More Flag Officers Endorse; Clinton on Chavez (and International Open Thread)
By NoQuarter on March 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM in Barack Obama, Commander in Chief, Flag officers, Hillary Clinton, Venezuela
| Add v4Hill to your page |
Special thanks to a veteran who is for Hillary. He put so much work into this! Also check out his YouTube version, which features a very sophisticated menu.
Are members of the U.S. military panicking at the prospect of Commander in Chief Barack Obama? It seems so. I’ve been panicking; I can only imagine how true military experts feel about the prospect.
Along with the breaking news (link to come) that the 29th and 30th flag officers have endorsed Hillary Clinton — Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur (JD, PhD, MD, and 35th Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy) and Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt (Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems) — come these statements from Hillary Clinton and the campaign:
Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As President, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.
BELOW: “New Ad: Hillary Promises Never to Be Too Busy to Defend Our National Security” (with VIDEO) and “Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief” (and why Obama isn’t):
New Ad: Hillary Promises Never to Be Too Busy to Defend Our National Security,” featuring this new ad:
AND THIS:
To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Penn
Date: Monday, March 03, 2008
Re: Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief
In the last few days, serious and significant question about Senator Barack Obama have been raised, which have made this election a test about who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. We believe that after the votes are counted tomorrow, only one candidate will have passed that test, and that will be Hillary Clinton.
In fact, just by raising the issue, we have seen a defensive reaction from Sen. Obama and his campaign. The bottom line: If Sen. Obama can’t convince voters in his own party that he is the best able to protect our country, how will he convince all Americans in a general election against Sen. McCain?
Just over three years ago, Barack Obama was a state senator in Springfield, Illinois. During that time, in 2002, he delivered his Iraq speech at an anti-war rally. That’s the same speech Barack Obama is using as his major qualification to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
In 2004, when he was running for the United States Senate, Barack Obama struck a very different tone. He said that his position on the war was the same as George Bush’s. Then, after he arrived in the US Senate, Obama voted the same way as Hillary Clinton. In fact, it took him 17 months to deliver a speech in the Senate against the Iraq war.
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, Senator Obama has said that we should be doing far more, and that the United States has abdicated responsibility in Afghanistan. Obama made this claim while he was in charge of the subcommittee with oversight over NATO in Afghanistan – and yet he didn’t hold a single meeting. When asked about his inaction, Obama admitted: “I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”
National security is the first and most solemn duty of the President. Every president makes that pledge when they take the oath of office – to protect and defend our country. Our next president has a job to do – to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan, while keeping our nation safe.
Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to give our country a better and safer future. She has the support of 30 generals and admirals. They believe she has met every test to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall, Sen. Clinton has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.
Hillary’s record speaks for itself. In the Senate, she has had years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She sponsored comprehensive legislation to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Hillary is the only Senator serving on the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Transformation Advisory Group. She was a leader on the recovery effort after 9/11 – and implementing steps to prevent another terrorist attack. Hillary understands the strains on our armed forces and has worked to ensure they are ready and equipped.
Hillary’s record during the Clinton Administration speaks to her judgment and her ability to lead our nation through times of national security crises. Hillary represented America in more than 80 countries. She worked to open borders in the Balkans, bring peace in Northern Ireland and stood up in China for women’s rights and human rights.
If Barack Obama says it’s fear mongering to talk about how Senator Clinton will protect America, he is going to have a rough time up against John McCain. This is not a debate he can duck with two wars going on. Hillary is best prepared to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. She is the best candidate to end the war in Iraq, keep us safe, and restore our credibility around the world on day one.
###
What else is going on in the world?
Annoying: CNN hasn’t been airing “Your World Today” at noon ET. They’ve replaced it with an hour on the economic crisis. That’s cool. But it was great to hear some international stories. I guess my only resource now is BBC World News and BBC World News America, aired on BBCAmerica.
ready before day one? HIllary has a government in waiting, ready right now.
