Sanders: "Obviously, we are taking on the entire Democratic establishment.”

where is this incorrect?

If you refute it fine..that's the kind of posting you should do instead of lame ass "racists/sexists" worthless mantras
tossed around as "proof"

How could I support HRClinton and be a misogynist ???
that's where dumb ass reactive thought gets you - looking stupid clinging to logical fallacies.
You aren't stupid, but your PC thought process short-circuits itself.

It is totally incorrect.
Jefferson wanted cultural asimilation of indian tribes AND for them to retain their native lands.
Adams was self described as the greatest enemy slave owners ever had.
You do realise who benefited most from the Indian Removal Act right? Or do you. Apparently not. This is why I said you should have researched it before printing it.
The author is a gross liar claiming the support of opponents.
You are just the fool who knows too little history and not even enough to check the veracity of aticles you publish.
 
Oops. You said she calls everyone a racist. Maybe she just calls it as she sees it, racist. Tell us what a great guy Martin O'Mally is again cracker.

I am on other boards with Bjiou so you can give up the lies about her. Like most posters who left she left because you suck.
I never said O'Malley was a "great guy" I credited him with the drop in Baltimore murders; nor did I ever say his policies weren't racist.
When T-Cat showed me the graphs that corresponded to national trends, I withdrew crediting him

You are a piece of work -you lie and dissemble in a desperate attempt to paint people you disagree with as "racist"
Darla does the same with her "misogynist" . It's typical of left wing whacked out PC shitheads who can't wun a debate so they resort to character assassination.
I've handed you your ass so many times on Hillary and Libya ( etc.) you are a permanent part of Darla's butthurt club.
You are both vile, and all too typical of what left wing extremism has brought to US politics.

TTQ calls everybody a racist she doesn't agree with - your desperation is showing.

Provide PROOF that Bijou calls me a racist. I've known BIJOU for a long time -I've met that poster in person.
she would never say that about me because she knows me. Put up from DCJ where she calls me a racist
You're a disgusting liar. link it. Fuck you.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans#Acculturation_and_assimilation
Jefferson:
Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.[11][12]
Jefferson believed that this strategy would "get rid of this pest, without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians
Adams: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3543
Adams’s Indian policies also cost him supporters. Although he, like his predecessor Monroe, wanted to remove Native Americans in the South to an area west of the Mississippi River, he believed that the state and federal governments had a duty to abide by Indian treaties and to purchase, not merely annex, Indian lands. Adams’s decision to repudiate and renegotiate a fraudulent treaty that stripped the Georgia Creek Indians of their land outraged land-hungry Southerners and Westerners.
 
I never said O'Malley was a "great guy" I credited him with the drop in Baltimore murders; nor did I ever say his policies weren't racist.
When T-Cat showed me the graphs that corresponded to national trends, I withdrew crediting him

You are a piece of work -you lie and dissemble in a desperate attempt to paint people you disagree with as "racist"
Darla does the same with her "misogynist" . It's typical of left wing whacked out PC shitheads who can't wun a debate so they resort to character assassination.
I've handed you your ass so many times on Hillary and Libya ( etc.) you are a permanent part of Darla's butthurt club.
You are both vile, and all too typical of what left wing extremism has brought to US politics.

TTQ calls everybody a racist she doesn't agree with - your desperation is showing.

Provide PROOF that Bijou calls me a racist. I've known BIJOU for a long time -I've met that poster in person.
she would never say that about me because she knows me. Put up from DCJ where she calls me a racist
You're a disgusting liar. link it. Fuck you.

1. You have never handed me anything, you are completely delusional.
2. I never said Bjiou called you a racist, don't put words in my mouth, I didn't even bring her up, you did shit stain.
3. Generalise all you want about other posters but anyone can see it is you who posts hundreds of character assasination threads. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
4. Thanks for admitting you need others to point out racism to you.
Too bad you are so blind as to see the article you posted is Stormfront level racism, but that is the whole point. You are in total denial.
B
 
1. You have never handed me anything, you are completely delusional.
1,000,000 times you made excuses for HRC advocacy and architecture of the Libyan war -
you've denied her role as international organizer and overwhelming voice in the NSC, that led to Obama bombing Libya.
You've downplayed her as Sec of State to passive witness instead of her gross misunderstanding (voice) of the NTC-
thereby creating that failed terrorist state. Now you deny your own words. Typical.

