RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Hillary Clinton's campaign is engaging in over-the-top Russia-bashing and guilt-by-association tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a McCarthyism that previously has been used on Democrats, including Bill Clinton."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)


Hillary Clinton's Turn to McCarthyism

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

10 August 16

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is engaging in over-the-top Russia-bashing and guilt-by-association tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a McCarthyism that previously has been used on Democrats, including Bill Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

he irony of Hillary Clinton’s campaign impugning the patriotism of Donald Trump and others who object to a new Cold War with Russia is that President George H.W. Bush employed similar smear tactics against Bill Clinton in 1992 by suggesting that the Arkansas governor was a Kremlin mole.

Back then, Bill Clinton countered that smear by accusing the elder President Bush of stooping to tactics reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the infamous Red-baiter from the 1950s. But today’s Democrats apparently feel little shame in whipping up an anti-Russian hysteria and then using it to discredit Trump and other Americans who won’t join this latest “group think.”

As the 1992 campaign entered its final weeks, Bush – a much more ruthless political operative than his elder-statesman image of today would suggest – unleashed his subordinates to dig up whatever dirt they could to impugn Bill Clinton’s loyalty to his country.

Some of Bush’s political appointees rifled through Clinton’s passport file looking for an apocryphal letter from his student days in which Clinton supposedly sought to renounce his citizenship. They also looked for derogatory information about his student trips to the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

The assault on Clinton’s patriotism moved into high gear on the night of Sept. 30, 1992, when Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Tamposi – under pressure from the White House – ordered three aides to pore through Clinton’s passport files at the National Archives in Suitland, Maryland.

Though no letter renouncing his citizenship was found, Tamposi still injected the suspicions into the campaign by citing a small tear in the corner of Clinton’s passport application as evidence that someone might have tampered with the file, presumably to remove the supposed letter. She fashioned that speculation into a criminal referral to the FBI.

Within hours, someone from the Bush camp leaked word about the confidential FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek magazine. The Newsweek story about the tampering investigation hit the newsstands on Oct. 4, 1992. The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton’s passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.

Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took to the offensive, using the press frenzy over the criminal referral to attack Clinton’s patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to the Soviet Union in 1970.

Bush allies put out another suspicion, that Clinton might have been a KGB “agent of influence.” Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times headlined that allegation on Oct. 5, 1992, a story that attracted President Bush’s personal interest.

“Now there are stories that Clinton … may have gone to Moscow as [a] guest of the KGB,” Bush wrote in his diary that day.

Democratic Suspicions

With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his once-formidable lead shrink. Panic spread through the Clinton campaign. Indeed, the suspicions about Bill Clinton’s patriotism might have doomed his election, except that Spencer Oliver, then chief counsel on the Democratic-controlled House International Affairs Committee, suspected a dirty trick.

“I said you can’t go into someone’s passport file,” Oliver told me in a later interview. “That’s a violation of the law, only in pursuit of a criminal indictment or something. But without his permission, you can’t examine his passport file. It’s a violation of the Privacy Act.”

After consulting with House committee chairman Dante Fascell, D-Florida, and a colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Oliver dispatched a couple of investigators to the Archives warehouse in Suitland. The brief congressional check discovered that State Department political appointees had gone to the Archives at night to search through Clinton’s records and those of his mother.

Oliver’s assistants also found that the administration’s tampering allegation rested on a very weak premise, the slight tear in the passport application. The circumstances of the late-night search soon found their way into an article in The Washington Post, causing embarrassment to the Bush campaign.

Yet still sensing that the loyalty theme could hurt Clinton, President Bush kept stoking the fire. On CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Oct. 7, 1992, Bush suggested anew that there was something sinister about a possible Clinton friend allegedly tampering with Clinton’s passport file.

“Why in the world would anybody want to tamper with his files, you know, to support the man?” Bush wondered before a national TV audience. “I mean, I don’t understand that. What would exonerate him – put it that way – in the files?” The next day, in his diary, Bush ruminated suspiciously about Clinton’s Moscow trip: “All kinds of rumors as to who his hosts were in Russia, something he can’t remember anything about.”

But the GOP attack on Clinton’s loyalty prompted some Democrats to liken Bush to Sen. Joe McCarthy, who built a political career in the early days of the Cold War challenging people’s loyalties without offering proof.

On Oct. 9, the FBI further complicated Bush’s strategy by rejecting the criminal referral. The FBI concluded that there was no evidence that anyone had removed anything from Clinton’s passport file.

At that point, Bush began backpedaling: “If he’s told all there is to tell on Moscow, fine,” Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I’m not suggesting that there’s anything unpatriotic about that. A lot of people went to Moscow, and so that’s the end of that one.”

Not Really

But documents that I obtained years later at the Archives revealed that privately Bush was not so ready to surrender the disloyalty theme. The day before the first presidential debate on Oct. 11, 1992, Bush prepped himself with one-liners designed to spotlight doubts about Clinton’s loyalty if an opening presented itself.

“It’s hard to visit foreign countries with a torn-up passport,” read one of the scripted lines. Another zinger read: “Contrary to what the Governor’s been saying, most young men his age did not try to duck the draft. … A few did go to Canada. A couple went to England. Only one I know went to Russia.”

If Clinton had criticized Bush’s use of a Houston hotel room as a legal residence, Bush was ready to hit back with another Russian reference: “Where is your legal residence, Little Rock or Leningrad?”

But the Oct. 11 presidential debate – which also involved Reform Party candidate Ross Perot – did not go as Bush had hoped. Bush did raise the loyalty issue in response to an early question about character, but the incumbent’s message was lost in a cascade of inarticulate sentence fragments.

“I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I question – I’ll put it this way, I think it’s wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil,” Bush said.

“I just think it’s wrong. I – that – maybe – they say, ‘well, it was a youthful indiscretion.’ I was 19 or 20 flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and – I’m sorry but demonstrating – it’s not a question of patriotism, it’s a question of character and judgment.”

Clinton countered by challenging Bush directly. “You have questioned my patriotism,” the Democrat shot back.

Clinton then unloaded his own zinger: “When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people’s patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong, and a senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism.”

Many observers rated Clinton’s negative comparison of Bush to his father as Bush’s worst moment in the debate. An unsettled Bush didn’t regain the initiative for the remainder of the evening.

Czech-ing on Bill

Still, the Republicans didn’t give up on the idea of smearing Clinton by highlighting his association with college friends in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, both communist countries in 1970.

Another GOP pre-election ploy was to have Czech newspapers run stories about the communist affiliations of Clinton’s hosts – and then try to blow back those stories to the U.S. news media. Three Czech papers carried such stories on Oct. 24, 1992. The headline in the Cesky Denik newspaper read: “Bill Was With Communists.”

However, without today’s Internet to spread the word and with the right-wing U.S. news media not nearly as large as it is today – Fox News didn’t launch until 1996 – the Czech stories didn’t get the attention that some in the Bush campaign had hoped.

More than a year into Clinton’s presidency, in January 1994, the Czech news media reported that the Czech secret police, the Federal Security and Information Service (FBIS), had collaborated with the Bush reelection campaign to dig up dirt on Clinton’s student trip to Prague. The centrist newspaper Mlada Fronta Dnes reported that during the 1992 campaign, FBIS gave the Republicans internal data about Clinton’s Moscow-Prague trips and supplied background material about Clinton’s “connections” inside Czechoslovakia.

In fall 1992, the Bush administration’s nighttime search of Clinton’s passport file had other repercussions. The State Department’s inspector general sought a special prosecutor investigation for a scandal that became known as Passportgate, which wasn’t resolved until after Bush lost to Clinton.

In the end, George H.W. Bush escaped any legal consequences from the passport gambit in large part because a Republican attorney, Joseph diGenova, was named to serve as special prosecutor. DiGenova’s investigation cleared Bush and his administration of any wrongdoing, saying the probe “found no evidence that President Bush was involved in this matter.”

FBI documents that I reviewed at the Archives, however, presented a more complicated picture. Speaking to diGenova and his investigators in fall 1993, former President George H.W. Bush said he had encouraged then-White House chief of staff James Baker and other aides to investigate Clinton and to make sure the information got out.

“Although he [Bush] did not recall tasking Baker to research any particular matter, he may have asked why the campaign did not know more about Clinton’s demonstrating,” said the FBI interview report, dated Oct. 23, 1993.

“The President [Bush] advised that … he probably would have said, ‘Hooray, somebody’s going to finally do something about this.’ If he had learned that the Washington Times was planning to publish an article, he would have said, ‘That’s good, it’s about time.’ …

“Based on his ‘depth of feeling’ on this issue, President Bush responded to a hypothetical question that he would have recommended getting the truth out if it were legal,” the FBI wrote in summarizing Bush’s statements. “The President added that he would not have been concerned over the legality of the issue but just the facts and what was in the files.”

Bush also said he understood how his impassioned comments about Clinton’s loyalty might have led some members of his staff to conclude that he had “a one-track mind” on the issue. He also expressed disappointment that the Clinton passport search uncovered so little.

“The President described himself as being indignant over the fact that the campaign did not find out what Clinton was doing” as a student studying abroad, the FBI report said.

Bush’s comments seem to suggest that he had pushed his subordinates into a violation of Clinton’s privacy rights. But diGenova, who had worked for the Reagan-Bush Justice Department, already had signaled to Bush that the probe was going nowhere.

At the start of the Oct. 23, 1993, interview, which took place at Bush’s office in Houston, diGenova assured Bush that the investigation’s staff lawyers were “all seasoned prof[essional] prosecutors who know what a real crime looks like,” according to FBI notes of the meeting. “[This is] not a gen[eral] probe of pol[itics] in Amer[ica] or dirty tricks, etc., or a general license to rummage in people’s personal lives.”

As the interview ended, two of diGenova’s assistants – Lisa Rich and Laura Laughlin – asked Bush for autographs, according to the FBI’s notes on the meeting. [For the fullest account of the 1992 Passportgate case, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Red-baiting Tactics

But the ugly history of Red-baiting American citizens, including Bill Clinton, has not deterred Hillary Clinton and her Democratic backers from using similar tactics. In the hard-fought 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, then-Sen. Clinton sought to discredit Obama with McCarthy-style guilt by association.

In an April 16, 2008, debate, Hillary Clinton pounced when her husband’s former adviser, George Stephanopoulos, asked one of her campaign’s long-plotted attack lines – raising a tenuous association between Obama and an aging Vietnam-era radical William Ayers.

In his role as an ABC News debate moderator, Stephanopoulos — and Clinton — also injected a false suggestion that Ayers had either hailed the 9/11 attacks or had used the occasion as a grotesque opportunity to call for more bombings.

(In reality, an earlier interview about Ayers’s memoir was coincidently published by the New York Times in its Sept. 11, 2001, edition, which went to press on Sept. 10, before the attacks. But Stephanopoulos and Clinton left the impression with the public that Ayers’s comments represented a ghoulish reaction to the 9/11 attacks.)

In another guilt-by-association moment, Hillary Clinton linked Obama, via his former church pastor Jeremiah Wright, to Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and a Hamas representative who had been allowed to publish an essay in the church’s newsletter.

“You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds,” Clinton said. “And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.”

Now, Clinton’s 2016 campaign is back wallowing in similar muck, both hyping animosity toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin – and portraying Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as some kind of Manchurian candidate secretly under the control of the Kremlin.

While lacking any verifiable proof, Clinton’s campaign and its allied mainstream media have blamed Russian intelligence for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s emails and then publicizing them through Wikileaks. This conspiracy theory holds that Putin is trying to influence the U.S. election to put his secret agent, Donald Trump, into the White House.