HIllary is already having an impact in the world. She has put forth a complete Iraq exit plan, that includes getting everyone out, canceling the no-bid contracts and thus opening them to international investors, making a strong ‘no occupation, no permanent bases’ statement and when she was ahead in the polls the violence took a downturn and the Iraqi government did something. Now that Obama is the purported winner things are heating up, the Iraqi government rejected the only thing they’d managed to do and violence is going back up. If we’re leaving then the Iraqi government needs to compromise and settle differences and there is no need to fight occupation since it’ll be over. Why the increase in violence and the new failure of the Iraqi government? Well, it seems that Obama has only promised to get our troops out, and he’s introduced a bill to bring private armies under the laws of this country rather than, as has HIllary, introduced a bill to outlaw private armies and keep all military activity within the real military. It looks like Obama plans to keep a stake in Iraq, not really give it back. Hillary knows that if you are going to do something you have to really do it, not reserve ’spoils of war.’ That’s another kind of occupation. Hillary knows that when we leave the violence may increase but will have an end, and as long as we ‘occupy’ Iraq with private armies protecting oil interests the violence will have no end. This is yet another reason why experience matters, and it shows her sense of responsibility, to speak wisely.
It’s OT but Vanity Fair have an interesting profile of Obama. My take. He’s an extremely ambitious man with a need to prove himself and perhaps more importantly the constant outsiders view of the world.
And he’s not an ideologue but someone who learned to play the system and it’s players for a higher purpose. In another era he would have been very much at home in 60s radical movement. It fits with his radical mother, Michelle Obamas comments and feelings of being an outsider and certainly with his Ayers friendship. The change theme is very much real and more serious than throwing the lobbyists of Washington.
I wonder if the Kennedy’s and Dkos crowd realy know what they got?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803?currentPage=1
He’s a terrorist enabler, terrorists who have murdered Americans, and other civilians.
Do you find that respectable?
I find it criminal.
And @ussy.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, Obama is the new Tony Blair.
heh.
This is what worries me. We just put up with 8 years of a guy who wanted to be pres to prove himself to his dad. Not that I think Obama is as bad as Bush, but we need someone whose ambition is more about the country than his own issues.
Question is why are these endorsements not front page on every news outlet? Hey, they are not even being reported anywhere. What good does it do the Clinton campaign before tomorrow?
The Ad is great but there should have an Ad with all the names of the flag officers endorsing and snipets
of why they are doing so…Especially since it has received no coverage at all. Voters out there most likely don’t know about these.
NPR reported on NAFTA-gate (good reporting) and on Rezko (very lame reporting with the person covering the trial essentially saying it doesn’t amount to much at all for Obama).
Yours very frustrated…..
Most of these Flag Officer endorsements are not new, so they don’t qualify as news. That’s my guess.
Not true… Henry Hugh Shelton endorsed Friday or Saturday and the ONLY one that reported on that was Boston.com and UPI (international) Period. And if you search noone ever reported on Taguba’s for example or any of these endorsements even *when* they occured. So I stand by my utmost annoyance
Here the only links I’ve seen so far
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/02/clinton_gets_backing_of_retired_general/7099/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/former_joint_ch.html
Which is odd, given as much control of the press the Pentagon has, embedded, and all.
Why do you think that is?
Maybe b/c they are retired and the Pentagon doesn’t want to use its influence for this with the MSM? Or do not want to give the appearance the military is influencing the election? The Pentagon I mean… But I don’t really know; it is an enigma the muted reaction of the MSM.
Do see the media as anything but a reflection of current corporate anemia?
I mean, maybe that’s the problem, we’re looking for Murrow, and what we have is Sammy Glick.
Ok, what we have is Jiminy Glick, thinking it’s Sammy Glick.
What makes Jiminy run?
Jiminy’s too fat to run.
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/jiminyglick/glick2.jpg
They can’t endorse while still on active duty. As private citizens, they can.
This is true for a E-1 to 0-10.
