Her opening statement serves as her campaign foreign policy speech. The Clinton scorched earth moves on. As you should note the Clinton camp colluded with Congressman Cummings.
She is listing her credentials and playing the victim of a witch hunt. She is using her Queen persona today, above the dirty gutter politics.
She will use tearing up and righteous indignation all day… Barf!
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Politics, Terrorism
Do you ever let your mind wander and think about “what ifs”? Well, as Donald Trump continues to keep the GOP race in disarray and feeds the worst bigots, xenophobes and racists at the base, well, I wonder, would the Clinton political machine be able to orchestrate a more perfect triangulation than to have far-left kook, Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right. Trump’s single-handedly throwing the election to Hillary with his “deport them all”, which threw the Hispanic vote in the toilet for the GOP, if he is the candidate, then it was the attacks on women, or how about his “closing mosques” comment yesterday? That would leave the Queen sitting snugly in the “middle” – calm, grandmotherly and looking “moderate”…
At first, I thought this would be impossible, but as I’ve watched Trump continue to agitate and throw out these verbal hand grenades at any in the GOP field, who looks like he/she might move up in the polls, then add in all these outrageous lines he keeps throwing out to alienate wide swaths of the electorate, it all seems orchestrated and contrived. A couple days ago he was blaming GWB for 9/11 and not keeping America safe, yet it was President Clinton who let bin Laden go and who did nothing to deal with Al Qaeda’s attacks on American interests – USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu ring any bells. No, Trump attacked GWB…
I began to think Trump’s operating like a Clinton sewer rat and he sure fixates on the polls – just like the Clintons. Every other word he speaks is about his poll numbers and the press feeds on that too. This training the American public that polls determine what’s right and wrong, not the merits of the issue, worked like a charm during the Clinton impeachment. “Who cares if a President lies under oath – the American public doesn’t; just look at the President’s poll numbers”, went the argument. The media sold that line of reasoning and the American people bought it.
We know Trump frequently golfed with Bill Clinton, praised Hillary and even invited the Clintons to his wedding. In fact, that reported phone call from Bill Clinton to Trump right before he announced his decision to enter the race as a Republican seems so odd, looking back at how this race is stacking up. Trump is clearing the path for a Hillary win.
So, does Trump have some vendetta against GWB or the Bushes, because his ultimate target is to demolish Jeb Bush? Trump holds grudges and he believes in destroying his enemies. Back in August 2015, I wrote a post where I quoted one of Trump’s books:
Last week I bought one of Trump’s books, as I mentioned before, and I read it. Assuredly, Trump offered many interesting insights into, as the book’s title stated, “TRUMP: How to Get Rich”. The pride he takes in his children comes across and he offers some worthwhile advice on investing and negotiating, but trying to get to the character of who exactly is Donald Trump, well, he’s a man who has chapters in his book like “Be Strategically Dramatic”, “Sometimes You Still Have To Screw Them”, and “Sometimes You Have To Hold a Grudge”, replete with examples from his life and his guiding principles. Here are some quotes (page 138):
“When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can. Like it says in the Bible, an eye for an eye.”
Be paranoid. I know this observation doesn’t make any of us sound very good, but let’s face the fact that it’s possible that even your best friend wants to steal your spouse and your money.”
The chapter on holding a grudge is even more interesting, because Trump relates how for years he had donated huge amounts of money to NY governor, Mario Cuomo and when he called Cuomo to ask for a favor from Cuomo’s son, Andrew, who was running the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mario Cuomo refused to do the favor (which Trump doesn’t explain in detail other than to say it was an appropriate favor involving attention to a detail). Trump blew up and for any who are confused with Trump’s vendetta against Megyn Kelly on Twitter, calling her a bimbo last night or his refusing to entertain a question by Jorge Ramos from Univision this evening, well, this chapter on holding a grudge (page 142) explains it. Trump called in a political favor believing it was owed to him, because he donated a lot of money to Mario Cuomo (crony capitalism is what most people call this greasing of palms). Here is how Trump describes the phone call:
“I did the only thing that felt right to me. I began screaming. “You son of a bitch! For years I’ve helped you and never asked for a thing, and when I finally need something, and a totally proper thing at that, you aren’t there for me. You’re no good. You’re one of the most disloyal people I’ve known and as far as I’m concerned, you can go to hell.”