The parallels to George H.W. Bush’s 1992 smear of Bill Clinton are striking. In both cases, fairly innocuous activities – whether Clinton’s student trip to Moscow in 1970 or Trump’s hosting a beauty pageant there in 2013 – are given a nasty twist with the suggestion that something sinister occurred behind the scenes.

In neither case is any actual evidence presented, just innuendo and suspicion. The burden presumably falls on the victim of the smear to somehow prove his innocence, which, of course, can’t really be done because it’s impossible to prove a negative. It’s like the old tactic of calling someone a child molester and watching the accused flail around trying to remove the stain.

Similar accusations of “Moscow stooge” and “Putin apologist” have been leveled at others of us who have questioned the anti-Russian “group think” pervading Official Washington’s neoconservative-dominated foreign policy establishment and the mainstream news media. But it is noteworthy that the Democrats, who have often been the victim of this sort of smear tactic, are now relishing in its use against a Republican.

The Hillary Clinton campaign might recall the calumnies hurled at Bill Clinton as well as how things ended for Sen. Joe McCarthy after he questioned the loyalty of a young Army lawyer. The bullying senator was famously rebuked by Joseph Welch, the Army’s chief legal representative: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (McCarthy was ultimately censured by the Senate and died in disgrace.)

As her campaign sinks into its own anti-Russian mud pile of guilt-by-association, Hillary Clinton and her supporters may ask themselves how far are they prepared to go – and whether their ambitions have overwhelmed any “sense of decency.”



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+75 # RMDC 2016-08-10 14:44
Thanks Robert. The Clintons always learn from their enemies and adopt their strategies. Both the Bushes and Clintons are ruthless politicians, who will stop at nothing in order to win. After all, they are working for investment banks and the weapons industry.

But this is not just about a campaign tactic. There's a real "new" cold war brewing and Clinton and the neo-cons are behind it.
 
 
-45 # Brice 2016-08-10 17:51
That means exactly nothing. Can you name me a politician or ruler anywhere that stopped at something to get elected?
 
 
+42 # RMDC 2016-08-10 18:26
Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, John McCain, John Kerry. Really this included everyone other than the Bushes and the Clintons. They all stopped and they lost. But they probably would have lost anyway.
 
 
-20 # Brice 2016-08-10 20:15
I see your point, but I do believe you have to weight it as a loss in terms of how our system seems to be work. We all Americans seem to have this Superman version of Truth, Justice and the American Way imprinted in us, maybe by TV. We believe in absolutes and pure moral dreams ... no matter how ironic.

Sometimes people cheat, and all those you mention got "out-maneuvered " in some way that some, including maybe you and me would consider cheating and underhanded.

The problem I see is that our justice system is not good enough or advanced enough to process these kinds of things. The bigger the thing you steal in America, the more likely you are to be able to keep it, and not even have to pay taxes on it.

Bernie lost according to the rules. I think that if he did a Post Mortem on his campaign and ran again in 3 years he could go a long way to over-coming the things he just could not have planned for, and he would have the resources and manpower to push through his agenda. I don't know if he is willing or able to make the effort, but I would do whatever I could to stand up for Bernie, whatever it took.

All we can all say is - we didn't know, and we're all mad.
 
 
+24 # MidwesTom 2016-08-11 08:01
The Military Industrial complex OWNS Hillary, and they need another war somewhere. If we became friends with Russia, who could we fight? Maybe they want another war in Europe, that way Russia will survive, we will be fine (some damage) and the war industry will grow. Besides another war now will give us the excuse to keep the dollar as the world's trading currency.

Unlikely, but prior to the coming G-20 meeting on Sept. 11, would be good time to tighten world tensions, if not do a little shooting to strengthen our hand at the meeting. Stay tuned.
 
 
+19 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-08-11 10:33
Bad strategery! Putin has already broadcast in the international news quite bluntly and loudly that if there is a war with Russia, the United States homeland will not go unscathed. We are very naive to not take him at his word. This press conference among many has not been publicized at all in the United States. He basically says we are headed for war because of what USA is doing having NATO encircle Russia. This is for real folks. Obama has done this and Hillary is with him and even more hawkish in her own right.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-loses-it-journalists-i-dont-know-how-get-through-you-people/ri15456
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-08-11 16:50
Adult US politicians fomenting deadly situations, as if they're playing chicken little.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:52
MidwesTom,

The Empire has been drooling over the enormous quantities of resources in the Russian Federation for decades.

Empire thought it had it after buying off Yeltsin and then rigging the Russian election in 1996. And certainly, Western interests walked off with vast wealth from 1992 to 1999.

But then Putin stepped in and put an end to that literally genocidal pillaging (average life expectancy for Russians dropped by 5 years during that time). And so, Empire has been seeking other routes to the remaining wealth ever since.
 
 
+7 # dipierro4 2016-08-11 19:28
The Empire has been drooling over... the Russian Federation for decades....

Mere decades? Just about a century now. Recall that we (along with others) invaded Russia in 1918, to prevent a Communist takeover there. We resolved many years ago to dictate the system under which the Russian people would live.

I am not an expert in this area of history. I am willing to be corrected by those who know more than I do. But that is how it appears to me.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 20:01
Quite right. I was only thinking about post-USSR Russia, but one could really trace this back to pre-Revolution Russia, too.

I have a distant relative who, as a US Navy Admiral, helped negotiate the "peace treaty" between Russia and Japan in 1905.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 18:29
Watching the history of the Kennedy assassination he talks about the international bankers and industrialists realizing they could take over Germany and use it as a "bulwark against Bolshevism", right around 1917 -- so at least that part of the history is about to be 100!

Remember all the Satanism and bs surrounding the secret societies, in particular Skull & Bones? Don't you think they'd make a big deal of their centenary?

Maybe even start it off with a big party -- on Jan. 20, 2017?

bwaa haa haa

I'm serious.
 
 
-5 # Brice 2016-08-11 22:46
To be fair, none of that wealth is helping the Russian people a bit, true or not?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-12 16:03
The welfare of Russian citizens plummeted after Yeltsin's sellout to Western plutocratic blood suckers. Since Putin took control, the lives of almost all Russians has improved.

That's why he has such phenomenally high approval ratings.

But, the Russian Federation is NOT a socialistic government and does still have high income and wealth inequality.
 
 
-3 # Brice 2016-08-13 00:58
Let's say I accept that, what is your point?
That anything that keeps Russia from being taken over or exploited by the US is a good thing? That's complicated, but the way the US is acting in the world these days I could find reasons to agree with that. I don't exactly think it is a good thing for Russia to be expanding back into Eastern Europe.
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2016-08-13 12:42
The U.S. has encouraged NATO expansion directly up to Russia's eastern borders, in spite of Reagan's promise to Gorbachov that we would not go beyond the former East German borders in return for his inaction against the reunification efforts. Putin is not about to be taken advantage of in the same way. I wouldn't give Putin the good housekeeping seal of approval but his tough talking saber rattling is just as appealing to HIS supporters as is Clinton's to hers. Now if we want to get into the failures of the Russian state (corrupt oligarchy, invasive secret police, meddling foreign policy) then we have to note the U.S.'s and Clinton's embrace of similar policies. Note Clinton's support of a military coup in Honduras (she denied it was a coup so she could still sell them arms), our embrace of a militarist dictator in Egypt, a corrupt repressive oligarchy in Saudi Arabia, etc. Apologizing for such immoral policies does nothing to put them to an end and has now lead to some devastating consequences in the middle east and continued poverty, unrest and corruption around the globe.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-13 16:29
Russia is NOT "expanding back into Eastern Europe."

Even allowing Crimea to rejoin Russia was only done as a reaction to the violent coup on Russia's border, and the immediate program of brutal ethnic cleansing it unleashed.

The US/GB Empire and the supra-national banks they serve IS expanding further and further east.

And it's not like the apparatchiks of Empire have been shy about this. From Brzezinski to Kissinger to NED President Gershman to IRF founder Soros, they have all publicly stated and written these plans.
 
 
+17 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:48
"Bernie lost according to the rules."

Brice, have you actually looked at the enormous evidence of election fraud in the Democratic Primary? This is NOT about his call for changing the rules in the next primary to allow independents to vote.

I posted this on another thread:

This site has been archiving the overwhelming evidence of many different methods of election fraud in the Democratic Primary.

1) Targeted voter roll purges in many states (my 30+ year Democratic Party membership was changed without my input, but since I knew about it happening in earlier states, I discovered it and was able to repair it and vote).

2) Targeted poling place closures, moving locations without notification, changing operating hours at the last minute, etc.

3) Whiting out Sanders votes from paper ballots.

4) Paper ballot tabulating machines that did not recognize properly marked Sanders votes.

5) And of course, computer voting machines that spat out results favoring HRC well beyond exit poll results.

https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com

As Grand Lakes Guy states, Hillary is no more the legitimate nominee than Bush II was a legitimate President.
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-08-13 01:08
and I did not say the rules were fair ... just that they were the rules. the rules in this country get universal contempt from me, and fraud is a different thing from the rules.

why are you trying to somehow paint me as someone who supports election fraud?

you're not going to like to hear it, but claims on the internet are not evidence, they are claims - and thus you the quicksand you fall if when you try to prove anything to anyone.

So, my question to you would be, if you think the integrity of the US election system is so low and unacceptable, and it is so complex and easily corrupted ... what not stick on that issue?

is there any way Bernie could have won or as you might put it Hillary could have lost? If you say no, what are you doing even discussion politics because isn't it a total waste if you believe the political system cannot work?

Is the bottom line your contention that had this election been perfect and democratic that Bernie Sanders would have won?

That is a big question, is there an actual consensus in this country for European style socialism and what we hear in the media is a pack of lies about Americans? I think this might well be true, so the question for me would become, how do we make this known, before everyone blows up at each other?
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-08-13 11:41
Dear Brice: you are wrong!
The American system of elections is hopelessly corrupted by easily hackable voting machines and dishonest poll workers and ROVs!
If you are waiting for the mainstream media to honestly report what has actually been going on with our elections for the past 16 or more years you will be waiting a very LONG time!
Until then the internet is our only source of non censored information.

UNLESS....
our friends at WikiLeaks find and release the emails that expose the despicable corruption of our elections!

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THELEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-08-13 16:31
Go look at the evidence.

NONE of this has anything to do with the DNC rules.

Or, continue to bathe in ignorance. But don't pretend your claims are based on knowledge.
 
 
-8 # Femihumanist 2016-08-11 08:59
Quoting RMDC:
Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, John McCain, John Kerry. Really this included everyone other than the Bushes and the Clintons. They all stopped and they lost. But they probably would have lost anyway.


I'm sorry to disagree. Gore opposed the Vietnam War but then volunteered in order to help his father get elected. To me, that's the same thing. Like a Mafia Family; KILL to help the family.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 16:01
While RMDC is correct that Gore rolled over after the Bush II machine stole the 2000 election, I'm not sure why you're getting down votes for noting his much earlier decision to go fight (and KILL) in a war he opposed at the time.

I also suspect he enlisted to bolster his own political future. And once the war became hugely unpopular, his testimony at the "Winter Soldier" hearings served the same purpose.
 
 
0 # Femihumanist 2016-08-12 19:14
[quote name="Radscal"]

I'm not sure why you're getting down votes for noting his much earlier decision to go fight (and KILL) in a war he opposed at the time.

Because I DARED to question someone's "fact." Haven't you noticed the egos on this website?
 