The GOP and the press are joined together to eliminate the Clintons. That is a prime mission for them.
btw. Endorsing Clinton or not there is no reason to empower McCain’s position in the upcoming election. McCain’s insane. He’s a bought and soiled politician, a moral phony. There is no way this man will ever be elected president no matter who the democratic nominee. I resent giving credibility to the possibility that a republican has any chance at all of winning the election this time…period. He has no credibility as a candidate. The only real race to become president is the democratic primaries. Who ever is nominated at the democratic convention will be the next president…McBush is inconsequential. His supporters don’t care about any issue other than power so no matter what you say to them…their ears are shut.
None of our candidates are ready for day 10 so far until they realize that they need to listen to us…non profit healthcare, Tariffs for protection, public campaign finance only, end the MCA, and the Patriot Act, End NAFTA, No permanent bases etc.. With dem majorities and a dem president, there’s no excuse anymore to prevent a progressive agenda blitz. Clinton may be giving us answers but neither has all the answers yet…they need to listen to us.
How is Obama the slacker/terrorist enabler any better?
He’s not, as far as I can tell, he’s worse.
Just read the update, she values professionals and experts, and with all the cleaning up that she’ll have to do when she takes office, she’s relying on expert know-how. She knows how to utilize human resources. She has thousands of collective years of experience watching her back and all our backs. I’m afraid that Obama’s ageism will stop him from recognizing the value of experience, knowledge and professionalism. A leader sets priorities and draws lines that can’t be crossed, gets the best people to manage, but keeps an eye on things. She has no tolerance for hacks. She asks us to hold her responsible.
.
Any President, and doubtful Obama will make it that far, has to rely on the bureaucracy to succeed.
Obama has been already written off, he’s DOA.
Come on folks, Obama’s record speaks for itself too! Wait a minute and I will find it!…….
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
Found one book he wrote, wait there is more, let me find it!………………………………..
………………………………………..
………………………………………..
………………………………………..
Found more, a speech he gave in 2002 to 350 anti-war protesters inChicago……wait what is this note on it…..says State Senator, but Obama said he never voted “For” the war, now I know why! But wait I am sure there is more, one sec I will find it!…….
…………………………………………..
…………………………………………..
Found it, Sen. Obama is Chair of the Senate Subcommittee with oversight over NATO in Afghanistan, impressive, oh wait not a simgle meeting held! Ok, wait a minute I am sure there is more……………………………………
……………………………………….
Found it, an article about Sen Obama, talks all about how elequintly he speaks, able to convert listeners to an almost cult like following! That is sure Presidential material!
Bamboozled by the Master Bamboozler!
you are a riot!
Mel, that would be absolutely hillarious if it weren’t so true and didn’t affect every one of us.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/22/republican-games-to-guarantee-nov-victory#comment-143870
already answered, not just by me but many other people round the net. You can look away if you like but don’t think that anyone else is bamboozled but yourself.
I hear ya Bamboozled.
The audacity to mislead….
Mel words mean something…if you can find them.
That was animation funny
If Colombia is going to start acting like Israel and conducting bombing raids and incursions into the territory of its neighbors, then Chavez is justified in moving troops to protect his borders. Colombia assassinated a rebel leader in Ecuador, crossing the border and carrying out an attack. Yes, the FARC often uses terrorist methods, but so do the paramilitaries run by the Colombian government. Even if you view the FARC as a “drug trafficking terrorist organization”, that doesn’t give Colombia the right to invade the territory of a sovereign neighbor state without its permission. If Mexico did that to us, we would consider it an act of war.
The problem here is our ridiculous policy in Colombia. We pour billions in financial and military aid into a nation run by known narco traffickers with the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. There is absolutely no justification for this.
It is just this kind of
cold warwar on terror thinking that gets the US into trouble and causes blowback worldwide. If this is what Hillary Clinton’s vaunted foreign policy experience gets us, then let’s try Obama.I was reading the Atlantic and came upon this passage: “you know…the old saw about how to keep an idiot busy: you take a piece of paper and write please turn over on each side.”
Your neocon/Obamabot at war, ladies and gentlemen…
Charles while I might agree with your sentiment;
If Mexico did that to us, we would consider it an act of war.