2. I never said Bjiou called you a racist, don't put words in my mouth, I didn't even bring her up, you did shit stain.
He routinely tries to justify his sexist misogynistic and racist sentiments
you've called me a racist and mysogynist .You've said you have first hand knowledge BIJOU calls me a liar -when I call you out on it
you run away and shift insults. I'm not keep track of your slanders -that's you modus operandi -but you've reached a new low dragging BIJOU into this

3. Generalise all you want about other posters but anyone can see it is you who posts hundreds of character assasination threads. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
ROFL -pointing out the myriad Clinton failures is "character assassination"? what a crok of garbage
. I don't worship at the Democratic altar, and HRC was a public figure who facilitated terrorism ( ISIS in Libya),
and destroyed a state with a high standard of living and when it's pointed out you criticize me for the reportage??
Your chutzbah is worse then your gross misunderstanding

4. Thanks for admitting you need others to point out racism to you.
whatever the fuck...you're spinning tales faster then I can debunk them

Too bad you are so blind as to see the article you posted is Stormfront level racism, but that is the whole point. You are in total denial.
So now Jim Webb is "Stromfront Level" - You can disagree with his analysis ( but you were wrong there too) -but you choose the typical
leftwing Slime machine method of labeling an honorable man's writings "racist"

forget your dumbass-you are lower then the most useless troll.
You exist to slime honorable people with casual "racist" denunciations .. You marginalize yourself by mental slothery & lies.
 
Liberals fighting liberals = great fun for me
I'm not a liberal, not a conservative, not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a Progressive..
I look at things to see how they are, analyze the factors, and the best path forward

Partys/labels are for Lay-Z minds
 
1,000,000 times you made excuses for HRC advocacy and architecture of the Libyan war -
you've denied her role as international organizer and overwhelming voice in the NSC, that led to Obama bombing Libya.
You've downplayed her as Sec of State to passive witness instead of her gross misunderstanding (voice) of the NTC-
thereby creating that failed terrorist state. Now you deny your own words. Typical.

you've called me a racist and mysogynist .You've said you have first hand knowledge BIJOU calls me a liar -when I call you out on it
you run away and shift insults. I'm not keep track of your slanders -that's you modus operandi -but you've reached a new low dragging BIJOU into this

ROFL -pointing out the myriad Clinton failures is "character assassination"? what a crok of garbage
. I don't worship at the Democratic altar, and HRC was a public figure who facilitated terrorism ( ISIS in Libya),
and destroyed a state with a high standard of living and when it's pointed out you criticize me for the reportage??
Your chutzbah is worse then your gross misunderstanding

whatever the fuck...you're spinning tales faster then I can debunk them

So now Jim Webb is "Stromfront Level" - You can disagree with his analysis ( but you were wrong there too) -but you choose the typical
leftwing Slime machine method of labeling an honorable man's writings "racist"

forget your dumbass-you are lower then the most useless troll.
You exist to slime honorable people with casual "racist" denunciations .. You marginalize yourself by mental slothery & lies.

Idiot: HRC would have to be the most powerful Sec/State in history to be the "architect" of the destruction of a soveriegn state. You fucking idiot.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, and by better men than me.
She was at best a pawn you fucking looper.
The POTUS himself already took responsibility for the US part. Not that it matters, Libya was consumed by civil war at the time, the French were going to get theirs and not least of all, the Central bankers were done with the freedom and standard of living the peasants of Libya enjoyed.
We have covered all this in great detail. Never once have you proven your spurious claims of the all powerful Sec/State HRC.
It is your delusion only. Your retarded delusion that Arab Spring would end differently in Libya than in other Arab countries.
Not my fault that you are myopic with the comprehension level of a young child.