 
+32 # guomashi 2016-08-10 20:29
Lyndon Johnson knew about Nixon's treasonous activities in negotiating with Vietnam as a private citizen and did nothing about it.
 
 
-5 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:27
Proof?
 
 
+17 # guomashi 2016-08-11 06:07
Quoting Patriot:
Proof?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

Is the Smithsonian good enough for you?
Good grief, you guys are bloody stupid.
Learn your history.
 
 
+15 # economagic 2016-08-11 06:11
Look it up. Parry among others has documented that affair extensively.
 
 
+11 # Capn Canard 2016-08-11 06:12
Yes most leaders are empty suits, just one example is LBJ. He did great things but we need to remember that LBJ knew where the bodies were buried because he helped to dig the graves. Some say he was very helpful in getting rid of JFK and the Texas Dems fixed some local elections that LBJ had a direct hand in as well. The list goes on and on. But re Clintons... the more you look the uglier they get.
 
 
+13 # Helen Marshall 2016-08-11 08:42
LBJ did some fine things on the domestic scene - any Medicare patient is grateful. But then there is Vietnam. And he allowed Israel to get away with the attack on the Liberty that killed and wounded dozens of US sailors..

But "some say he was very helpful in getting rid of JFK" is right up there with the McCartyite smears." Who are "some say?"
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-08-11 16:30
Do you believe the Warren Commission?

If not, then you must at least acknowledge that LBJ helped cover up the truth by convincing Warren and others that they had to pin it on LHO to avoid a nuclear war (he's recorded on the White House tapes saying that to several people, although he alternately blamed the USSR or Cuba).

Several books have been written about LBJ's likely active role in JFK's murder.

When asked in 1960 why he chose to leave the most powerful position in the Senate to force himself onto the JFK ticket (a position "not worth a bucket of warm piss"), he noted that 1:4 US Presidents died in office, and he said, “I’m a gambling man, and I like the odds”

He was about to be indicted on two different criminal investigations (Billy sol Estes ring a bell?), that DoJ dropped when he became President.

Malcolm Mac Wallace, LBJ's admitted bag man and almost assuredly hit man was convicted of murder of Kinser who was having affair with LBJ’s sister. But in LBJ's and Connally's Texas, he basically walked.

Malcolm's fingerprints were found on boxes in the School Book Depository's "sniper's nest."

His long-time mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, said he told her at a party the night before JFK's murder, “After tomorrow, those god damned Kennedys won’t bother me again.”
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-12 12:51
Radscal, do you remember the names of the books?
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-08-12 16:12
A quick web search pulls up:

LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Paperback – July 1, 2013
by Phillip F. Nelson

"The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case against LBJ"
by Roger Stone

"The Texas Connection" in 1991 and "The Final Chapter on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" in 2010.
by Craig Zirbel

I got most of my information on the LBJ connection from various sites that examine the primary documents.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-08-11 16:35
On the White House tapes, shortly after the murder, RFK asked LBJ why he had his brother killed.

Governor John Connally was an LBJ collaborator since the 1930s. He was the one who "leaked" to the press information about JFK's Addington's disease during the 1960 primaries.

The morning of the murder, LBJ got into a shouting match with JFK, trying to get Senator Ralph Yarborough into the limousine instead of Governor John Connally.

Look into it.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 18:32
In a way, ignorance really is bliss.
 
 
+9 # Johnny 2016-08-11 17:53
LBJ allowed Israel to murder the U.S. sailors on the Liberty--even called back the U.S. planes sent to rescue them--because the Zionists who made him president could have told the world how he became president. This ain't rocket science, Helen.
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2016-08-13 11:00
Some of the some who say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

The most thorough, detailled "some say" I've seen.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 09:05
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # jdd 2016-08-11 05:43
John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy for starters.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 06:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+15 # Capn Canard 2016-08-11 06:18
Most all leaders are criminal, it is just that some are far more evil than others. After the theft of this 2016 Dem primary race it is clear that Hillary has no hesitation to overturn the will of the electorate, i.e. by the rules set forth by the Democratic Party, the nomination of Hillary Clinton was unlawful. I predict a Clinton win in 2016. Your Democracy no longer exists. Our leaders are little more than puppets who serve only the wealthiest of American interests.
 
 
+8 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-08-11 10:40
I have suspected since the time of the Kerry/Bush election that it is all decided ahead of time. The duopoly are controlled by the same group of people and they decide who the winner and loser is ahead of time. How else do you account for Kerry not asking for a re-count or investigation in Ohio.

In fact the losers never ask for a recount no matter how obvious that the theft is. How come that is? It defies logic that no one would ever contest unless they knew ahead of time.

So the question this time is who is the designated winner? I am guessing Clinton because of all the obvious glossing over everything she has done. The real question then becomes is Trump a real opposition candidate or is he in on it too? The way they go after him it appears he is a real opposition candidate, but it might not be real. I hope it is because we need to stop the war and the TPP.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:18
Yesterday the news was saturated with apoplexy about Trump's second amendment comment. The same day the NYT came out with a story about how donations to the Clinton Foundation resulted in State Dept. favors -- but we are all talking about Trump.

If he is a serious candidate he will keep quiet and let HRC bury herself -- as she is won't to do.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 18:49
Now Trump and Pence are both talking about these emails, calling it 'pay for play'.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-13 16:54
And the corporate media is mostly talking about the emails from Doug Band, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, which definitely show "pay for play," but allow some "plausible deniability" from HRC...

...but one of them is actually from HRC herself, where she tells her State Department staff to take action for a Foundation donor.
 
 
+58 # guomashi 2016-08-10 20:36
The worst thing of it all is that Yeltsin asked to join NATO in December of 1991.

Bush pere it seems wanted a boogeyman to bludgeon people with.

Russia is not our enemy.
Russia has tried repeatedly in the past 25 years to be our friend.
US has viciously rejected their overtures.

We have no interests in Russia.
We have no interest in the impoverishment of Russia or Russians.

Don't provoke the bear. It won't take kindly to irresponsible behavior in its vicinity.
 
 
+25 # harleysch 2016-08-11 00:48
This is the real issue in the Clinton campaign's McCarthyism against Trump and Putin. While the initial intent of the attack was to change the subject from the DNC's Nixonian dirty tricks campaign against Bernie, it is totally coherent with Hillary's obsessive and dangerous attacks on Putin. Trump's stupid "joke" aside, there is no evidence that Russia and Putin are interfering with the U.S. election campaign.

But there is ample evidence that Hillary is following in Obama's footsteps in consistent provocation against Putin and Russia. As Parry has repeatedly pointed out, the role of Hillary's assistant Secretary of State Nuland, in support of the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine -- and the subsequent endorsement of Hillary by Nuland's neo-con husband Kagan -- makes clear that Hillary is fully in support of the war party's efforts, which could provoke a nuclear confrontation.

In doing this, she is going far beyond the nasty Red Scare campaign of Joe McCarthy.
 
 
+16 # jdd 2016-08-11 05:50
The depths to which the Obama-Hillary team will sink is reflected in their unabashed support for an Al-Queda takeover of Aleppo, decrying the Syrian-Russian "siege" to liberate that city.
 
 
-28 # lights 2016-08-10 23:12
Parry: This has potential as a non-fiction thriller! Guess since contra story is old you are now getting drama lessons from Mr. Boardman and his dubious history in theatrics! The cold war part - not so believable. Or that one of your main characters - an invader himself is now suddenly being made into a patriarchal hero. The witch and the hero..of course....centu ries long OLD, OLD, even boring theme.
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:29
You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth.
 
 
-15 # lights 2016-08-11 00:51
Oh, sure - okay little girl or boy. I should know better - anyone branding themselves as a so called patriot would be a seriously threatening curmudgeon or maybe even intense dominatrix?

P.S. Being a dominatrix is not sexist. It's okay but only when you get paid for it.
 
 
-14 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-08-11 01:15
Little shit
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-08-11 01:16
:-)
 
 
+15 # economagic 2016-08-11 06:24
Subject: PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

I am rebooting my campaign to urge people not to reply to trolls. They respond to every message, one of their identifying marks. They distract honest discussants from the topic, and they clutter the thread with vitriol and nonsense, making whatever sense may exist difficult to find for those of us who are trying to learn by exchanging information with honest and reasonable peers.

I see this thread is already absurdly long. I have a life outside of RSN. The trolls are not going away. If people stop encouraging them I WILL go away, and if it continues I will withhold my monetary support.
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:41
":-)"

Disrupting the discussion and provoking anger is exactly what they want.

I don't care if people vote (though I think it would be nice to leave these w@nkers sitting at a big fat ZERO), but engaging them is fruitless and distracting.

Has anyone EVER enlightened lights or rocback? Is there EVER any substantive content? They are not here to contribute or to learn, only to disrupt us.

Please do us all a favor and IGNORE them.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 14:31
Just noticed rocback has posted a few things. PLEASE ignore him. Let's make him think he's invisible. That would be SO FUN.
 
 
+1 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:11
Thanks Lib!
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2016-08-13 12:47
Well said "librarian". I would also advocate that the act of ignoring the trolls extends to not even giving them a thumbs down response. Their neurotic little minds take those down votes as a badge of courage. As they've never swayed popular opinion in this forum there is no further need to even bother to read what they post.
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 11:37
Stop trying to "control" the world economagic. you'll feel better.
 
 
+2 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:10
Thank you econ. I think you meant 'if people DON"T stop encouraging them' I do have to just give up reading these comments quite often because of the troll infestation. Please stop feeding them! Don't argue, don't even read their posts, and don't bother to red them, as they probably get an extra bonus on their paycheck for extra reds. They are trying to shut down RSN and will succeed if we don't stop feeding them.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 16:14
It is so much more pleasant to read through the comments without even reading them.

I am looking through some new articles and noticing a decided drop in responses. I LOVE IT! Good job!

Life is too short to waste on trolls :-D
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-08-11 08:00
Quoting Patriot:
You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth.

- "little girl"? - is that the best you got? - ad hominem attack on little girls? - in this country women do not grow up to be as tall - on average - as men

patriotism is the last refuge of scounderls
 
 
-10 # revhen 2016-08-11 08:10
These attacks remind me so much of how "progressives" some 70+ years ago just loved old Uncle Joe (Stalin) who was at the time engaged in killing off a substantial portion of his country's population. How much our "progressives" today love dear Brother Vladimir (Putin).
 
 
+14 # guomashi 2016-08-11 08:29
Quoting revhen:
These attacks remind me so much of how "progressives" some 70+ years ago just loved old Uncle Joe (Stalin) who was at the time engaged in killing off a substantial portion of his country's population. How much our "progressives" today love dear Brother Vladimir (Putin).


I'll reply with the same question I asked my friends in Russia last year.
"Do you think Yeltsin could have defeated Hitler?"
Even though the 'reevaluation' of Stalin began immediately upon his death in Russia, to the last person everyone agreed that at that time Stalin was what was necessary to save the country.

The US tendency to demonize comes from very very simple minds. Reality is much more complex.

There is no comparison between Putin and Stalin.
 
 
+13 # polfrosch 2016-08-11 10:27
Stalin was not called "Uncle Joe" by "progressives", but a US government who badly needed an ally to effectively fight the nazis on the ground in Europe.

It was not only the progressives who turned a blind eye towards the killing, but the US government as well.

US governments were never reluctant to work with or install murderers as dictators if it fit their interests.

You are definitely throwing stones at the wrong scapegoat.

Putin on the other hand is just another politician tagged as villain by US interests. He might be old school realpolitik, but not worse than that.

Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton is a different caliber of villain, sold by her pr-machine as first women in office and grandmother. I can´t see much female soft power and wisdom in her record, rather traces of a cold razor blade. Smart and cruel.

Trump is a loose cannon and a disaster waiting to happen. Sanders is not going to happen.

Nothing good will come for planet earth from the USA in the next years.

If you are looking for the current Nr.1 villain on earth you don´t need a telescope or satellite. Reading glasses are sufficient.

http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008
 
 
+5 # markovchhaney 2016-08-12 10:24
Stalin was increasingly paranoid and was a monster when it came to dealing with his internal enemies, real and imagined.

He also led the Soviet Union in its valiant resistance to the German war machine, at a cost of about 26,000,000 soldiers and citizens. Without their sacrifice, the Allies would likely have lost the war in Europe. Attack Stalin all you like, but as has been pointed out, a weaker or more incompetent leader likely could not have gotten the country through the war. And that was with all the attacks on USSR by the West during and after WWI and after WWII.
 
 
+2 # polfrosch 2016-08-12 14:08
Correct.

And it shouldn´t be forgotton the nazi-german war against the USSR and other slavic countries was genocidal. The intent was to kill as many as possible (27 million were killed, as you point out) and enslave the rest.

Don´t get me wrong. The collaboration with Stalin was the only way to proceed at that time.

Depicting Stalin as Baloo type nice russian grandpa was propaganda.

And the other collaborations with dictators were definitely not without alternative, like the one with Stalin, but from the "devils chessboard".

So I don´t believe necessity, a good heart and no choice left to be at the bottom of these decisions, but ruthlessness when it comes to national interests.
 
 
+7 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-08-11 10:28
Which is why I will never vote for Hillary.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-08-13 18:53
You mean that "the Bushes" work for the petroleum interests and the Clintons for the American people, right?
 
 
+6 # Activista 2016-08-10 14:52
" patriotism of Donald Trump and others who object to a new Cold War with Russia "
nationalism/populism of Trump reminds of rhetoric of other dictators in the past.
 
 
-12 # Activista 2016-08-10 14:54
Trump: Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we’re tied. You see what’s going on. We’re tied, ’cause Scalia, this was not supposed to happen. Justice Scalia was supposed to be around for ten more years at least, and this is what happens. That was a horrible thing. So now look at it. So Hillary essentially wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/10/trumps-latest-outrageous-statement-wasnt-a-gaffe-it-was-something-much-worse/?utm_term=.a9c84b01ce41
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-10 17:53
Oh, please, come on, neither Hillary nor the Democrats want to abolish the Second Amendment, but even if someone or something did ... do you know how impossible that would be?
 
 
+8 # Activista 2016-08-10 21:50
Quoting Brice:
Oh, please, come on, neither Hillary nor the Democrats want to abolish the Second Amendment, but even if someone or something did ... do you know how impossible that would be?

Please tell it to Mr. Trump ... whom I am quoting.
 
 
0 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:17
Quoting Activista:
Quoting Brice:
Oh, please, come on, neither Hillary nor the Democrats want to abolish the Second Amendment, but even if someone or something did ... do you know how impossible that would be?

Please tell it to Mr. Trump ... whom I am quoting.

Trump almost certainly knows it as well as anyone, but he'll say anything to smear anyone who gets in his way. God knows what he'd do if he made it to the White House.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:05
"Oh, please, come on...." Activista first noted that Drumpf reminded him of "dictators in the past," (i.e.. Hitler), and then Activista quoted Drumpf's very-nearly incitement to political assassination if HRC is elected.

You HRC-supporters are just as reactionary as your right-wing roots would predict.
 
 
0 # Activista 2016-08-11 23:26
Radscal: "You HRC-supporters are just as reactionary as your right-wing roots would predict..."
self-reflection? left-wing, right-wing - lived through this totalitarian ideology 23 years -
one party, one leader, one nation -- this is not only "idea" where Communism and Nazism agree.
Gulags and concentration camps etc.
 
 
-1 # Radscal 2016-08-12 16:18
I know English is not your native language, but you've written you've been here since 1968, so I wish you'd take more time in reading and writing here.

Writing incomplete sentences or unconnected phrases may work for muses called through the mists, but it doesn't make for coherent discussion.

My post that you just replied to was defending what you'd written against Brice's assumption that you meant the opposite of what you'd written.

Or, did I get that wrong. Are you really a Trump supporter who thinks HRC will somehow repeal the 2nd Amendment?
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-13 00:54
Radscal, things are complicated this election cycle, and growing more so as technology is finding ways to slice and dice things in order to manipulate people.

When you attack with such a broad brush, ie "You HRC-supporters" , it is complicated.

I spend the weeks between the CA primary where I voted for Bernie Sanders thinking of ways to continue my support of Bernie. I don't support Hillary Clinton in the way I support Bernie, I support Bernie.

I went back and forth thinking
1. Vote for Stein because it would send some message.
2. Do not vote.
3. Vote for Trump to blow up the world.
4. Write-in Bernie
5. Knuckle under and vote for Hillary
6. and other unnamed irrational thoughts.

I had settled on writing Bernie's name in my ballot.

Now what I decided is that to support Bernie, and his revolution, which I get almost daily emails from and still believe in, or at least think it is the only game around that makes sense, I should do what Bernie asks me to do.

What I refuse to do is to turn on Bernie in any way. He does not deserve that. And I do not deserve to be called a Hillary supporter and lumped into all the other Hillary supporters and the DNC because I want to get behind Bernie and give him so credibility with the DNC so that maybe he can take the damn thing over next cycle.

So, I at least am not right-wing, nor am I reactionary, and any statement that you make saying that you should reconsider.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-08-13 22:32
You reactively responded to a post by Activista, in which you apparently believed the exact opposite of what Activista had written. And when he responded to your reply making that point, you didn't respond.

I grew up associating reactionaries with right-wing ideology. If you're coming from a left/liberal perspective as you write, then I apologize. Additionally, Activista's posts are often difficult to comprehend, so I shouldn't have been so harsh on you for apparently misunderstandin g it.

Certainly, HRC and her supporters are every bit as reactionary as her Goldwater/Nixon roots. When I saw this in her husband's 1992 campaign, I appreciated it, since they were battling against the former CIA Director whom I abhorred.

But seeing the same tactics applied to progressives ticks me off. And HRC did this in 2008, and has been ruthless in the primary and since.

Now, please go look at the evidence of election fraud I and others have posted. Everything I wrote about it is empirically accurate.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:49
Yesterday the NYT had a story about HRC's emails. Among staff communications there are those indicating favors from the State Dept. for donations to the Clinton Fdn -- but this second amendment distraction -- which has run its legal course already -- meaning Trump got his 'talking to' -- distracts from the much more important story.

Well at least Trump hasn't used this diversionary tactic before ... oh .. wait ..
 
 
+29 # indian weaver 2016-08-10 15:45
Go ahead, vote for Mrs. Dubya Jr., vote for Joe McCarthy Jr. into the White House, go ahead and vote for Hillary for the White House. This is what you get and what you deserve - the continuing horror show in the most evil house on the planet.
 
 
-18 # lights 2016-08-10 23:22
Of which planet do you live and speak, indian weaver! ?
 
 
+34 # CL38 2016-08-10 16:04
Clinton: “You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds. And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.”

She certainly doesn't mean election rigging and fraud. Or releasing her Wall Street speeches. Or the incessant policy changes (TPP, fracking, fossil fuels). Or the Clinton Foundation scandal. Or......

Or perhaps, a suspicious death of the lawyer who served warrants on DWS and the DNC for election rigging?
 
 
+10 # grandlakeguy 2016-08-10 17:24
Get ready to look back fondly on the George W Bush years as:
…the good old days.
 
 
+16 # Brice 2016-08-10 17:56
That would never happen with me anyway. The 2000 election was one of the saddest moments for me, as someone who was born in the 60's and always looked forwards to the future, particularly the year 2000, getting better and then to see at the turn of the century such a steep decline in the world on so many dimensions. It is a bitter taste in my mouth every morning when I wake up and when I turn on what passes for news these days.
 
 
+16 # librarian1984 2016-08-10 19:05
I think that's the point :-)
 
 
-18 # lights 2016-08-10 23:25
grandlake.....O nly you, a callous Republican could imagine a fondness for the man who set this entire planet on fire. And see the humor in it, too. Grand, just grand old man!
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:48
not familiar with use of irony to mock or convey contempt??
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:33
Your persistent ageism is much more revolting than your constant accusations of sexism by all of us who would not have your repugnant, pugnacious Clinton on a platter.

If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent.

If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding.
 
 
-16 # lights 2016-08-11 01:19
you really are a dominatrix, eh?

And I'm their elder, little girl/boy! And just for the record. Bullies don't scare me and I'm not kidding either!!!
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:36
I'm witness to the fact that YOU are one of the few bullies on this site, not Patriot.

If you're an elder, you demonstrate virtually no social awareness by referring to someone else as 'old man' or 'little boy/girl'--all meant to put-down and discredit him/her for calling you out on rude, disrespectful behavior--somet hing you do often here.
 
 
-7 # lights 2016-08-11 09:49
CL38 - if you READ and you've often said you do NOT you would see that PATRIOT initially called me the "little girl" with a questionable brain! The He/she PATRIOT then thought she/he could threaten my annihilation in yet another post.

PATRIOT: "You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth."

PATRIOT: "If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent. If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding."
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 16:57
He advised you to stop YOUR disrespectful behavior or he would report you. Given that this is your non-stop modus operendi here for many many months, I would say this is MORE than fair.
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2016-08-13 12:50
Friendly reminder to ignore the trolls. Responses only encourage their continued posts and temperate minded folks are exiting these forums as a result.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-08-11 08:17
Quoting Patriot:
If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent.

If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding.

- who else sees the irony of bullying during comments on mccarthyism?

patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel
 
 
+2 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:17
Please don't feed trolls, especially the most virulent of them.
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:17
Just came across this:

Investigative Team Featuring Award-winning Journalist and Top Statistician Finds Evidence of Machine Tampering in Dem Primaries in TWENTY ONE (21) Primary States they analyzed

ELECTION JUSTICE USA·WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2016

A team headed by award-winning journalist Lulu Fries’dat, statistician Anselmo Sampietro, and professor Fritz Scheuren (100th President of the American Statistical Association) has found irregularities in the overwhelming majority of the twenty-one presidential primary states that they analyzed. Their data indicates, in particular, that the totals reported on the Democratic side in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not be correct. In state after state, independent examination by two separate analysts found suspect statistical patterns giving Clinton inflated percentages that, in all likelihood, are not fully based on actual votes, and showing Sanders with what appear to be artificially depressed totals.

Their current estimate of the overall difference between the reported totals and the expected statistical pattern is 12.82% of the primary votes. That estimate is based on 11 states where they had 2 analysts independently examine the results with identical findings. The estimate was reported in politico.com. It is a significant difference that could have changed the outcome of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=934481483345212
 
 
-20 # lights 2016-08-11 00:00
"may not be correct" the key words here Cl38 but you will, of course continue obsessing....ca use that's just what self-destructiv e Republicans do....
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:13
if by obsessing, you mean remaining observant and researching to find the truth....

What will YOU do if 'may not be correct' proves to be accurate?