They have done so repeatedly along our border.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/new-border-patrol-report-mexican-government-incursions-fiscal-year-2007
Chavez is a nut with “popular” support. Is he worried about the “terrorists” he shelters with in his borders? Ok yeah it sucks that Columbia has to go after bad boys across the border, but look at the example BushCO has set. I believe Honduras is looking to get this under control and would rather have Columbia look bad instead of them. Chavez is just showing off Russian and Iranian and Chinese influences in the “So hemishpere”. Considering the Military agreements with Columbia the US has, Chavez is barking up the wrong tree, It would really NOT be in Chavez’s interests to harbor any of these folks.
If this is what Hillary Clinton’s vaunted foreign policy experience gets us, then let’s try Obama.
Is Senator Hillary currently the President? No?
This what BushCO’s “vaunted foreign policy experience gets us”.
“giving Obama a try”…
Naw, I know Senator Clinton will DO.
In none of those Mexican incursions did they kill 17 sleeping people on US soil. The raid into Ecuador was not a police or border patrol action, it was at attack on rebels who have been waging a civil war against the Colombian government.
Senator Clinton clearly find fault with Venezuela here even though Venezuela is merely protecting its borders. She clearly believes that Colombia has the right to invade its neighbors as part of its civil war. I’m sure Obama’s position is equally ridiculous.
If Chavez had a genuine and paramount interest in protecting his borders, he would not be harboring FARC.
Knowing the corruption, do you think Chavez has a choice?
This is what concerns me also about Obama’s ties to Auchi.
The hard core Baathists are violent murdering thugs.
(If not intelligent thugs,) you have to wonder why Obama would engage with Auchi?
I mean, compare Obama to Fitzgerald, they’re the same age.
crossing a border is crossing a border. Having the country next door giving safe haven to FARC is not helpful.
it was at attack on rebels who have been waging a civil war against the Colombian government.
To me it seems like a act of self defense. But we can differ, since pawns of policy are the first to leave the board.
Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light just posted a 2004 article from the Chicago Tribune, where Obama talks about possible intervention in Iran and Pakistan. There’s also an interesting section on Obama’s views on gay marriage. SG says that the article is no longer available in the Tribune’s web archives.
http://sweetness-light.com/
.
The Tribune is connected to Conrad Black and Holinger, isn’t it?
Also, I found this link yesterday, from 2005. It concerns Canada, ELF, China ( possibly, Chinese arms dealing) and Paul Volcker, who recently endorsed Obama.
This might have some connections to the Obama NAFTA Canada story:
http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/cat_france_benelux.html
It was the Chicago Sun Times that was previously connected with Conrad Black and Holinger. The Chicago Tribune also owns the LA Times, and the Tribune was recently sold (together with the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field) to real estate magnate, Sam Zell. Zell is looking to unload the Cubs…any takers ?
I WILL TAKE THE CUBS.
(I grew up not too far from Wrigley Field.)
Zell is also a big real estate guy, there was an article about him in the New Yorker, not too long ago.
He sounds like a real piece of work, yow.
Anyway, I wonder, given the nature of his business, if he’s familiar with Auchi, too?
He does have a stake in the UAE, if I remember correctly, building something or another with a bigshot Sheik.
A possible correction to Steve Gilbert saying that the Obama article was scrubbed from the Tribune archives: Someone in the “comments” section says it’s still available for a fee.
Still, it’s an interesting read.
The various Republican candidates clearly represent the splinters of the Republican party mentality:
* Huckabee represents the evangelical Xtians
* Ron Paul represents the Libertarians
* McCain represents the war mongers
* Guiliani represents the crooks and mobsters
The Republican voters had to choose from those splinters and they decided that War was the one thing they could all agree on. They want war, and lots of it. McCain is going to run on a pro-war platform (and almost certainly an anti-prosperity platform, because more war spending will not help the economy). Indeed the only thing McCain really stands for is War.
Both Obama and Hillary have put themselves forward as anti-War candidates. Obama is the more convincing anti-War candidate, and seeing that a bunch of pro-War military brass are supporting Hillary leads me to conclude that the Pentagon likes Hillary. Why do they like Hillary? Because they know that she will roll over and give them what they want, anytime, any reason.