Further I am not wrong about the article, Wwbb is.
You privided no proof otherwise, fool.
Look at the quitws you provided retard.

You were stupid enough to provide Jefferson's qualifiier
"If they pick up the hatchet" , they did not, they were fighting their expulsion in courts,
and Adams' fierce insistentence that the government abide by treaties was in direct opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal Act, which itself called for voluntary acceptance of the land swaps.by the indians yet devolved into forced death marches wich killed tens of thousands of native Americans, the very action that Jackson purportedly sought to avoid.

The entire exercise was promulgated by slave owners seeking to expand their plantation holdings, another fact you seem desperate to avoid, hence by it's very nature any appologistic act or article with reference to the Indian Removal Act or the Trail of tears is racist to the core but clearly as a lifelong southerner facts of your region's dishonroable past sail miles above your reasoning ability.

The more I back you into a corner with the truth the more childish your lashing out becomes.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
Hang your head in shame racist mysogynistic old man.
You have been outed.
 
Idiot: HRC would have to be the most powerful Sec/State in history to be the "architect" of the destruction of a soveriegn state. You fucking idiot.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, and by better men than me.
She was at best a pawn you fucking looper.
The POTUS himself already took responsibility for the US part. Not that it matters, Libya was consumed by civil war at the time, the French were going to get theirs and not least of all, the Central bankers were done with the freedom and standard of living the peasants of Libya enjoyed.
We have covered all this in great detail. Never once have you proven your spurious claims of the all powerful Sec/State HRC.
It is your delusion only. Your retarded delusion that Arab Spring would end differently in Libya than in other Arab countries.
Not my fault that you are myopic with the comprehension level of a young child.

Further I am not wrong about the article, Wwbb is.
You privided no proof otherwise, fool.
Look at the quitws you provided retard.

You were stupid enough to provide Jefferson's qualifiier
"If they pick up the hatchet" , they did not, they were fighting their expulsion in courts,
and Adams' fierce insistentence that the government abide by treaties was in direct opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal Act, which itself called for voluntary acceptance of the land swaps.by the indians yet devolved into forced death marches wich killed tens of thousands of native Americans, the very action that Jackson purportedly sought to avoid.

The entire exercise was promulgated by slave owners seeking to expand their plantation holdings, another fact you seem desperate to avoid, hence by it's very nature any appologistic act or article with reference to the Indian Removal Act or the Trail of tears is racist to the core but clearly as a lifelong southerner facts of your region's dishonroable past sail miles above your reasoning ability.

The more I back you into a corner with the truth the more childish your lashing out becomes.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
Hang your head in shame racist mysogynistic old man.
You have been outed.
Obviously you can't play chess - pawns are used by the more powerful for their own ends and means.
who "used" HRC? The Libyan rebels lied to her (Jabril in Paris), and she was stupid enough to buy into the "impending humanitarian disaster"
where Qaddafi was supposed to bomb Bengazi -killing civilians with the NTC.
The whole house of cards was built on that lie. Yet Qaddafi never bombed any civilians on his counter-offensive. Why suddenly bomb Bengazi then?

Clinton saw what she wanted to see. She took the No Fly zone and demanded intervention.
You have been exposed to the "tic toc on Libya" State Dept. memo -as usual you are too stupid to connect the dots.
Here it is again: rwed the bolded parts. she is instrumental for regime change, she makes removing Qaddafi the political objective (etc)

From: Hillary Clinton To: Oscar Flores Date: 2011-09-02 10:28 Subject: TICK TOCK ON LIBYA

From: Jake Sullivan
Sant: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuiand, Victoria J
Subject: tidc todc on Libya

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S'
leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish
, let me know what you
think. toria, who else might be able to add to this?
Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya
HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group
meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the
authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

February 25 — HRC announces the suspension of operations of the Libyan embassy in Washington.
February 26 — HRC directs efforts to evacuate all U.S. embassy personnel from Tripoli and orders the closing of
the embassy.
February 26 HRC made a series of calls to her counterparts to help secure passage of UNSC 1970, which
imposes sanctions on Gaddafi and his family and refers Qadhafi and his cronies to the ICC
February 28 — HRC travels to Geneva, Switzerland for consultations with European partners on Libya. She
gives a major address in which she says: "Colonel Qadhafi and those around him must be held accountable for
these acts, which violate international legal obligations and common decency. Through their actions, they have
lost the legitimacy to govern. And the people of Libya have made themselves clear: It is time for Qadhafi to go
— now, without further violence or delay."
She also works to secure the suspension of Libya from membership
in the Human Rights Council.
Early March — HRC appoints Special Envoy Chris Stevens to be the U.S. representative to Benghazi
March 14 — HRC travels to Paris for the G8 foreign minister's meeting. She meets with TNC representative
Jibril and consults with her colleagues on further UN Security Council action. She notes that a no-fly zone will
not be adequate.
March 14-16 — HRC participates in a series of high-level video- and teleconferences
She is a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NA TO civilian
protection mission.
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739752
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045099
B6
B5
UNCLASSIFIED STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739752
Date: 05/13/2015
March 17— HRC secures Russian abstention and Portuguese and African support for UNSC 1973, ensuring that
it passes. 1973 authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" - code for military action - to
protect civilians against Gaddafts army.
March 24 — HRC engages with allies and secures the transition of command and control of the civilian
protection mission to NATO. She announces the transition in a statement.
March 18-30— HRC engages with UAE, Qatar, and Jordan to seek their participation in coalition
operations. Over the course of several days, all three devote aircraft to the mission.
March 19 — HRC travels to Paris to meet with European and Arab leaders to prepare for military action to
protect civilians. That night, the first U.S. air strikes halt the advance of Gaddafi's forces on Benghazi and
target Libya's air defenses.
March 29 — HRC travels to London for a conference on Libya, where she is a driving force behind the creation
of a Contact Group comprising 20-plus countries to coordinate efforts to protect civilians and plan for a post-
Qadhafi Libya. She is instrumental in setting up a rotating chair system to ensure regional buy-in.
April 14— HRC travels to Berlin for NATO meetings. She is the driving force behind NATO adopting a
communique that calls for Qadhafi's departure as a political objective
, and lays out three clear military
objectives: end of attacks and threat of attacks on civilians; the removal of Qadhafi forces from cities they
forcibly entered; and the unfettered provision of humanitarian access.
May 5 — HRC travels to Rome for a Contact Group meeting. The Contact Group establishes a coordination
system and a temporary financial mechanism to funnel money to the TNC.
June 8 — HRC travels to Abu Dhabi for another Contact Group meeting and holds a series of intense discussions
with rebel leaders.
June 12 — HRC travels to Addis for consultations and a speech before the African Union, pressing the case for a
democratic transition in Libya.
July 15 — HRC travels to Istanbul and announces that the U.S. recognizes the TNC as the legitimate government
of Libya. She also secures recognition from the other members of the Contact Group.
Late June — HRC meets with House Democrats and Senate Republicans to persuade them not to de-fund the
Libya operation.
July 16 — HRC sends Feltman, Cretz, and Chollet to Tunis to meet with Qadhafi envoys "to deliver a clear and
firm message that the only way to move forward, is for Qadhafi to step down".
Early August — HRC works to construct a $1.5 billion assets package to be approved by the Security Council
and sent to the TNC. That package is working through its last hurdles.
Early August -- After military chief Abdel Fattah Younes is killed, S sends a personal message to TNC head
Jalil to press for a responsible investigation and a careful and inclusive approach to creating a new executive
council
Early August -- HRC secures written pledges from the TNC to an inclusive, pluralistic democratic
transition. She continues to consult with European and Arab colleagues on the evolving situation.
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State:
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739752
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT.
 
Last edited:
New Report Shows How Hillary Clinton Sold Obama on Regime Change in Libya
http://theantimedia.org/new-report-shows-how-hillary-clinton-sold-obama-on-regime-change-in-libya/
A new in-depth report from The New York Times paints a damning portrait of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US government’s involvement in the war in Libya. While there had been previous reports citing Clinton as leading the charge for the US to enter the war and overthrow former Libyan Leader Omar Gaddafi, the Times published a play-by-play story with on-the-record comments numerous current and former Obama Administration officials.

The most prominent of those on-the-record comments came from former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who claimed that the decision to go to war in Libya was heavily influence by Clinton. In fact, Gates says she made the difference in a “51-49” decision that ultimately destroyed the country of Libya and allowed ISIS to grab new territory in the Middle East.


The breakdown of the events thoroughly supports the view that Hillary Clinton learned nothing from the Iraq War debacle. And, according to the Times, “The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the war candidate in 2016.

The report claims that after a meeting with Westernized Libyan exiles in what appears to be an eerie parallel to the Ahmed Chalabi con, Clinton became convinced that Libya could become a thriving democracy if Gaddafi was overthrown. She then worked tirelessly to ensure the US jumped into the war, pushing back against then-Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Tom Dolan, and Vice President Joe Biden, who wanted to stay out of the conflict.

Gates even recalled telling President Barack Obama and others in on the Libya meetings that he and the Pentagon had more than enough responsibilities with the Iraq and Afghanistan missions, saying, “I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’”

The answer was no. Though there was no solid intelligence on what exactly Gaddafi would or would not do regarding the opposition, then-Secretary Clinton began aggressively lobbying other countries to support the war effort and help the rebels in Libya. With France and the UK already on board, Clinton turned to Russia which shared President Obama’s concerns about unintended consequences.

The Times story notes Russia initially opposed a no-fly zone, even after Clinton told them the US did not want another war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly responded to Clinton by saying, “I take your point about not seeking another war. But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.”
++

(New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
Hillary Clinton,
‘Smart Power’ and
a Dictator’s Fall

The president was wary. The
secretary of state was persuasive
.
But the ouster of Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed
state and a terrorist haven.
 
Idiot: HRC would have to be the most powerful Sec/State in history to be the "architect" of the destruction of a soveriegn state. You fucking idiot.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, and by better men than me.
She was at best a pawn you fucking looper.
The POTUS himself already took responsibility for the US part. Not that it matters, Libya was consumed by civil war at the time, the French were going to get theirs and not least of all, the Central bankers were done with the freedom and standard of living the peasants of Libya enjoyed.
We have covered all this in great detail. Never once have you proven your spurious claims of the all powerful Sec/State HRC.
It is your delusion only. Your retarded delusion that Arab Spring would end differently in Libya than in other Arab countries.
Not my fault that you are myopic with the comprehension level of a young child.

Further I am not wrong about the article, Wwbb is.
You privided no proof otherwise, fool.
Look at the quitws you provided retard.

You were stupid enough to provide Jefferson's qualifiier
"If they pick up the hatchet" , they did not, they were fighting their expulsion in courts,
and Adams' fierce insistentence that the government abide by treaties was in direct opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal Act, which itself called for voluntary acceptance of the land swaps.by the indians yet devolved into forced death marches wich killed tens of thousands of native Americans, the very action that Jackson purportedly sought to avoid.

The entire exercise was promulgated by slave owners seeking to expand their plantation holdings, another fact you seem desperate to avoid, hence by it's very nature any appologistic act or article with reference to the Indian Removal Act or the Trail of tears is racist to the core but clearly as a lifelong southerner facts of your region's dishonroable past sail miles above your reasoning ability.

The more I back you into a corner with the truth the more childish your lashing out becomes.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
Hang your head in shame racist mysogynistic old man.
You have been outed.

The Pitchfork left and the Greenwald boys, which anatta is some sort of twisted hybrid of, have spent years attempting to demonize Hillary Clinton for Obama's foreign policy. President Obama taught me that United States foreign policy endures. There are certain debacles that can be avoided with a Democratic President certainly, but on the larger points, US foreign policy endures.

They have demonized and empowered Hillary Clinton as responsible for United States foreign policy and for Obama's foreign policy. And she certainly plays a role. As do all of our elected officials. Because US foreign policy endures.

But it feels so good to have that misogyny coursing through you. It's the evil bitches fault. That witch. That power hungry whore. They thrive on that. And then claim it's not misogyny. But of course it is.
 
New Report Shows How Hillary Clinton Sold Obama on Regime Change in Libya
http://theantimedia.org/new-report-shows-how-hillary-clinton-sold-obama-on-regime-change-in-libya/
A new in-depth report from The New York Times paints a damning portrait of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US government’s involvement in the war in Libya. While there had been previous reports citing Clinton as leading the charge for the US to enter the war and overthrow former Libyan Leader Omar Gaddafi, the Times published a play-by-play story with on-the-record comments numerous current and former Obama Administration officials.

The most prominent of those on-the-record comments came from former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who claimed that the decision to go to war in Libya was heavily influence by Clinton. In fact, Gates says she made the difference in a “51-49” decision that ultimately destroyed the country of Libya and allowed ISIS to grab new territory in the Middle East.


The breakdown of the events thoroughly supports the view that Hillary Clinton learned nothing from the Iraq War debacle. And, according to the Times, “The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the war candidate in 2016.

The report claims that after a meeting with Westernized Libyan exiles in what appears to be an eerie parallel to the Ahmed Chalabi con, Clinton became convinced that Libya could become a thriving democracy if Gaddafi was overthrown. She then worked tirelessly to ensure the US jumped into the war, pushing back against then-Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Tom Dolan, and Vice President Joe Biden, who wanted to stay out of the conflict.

Gates even recalled telling President Barack Obama and others in on the Libya meetings that he and the Pentagon had more than enough responsibilities with the Iraq and Afghanistan missions, saying, “I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’”

The answer was no. Though there was no solid intelligence on what exactly Gaddafi would or would not do regarding the opposition, then-Secretary Clinton began aggressively lobbying other countries to support the war effort and help the rebels in Libya. With France and the UK already on board, Clinton turned to Russia which shared President Obama’s concerns about unintended consequences.

The Times story notes Russia initially opposed a no-fly zone, even after Clinton told them the US did not want another war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly responded to Clinton by saying, “I take your point about not seeking another war. But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.”
++

(New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
Hillary Clinton,
‘Smart Power’ and
a Dictator’s Fall

The president was wary. The
secretary of state was persuasive
.
But the ouster of Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed
state and a terrorist haven.

President Obama made the final decision, but of course it was Hillary's fault. She convinced him. With a siren's song no doubt. Why don't you men take some responsibility for your own decisions for once?

Also to be clear, I don't know that the President was wrong. And I don't give a shit about Libya anatta. Neither do most people who will be voting in November. You OCD obsessives delude yourselves into believing everyone shares your fixations. America will kill people in foreign interventions no matter who is President. Using that long standing historic fact to keep the first woman out of the white house is misogyny. There is no one running who won't kill people with foreign interventions, including Bernie Sanders who btw, supports Obama's drone program. The only thing anyone can hope for is that we kill fewer under than we would under the modern day Republican party rule.
 
You were stupid enough to provide Jefferson's qualifiier
"If they pick up the hatchet" , they did not, they were fighting their expulsion in courts,
and Adams' fierce insistentence that the government abide by treaties was in direct opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal Act, which itself called for voluntary acceptance of the land swaps.by the indians yet devolved into forced death marches wich killed tens of thousands of native Americans, the very action that Jackson purportedly sought to avoid.

The entire exercise was promulgated by slave owners seeking to expand their plantation holdings, another fact you seem desperate to avoid, hence by it's very nature any appologistic act or article with reference to the Indian Removal Act or the Trail of tears is racist to the core but clearly as a lifelong southerner facts of your region's dishonroable past sail miles above your reasoning ability.