Instead of cherry-picking three words to deflect the significance of the article, why not quote the entire section to be accurate? I can help:

"Their data indicates, in particular, that the totals reported on the Democratic side in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not be correct. In state after state, independent examination by two separate analysts found suspect statistical patterns giving Clinton inflated percentages that, in all likelihood, are not fully based on actual votes, and showing Sanders with what appear to be artificially depressed totals."
 
 
-17 # lights 2016-08-11 01:21
It isn't going to happen CL38! And by the way...does it upset you that Bernie Sanders and Jane just bought a big, grand house? Are you going to accuse him of syphoning money from the campaign coffers?
 
 
+13 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:49
just because you say so? resorting to wishful thinking? i repeatedly caution you: be patient. watch to see what develops. Justice sometimes prevails over corruption and dishonesty.

why are you so invested in avoiding that she may finally be held accountable for election fraud? if evidence showed that Bernie had stolen this election, I would no longer support him. You don't seem to care that she -- as most progressives have long been aware -- probably committed fraud to 'win'.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:26
Quoting CL38:
just because you say so? resorting to wishful thinking? i repeatedly caution you: be patient. watch to see what develops. Justice sometimes prevails over corruption and dishonesty.

why are you so invested in avoiding that she may finally be held accountable for election fraud? if evidence showed that Bernie had stolen this election, I would no longer support him. You don't seem to care that she -- as most progressives have long been aware -- probably committed fraud to 'win'.

Saying so doesn't make it so. And I'm actually surprised that you said
"probably." What kind of progressive are you if you don't say "certainly"?

As for what you claim you'd have done if Bernie had committed fraud to win--since that's a pure hypothetical, no one can know whether you'd actually have done in such a case.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:00
so no one here has credibility but you, lights and the few other HC defenders??
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 09:58
Maybe this will help you understand, CL38?

After over 3 DECADES of Republican propaganda and doing their absolute political best to pin something on "The Clinton's" on Hillary Rodham Clinton - AFTER relentless investigations and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of our tax payer dollars wasted - NOTHING HAS EVER COME OF ANY of IT! NOTHING!

AND SO FAR THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SHE COMMITTED VOTER FRAUD!!! But YOU, YOU just have a really big hunch that she did. Or maybe it is no hunch at all - maybe it is just more and more of the Republican propaganda that is relentlessly and intentionally falsely spread to take the DEMS and HRC down!

Is that clear? Does that help everyone put it all in perspective? YOU just WANT IT TO BE TRUE so you spread it around like dung hoping to grow crops. CREDIBILITY after DECADES of it? NONE!

And a LOT of people are SICK of it!
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 19:46
This research was carried out independently of EJUSA, but we provided support. Note that this study, conducted by an independent team, corroborates the evidence for machine tampering reported in our own Democracy Lost report.

http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/2016-democratic-primary-graphs
 
 
-11 # Caliban 2016-08-11 15:29
"Probably" doesn't cut it, CL38. If there is actual hard evidence of criminal activity (which election tampering is), then there is something to talk about.

Without this (as is the case in the Sanders - Clinton race; ask Bernie), there are only sour grapes and political lies.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-13 22:38
Did you watch the videos of ballots with votes for Sanders whited out?

Did you watch the video of a voter's ballot with only Sanders marked being not recognized by several machines, and even after he was given a fresh ballot?

If you care about the truth, please go look at the sites we've provided.

If you don't care, that's fine. But please stop denying such evidence exists.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 01:59
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # CL38 2016-08-11 02:39
Yes, Bernie recently spent $600,000 on a house on the water. Shocking!

Let's look at your favorite 'feminist progressive': Clinton owns a $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY and a
$5 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C.
"appointed like an ambassador’s mansion. Mahogany antiques, vibrant paintings and Oriental rugs fill the rooms. French doors open onto an expertly manicured garden and a turquoise swimming pool." The home has 5 bedrooms and 6 baths.
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 10:05
See, it doesn't bother me that Bernie Sanders bought the house. The man has worked hard in the last 25 years and especially lately. I asked YOU if it bothered YOU because it seems to me there are a whole lot of people here who resent individuals who make money (NO I am NOT talking about Wall Street)

Yes, you also resent Hillary for making money, or living well. She has worked hard all of her life - devoted her life to being of social service! On top of it, she is always so busy being of service to OTHERS that she likely hardly ever gets to enjoy her success or respectable earnings!

But knowing you and others here, your deep seated resentments about people who might make more MONEY - I'm sure you DO NOT WANT Hillary to have even a moment of pleasure with that or ANYTHING!
 
 
+9 # Bryan 2016-08-11 16:13
Every dime the Clintons made has been from selling their political status or selling the influence of their political offices--every singe dime.

I would prefer a candidate who has lived in the real world and made his or her money succeeding in the real world.

We elect politicians to represent the people---they are suppose to be "public servants"---and pubic service to the pubic is not suppose to be a ''money making career'' by using their office to enrich themselves.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:02
If Bernie buying a home on the water didn't bother you, why did you bring it up as a criticism??
 
 
-13 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:22
Quoting CL38:
if by obsessing, you mean remaining observant and researching to find the truth....

What will YOU do if 'may not be correct' proves to be accurate?

What will YOU do if it doesn't?

Scream "Cover-up!" at the top of your lungs, I suppose.
 
 
-15 # Caliban 2016-08-11 00:46
Empty (i.e. without evidence) accusations of mass election fraud -- the first refuge of poor losers. And I don't mean Senator Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:32
The evidence is there, according to the article. Did you read it??

It will be interesting to watch hoards of 'poor losers' throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums if the lawsuits prevail, backed by Bernie and the progressive movement.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:30
Quoting CL38:
The evidence is there, according to the article. Did you read it??

It will be interesting to watch hoards of 'poor losers' throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums if the lawsuits prevail, backed by Bernie and the progressive movement.

So what you're really saying is that Bernie Sanders really won overwhelmingly but somehow, by some corrupt wizardry, no one in a position to do anything about it noticed? But I suppose they're all in on the plot, right?
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-08-11 10:15
Right.....3.7 million MORE votes! And Hillary manipulated them all.

AND votes that people like lib, CL38 and some others here would like to rob "we the people" of.....
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 16:53
Actually, NY Mayor de Blasio did observe that the voter roll scrubbing in King County NY had been targeted.

But no one in a position to "do anything about" the many examples of different methods of election fraud DID ANYTHING about it.

That's different from no one "noticed."
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:05
Progressives noticed.

People like you (in the minority here) deny that the MSM, DNC and Clinton conspired to steal the election from Sanders. Why? To maintain the status quo of economic and justice inequality --and international policies reflecting insanity of middle east wars, passage of TPP, continued fracking and fossil fuels..
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:22
From the BBC:

"Clinton Denies Foundation Ties to State Department"
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37036849
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 19:44
"Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner."

In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:54
CL, greetings!

I'm sure that's not true. I'm sure all of Hillary's supporters will show decorum and take pride in our judicial system not showing favoritism, and within minutes they'll be ready to .. how do they put it .. get over it and move on.

Hahahahahahalololololhahaha

Not really.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:05
love it. exposing rampant hypocrisy wherever it exists! thanks, Librarian
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:06
i'm looking forward to the show they'll put on in her 'defense'.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 02:14
and this: if you were a Bernie delegate, please upload videos from inside the Democratic National Convention to:

tiny.cc/WeAreTh eMedia

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cpj2-fZVUAAdeca.jpg
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 10:18
I don't even check out your links anymore CL38. I reached my personal limit when you tried to make everyone believe that recent FBI RAID in Philadelphia was about Clinton.

The journalist, Spencer said right in the video 'If any of you viewing are JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS that this has anything to do with the election (or Clinton) you would be WRONG in jumping to conclusions and doing so."

But like you usually say 'she is PROBABLY guilty'

Wonder why I and others have resorted to laughing about it? I don't call that bullying. I call it reaching a limit with your wishful thinking, your distortions and dishonesty.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:01
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I made no claims about the link. Simply posted it for people to see.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:18
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:18
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:23
@ CL38

This is fantastic. I hope EJUSA is going to keep pushing this story. Thanks for the update.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:59
It looks like they will.
 
 
-13 # lights 2016-08-10 23:41
Oh, Cl38 and don't forget those terrible Clintons are personally responsible for the biblical flood, the rise of Hitler, the terrible slaughters carried out by the god of the old testament, the death of John Lennon and surely even your pain medication and numbing shut down, too. I'm serious. Opioid addiction often happens after surgery, sneaks up on the person in the grips of it and severely distorts the opioid addicted sufferers point of view.

But I'm sure you FEEL clear that Hillary Rodham Clinton will go down in history, at least in your personal tell all book, as being responsible for it ALL!"
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:51
These things take time. My hope is that we uncover more and more of the illegal chicanery she and the DNC so obviously engaged in.

what will you do if this busts wide open??
 
 
-13 # lights 2016-08-11 00:03
What is this - the 99th or 100th Republican accusation that NEVER, absolutely NEVER pans out?? ...but I know Cl38 .....you are a hoping and a prayin' cause you want your revenge... let's just hope the destructive negative emotion doesn't take you down....cause I do so want to love you.
 
 
+19 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:39
Lights, it isn't Republicans who are accusing the Democrats of election fraud--but DEMOCRATS who were defrauded of their votes.
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:20
that point deserves a ton of votes up!
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-08-11 01:26
proof?

Hey I even gave you a thumbs up when you asked for "proof?" yourself on another article. But you were in a pretty bad mood then.

The bulk of it was primarily Independents who were either ignorant or not motivated to make a call and find out about the RULES!
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:33
Quoting Patriot:
Lights, it isn't Republicans who are accusing the Democrats of election fraud--but DEMOCRATS who were defrauded of their votes.

No, it's DEMOCRATS whose hero (who only joined the Democratic Party to give himself a credible vehicle for a presidential run)lost, which means there just MUST have been fraud.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 00:51
Read the report before you comment.

Looking for Justice, lights. "We've all come to look for America" ....
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:57
You're wasting your time. Despite your heroic efforts no minds are being changed. They're not even listening to you, only trying to make you angry.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 10:28
of course, you lib would think CL38's efforts heroic. Bullying, lies, distortions. Posting links all the time from Republican sources or trying to make people believe some story, like that recent FBI raid in Philadelphia had SOMETHING to do with Clinton when the journalist who posted it said right in the video, 'We have absolutely no evidence that this is about the election (or Clinton) so you would be jumping to conclusions as a viewer if you think this is true.'
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:16
building evidence takes time. if you're unbiased and want justice to prevail, why not show a bit of patience and wait to see what develops??
 
 
-7 # Caliban 2016-08-11 18:24
If you are unbiased you do not assume that the HRC campaign "stole" an election from Bernie Sanders without him noticing.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:14
Librarian, you're right.

I'm trying a new tactic...for a very limited time only...no more responding with anger,
1. posting info I come across the MSM refuses to publish
2. challenging the hate and fear our McCarthyite friends promote.
3. reverting back to 'ignoring the beast' when I've had enough.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 18:54
I learned the hard way :-)
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 21:18
don't we all! I so much appreciate your exhortations not to respond. I'm just about there, again in one, two, three....
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 16:23
haha

I'm noticing people are really doing it, not responding at all. It's fantastic, really shortens the bad threads.

You can post info to friends and ignore those who will never read or believe it anyway:-)

Wow .. organized progressives! Will wonders never cease lol
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-08-11 10:57
CL38 said: "These things take time. My hope is that we uncover more and more of the illegal chicanery she and the DNC so obviously engaged in."

Like so far it has been 3 DECADES of "time," with one tax payer investigation after the other of Hillary and NOTHING has come of ANY of it! GIVE IT UP! I know you hope for her destruction. Just like the Republican obstructionists who continue to ruthlessly waste this country's time and MONEY!
 