The Pentagon just play the “National Defense” card or the “Terrorist” card and they get all the juice they can suck. The US already has the largest defense spending in the entire world, because the Pentagon cannot stand anyone saying “no” to them. Hillary will not even thing about saying “no” to them, Obama might just a little bit.
ANYONE HEAR OR SEE ANY NEWS ON WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE GAZA THE LAST FEW DAYS ON OLBERMAN, MATTHEWS, FOX OR ANYWHERE ELSE?
Since the majority of the US media is shut down to what is taking place in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Here are a few links to here a Palestinian reporter from the Gaza. Who reports that 130 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli’s in the last few days… 39 of them children. Three Israeli’s have been killed.
The Palestinian reporter describes smelling flesh and seeing arms legs and fingers of Palestinians in the streets
http://www.democracynow.org/
Really worth the listen..the whole show
Amy Goodman also interviews A reporter from the Jewish media outlet Haartz, She reports that there is no news about what is really taking place for the Palestinians in the Gaza.
Palestinian View
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87865576
Npr Israeli view
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87865573
And every time Israel behaves in this way, (if this is true, and I have no reason to doubt your veracity, Kathleen, it’s just so much propaganda goes out), it digs it’s own grave, a little deeper.
I wish they would think, and not use the gun, so quickly.
But the corrupt neocons and Obamabots don’t really think, corrupt cheaters rarely do.
Hang on a moment, Hillary has been a solid supporter of Israel for years — right back when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary has never criticized Israel. Obama’s policies on Israel are cut-and-paste from Hillary’s policies, so there’s no visible difference between candidates. Who are you calling a corrupt cheater here? You go find me a link to a speech where either Hillary or Obama has made even the slightest mention of the harsh treatment meted out to the Palistinians.
The only candidate who might consider cutting back the US money supply to Israel is Ron Paul — and he has approx 5% of the vote, so his chance of any meaningful influence is about zero right now.
I didn’t call Israel a corrupt cheater, if you were speaking to me.
IMO, Israel is too fast with the gun, and also, IMO, that known is used against Israel, to bait it into wars of attrition, slowly destroying the nation.
The US, unfortunately, is mimicking, ala Cheney and Bush, Israel’s losing neocon war strategy.
I was responding to this quote:
So who specifically was it referring to? And on what basis?
Hint: don’t tell me who it was not referring to.
Corrupt in that both the neocons, and Obama accpet money from men like Nadhmi Auchi.
Well you answered my question so at least I know where you are coming from now.
I would expect that money from Auchi (an ex-Iraqi and part Arab) might make Obama more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. If Obama does have any sympathy, he sure hides it, because neither he nor Hillary are willing to criticize Israel’s human rights record. Maybe the pro-Israel lobby bid higher than Auchi did?
Linked this to Crooks and Liars blog site and they took it off. Firedoglake bloggers will not touch this critical issue, Crooks and Liars will not touch it. Real Blog Clogs on these websites about the I/P conflict. Information Clearing House links articles
Even if one’s opinions differ, tis a bad Omen.
Thanks for caring.
Crooks and Liars and Firedoglake have blog clogs when it comes to this issue. ( have been observing for years now). They will make all sorts of excuses, but believe me someone like FAIR could conduct some research on BLOGS THAT HAVE CLOGS having to do with this critical issue.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100. Better to study this issue now instead of later (Mearsheimer and Walt)
As the blog world developed there have been successful efforts to block this topic similar to what has taken place in the MSM over the last 50 years.
FDL’s Siun did post a blog on Sunday on this issue. Siun is one of the folks who have personally attacked me and some others who would link articles and bring the I/P issue up at FDL.
This change is better late than never.
Kathleen, as you write so well, YOU should write an entry in regard to this subject, if it’s OK with Susan and Larry.
Initiate a discussion of the truth, nothing purposely inflammatory, so we can have a realistic discussion about the Middle East, as opposed to instituting censorship ala AIPAC, or Hezbollah, say.
Boy, it will be nice to have a US government free of PACS, won’t it?