Good post..this is what you should be posting instead of defending the indefensible Clinton warmongering machine..or riding around groaning my posts.

Clearly the word "if" makes all the difference -i'm not sure if that throws out Webb's piece ( and I'm not all that interested in persuing it)

I post a lot of subjects on DCJ to initiate discussions > It's a small board and it needs thread starters..
You can produce decent enough work when you want to, and are not obsessed with my posting. Keep it up.
 
President Obama made the final decision, but of course it was Hillary's fault. She convinced him. With a siren's song no doubt. Why don't you men take some responsibility for your own decisions for once?

Also to be clear, I don't know that the President was wrong. And I don't give a shit about Libya anatta. Neither do most people who will be voting in November. You OCD obsessives delude yourselves into believing everyone shares your fixations.
goddamed you are dumb. I post reams of sources showing:
"Clinton was chief advocate and architect of the Libyan war" -and you resort to some feministic "siren's song" reasoning?

You're as bad as your b/f when it comes to clinging to Clintons
( when EVERYTHING SHOWN supports the postion she was leading role, both nationally and internationally)

Did you read the NYTimes article ( no-of course not) -did you even try to refute her own State Dept memo I just published
(no -that would run counter to your clinging to Clinton)

You don't know the president was wrong???? _ do you know what Libya is today, and since the aftermath of our thorough destruction ?
Even Obama says Libya was his biggest mistake -he did take responsibility that far -although he shifts it to Cameron who "should have done more"
(which is bullshit -US/NATO was never gong to re-build Libya)

I still think you have brains -I've seen you use them..
The problem is you subvert your thoughts to the Democratic Party, and PC bullshit..

There is more to international affairs then what the masses vote on. Maybe you are only interested in Democratic power -OK fine.
But for those who are interested in the truth, and want to delve into power players..what the masses vote on is just top layer superficiality.
 
Last edited:
The Pitchfork left and the Greenwald boys, which anatta is some sort of twisted hybrid of, have spent years attempting to demonize Hillary Clinton for Obama's foreign policy. President Obama taught me that United States foreign policy endures. There are certain debacles that can be avoided with a Democratic President certainly, but on the larger points, US foreign policy endures.

They have demonized and empowered Hillary Clinton as responsible for United States foreign policy and for Obama's foreign policy. And she certainly plays a role. As do all of our elected officials. Because US foreign policy endures.

But it feels so good to have that misogyny coursing through you. It's the evil bitches fault. That witch. That power hungry whore. They thrive on that. And then claim it's not misogyny. But of course it is.
LOL.. what is "US policy endures?" - Iraq? Libya? Syrian red lines? getting shut out of Syria by Putin?
Hillary's desires to arm the rebels? Egypt's tilt to Russia because of needless Obama sanctions over the Morsi coupe?

Hollowing out our navy? Chinese South China sea expansionism? Putin's expansionism? Worthless Russian resets??
Donbass federalization after the Crimea land grab done by Spetzsnaz...

640x527.jpg

^who are these guys?

But it feels so good to have that misogyny coursing through you. It's the evil bitches fault. That witch. That power hungry whore. They thrive on that. And then claim it's not misogyny. But of course it is.
^ oh OK..sure.. that's the ticket ;)
 
.... America will kill people in foreign interventions no matter who is President. Using that long standing historic fact to keep the first woman out of the white house is misogyny. There is no one running who won't kill people with foreign interventions, including Bernie Sanders who btw, supports Obama's drone program. The only thing anyone can hope for is that we kill fewer under than we would under the modern day Republican party rule.
responding to this edit:

The drone program targets real international terrorists: whether it's AQAP in Yemen /AQ in AfPak - and now ISIS in Libya
( U.S. has done 2 recent airstrikes in Libya against ISIS -which is ensconced in Sirte, Libya)