 
+17 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:38
Odd, but the same exit polls that were as much as 10% at variance from the reported Democratic primary vote, all in Clinton's favor, of course...were dead on regarding the reported Republican vote. It is astonishing, but rather gratifying, that the Republicans, with far greater cause to fudge, let their electorate choose the party's candidate, reougnant though he is to most of the country, while the Democrats, who had a chance to sweep the general election--White House, House & Senate, and many state offices--instea d defrauded their party's electorate of its choice, and stuck us instead with the dishonest, vainglorious, corrupt, idiotic Clinton. Nauseating!
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:58
We really are in Bizarro World!
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-7 # lights 2016-08-11 10:32
Not any more odd that so many people here who do their best to influence readers to believe that Bill Clinton negotiated with Donald Trump to run for the Presidency so that Hillary Clinton could win?? All the while TRUMP is calling and accusing Hillary of every lying, nasty thing in the book - much like you PATRIOT above?

Right! That's the way for Trump and Bill to collude and help Hillary win!

By the way, in your own words above - it would be a Republican "fudge" on voting but "corruption" for "idiotic" Hillary and Dems?

Talk about TROLLS! Or LACK of credibility?
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:17
In today's political environment and corruption, ANYTHING is possible.
 
 
-13 # Brice 2016-08-10 17:50
Clinton McCarthyism, when it is Trump searching for the modern day terrorists with his broad brush? I don't buy it. The Trump supporters really have begun to buy into their own bizarre twisted version of the right-wing echo chamber ... maybe because thankfully, it is smaller.
 
 
-19 # pupdude 2016-08-10 21:52
Quoting Brice:
Clinton McCarthyism, when it is Trump searching for the modern day terrorists with his broad brush? I don't buy it. The Trump supporters really have begun to buy into their own bizarre twisted version of the right-wing echo chamber ... maybe because thankfully, it is smaller.



Hey Brice,

just thought I'd let you know you're in a small pond filled with Trump/Putin trollz.

Mr. Parry's posts increasingly shaky these days.
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-08-11 00:06
You noticed that, too! :-)
 
 
-3 # Brice 2016-08-11 02:15
Appreciate hearing a voice in the darkness. Do you think there is anything to be done by a discussion board user, or invented by a dicussion board programmer to avoid this kind of disgusting awfulness in places like this and Yahoo. There used to be places where for a while anyway reasonable discussion could take place, now it is difficult to just find news.
 
 
+1 # pupdude 2016-08-11 06:57
Quoting Brice:
Appreciate hearing a voice in the darkness. Do you think there is anything to be done by a discussion board user, or invented by a dicussion board programmer to avoid this kind of disgusting awfulness in places like this and Yahoo. There used to be places where for a while anyway reasonable discussion could take place, now it is difficult to just find news.



Nope!

Have a great day!!

 
 
-3 # lights 2016-08-11 10:41
Seems to me the WORK this election is to stand up to this kind of insanity!

Nice to hear your voice, Brice - and pupdude below. Robbie always and many others. :-)
 
 
+36 # librarian1984 2016-08-10 19:09
Another worrisome development: an ex-CIA chief (Morrel?) on Charlie Rose has said, quite enthusiasticall y, that we should covertly bomb and kill Iranians and Russians in Syria to "make them pay a price". We should destroy everything around Assad, his plane, helicopters, etc to let him know we can take away the things he values. No regard for innocent life. Very creepy to watch. Totally without conscience.

This is yet another signal that Clinton intends to attack Russia. Most Americans will not pay attention to this. But you can bet Putin knows about it.
 
 
-23 # Brice 2016-08-10 20:09
> Totally without conscience.

Well, what about the damage Assad has done and the future damage he will do if he stays in place?

Do you weight those two results and if so, how?

I don't mean to disagree with you, but how much confidence do you put in your opinion and when do you think it is OK to attack those who weight things differently.

I do believe that it is better to get Assad out, and when Russian and Iranians interpose themselves in this mess, they are going what you seem to be saying we should not.

Should the Russians and Iranians be left alone to do whatever they want in Syria?
 
 
+33 # guomashi 2016-08-10 20:33
Quoting Brice:
> Totally without conscience.

Well, what about the damage Assad has done and the future damage he will do if he stays in place?

Do you weight those two results and if so, how?

I don't mean to disagree with you, but how much confidence do you put in your opinion and when do you think it is OK to attack those who weight things differently.

I do believe that it is better to get Assad out, and when Russian and Iranians interpose themselves in this mess, they are going what you seem to be saying we should not.

Should the Russians and Iranians be left alone to do whatever they want in Syria?


Syria is a sovereign nation.
It should be left alone to do what it wants with whom it wants to do it.

Nothing Assad -allegedly- has done has come close to what Clinton has done and is planning on doing.
 
 
-23 # pupdude 2016-08-10 21:58
Nothing Assad -allegedly- has done has come close to what Clinton has done and is planning on doing.


Do you have data support this claim? Can you please provide such? We'd really like to see it.

It is interesting when Trollz feel free to show their expertise at prognostication .

Absurd..
 
 
+23 # guomashi 2016-08-10 22:01
I have posted links to videos of clinton's statements repeatedly.
Do your own damn homwework or go back to the bridge.
 
 
-12 # lights 2016-08-11 00:26
All links provided by guomashi are from Republican propaganda sites!
 
 
+17 # markovchhaney 2016-08-10 22:53
#pupdude: It's okay to be clueless, but it's embarrassing when someone repeatedly insists upon displaying his ignorance so flagrantly. Have you no shame?
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-08-11 23:11
Quoting markovchhaney:
#pupdude: It's okay to be clueless, but it's embarrassing when someone repeatedly insists upon displaying his ignorance so flagrantly. Have you no shame?



Nope!


Have a great day Comrade!
 
 
-9 # Caliban 2016-08-11 00:53
"Is planning on doing"? Vague, guomashi. More specificity on Clinton plans needed to be meaningful...an d of course some convincing evidence.
 
 
-8 # Brice 2016-08-11 02:13
> Syria is a sovereign nation.
> It should be left alone to do what it wants with whom it wants to do it.

That is a very irresponsible and inhuman position. And of course I see you know nothing of the matter since you are blaming Clinton herself personally for killing the people are Syria, and blowing up cities that want a political say.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-10-12 23:58
-- Syria is a sovereign nation.
-- It should be left alone to do what it wants with whom it wants to do it.

I have big problems with this idea. A nation is not a solitary person, and no nation is a full democracy. You leave no place for nations with despicably despotic governments that murder their people, in fact you support them as their right to do what they want without international interference.

Is that how you really feel?
 
 
+11 # markovchhaney 2016-08-10 22:52
Should the DNC be left alone to do whatever they want in America? Because I hear that China plans to invade us in support of Bernie Sanders. Cool, right?
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:15
Perfect. And of course, these HRC-bots would be totally cool with China fomenting a violent coup in Mexico and then begin ethnically-clea nsing anyone in Mexico who speaks English.
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 00:28
You got that wrong too. It was North Korea!
 
 
+19 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 00:32
BRICE and PUPDUDE:

This might not make any difference to some people. Many Americans, like their Israeli allies, view things like international law as a bothersome nuisance. But anyway, there is this one BIG difference. The Russians and Iranians in Syria are there at the INVITATION of the internationally recognized government of Syria headed by President Bashar Al-Assad. The United States is NOT invited to be in Syria in any capacity.

Blaming Assad for defending his country from concerted and illegal military attacks, funded by foreign countries, coordinated by the United States, using terrorists - mostly from other countries - armed by the US, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia is like blaming American Indians for the violence of the wars they fought trying to preserve their lands and peoples and ways of life from the onslaught of white foreign invaders.
 
 
+15 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:14
And something else that might not make any difference to you. According to the most reliable and credible polls taken in Syria, President Assad has the support of AT LEAST 55% of the Syrian people.

If our government believed that Assad lacked public support, they would have been pushing internationally supervised elections without preconditions rather than violent and traumatizing regime change.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-11 22:42
Yeah once he kills off all of his opposition that number will be at 100% ... is that good?
 
 
-12 # Brice 2016-08-11 02:10
>> The Russians and Iranians in Syria are there at the INVITATION of the internationally recognized government of Syria headed by President Bashar Al-Assad.

I think you need to take that sentence apart and look at it. Assad has been brutally murdering his people for decades to keep them in line. I assume you know, and the international nations who recognize that government know that ... so why do you care?

Do you think that is the way governments should keep their people in line, is that?

Assad was never voted in, and any election after his rise to power has been an unmonitored farce.

I'll grant you it is hard or even impossible to know what the right thing to do is, but it seems to me that it cannot be bolstering Assad in place with more violence. He has blown up many of the greatest cities in Syria, and a lot of ancient treasures. I'm sorry to hear you supporting him, and sorry to see you getting support for that position.
 
 
+12 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 06:18
Brice, you are needing some info: Assad did not blow up the Syrian antiquities, the ISIS people did.

You should also note that when the CIA was busy installing people like the Shah of Iran and then his democratically- elected successor, Mosaddegh, and Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi, and Noriega and Pinochet, I'll stop the list is too long - they also installed Assad's father.

All of these people were dictator-killer s who eventually forgot they were just tools of the CIA and they got too uppity. It's like when a "made" Mafia man forgets to obey the Don - he gets "unmade".

So Hillary who is a CIA "made" woman did the regime changes required of her by her CIA Don. Problem is, the CIA is as unsuccessful at changing regimes as they are at choosing successors (Yatsenyuk, Karzai, Allawi, Maliki, and on & on.) Those have all been uniformly disasters. So far, I'm talking about the CIA overturning CIA-installed leaders. What happens when our nice mafioso agency decides to dump a regime they didn't install?

Start with the Cuban Bay Of Pigs that was my first assignment as a journalist. It was a perfect example of regime change stupidity. Then there was Vietnam which needs no introduction. Now Hillary's assignment is to tackle Iran, Russia, and China.

It's like Monty Python does the CIA.

None of us are "Hillary haters", but any progressive or independent thinker wants to unmake her and the organization she works for.

Even if you are a troll you should think about that.
 
 
+7 # ktony 2016-08-11 14:23
Quoting Anonymot:

You should also note that when the CIA was busy installing people like the Shah of Iran and then **his democratically-elected successor, Mosaddegh**, and Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi, and Noriega and Pinochet, I'll stop the list is too long - they also installed Assad's father.

One point: Mosaddegh was overthrown by a CIA-fomented coup, after which the Shah was installed.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-11 22:41
That is true too - not that it matters relative to Assad needing to go.
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-08-11 22:40
It is correct that ISIS is the one destroying Syria's heritage, I'll grant you that, but Assad refusing to allow free elections and leave does not help, and ISIS did not even exist when Assad began his reign of terror and murdering his people.

The mess that is Syria would not have been vulnerable to ISIS were it not for Assad.

Are you saying he is a great guy, or fulfilling some postive purpose? I have no quarrel with you over the things the US has done in the Middle East, or Cuba for that matter. It's great that Obama is opening up Cuba again, it is long past time.

The way people seem to think, and you seem to want to take advantage of is that they pick some event in the past that the US did and then from that point on characterize everything the US did or does as reflecting what they see in that event.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-13 22:40
No one except the Syrian people have the right to decide who can be or is their President

That's actually part of International Law as well as the foundation of the US.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 11:19
Exactly Brice! Why does he care or why do others on this board CARE so much about Assad or Syria? It is nothing more than desperation to find ANY STRAW - a POLITICAL TALKING POINT so they can destroy Barack Obama's Presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential Presidency, the DNC, even the ENTIRE "corrupt" country - they say they'd like to dismantle and destroy - IF only could!