A reliable hueristic one can use is this:
When the American press starts caterwauling about Darfur, you can be guaranteed that the Israelis have done something evil in Palestine, Ghaza or Lebanon and need a press distraction in the USA.
Darfur is the feel good violence for this campaign season. Much more so than the Congo or the Rwanda genocides or the holocaust the Israelis are committing. Darfur has it all, black animist farmers vs black islamic herders, Evil Fu Man Chu villains somewhere in the background doing oil deals without the American oil companies, a large country that is not an ally of the USA getting richer. Much more appealing than Rwanda, way more understandable than the nuances and shifting alliances in the Congo. Much less fundamentalist investment than in Liberia. And the American military has never really had a chance to do shock and awe on the African continent against black opponents. There will be some fine film shots, White american troops blowing away black african herders.
However, there is another problem area in Africa to worry the heads of the next administration, Nigeria’s oil fields ( Biafra to the old folks here)
are being systematically destroyed by a non state entity.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/02/henry-okah.html
Meet the next evil Osama. A big round of applause for Henry Okah.
Israel has quite the habit of responding (or making it appear that way) of disproportionate and excessive responses.
This Democracy Now coverage of what is taking place is really important to get out there..since our MSM will not touch it.
I agree with you Kathleen, and problems can’t begin to be solved until the truth is recognized.
You can’t realistically solve an issue if you refuse to see the truth, and your opponent does.
It’s very very very easy to feed an enemies denial (think the world as Hitler bamboozled Europe)and if you deny, you’re afraid of something, and it’s a weakness that can be exploited.
Churchill was not afraid.
Kathleen– How would you suggest that Israel respond to hundreds of missiles launched each week from civilians’ back yards, across borders, into their cities ? How do you propose that Israel neutralize the stockpiles of these missiles hidden in the homes of civilians ? And no, national suicide and dissolution of their country is not an option that they would find acceptable.
Take it.
Because like our Founding Fathers did when King George III sent his troops to quell the rebellion against taxes — get out our country or be forced out with a barrel of a gun.
Those Palestinians are patriots no different than our own over 200 years ago. They have every right to defend their homeland. Political boundries (that Israel violates anyhow) won’t stop it, as much as the British troops couldn’t stop Washington’s army.
In Gaza, they’re literally fighting for their lives. They have every right to defend themselves.
Israel will have to come to the bargaining table. Or they’ll be kicked out of Israel, again, as the USA isn’t going to be Israel’s babysitter forever.
Same as in the US, who is supplying these idiots with those weapons?
Men like Auchi, who also supports Obama, and his campaign?
What about the Saudis, who dine with President Bush?
How about Richard Perle?
How about all the Sybil Edmonds “boys,” some of whom work in the state department, and the pentagon?
What about all those “charities,” that launder money?
What you mentioned, Rob, is the crux of terrorism, and some people thought to be respectable are making a shitload of money off of it.
“Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups”
Dear Hillary: when this country stops providing safe-heaven for terrorists, then you could open your hypocritical mouth. Just in case you forgot, Bosch, Posadas Carriles, Michael Townsley, Dionisio Suarez Esquivel(aka Blood Puddle)etc. (http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000026/inside-floridas-terror-training-camp-its-ok-they-hate-castro-not-us)
Obama is the one enabling Auchi, not Hillary.
Try to keep it straight, it’s important. You get really confused when you lie, and you might goof up.
Again.
Sorry Simon, YOU can also get confused when you stop ignoring that this country has given safe heaven to many terrorists. You want to discuss what she said about other countries harbouring terroists? Then open your eyes, and don’t bring some unknowun Auchi. Hillary wants to discuss other countries harbouring terrorists? Tell her she can do so WHEN SHE DOES SOMETHING TO GET RID OF THEM. (other than the usual blah blah)
What did she say when Bosch was pardoned?
What did she say when Posadas Carriles was pardoned
What did she say when “Blood Puddle” was pardoned?
She said Jack
Why is Obama taking money from Auchi, and Rezko?
That is a direct link, Shirin.
As bad as Bush.
Those are our retired American terrorists. America now hates terrorism. America would never hire someone ( Posada ) to blow civilian airliners out of the sky. ( We use the US Navy to do that ).