My screaming was so loud that two or three people came in from adjoining offices and asked who I was screaming at. I told them it was Mario Cuomo., a total stiff, a lousy governor, and a disloyal former friend. Now whenever I see Mario at dinner, I refuse to acknowledge him, talk to him, or even look at him.”
Today, Vice President, Joe Biden, decided not to run, so the field is cleared for Hillary and I believe Bill Clinton is throwing his political muscle around to secure the nomination for Hillary. After all, she went to great lengths to save his presidency during all their assorted scandals, but especially during the Lewinsky scandal. Coincidences do happen, but some are just too strange, like Bill Clinton calling Donald Trump weeks before Trump’s decision to run as a Republican for president.
Perhaps, this all falls in the realm of a wild conspiracy theory, but it’s best to look at how many segments of the electorate Trump has thrown to the Queen and keep tabs, as he makes more, supposedly, contemporaneous comments that set GOP hopes in flames. This sure has the stench of a Clintonian scorched earth policy, where they hold all of the matches.
Filed under General Interest, Politics
McClatchy DC reports: “U.S., Russia sign Syria air safety deal but keep quarreling over war aims” written by James Rosen.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article40531689.html#storylink=cpy
Rosen writes:
WASHINGTON – American and Russian senior military officials signed an agreement Tuesday spelling out safety rules their nations’ aircraft are to follow in the contested skies over Syria, but the two governments continued to snipe at each other’s goals in the Middle East country.
Pentagon officials said the accord was a narrow, technical “memorandum of understanding” that in no way signals U.S. approval of the new Russian air campaign to support Syrian President Bashar Assad’s embattled army.
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics
I posted my Syria plan ideas at the Small Wars Journal, under a piece from War on the Rocks, “A New Plan for the United States in Syria“, by Ben Jonsson which starts off with this shift in strategy:
“As the Obama administration rethinks its Syria strategy, it should start by redefining U.S. interests in the face of an increasingly fractured Syrian conflict and adopting a new strategy that seeks to immediately reduce the level of violence by enforcing a pause on offensive operations by all sides in Syria.”
That goal is lofty, but at this point there’s nothing to induce that Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance nor the assorted Syrian rebel groups to agree to a ceasefire. I wrote my plan in the comments, it’s a repeat, so just skip it if you’ve been reading my posts the last couple weeks:
libertybelle October 20, 2015 – 12:08pm
The US calling for a ceasefire will fall on deaf ears at this point. I believe we should be formulating a plan to attack ISIS from the east, as the Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance moves eastward from western Syria. We should discuss our plan to roll back ISIS with our allies and the Russian led alliance and while we should not become part of the Russian alliance, we should maintain open dialogue with Putin on our aims. It’s imperative that we talk to Putin, but the US must maintain total control over our plan. We should emphasize the urgency of getting to a ceasefire in Syria quickly with the more “moderate” Syrian rebels and the US should work with Putin to insure that safe zones can quickly be set up, with the aid of the international community, to protect civilians and those who put down their arms. Pouring more arms in to “moderate Syrians” will prolong the carnage.
We must recognize that Assad is a second tier problem compared to ISIS. If a “Russian-friendly” regime is in the wings to replace Assad, then Putin may be willing to let the good folks in Brussels deal with Assad. Syria has been a Russian client-state for decades and we lose nothing if a Russian-friendly government replaces Assad, but we will lose a great deal if ISIS fills a power vacuum should Assad fall first.
If we demonstrate an ability to implement a plan to work with forces in Iraq to really tackle ISIS, many of our traditional allies may prefer to align with the US rather than the Russian/Iranian/Syrian alliance, and this would counter the growing Iranian influence. We might be able to restore American credibility in the process too, which would aid us long-term. This plan would require deft diplomacy, speedy action and a willingness to use adequate military force to a clearly defined mission – defeat the Islamic State.
A pitfall to avoid would be to invest too many American boots on the ground and end up in an occupying mode in Iraq again, which would not help our long-term strategy in the region, which should be promoting REGIONAL STABILITY.
There was a 2014 paper in SSI by General Huba Wass de Czege ( http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/Winter_… ),which had some ideas on how to prevent power vacuums as we progress, by relying on local and tribal leaders to create grassroots law and order as we learn and grow our capacity. We need to utilize new ideas and be open to change, while keeping in mind that as ISIS is rolled back, quickly establishing local security capacity is vital and since the “national government” has demonstrated no ability to do this, in addition to the ethnic divide between the national government and local population in ISIS territory, perhaps working with local leadership might work better. This is just an idea. There was July 2015 SSI paper by Dr. Robert E. Lamb,”Strategic Insights: Fragile States Cannot Be Fixed With State-Building” (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Fragile…), which explains this common pitfall with international efforts at “nation-building”.
Expecting a ceasefire, absent any real US plan, especially with the US reputation at a low-ebb, will get us nowhere.
https://libertybellediaries.com/2015/10/08/my-plan-for-the-syria-mess-inc…
I believe this “ceasefire first” plan relies on magical thinking and a lot of glossing over the serious problems with our Bosnia efforts, which this author seemed to be unaware of or ignored. “Moderate Syrian” rebels will not agree to a ceasefire immediately and frankly, the Assad regime, in an existential struggle, likewise, at this point has no incentive to agree to one. It seems to me like a retread of the Bosnia Plan. My idea apparently seems too controversial for consideration – oh no, we can’t talk to Putin, but the only way to have a seat at the table or to counter the Russian/Iranian moves is to be relevant. Expecting the “international community” or in this case, the writer listed regional powers, to tighten the diplomatic screws enough to force compliance to a ceasefire seems unlikely to work, imho.
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism
Posted two comments at National Review this morning at a piece titled, “Henry Kissinger: Is nuclear catastrophe inevitable?”, by James Lewis. Lewis dissects Kissinger’s op-ed from the Wall Street Journal and he ends up advocating:
“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/henry_kissinger_is_nuclear_catastrophe_inevitable.html#ixzz3p1FqT5Do
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The idea of “REGIONAL STABILITY” as an American national security strategy sure seems to be taking hold… As they say, what’s old becomes new again, all the time.
Here are my two comments, with the comment I responded to included – it’s some vintage stuff from the LB archives on Ukraine and a repeat of my plan from two weeks ago, so just skip it if you’ve read my previous posts:
feralcat Monday, October 19, 2015 2:27 AM
“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”
Then at a minimum, neither Rubio, Fiorina nor Christie can ever become President as they all want to not only not even talk to the Russians but they want to shoot down their planes which would not be at all conducive to any kind of alliance, although it would go quite well with starting WWIII between America and Russia.
susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 8:40 AM
They lost me on the foreign policy end. For two weeks I’ve been saying we should work with the Kurds and other groups in Iraq and come up with a real plan to roll back ISIS from the east as the Russian/Syrian/Iranian block pushes them them eastward from western Syria. We could coordinate with the Russians, while still retaining complete autonomy in our planning and decisions. We should have already consulted with the Russians and established a hot line to protect our pilots and avoid air accidents, like the Israelis did.
John McCreary, a foremost intelligence analyst who retired from DIA and now puts together KGS Nightwatch (a subscription report – https://www.kforcegov.com/solu… on Oct. 14th wrote:
“A significant divergence of policy and strategy between
the US and Russia is now apparent in Syria, Iraq and other Mid-eastern countries. The US strategy since 2011 mostly has focused on building up opposition entities to replace authoritarian governments with democratic systems. That has backfired by contributed to widespread instability; civil war and state fragmentation; legitimation of elected Islamist regimes and a backlash among the local populations in favor of stability, exemplified by political developments in Egypt.Notable exceptions to this strategy are Afghanistan and Yemen. The
Afghanistan conflict predates the current US administration whose policy has been to reduce the US presence to an embassy by the end of 2016. In Yemen, the US tends to support the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, possibly because all the Gulf state air forces fly US combat aircraft.The Russian strategy is built on supporting the governments in power in order to stabilize the existing order. Russia lacks the resources of the US, but President Putin has used his limited resources prudently and maneuvered deftly to advance Russian military presence and influence. Putin’s timing has been almost superb.
For old hands, the Russians and Americans appear to have reversed their traditional roles and swapped strategies and roles. Twenty-five years ago, the Soviets were destabilizing regions by supporting opposition elements in states friendly to the US. Now they are on the side of regional stability.“(Italics are mine)
I’ve been saying since Oct. 5th( http://libertybellediaries.com… , http://libertybellediaries.com…, http://libertybellediaries.com… ) Regional Stability should be our policy, imho, because there are worse things than despots and dictators – like anarchy and power vacuums, which seem to be our trademark end product in the ME these days.
and then:
KlugerRD Monday, October 19, 2015 8:20 AM
Kissinger is brilliant and also identifies what is the obvious.
Back when the Ukraine crisis began he wrote an op-ed about what Obama should do. It was not on ESPN so Obama never saw it,
Kissinger basically said that we should speak to Putin and find out what his interests are. Had we done that Crimea would never have happened. Ukraine was all about economics and their investment in gas pipelines throughout the country.
Putin is not a communist – he is a capitalist – and has spoken extensively about creating a EurAsian economic bloc to compete with the E.U. If you believe in free market capitalism there is nothing wrong with country’s seeking their own interests.
In regard to the Middle East, unless we wish to engage in a major regional war, dealing with Russia in the proper way is the answer to avoiding a nuclear war.
Obama is incompetent which is why we are where we are and will need a new President.
susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 9:55 AM
Back during Ukraine, to see how the Russians saw things, they leaked an intercepted phone conversation in western media that was between our ambassador in Ukraine and Victoria Nuland at the State Dept, – discussing which opposition leader we wanted to put in Kiev ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/… ). To understand the Russian reasoning, just think how they interpreted the US trying to install a US puppet government in Kiev, that would isolate them from the their Navy’s warm-water port in Sevastopol in Crimea. ( http://libertybellediaries.com… ).
Putin told Charlie Rose to please make sure his comments were aired without editing in that CBS Charlie Rose interview, 9/27/15 ( http://www.charlierose.com/wat… , start about minute 14). Someone should pin down President Obama on our actions around the world, from Ukraine, Libya (Benghazi too), Iraq and what in the heck our strategy really is in regards to defeating ISIL. Putin laid out his position clearly. And to avoid major misunderstandings and escalating to war before actually talking is insane – we need to try to resolve conflicts by talking first, but instead we’ve got politicians all screaming for military escalation as our first diplomatic option.
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism
Just another response to a comment at Charles Krauthammer’s article at National Review. Same old, so save yourself the time and skip this, if you’ve read my other posts on this topic:
Bill Befort Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:36 PM
Krauthammer certainly seems to have attracted a negative fan club of isolationists and antisemites. I particularly like the guy who goes on with such relish about a nuclear Iran coming to dominate Israel; it doesn’t seem to occur to him that, if he’s right about Iran’s intentions, Israel — already a nuclear power — could decide right now to “exercise influence over Iran as a condition of Iran’s existence as a country.” That would be unprovoked Zionist neocon aggression, I guess. Anyway, there seem to be a surprising lot of NR readers who have already absorbed and internalized Obama’s retreat from the world. Paulistas, I imagine.
susanholly Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:55 PM
The issue is which news and intelligence sources are being used by the media and Dr. Krauthammer to form their opinions and the FACT is that 50 intelligence analysts in CENTCOM came forward to say their reports were being doctored to buttress the Obama administration narrative (propaganda) that his strategy to defeat ISIS is working. The neocon establishment places its trust in places like the think tank, Institute for the Study of War, run by Kimberly Kagan, which has put out several iterations of a map of the Syrian rebel forces that are incongruent to say the least and everyone – the media and the US State Dept seem to rely solely on these ISW maps, without question. This happened in 2013 also when a young Syrian “expert”, Elizabeth O’Bagy became the accepted font of knowledge on the Syrian rebels. John McCain and Sec of State Kerry quoted her by name and the mainstream media accepted her “expertise” without question – relying on this unknown young woman rather than VETTED intelligence information from our megabucks intelligence agencies. Dr.Krauthammer is not aware he has allowed his ideology and false information to impair his judgment. I certainly would like to know the names and groups whom the ISW relies on for up to date information from Syria and also a full investigation on whom our CIA actually has been arming in Syria.
Along with the Syrian “moderates”, I would like a full investigation into who were the Libyan freedom fighters from Benghazi, whom Hillary Clinton argued faced genocide and whom she used as the rationale for toppling Gadaffi, when the US military knew that Benghazi and Derna were hotbeds of Al Qaeda and radical Islamists.
You do realize some of those Benghazi freedom fighters attacked the US embassy in 2012, right? And the foreign fighters from Libya fighting our soldiers in Iraq hailed from that very same hot bed area of Benghazi and Derna. Facts matter!
Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism, The Media
This is a page from one of my cookbooks, “How To Feed An Army: Recipes and Lore from the Front Lines”, which offers stuff like this “recipe for disaster”. Not sure if this information is true, but it’s the type of information which feeds folk lores… The HOOAH! rock is real for sure – it’s my husband’s from Mojave Strike ’95 and served as a handy paperweight to hold the book open.
Thinking about the “facts”, from which Charles Krauthammer, forms his opinions and beliefs made me wonder about all this, because I believe that in 1998, when I posted messages on the Excite message boards, that I was cast as a right-wing extremist or threat of some sort. I believe that from those comments, my identity was investigated and they came upon a retired general who hates me – yes, he truly does. He gave me such an angry glare at a brigade picnic after Desert Storm that I was literally frightened. He went on to become a general.
A few years after Desert Storm I found out that “some letters from some wife” caused a big stink after Desert Storm and the person trying to ferret information out of me, the paid volunteer coordinator for this post, informed me that she was close friends with that general’s wife. After this conversation, I was treated like a pariah among the other “leaders’ wives” and I began to ponder the “letters” she mentioned. By this point, my husband was a sergeant major. I wrote letters to my husband’s company commander during Desert Storm, to inform him about what was happening with the wives, back in Germany. My husband was a first sergeant at this time. These were personal letters, snarky in the extreme, and never intended to become public. I believe the husband of the woman, mentioned as petitesouthernbelle in my Messages of mhere saga, submitted those letters with his after action reports – that would be my husband’s battalion commander.
When this volunteer coordinator began talking to me, I mentioned knowing petitesouthernbelle from Desert Storm and this woman informed me that she is good friends with the queenoftherock and that she heard petitesouthernbelle didn’t do much to help families during Desert Storm – which is a complete and total lie. So, this is how catty gossip makes and breaks reputations. I believe that during Desert Storm, as the queenoftherock informed me several times, that she informed her husband that I was not cooperating when I told her to go ahead and tell her husband, but I wasn’t doing what she said – things like relay bomb threat information via a wives phone roster…
Now, this whole thing about “moderate Syrians” vs Al Qaeda/ISIS nuts made me wonder how the CIA goes about determining that. I know that no one asked me anything before I was attacked in my own home, on American soil. Of course, my husband, who thinks that general’s stuff doesn’t stink, would never believe this highly-regarded commander would participate in some sleazy attack on a homemaker, but I believe he did. I believe this is the truth.
Since 1999, I have been trying to prove this, because if I had not fought back and gotten lucky, I would not be free today, but instead would be locked up in a state mental institution. My crime was making fun of thatwitch2016 and her sewer rats’ lame legal arguments. And of course, I referred to her husband as BJ Clinton, in my usual snarky manner, so of course, that assuredly helped seal my fate as part of the “vast, right-wing conspiracy”.
My goal is not that dish best served cold – revenge, but “justice”, because the powers of the Presidency and Army assets should not be used to attack American citizens over comments on a message board, especially when those comments were about following the rule of law, insisting that no one is above the law and arguing that lying under oath is unacceptable, no matter what the nature of the case. However, in a case on sexual harassment, one would expect questions of previous questionable sexual conduct to be reasonable.
I intend to seek the TRUTH, wherever it leads.
Filed under Food for Thought, Messages of mhere, Military, Politics, Terrorism, The Constitution