And notice the theme? All Democrats?
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-08-13 00:42
Turning every board into wild paranoiac speculations about the agendas and conspiracies between people is useless, unless one has access to some kind of meta-data, such as the admins of the site might have.

If someone wants to destroy Obama and Clinton, I can understand at least some of that, and might even agree depending on what the other choice is, or the context or conversation, but you never get that here.

If you disagree you are a troll, shill, fascist, globalist, .... whatever.

I do find the whole motivation for the defense of terrible dictators something I cannot go along with, but I do recognize they have their reasons and the harm that is done to innocent people is a valid point. I don't know how you square lives saved by not invading with lives ruined or terrorized for decades? It is a philosophical question that some are uncomfortable with.

Calling them Democrats is not fair either, at least for the purposes of making conclusions about Democrats. I am a Democrat and I get plenty of flack from this group, though maybe I am not your average Democrat.

There is illogic here though as well. They want to defend Assad, while at the same time attacking the Saud family in Saudi Arabia.

I have lots of ideas about foreign policy, but I see the arguments just ripping through any possible community or agreement on the Left, so I think it would be better for the Left to focus on a domestic justice agenda.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:37
Quoting eduardoben:
BRICE and PUPDUDE:

This might not make any difference to some people. Many Americans, like their Israeli allies, view things like international law as a bothersome nuisance. But anyway, there is this one BIG difference. The Russians and Iranians in Syria are there at the INVITATION of the internationally recognized government of Syria headed by President Bashar Al-Assad.

And in 1938, Hitler's troops marched into Austria at the INVITATION of that country's government and to the wild cheers of its populace.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-17 00:59
>> view things like international law as a bothersome nuisance.

One reason international law is so disliked is that about 25% (50 out of 200 ) of countries have Islamic Republic governments, and they corrupt international law in a way that is anti-Israelis. No other country has to put up with that.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:13
Thanks for pointing that out, librarian.

Morrell, who has endorsed HRC and is fishing for a high-level position in the Clinton II Administration seems to have forgotten that Russia and Iran are fighting on OUR SIDE against the terrorists.

Or, most likely, he knows the terrorists ARE our side, and like HRC sees Russians and Iranians as enemies to kill.

After several years, President Obama and HRC-replacement Secretary Kerry finally started acknowledging that NOBODY except the Syrian people should decide whom is their President.

But HRC got "regime changing" Assad put into the Democratic Party Platform.

How often are International War Crimes put into a party platform?

Because HRC's team got a couple more International Crimes placed in regarding Iran.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:30
A 'high level position'. Can you imagine? I wouldn't let this psycho watch my dog.
 
 
-15 # lights 2016-08-11 00:16
Actually I think Morrel is now on Trumps advisory staff because Putin became enraged when Trump filed bankruptcy recently, affecting big losses for Russian banks. Trump had borrowed billions from the Russian banks prior to his run for the Presidency knowing his bank account must look good if he was going to have that much visibility while REALLY building his TRUMP BRAND.

Just off the press. You won't be able to find this news anywhere else but here tonight. :-)
 
 
+7 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:42
Lights sez:
"You won't be able to find this news anywhere else but here tonight."

Eduardo sez: Yeah! Like much of what you post on this site.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 11:23
Well, eduardoben. I could have just said it and let it go by as truth like so many others on this forum. Instead, I let you know - "you won't find this anywhere else."

But who cares about honesty, right?
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:23
you sure as hell don't. HC propaganda and misinformation is all you post.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-08-11 18:34
Hey, If Charlie R is putting this level of intelligence out to his adoring public, I expect Vladimir watches the show in person.
 
 
+15 # Logic 2016-08-10 19:45
More of the same from Glen Greenwald

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/
 
 
+17 # markovchhaney 2016-08-10 22:51
Hey, Hillary learns from all the slime-bag politicians she's met: her husband, his opponents, Kissinger, ad nauseam. And we're supposed to elect her because TRUMP!!!! Screw that nonsense.
 
 
-14 # jsucke3 2016-08-10 22:54
McCarthyism? Really?! There is a HUGE difference between ruining people's lives by alleging they had similar political beliefs to those of our country's enemies and questioning a Presidential candidate's political stances. One is contrary to the First Amendment and the other is running for office. Who did Paul Manafort work for before Trump?
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:19
Manafort worked for the democratically- elected President of a (formerly) sovereign country.

Who does HRC's "money man" organization, the Podesta Group work for? Oh, that's right, Russia's largest bank, which controls 80% of Russian money.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/08/with_saudi_and_russian_ties_clinton_machines_tentacles_are_far_reaching_according_to_panama_papers/
 
 
+13 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 00:55
Please Radscal, don't fall into the trap of over-simplifica tion. John Podesta and his brother Tony who formed the Podesta Group worked for anyone who could afford them including major defense contractors, big oil, gas and coal companies, and big pharmaceutical and health care corporations. All the big special interests that Hillary claims she is going to "take on."

John Podesta, who left his lucrative lobbying partnership for a while to become Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, coordinated an international campaign, on behalf of Big Pharma, to block South Africa from using international trade law provisions to force patent holding drug companies into allowing them to manufacture their own HIV drugs in South Africa at a tiny fraction of the cost of buying them from the patent holding companies represented by The Podesta Group.

That campaign -- on behalf of big drug companies that donated to Clinton and Gore's political campaigns -- left THREE MILLION HIV infected South Africans to die of AIDS. Gore and Clinton did that.

And Hillary's current campaign manager, John Podesta, was identified in an expose in The Guardian newspaper from London as a linchpin in that criminal conspiracy against Nelson Mandela and the people of South Africa.

This racist, evil international crime was largely unreported in this country but its a matter of historical record.

The Clintons are EVIL. Truly, truly EVIL. Wake up Democrats and open your eyes before its too late.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:39
Yes, of course they're EVIL. And haven't you noticed how they stay away from crosses and holy water?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 14:58
And how is that different from the cartoonish over-simplifica tion the HRC-supporters are doing with Manafort working for the legitimate President of a formerly sovereign country?
 
 
-8 # Caliban 2016-08-11 01:01
Paul Manafort's job specialty is repairing (by whatever means necessary) the tarnished images of corrupt politicians and political operatives.

His new job with Trump is, therefore, completely consistent with his resume.
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:26
George HW Bush quote:

“All kinds of rumors as to who his hosts were in Russia, something he can’t remember anything about.”

This is a fascinating comment from the man who couldn't remember where he was on November 22, 1963.

If any young'uns don't know, everyone above age 6 on the day JFK was murdered in Dallas TX has that moment frozen into their memories.

After Bush I told reporters he couldn't recall, it turned out that he was in a Dallas Hotel the night before the murder. Then it turned out that he called FBI a few hours after the murder from a short distance away, claiming to have overheard someone threatening the President.

And later still, his lovely wife wrote yet another excuse in her memoirs. In it, she claimed she and Poppy flew on a private plane from Dallas shortly before the murder.
 
 
+11 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:04
Its true. I was in a tenth grade class when the news came and the school was immediately closed for the rest of the day.

Everyone was in a state of shock, sorrow and disbelief.

I think I got home in time to see Lee Harvey Oswald murdered by Jack Ruby.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:01
Ruby murdered LHO on Sunday, the 24th. The first live nationally-broa dcast murder.

I remember that one because it was my birthday!
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 01:55
And for anyone who hasn't seen it this is a MUST:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:43
This is a 3-1/2 hour documentary about the JFK assassination, Everything is a Rich Man's Trick.

I am just starting it but it's fascinating. Thank you.

Hollywood broached this plot with the movie Executive Action (1973) with Burt Lancaster. It is still chilling to watch these men plot the assassination.

***

OMG I'm only half an hour in and my head has exploded 5 times! Every once in a while there are things I know, so it's really connecting the dots.

I'm going to be on here 5 hours -- I'm taking notes. I guess the kids are getting pizza tonight ....
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:04
I should have taken notes when I watched that a while back.

Mostly, the info checks out, but I do remember noticing just a couple of oopses. But I don't remember what they were. Aaarrrggghhhhh. ...

But overall, it's WELL worth the time. The overall point is spot on!
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 15:17
Very enlightening. There aren't that many of TPTB and they really ARE psychos.

No wonder they're letting the planet burn.

I think the people are paralyzed because very few are willing to believe that our rulers are insane and they are enabled by our spineless 'leaders'. It is a frightening realization.

But they ARE human beings, mortal and fallible. They have many advantages but we have a few of our own.
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:32
"No wonder they're letting the planet burn."

"I think the people are paralyzed because very few are willing to believe that our rulers are insane and they are enabled by our spineless 'leaders'. It is a frightening realization."

it is startling, jaw-dropping to realize the extremes so many in power resort to, for MORE personal wealth and power -- they're destroying the planet and as much of humanity as possible.

P.S. Tried to up vote your comments. It said that "I already upvoted you" but no up votes are posted yet...
 
 
+12 # davehaze 2016-08-10 23:37
Sorry, folks, but "No sense of decency!" is the battle cry of both candidates.
 
 
-2 # tigerlillie 2016-08-11 00:55
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Clinton is so eager to bait Russia into another war that it is obscene.

Yes, the Clinton's have a history of doing dirty tricks.

But that doesn't mean that concern about Trump' s financial ties to Russia are a moot point.

Yes, it would serve Clinton's best interests to dig up or implicate Trump in dirty dealings with Russia. But I think that there are grounds for legitimate concern about Trump' s business dealings and possible political highjinks with Russia, which is quite separate from Clinton's smear campaign.

Likewise, just because the Empire is trying to set Russia up for another variation on their endless war theme, I would n't stoop to pretending that Putin is some kind of hero.

Leave the fan clubbing for authoritarian political leaders to Trump.
 
 
+18 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:35
Tigerlillie,

Its not an unimportant footnote that the Clintons' dealing with Russian interests left 20% of America's Uranium supply under Russian control.

I wouldn't argue that Trump is any kind of hero. But someone who has repeated his willingness to sit down and talk things out with Putin and the Russian Government versus someone who seems to be compelled to push Russia's back against the wall - whether by pitting US pilots vs Russian pilots in Syria in "No-Fly Zones" or pushing NATO forces and missile systems up to the Russian border or overthrowing a democratically elected government in Ukraine -- this is the difference between world peace and the greatest threat of nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Trump is a self-absorbed ego-maniac. But Hillary Clinton is so obsessed with militarism, power and US global dominance that she is much more dangerous than Trump. Smell the coffee folks.
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-08-11 11:27
mmmm. The real, not imagined coffee smells deeply rich and good!
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:47
One of numerous reasons Kennedy was supposedly assassinated was due to his attempt to stop the nuclear race madness by reaching out to Khrushchev through back-channel negotiations.
 
 
+15 # lorenbliss 2016-08-11 01:17
The malicious glee with which Hillary the Horrible and her team of trolls have shifted into Joe McCarthy mode proves beyond an iota of doubt she remains a Goldwater Girl:

"(Goldwater) immediately became a loyal supporter of Joe McCarthy and was one of only 22 senators who voted against his censure in December, 1954."

And as we already know, Hillary the Horrible's foreign policy is the quintessence of Goldwaterite nuke-the-world warmongering:

"In one television interview Goldwater explained that he would be willing to use nuclear weapons against communist forces in Vietnam."