Cruz, most of those people were CIA assets. This is a blog run by a CIA staffer. You can take the boy out of the CIA, but you can never take the CIA out of the boy.
I know. Unfortunately, the world no longer cares for the “Do as I say, and not as I do” What also reakky shocks me is that Hillary approves of Bush’s pre-emtive strike theory. (I could only agree to that theory only when a country is in inminent danger. Iraq did not meet those conditions, and neither did the Colombian attack)
CK and Cruz,
Assets? We can’t talk about that.
1997: Moussaoui Travels to Azerbaijan, Meets CIA Asset There.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a97moussaouibaku
Is The CIA Trying to Kill Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20070419&articleId=5443
If you ever wanted to know why Dems have only won 4 presidential elections in 48 years, your reply is but one reason.
It’s not only horrible and insulting, it’s deluded.
As to your question, why Dems only won 4 elections in 48 years, that is easy: Because they stole Al Gores presidency in 2000, and Kerry in Ohio in 2004.
As for the “horrible,and insulting, it’s deluded”, please enlight me. Are you refering that it is horrible that the US used the tactics of terrorists? I agree.Is it horrible that we provide a safe heaven for two cold blooded killers that blew up a plane with 77 people in it. I agree. Insulting??? Truth can never be insulting.
Now, tell me who is deluded.
Chris
USS Vincennes ring a bell?
1988 the Vincennes shot down a civilian airliner killing all 290 people on board including 66 children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)
In effect, the USA’s most sophisticated warship at that time could not identify an airliner on a scheduled flight.
As for Posada, his history and employment by the CIA is not in dispute.
Maybe I should link to the latest group of Abu Ghraib photos and videos? Horrible yes. Those who commit these horrid acts bring shame on the USA the delusion resides within the military and the CIA and the two wings of our national party of prey.
The shining city on the hill has a lot of religion but not much morality.
That being said, the CIA would be, IMO, the biggest badass of them all.
I would say, fundamentally, the CIA is not a criminal enterprise. IMO.
Or maybe it KNOWS HOW to run a business.
And running arms for Hezbollah doesn’t quite cut it.
Would you allow junior onto YOUR farm?
Of course George Sr. was once head of the CIA.
[...] I keep saying, it’s no wonder that generals and admirals are rallying to Hillary Clinton. This twit must scare the bejeezus out of [...]
LET’s ALL give a big hand to the veteran for Hillary who created that new video at the top of this story. Isn’t it great? Btw, it has a menu too — although the YouTube version is niftier. But, that code doesn’t work with the Firefox browser, so we went to an alternative code. The YouTube version is also linked at the top.
Cnn ticker says a laptop taken the Honduran raid shows that Chavez has given FARC 300 million.
Maybe he sent ten battalions to get it back…
If true, what the nutter whining about?
@TWK
What Honduran raid?
Honduras is in central america, has no borders with Columbia or Venezuela or Ecuador. FARC is not a Honduran export.
I thought the laptops were Iranian.
It must be heartening to know that everyone puts their super secret financial dealings on un encrypted laptops and doesn’t even take elementary precautions with those lappies.
Oh well if it was on the CNN ticker it is as true as if it were on the Fox ticker.
Meanwhile where is that missing blonde woman.
Has anyone seen her? Vicki Iseman is missing, blonde, young, wealthy, ( not as endowed as Anna Nicole Smith ), has not been seen nor heard from for several weeks.
:rolleyes:
Anyone check the crawl space at McDonald’s?
Sorry it was late CK, thanks for the correction…
Dyslexia and fatigue…I said “if true” …Lol.
While I favor Hillary, and feel that retired officers have as much right to express opinions as anyone, I do not like this sort of organized intervention in our politics by the military.
They are retired. They have every right to speak out.
As long as they aren’t wearing the uniform.
Of course as retirees they have their own financial agenda to worry about. A uniform does not purity insure, nor intelligence guarantee.
See Gen Petraeus for confirmation of same.
You really have serious issues of hate, CK, truly.