The drone programming needs reform, not ending
1. no more "signature strikes" that leads to US terrorism ( wedding partys/innocents)
+
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...id-obama-pledge-stop-using-signature-strikes/
When you do these signature strikes, meaning by definition, you don't know who you are killing, you just know the facility looks like an al-Qaida facility," Clarke said on ABC This Week April 27. "When you do signature strikes, that's very risky. And President Obama said he was going to stop them, and clearly he didn't."
Also the drone program needs to be removed from the CIA, and tasked to the military
++

Clinton is especially dangerous with her innate interventionistic approaches.
Again with Libya -Clinton espoused taking out Qaddafi who was an allie on combating African terrorism.
Qaddafi let the British SAS roam throughout, and also the US CIA ( how the CIA got into the Annex in Bengazi to begin with)
Clinton threw that all away on a single meeting with NTC's Jabril in Paris and on a whim of a "democratic Libya"

Too often both Obama and Bush, and next Clinton think spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun (neocon definition)
is fine in that the ends justify the means.
No. Bernie would definately NOT run that type of foreign policy - he clearly s a bit too much isolationist for my tastes-
but I expect if he were POTUS he'd be exposed to American power projection and use it, sans the interventionism.
No way would Berne be an interventionist.

Hell's bells; even Trump is better then Clinton in that regard.
 
goddamed you are dumb. I post reams of sources showing:
"Clinton was chief advocate and architect of the Libyan war" -and you resort to some feministic "siren's song" reasoning?




Even Obama says Libya was his biggest mistake -he did take responsibility that far -although he shifts it to Cameron who "should have done more"
(which is bullshit -US/NATO was never gong to re-build Libya)

Here's an idea - try and write in a coherent manner. You are all over the place and then you bitch that your posts get edited. Trying to reply to your entire wandering, babbling posts would be like conversing with a baboon. And I should know, I used to reply to USfreedom.

You're a liar. You do nothing but lie and you've done it again here. The President never said intervening in Libya was his biggest mistake. He said failing to plan for the day after was a mistake. He reiterated that he believed intervening was the right thing to do.

He is the President. Try and take some responsibility for what men do, if you disagree with an action, and stop trying to blame the woman. To quote your hero Trump "Sad!"
 
responding to this edit:

The drone program targets real international terrorists: whether it's AQAP in Yemen /AQ in AfPak - and now ISIS in Libya
( U.S. has done 2 recent airstrikes in Libya against ISIS -which is ensconced in Sirte, Libya)

The drone programming needs reform, not ending
1. no more "signature strikes" that leads to US terrorism ( wedding partys/innocents)
+
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...id-obama-pledge-stop-using-signature-strikes/

Also the drone program needs to be removed from the CIA, and tasked to the military
++

Clinton is especially dangerous with her innate interventionistic approaches.
Again with Libya -Clinton espoused taking out Qaddafi who was an allie on combating African terrorism.
Qaddafi let the British SAS roam throughout, and also the US CIA ( how the CIA got into the Annex in Bengazi to begin with)
Clinton threw that all away on a single meeting with NTC's Jabril in Paris and on a whim of a "democratic Libya"

Too often both Obama and Bush, and next Clinton think spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun (neocon definition)
is fine in that the ends justify the means.
No. Bernie would definately NOT run that type of foreign policy - he clearly s a bit too much isolationist for my tastes-
but I expect if he were POTUS he'd be exposed to American power projection and use it, sans the interventionism.
No way would Berne be an interventionist.

Hell's bells; even Trump is better then Clinton in that regard.

Of course he'd be too isolationist for your taste. Because you're actually a war monger. You just don't like any wars a woman has any involvement in. You're all over the damned map. You want to invade here, you don't want to invade there. You want to use drones, you'll decide which are the "good anatta approved drones" and which are the "murderous, one might say, womanish, evil drones".

You are without a doubt the most confused, so-called "thinker" I've ever come across. With one exception. And she had a very similar way of writing. Because she had a very similar way of thinking - confused, incoherent. Funny thing is she, like you, thought she was a fucking genius. Idiots always do.
 
Back
Top