For more see http://spartacus-educational.com/USAgoldwater.htm or Google Barry Goldwater on Joe Mc Carthy.
 
 
+14 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 01:50
The animosity between Clinton and Russia goes beyond Joe McCarthy's. I was a close friend of Fred Woltman who won a Pulitzer for his exposures of McCarthy who was pathologically afraid of Russia.

Hillary is not only not afraid of them, she pathologically wants to start a US/Russo war.

That in no way diminishes this article. Parry is always excellent. However, I wish he would turn his ability to dig to the harder, deeper question: What is the tie between Hillary (and also Bill and their laundering channel, the phony Foundation) and the CIA?

Deep State wants a real war. It is not McCarthy's fear nor Shine & Cohen's sexual complexities, it is a tentacular agency that dictates to DC. They own Hillary or Hillary owns them and they are dedicated to initiating 3 more regime changes: Iran, Russia, and China. We are talking about a global Genghis Khan with Hillary in the stirrups!

This ugly amazon dominatrix is no Mongol and the CIA has lost every war since Korea. Why are they such losers and what is the relation between the woman and the agency? When we say Deep State it is too amorphous who do we mean? No one knows or dares admit it, but Hillary & Huma know.

We need a few more fearless insiders like Snowden and Assange to speak up and a few more Greenwalds and Parrys to listen.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:24
Hillary, her uranium investors,the Clinton Foundation and Russia.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:28
continued..

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:28
continued...

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:33
Why do you think the Clintons opened a Clinton Foundation in Canada?...becau se that is where these mining investors donated to them....and the Clintons mistakenly thought the donors could not be revealed in Canada. Some still haven't been revealed.

Canadian affiliate charity of Clinton Foundation defends expenses ...
www.theglobeandmail.com › News › National
The Globe and Mail
Jul 10, 2016 - A Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation that has raised millions from mining executives has spent far more on salaries and administrative ...
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-08-11 20:21
Great job citing that article, and analyzing it.

You know all those advertisements for and investment programs about buying gold?

Well, yesterday I stumbled across an advisor telling people NOT to buy gold. He said they should buy uranium instead!

Frankly, I didn't even know uranium was in the commodities market, and find it quite disturbing (though I guess inevitable) that it is.
 
 
-14 # ericlane 2016-08-11 02:17
This article is, well, a bunch of crap. It sounds more like a hate Hillary diatribe than anything informative. If you really believe that we would be safer in our relationship with Russia with Donald Trump as president, you have to be a walking moron. Sorry, you don't have to like Hillary but this is a piece of writing that was taken out of thin air for one purpose, to bash Hillary.
 
 
-8 # sdraymond 2016-08-11 03:23
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary either, and I suggested that Bernie run for president a year before he ran, but this site has many Hillary haters on it that are as outrageous as Trump. The article that I just posted has a lot of truth to it.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 05:13
Eric, you forgot your troll name today.
 
 
-8 # sdraymond 2016-08-11 03:19
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-08-11 06:38
I suspect that most of the regulars here have stopped reading Daily Kos at all, since (1) Kos sold the site for a handsome sum, and (2) it dropped all pretense of being an honest arbiter in political debates, publishing little besides pro-Clinton puff pieces. RSN continues to publish a great many articles favoring Clinton. Go count 'em.
 
 
-8 # ericlane 2016-08-11 12:21
econonut, most of the regulars here seem to have come unhinged and joined the ranks of the wacko birds. Other than that everything is fine.
 
 
+1 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:23
And I'm going to stop reading RSN. This thread is mostly troll wars, which is a total waste of time.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:25
That article is not even just a typical puff-piece. It’s straight-up double-shot bullshit.

The author (who calls Sanders a “sexist”):

1. Defends HRC’s lying because “everybody does it.”

2. Denies HRC’s many scandalous actions because some other ones were overrated.

3. Defends HRC’s enormous wealth accumulation as Senator and Secretary of State because “celebrities make money.” And besides, men get paid more, so it’s a feminist issue (she should have gotten even RICHER through her "public service").

4. And of course, if HRC had been a man, none of this would have been an issue.

There is literally not a single valid reason to support HRC in that entire piece, but it avoids even mentioning the MANY reasons she never should have been granted the Nomination.
 
 
+9 # Texas Aggie 2016-08-11 05:49
HRC is channeling her guru, Henry Kissinger. It's the kind of behavior so typical of him. She is looking for another chance to start a war. Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, etc. aren't enough. She wants a real one with Russia so that she can satisfy her cravings.
 
 
-3 # ericlane 2016-08-11 12:19
A&M, are you still dreaming of the good old days with George W. the idiot child?
 
 
-1 # pupdude 2016-08-11 07:04
RSN ... acronym for the comment section should be SOT

Can I get some serious red numbers please??
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 07:22
We don't give red numbers for generalized stupidity. Please get specific.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 11:31
I tried. I tried hard pupdude. I just couldn't give you a serious red thumbs down. :-)
 
 
+2 # John Escher 2016-08-11 07:32
I always thought that Prescott was more interesting than George H.W. just as George H.W. was more interesting than George W.-- there may have been a steady downward incline in character, don't you know.

Everybody always tries to make Prescott out to be a Nazi, of course, but Ralph Nader of all people told a wonderful story about Prescott helping Nader's mother bring about the crucial dam in Winsted, Connecticut.

Second point: Hillary shouldn't do what is outlined in the article. And somebody-- don't you think, reader-- ought to ask Robert Parry which candidate he will vote for. I don't know. Do you?

Trump, the airbrain, is strongest when he talks about Putin. Is he smart enough, though, to realize it? Can he fully develop any subject? Could he talk about Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power and their joint role in overthrowing the Ukraine? I'm sorry, reader, for giving such good ammunition to the Trump campaign. Chances are good however that they are too stupid to follow up. They'd rather talk about crap like email or any other distraction. I would never vote for Donald Trump, even if I liked him, because of his short attention span.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 10:16
I agree with you, but Hillary has an exceptionally long attention span, if not a fixation, on revenge. If in doubt, ask Assange or Snowden.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 21:41
Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s.

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Bush's business dealings continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

It's also thought that the money he made from these associations helped establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.
 
 
-4 # Lyuda 2016-08-11 08:49
at the end Mr. Parry writes, "As her campaign sinks into its own anti-Russian mud pile of guilt-by-associ ation, Hillary Clinton and her supporters may ask themselves how far are they prepared to go – and whether their ambitions have overwhelmed any “sense of decency.”

So I assume that is his point, and like very many other articles if you really try to understand underlying point of them, there is anotion of defending Russia. And that bothers me. I know how many of you will disagree with me and give some names to my comment but please RE-read his articles and pay attention to what he says about Russia in them.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:35
What inaccurate information has Parry written about Russia?
 
 
+4 # newell 2016-08-11 09:00
All empires need an enemy, imaginary or not.
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-08-11 09:03
rump can end his bromance with fellow strongman putin anytime he wants - for all i know rump will do that during debates - rump will say anything he believes helps get him elected or benefits his wealth, income, prestige and power - what's good for rump is good for america

if rump fails to end his bromance - there is likely a personal financial state in him sucking up to putin - as in banks won't lend rump money - so he must resort to russia for his borrowing empire

hill can whip this horse till it dies - because rump is the only person in the world who can end his relationship - whatever it is - to putin

if rump does not disavow putin and becomes prez - he has signaled that putin is welcome to annex western ukraine and maybe even restore the whole soviet union - russia is in expansionist mode - and wants to spread dictatorship/pr otectorship to russian minorities everywhere

rump's bromance is fair game!
 
 
-4 # mblockhart 2016-08-11 10:46
My, my, how we wander into the weeds. Let's bring it back to Parry's implausible equation of Hillary Clinton with Joe McCarthy. There's plenty of evidence Trump may be paling around with Putin. He's said so then tried to walk it back! His campaign modified the Repub platform on just one point which Putin would endorse. There's the dubious history of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign lead. We have no IRS returns and we have rumors of loans from Russian banks to Trump. Red-baiting is only red-baiting if there is no evidence of a connection. And why was apparently only the DNC hacked?
Meanwhile, Trump is really outdoing even Joe McCarthy on this scale but Parry ignores that. Very strange. He overlooks the demonizing of others, thinly veiled threats, lies and innuendo, inciting crazies to violence, self-aggrandize ment of Trump. Parry would have us believe him more than our own lyin' eyes and ears.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:44
LOL

"Trump may be paling around with Putin..."

That famous phrase of course refers back to the Republicans' (and specifically Moose-alini's) McCarthyish damning by faint association of candidate Barrack Obama with William Ayers.

I see little reason to trust Drumpf, but HRC's long-standing demonization of President Putin, and threats against Russia and Iran are well documented, and very frightening.

After all, Hillary's been "paling around with" war criminal Kissinger for decades.
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-08-11 18:05
Quoting Radscal:
LOL

"Trump may be paling around with Putin..."

That famous phrase of course refers back to the Republicans' (and specifically Moose-alini's) McCarthyish damning by faint association of candidate Barrack Obama with William Ayers.

I see little reason to trust Drumpf, but HRC's long-standing demonization of President Putin, and threats against Russia and Iran are well documented, and very frightening.

After all, Hillary's been "paling around with" war criminal Kissinger for decades.


And as for another mblockhart weed wandering nugget,"...rumo rs of loans from Russian banks to Trump"...":

I'll raise that bet, let's examine the Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-08-11 10:59
i get a big kick out of getting thumbed-down for picking on rump - where did the rest of our rump trojans go? - should be lots more
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-08-11 23:17
Quoting Robbee:
i get a big kick out of getting thumbed-down for picking on rump - where did the rest of our rump trojans go? - should be lots more



Bathroom break?
 
 
+1 # Bryan 2016-08-11 16:25
Frankly 90% of congress should be dragged before a McCarthy hearing.

If Russia had had a McCarthy hearing on the 'Red (communist) Bolsheviks' there wouldn't have been a Russian civil war.

I guess most people don't remember or know that every world leader, particularly Churchill, at first praised Hitler because they saw the 3rd Reich as a bulwark against the Red Bolsheviks and communism spreading in Europe.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2016-08-11 23:15
Quoting Bryan:
Frankly 90% of congress should be dragged before a McCarthy hearing.

If Russia had had a McCarthy hearing on the 'Red (communist) Bolsheviks' there wouldn't have been a Russian civil war.

I guess most people don't remember or know that every world leader, particularly Churchill, at first praised Hitler because they saw the 3rd Reich as a bulwark against the Red Bolsheviks and communism spreading in Europe.

The Hitler-Stalin Pact - Aug 23, 1939 - HISTORY.com
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hitler-stalin-pact
History
On this day in 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union sign a non-aggression pact, stunning the world, given their diametrically opposed ideologies. ... After Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Britain had to decide to what extent it would intervene should Hitler continue German ..."
Stalin admired Hitler - they divided Poland - but than his "ideological" brother betrayed him ..
 
 
+1 # songofdarknessandlight@yahoo.com 2016-08-12 01:10
The lesson of mccarthyism wasn't that any accusation of spying for Russia is wrong, it's that accusations taken as fact without evidence is wrong.

This article errs in false automatic equivalency, it compares the effects of false accusations to what's occurring now. In so doing it completely avoids discussing whether Russian involvement in our political process is credibly supported by the evidence at hand. Only if the answer is no is it morally justified to compare what is occurring to mccarthyism.

The fact is, states do at times interfere with the political processes of other states and what should guide us is where the evidence leads.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN