a very scary sign!), international law, human rights, etc. etc. All I see here is 1) knocking down straw men - okay, fine, but what does that have to do with what we could expect from her as president, other than a charming, engaging, non-bitch with a good sense of humour and non-fat legs (I have heard that G.W. Bush is charming and engaging, too, and look where THAT has gotten us!), 2) She is less likely to be overwhelmed by the Republican campaign ugliness, 3) she should be next in line by virtue of age, and whatever else.
Well, I don’t care about any of those things. I care about what I think she is likely to DO as president, and based on her record, and her statements of intent so far, I do not like what she is likely to do.
Larry you may not be a cheerleader for Senator Clinton but you sure appear to be a member of good standing in the Pep Club. Now Susan, she appears to be running for captain of the cheerleader squad! Just my opinion from the hinterlands. I still wonder who was behind getting her husband pulled from the second tier candidates to land front and center in the summer of 91? Thats what happens when you don’t live in beltway land.
I gotta agree with you, Rick!
Larry, re: being a Hillary cheerleader, thanks for clearing that up.
Nellie, thanks for your comments; excellent points. And as Susan said, “keep ‘em coming.”
Briefly, for now, I worked in N.H. in ‘92 for my candidate, and your comments ring true. One of the main things I remember is how hurting economically the people were. It was palpable. I am also a son of New England and your comments about your fellow Granite Staters ring true as well. (My editorial opinion: (at times) it sucks having to deal with “flatlanders. :-))
I believe everything you said about meeting with Hillary. She and Bill are both very, very bright.
But it’s also true that they are absolutely political animals. Which is why they are the ones that can take on the Rove machine. But I also consider the Clintons to essentially be one of the elite families that are simply dedicated to upholding the status quo.
Hillary is not going to be the champion of the Constitution that America needs very badly now. She is not at all uncomfortable with inheriting the expanded unitary executive powers that CheneyCo has been pushing through the last seven years.
In particular, foreign policy is not going to change in essence under Hillary. She may tone it down a bit, which will no doubt be a welcome relief for our military families. As I have said here before, the main difference between the Clintons (and the elder Bush) and W is the temperature at which they like their wars for conquest and oil. Bush I/Clinton is more comfortable with “cold wars” and the occasionally short-lived burst of open war when deemed necessary (as Gulf War I). W and Cheney like to light up the world and rush in with all their disaster-capitalist buddies and clean up.
Both approaches have their pluses and minuses for the ruling family. The cold war technique allows the public perception to managed easier, scandals can be kept under wraps easier, and the strain on the average American family is much lower (which helps them when election time comes around again). Under W, the lid has blown off, and even regular everyday folks are becoming aware of the true extent of the corruption in the highest places, people are learning the techniques of the Carlyle Group, and the flagrant “we-don’t give-a-shit” attitude that leaks out of the White House is causing a devastating crash of public confidence in their party. All the GOP work in the 90s towards establishing a “permanent majority” has been pealed back by scandals, and not helped by endless war and associated profiteering.
On the other hand, the fortunes of the Carlyle Group have skyrocketed since 9/11, and the hot war mentality has blushed out the portfolio of United Defense Industries, Northrop Grunman (dba Vinnel Corp in Iraq), Halliburton, Bechtel, and the likes of Blackwater and other contractors. Not a few heavy hitters are counting the millions they know is due to the fact that CheneyCo started lighting up the fires of war as fast as they could, for as long as they could, after they got in office.
The Clintons would probably return to the pre-2000 strategy of chilling it down a bit and restoring the image of America both internationally and to our own citizens. After what we’ve been through, this alone would probably be enough to win them (yes - “them”, there will be two of them - again - in the White House, you know) a second term in 2012.
However, the main differences the Clintons have from the Bushes is their approach to domestic issues. Americans are hurting from the insurance industry, wages are stagnating, and the debt is astronomical, making the dollar more vulnerable than it has been since WWII. It will be remembered that Clinton handed Bush a national surplus which he immediately destroyed.
We might also see better treatment of the scientific community, a return to more separation of Church and State, and less hate crimes (which have been on the rise under Bush).
So it would be really easy for the Clintons to make a good impression on Americans.
Hence the GOP smear-machine frenzy.
But the main point here is that for those of us looking to restore a true separation of powers, limits on executive privilege, and for America to really become ambassadors of peace in the world, the Clintons are not going to help much in those areas, I’m afraid.
Despite their differences with the Bushes, they are still tightly inside the ruling elite, and have no plans to break up the cozy cronyism of America’s richest families.
“…foreign policy is not going to change in essence under Hillary.”
Precisely the point I have been trying over and over and over again to make.
“She may tone it down a bit, which will no doubt be a welcome relief for our military families.”
I would not be so sure of that even. She DID announce her intention to significantly enlarge the military (so did Obama, which might be even more worrying). No one has been able to provide a good reason that the United States needs a larger military IF the next president intends to withdraw from Iraq, and IF the next president does NOT intend to continue to invade and occupy more and more unwilling countries. On the contrary. The only military experts I have heard from on this question have stated clearly that keeping a significant military presence in Iraq while continuing the practice of invading and occupying countries is the ONLY reason for enlarging the military.
“As I have said here before, the main difference between the Clintons (and the elder Bush) and W is the temperature at which they like their wars for conquest and oil.”
Precisely. Now, there are those who insist that even this would be an improvement, and that any improvement is worth it. I disagree.
there is a beautiful article in sunday’s (today) nytimes about john edwards and mitt romney. “2 Candidates, 2 Fortunes, 2 Views of Wealth”
it also has a 2 great graphs, one about the average family vs. the really wealthy from post ww2 to now; it gets fugly right after reagan comes in. second, about the shifting tax burden and how, from post ww2 to now, for the very richest, taxes have plummeted. left out of the times graph is that business also used to pay their share to the federal treasury, and that has plummeted. (the times david cay johnston has done great work on this; not sure if dcj is still with the times.)
part of the ongoing nyt’s series: Age of Riches
A Political Divide
Articles in this series are examining the effects of the growing concentration of wealth.
fyi. graphs and past articles are on the left hand side.
admin note: i know people are busy. this — poss.– is a good thing to bookmark/file away for another time.
short version: edwards grew up hard. thinks he has an obligation to give something back. thinks public policy should reflect certain things.
romney grew up easy. son of a detroit auto ceo, and national politican. doesn’t think he should give a stinking thing back. romney has a delicious quote about how he doesn’t believe there are 2 americas. natch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/23wealth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
yeah romney earned his wealth and edwards stole it via the courts
yeah edwards stole it….holding corporations accountable is a bitch. much better that they rape and pillage the citizenry at will.
the golden rule: he who has the gold rules. and jesus’ sermon on the mount was to the richest 1 % and the institutional shareholders. and he arranged a lap dance for the money changers in the temple. and to whom much is given, much more shall be given.
makes me harken back to kkkarl rove’s glory days of the late 1800’s.
jeez louise.
I don’t know if it is an interesting point or not, but I’ve had the exact reverse journey from Larry’s.
I always liked and backed Hillary Clinton before 9/11. This:
Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.
was never a factor or issue for me. I thought HRC had a great record on children’s rights going into the WH;
loved her “moment on the mic” when Bill over-allowed people to come into one of their post election receptions, and, before “screwed” was so well accepted Hillary verbally smacked Bill for turning away so many who had invitations and were now “screwed;”
liked how she fought on the healthcare front;
loved how she handled the onslaughts;
thought her daughter stood as a great credit to who she was as a person;
never questioned that she would be great to have coffee or a glass of wine with;
thought her “takes a village” book was very fundamentally sound;
backed her on her NY run and defended against the slurs on relocating where she could win and have more power.
Most of my problems with HRC stem, not from Republican propaganda on her character and private behaviour, but on her heartbreakingly shallow public behavior since 9/11. I put a few of those reasons in Joe Wilson’s thread, but they were a representative sample. Shoephone added another great example - HRC’s patriotic “fight” on flag burning, while she ignored the war, soldiers equipment and healthcare at Walter Reed, GITMO, torture, wiretaps, the horrific refugee situation, etc. etc. etc.
She’s been a moral coward on all these issues - either that, or she has calculated reasons for wanting to shore up run amok Executive power. Either way, it’s been very disappointing and all the more so bc as someone who liked her very much for very long, I saw how good she was at fighting WHEN she wanted to fight the battle. That’s why it’s all the more clear that none of the battle I am wanting to fight are hers. The war, wiretaps, renditions to torture, disappearing US citizens on US soil, destruction of evidence of depravity, etc. - I’ve watched HRC long enough to know that she could have been a leader on any or many of these issues if she made that choice. But she made a different choice and on election day, so will I.
My problem with Hillary is her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Did she read the entire 50+ pages of the NIE on Iraq or merely the 5 page summary which excluded exculpatory evidence? Further, at least two of her current foreign policy advisors also thought the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do and have defended that decision on several occasions.
Unless I am misremembering she didn’t read any of it.
What bothers me more than he vote to authorize the aggression against Iraq is her continuing support of it, and of the occupation, along with her statements that she indents to maintain what will have to amount to a significant military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
And then there is her intention to significantly increase the size and the budget of the military. That, combined with her position on a continuing presence in Iraq, plus the fact that she doesn’t seem to have met a war she didn’t like, does not bode well for world peace and security.
[...] you’ve never read it, I urge you to read Larry Johnson’s fascinating account of advising Sen. Clinton twice on “terrorism and Iraq”: … I have been in her [...]
[...] II: The transformation that Scaife underwent when he met Hillary is very similar to that of Larry Johnson when he met Hillary for the first time. Larry presumed he wouldn’t like her and that he’d never vote for her; instead, Larry [...]
how do video games effect teens
How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?
[...] It’s good to have well informed friends. Segue to Larry Johnson over at No Quarter: [...]