I told you Tulsi's the one!

[Andrew Prutsok]

The Trumpenleft.

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

Did you really miss the point?

I showed you the evidence from inside the war room of how HRC was the moving force behind Libya. That is on the previous page at the bottom. 

You failed to even acknowledge it.

The piece I linked to on this page, shows the utter chaos that Libya has descended into, like with slave auctions.  And somehow you missed the connection of just how devastating the overthrow was  to Libya?

Well, if you failed to acknowledge the first, then I can see how you could.

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is more direct proof. How many did you want?

 

The former of Secretary of State managed to force the president’s hand, a difficult feat in it of itself; call it inception. In fact, Anne Marie-Slaughter (a name that’s perhaps too on the nose given the carnage seen in Libya today) Director of Policy Planning (January 2009 – February 2011) under the Clinton State Department, sent her boss a fawning email with the subject line: ‘bravo!”, praising an “exhausted” Hillary Clinton for “Turning POTUS [President of the United States] around” on the decision to lay waste to Libya.

 

This info is based on a two part Ny Times report that was ignored:

Clinton eventually succeeded in persuading President Obama, who signed a presidential finding authorizing a covert action to overthrow Gaddafi. US weapons poured into the country. The militias were unleashed, while Clinton hailed the elections that were staged shortly after the “liberation.” Yet as it turned out the elected officials had no real power: the guns were in the hands of the militias, who extorted government officials for more weapons in return for not being killed. The country went to pieces rather quickly, but our Secretary of State and would-be President had already moved on: she was too busy plotting regime change in Syria to be bothered with the unraveling of Libya.

Clinton wanted to make a deal with the Qataris that we would arm their favored radical Islamists in Syria if they would lay off aiding al-Qaeda-type crazies in Libya. But when the President vetoed her Syrian regime change plan, the proposed deal was off – and Libya continued to deteriorate into the Mad Max scenario we see today.

She quit the State Department after losing the internal debate over Syria,

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

This one if from Politico, which I never considered part of the Trumpenleft:

But Hillary Clinton had lately been having a change of heart, especially with the Arab League calling for the United Nations to intervene. She had met recently with Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, and Libyan rebel leader Mahmoud Jibril, and she was concerned about the administration’s waning influence in the wider Middle East. Moreover, Benghazi was threatening to become the Bosnia of the 21st century, a humanitarian tragedy and a PR nightmare. Susan Rice and Samantha Power had already been pressing the president to impose a no-fly zone, and Clinton’s voice in favor helped tilt the balance. “She played a really significant role,” says a former administration official involved in shaping the policy.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is one based on info from NY Times, again not part of Trumpenleft:

Clinton eventually succeeded in persuading President Obama, who signed a presidential finding authorizing a covert action to overthrow Gaddafi. US weapons poured into the country. The militias were unleashed, while Clinton hailed the elections that were staged shortly after the “liberation.” Yet as it turned out the elected officials had no real power: the guns were in the hands of the militias, who extorted government officials for more weapons in return for not being killed. The country went to pieces rather quickly, but our Secretary of State and would-be President had already moved on: she was too busy plotting regime change in Syria to be bothered with the unraveling of Libya.

Clinton wanted to make a deal with the Qataris that we would arm their favored radical Islamists in Syria if they would lay off aiding al-Qaeda-type crazies in Libya. But when the President vetoed her Syrian regime change plan, the proposed deal was off – and Libya continued to deteriorate into the Mad Max scenario we see today.

She quit the State Department after losing the internal debate over Syria,

 

CASE CLOSED

[Jon Pickering]

We're certain Hillary - maybe between time spent parallel trading early in her career, and near constant running for prez, later on - formulated invasion & occupation of sovereign nations plans all by her own little iddy biddy. Or maybe, just maybe, she was fronting for the generals and admirals corps. They, of course, like to be close to where oil can be extracted so as to guarantee their weapon delivery systems remain fueled, lubed, and ready - lest their global authority slip a notch or two along with any future ability to secure their lifeblood, where found, and continued place at the top of the heap. Hillary Clinton - master of the Military option. Haha

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jon Pickering

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

Did you really miss the point?

I showed you the evidence from inside the war room of how HRC was the moving force behind Libya. That is on the previous page at the bottom. 

You failed to even acknowledge it.

The piece I linked to on this page, shows the utter chaos that Libya has descended into, like with slave auctions.  And somehow you missed the connection of just how devastating the overthrow was  to Libya?

Well, if you failed to acknowledge the first, then I can see how you could.

 

 Jim - what evidence? A newspaper article? So let’s suppose it was all true. NY Times isn’t the Trumpen left, neither is it completely trustworthy. I’m sure I don’t need to provide examples. In any case I get your point. Do you get mine? That division in the ranks of the Democratic Party when it is finally moving towards progressivism is not something to stick a wedge in. That’s what the Republicans want, what they are doing. I dare say none of us are warmongers here. We all like what Tulsi stands for, at least on Foreign Policy. But watching the gotcha questions during debates, and watching the various candidates join in on attacking one another, makes me wonder who is behind all this. I’m really suspicious of Hillary bashing for exactly this reason. You want to kick someone there are many far worse examples. We need Unity, and leftward movement, new blood, activist young candidates many women of color. Let’s not stoop to eating our own. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Agreed Paul, .That's because Jim is totally transformed by some article he reads, or some film he just saw that reaffirms his suspicions. Then it becomes the gospel he perpetuates, possibly even through his website. As I don't mean to beat a dead horse, the transformation Jim had from being a early Hilary supporter 6 months into Bernie's campaign could have only happened as result of a cabal of news articles.I can only assume those authors are the current gospel.

Yes there could an opportunity for progressivism that hasn't happened since JFK, (though its true the (Democrats have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, ), But Jim is never aware of those things because nothing is as it appears, and he has to fixate on some enemy, real or imagined, even among his ranks.  In the end it's as if a fulfilled promise of JFK realized in the future would somehow diminish JFK's standing as  historical figure, and  make JFK old hat, or diminish his  psychological need for a martyrdom or unresolved conflict. I obviously can't figure it out, and I won't try. In the end he becomes just a shill for the Republicans despite his denials to the contrary. Though that as an overriding issue, is of the least importance.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Andrew Prutsok]

He's going to become the David Von Pein of Trump and  Russia, defending the deranged position to the end.

[James DiEugenio]

Andrew, 

I would take you seriously if you can answer this question:  how does HRC and her attack on Libya relate to Russia Gate?

I love KG.  Some article I read transforms me.  How many sources did I list there? Count them.  When the inside ones match the journalistic ones, and they explain why HRC left State, and why Obama would not  attack Syria--namely because he was not going to make the same mistake twice--that seems pretty sound to me.

KG's second paragraph is about as wild a piece of gibberish as I have seem in awhile.  I have already said my best wish would be Bernie and Warren as the ticket.  And I hope that is it.  And I think it will win.   Because I think they would take the upper mideast states that HRC lost.  

The idea that the Clintons represented some progressive aspect of the Democratic Party is nothing but a myth.  Do I really have to go through the litany again:  the Telecommunications Act, the Crime Act, the gutting of FDR's banking laws, the legalization of derivatives, NAFTA, holidays with Kissinger. If that is your idea of progressivism then that explains the disagreement.  Because its not mine.  

Edited November 6, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

This is the final proof of who she is, and how hot the MSM is out to crush her.  And just think this is Huffpo.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-911-conspiracy-theory_n_5dc20b60e4b0b0861f902a99

Versus HRC

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled?fbclid=IwAR3XkY4xRqHk1MADdNUM8o1UVsYyhJOQhgoon7XIx2KO-cvLv8byqNRlhvo

 

This will be my last post on this thread.  Because I don't see how it gets any more clear than this.

Edited November 6, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is the final proof of who she is, and how hot the MSM is to crush her.  And just think this is Huffpo.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-911-conspiracy-theory_n_5dc20b60e4b0b0861f902a99

Versus HRC

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled?fbclid=IwAR3XkY4xRqHk1MADdNUM8o1UVsYyhJOQhgoon7XIx2KO-cvLv8byqNRlhvo

 

This will be my last post on this thread.  Because I don't see how it gets any more clear than this.

This is the closest that anyone in the "establishment" ever comes to 9/11 truth-- hinting that the Saudis were involved.

But blaming the Saudis for the 9/11 op is analogous to blaming the Mafia for the murder of JFK.  

Were they involved?  Sure.

Were they the prime movers?  No.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/4/2019 at 3:25 PM, Andrew Prutsok said:

The Trumpenleft.

Good one!

I prefer the Good German version -- Trumpenlinks.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/4/2019 at 10:42 AM, James DiEugenio said:

See, although I like Warren and Bernie, I don't think either one is radical enough on foreign policy.

And that is what I think its going to take to get this Neocon sickness out of the system

Plus, unless we do that, we will never balance the budget.  And I mean never.

 

Only in an alternative universe would the 2015 Iran nuke deal be called "Neo-Con."

In 2013 Obama negotiated with Putin and Assad to remove 93% of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.  The Neo-Cons screamed in pain.

Obama honored the 2008 treaty Dubya Bush signed with Iraq to remove US troops by 2011 -- Neo-Con?

The opening of relations with Cuba, or the Paris Climate Accords -- Neo-Con??

Bill Clinton brought the budget into surplus; Obama lopped more than $800billion off the budget deficit. 

The Trumpenlinks are clueless beyond belief.

btw Tulsi Gabbard/Pete Buttigieg 2020.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Russia actually made the deal happen.

 

But this below is from Wiki

 

During the G20 summit on 6 September, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control.^[32] On 9 September 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in response to a question from a journalist that the air strikes could be averted if Syria turned over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, but Syria "isn't about to do it and it can't be done".^[33][32] State Department officials stressed that Kerry's statement and its one-week deadline were rhetorical in light of the unlikelihood of Syria turning over its chemical weapons.^[34][35] Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov announced that Russia had suggested to Syria that it relinquish its chemical weapons,^[36] and Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem immediately welcomed the proposal,^[37][36] and U.S.–Russian negotiations led to the 14 September 2013 "Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons", which called for the elimination of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles by mid-2014.^[1][2][3] Following the agreement, Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and agreed to apply that convention provisionally until its formal entry into force on 14 October 2013. On 21 September, Syria ostensibly provided a list of its chemical weapons to the OPCW, before the deadline set by the framework.^[38]