Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 26, 2016

Clinton Arrogantly Declines To Debate Sanders - Who Counters And Wins

May 23 2016 - Hillary Clinton declines invitation to debate Bernie Sanders in California

Hillary Clinton’s campaign said on Monday that she will not participate in a California debate against Bernie Sanders before the state’s primary on June 7.

The two campaigns had agreed to additional debates beyond the slate of events that had been scheduled by the Democratic National Committee. The Sanders campaign had hoped to schedule a final debate in California and Fox News had agreed to host in San Francisco.

In a statement, Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri confirmed that they do not intend to participate. Instead, Palmieri indicated that Clinton would prefer to instead continue her pivot to the general election fight against Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

Clinton was obviously afraid to lose votes in California should she keep her promise and again debate Sanders. She arrogantly sees herself as inevitable winner of the primaries as well as the general election. I believe she will lose either one.

Her "private" email sever during her time at the State Department was against all rules says the State Department Inspector General ina newly released report. Clinton declined to be interviewed by the IG even after she had promised to help with the issue. This does not only look bad. It is bad. It will cost her dearly. Should she have to compete against Trump she would get ripped apart over this issue alone. Additionally her record at the State Department, which she touts as experience, is a collection of miscalculations and misdeeds to anyone taking a deeper look.

Sanders now made the perfect countermove to Clinton's arrogant rejection of another debate:

May 25 2016 - On late night TV, Sanders and Trump agree to a debate — maybe

Thirteen minutes into his interview with Donald Trump, ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel said he had a question from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The Democratic primary underdog, who has camped out in California all week, was set to appear on Thursday night's episode.

"Here's the question from Bernie," said Kimmel. "Hillary Clinton backed out of an agreement to debate me before the Democratic primary. Are you prepared to debate the major issues facing our largest state and the country before the California primary?"

"Yes, I am," said Trump. "How much is he going to pay me? If I debated him, we would have such high ratings, I think I should take that money and give it to charity."

Sanders responded immediately:


Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary.

Trump has good media expertise. That debate will indeed have huge ratings. Clinton will be left out. This will catapult Sanders far in front of Clinton in the California primary.

It will also showcase to the super-delegates at the Democratic convention that Sanders, unlike Clinton who has huge disliked numbers, is able to defeat Trump in the general election. The overwhelming majority of the super-delegates is promised to Clinton and could give her the majority. But if they see that the party will lose with Clinton as candidate and may well win with Sanders then they have all reason needed to switch their votes.

The debate will also help to finally decapitate the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who had unfairly favored the already well known Clinton by, for example, scheduling televised debates at times of lower viewership. The preparations for her dismissal are well along:

“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” said one pro-Clinton Democratic senator.

Clinton has not yet lost the nomination. But she clearly lost this round of the fight. Her arrogant step of avoiding another debate with Sanders will cost her dearly and might be the final issue that takes her down.

Posted by b on May 26, 2016 at 11:07 UTC | Permalink


I doubt Trump will follow through because I'm confident that Bernie will demolish him, at least in the eyes of the nonRight wing dissatisfied voters. I hope I'm wrong and the debate actually happens. I suspect it will be a godsend for Bernie.

Posted by: juannie | May 26 2016 11:50 utc | 1

Hillary totally exposed through statement about Bill

Posted by: nmb | May 26 2016 12:52 utc | 2

Foxnews will crave for that debate - and Trump will need the backing of Fox News. It will be great circus. But Trump is difficult to beat - he is not in it for any convictions, he just wants to win. So Sanders will have to argue with an opponent who might say anything - and contradict it the next day.
Like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

I think it all depends if the US deep state wants to retire Clinton - or not. And that depends on what was on that server, and if she can be blackmailed by that information. The NSA will know the mails and foreign governments, too.

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2016 12:55 utc | 3

That 2006 typo that you made twice had me confused for a bit there.

Posted by: Michael | May 26 2016 12:56 utc | 4

Go Bernie :>)

Posted by: Terry | May 26 2016 12:57 utc | 5

Somehow I get a feeling the Democratic Party will retire Clinton - The New York Times usually represent the Democratic Party Establishment - right?

“I don’t believe a word when she says she didn’t know what she was doing with those emails,” said Debbie Figel, 57. She plans to vote for Mr. Trump.

“This email business really concerns me,” said John Dunn, 58 of Oneida, N.Y.

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2016 13:06 utc | 6

I doubt Trump will follow through because I'm confident that Bernie will demolish him
Ah. But it would knock Hillary out of the race if that happened. Brilliant strategic move by Trump. He’s already the Republican nominee. So he wins either way.

Posted by: MRW | May 26 2016 13:07 utc | 7

And. It would mean the end of Wasserman-Schultz. Trump is right. Ratings would be sky-high. Superbowl high.

Posted by: MRW | May 26 2016 13:11 utc | 8

The 2008 election removed my last illusions about the value of my vote in "the land of the free".
I don't believe anything these guys say, and regardless, I am quite sure that the deep state will not allow anyone in who they cannot control. They can and will do anything to maintain power.

Posted by: Perimetr | May 26 2016 13:17 utc | 9

Unfortunately I agree with Perimeter @9: the deep state will stop at nothing - including assassination, and not just of a person's character - to maintain control of the political process. Just because the corporate media doesn't discuss the possibility that many otherwise convenient deaths may in fact have been assassinations doesn't mean they weren't.

Paul Wellstone
Pat Tillman
Aaron Swartz
Michael Hastings

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 26 2016 13:21 utc | 10

@2 - nmb

Could we please ban the and other link shorteners? I have no interest in clicking or even seeing links which go to unknown (possibly malware) destinations. If Moon of Alabama were on WordPress, I'd propose our Thoughtful Comments which allows long URLs to be posted and shorted automatically with syntax "link to". A great help for those who don't know how to create HTML links (and there's lots of astute political minds who don't).

Posted by: Uncoy | May 26 2016 13:46 utc | 11

the excitement over the debate says it all. check it out at the trending hashtag #BernieTrumpDebate -- there's no comparable excitement over clinton at all. the energy during this primary season has all been sucked up by sanders and trump. this is the presidential campaign most americans want.

Posted by: annie | May 26 2016 13:48 utc | 12

Perimeter, the problem with your point of view is it suggest we should just lie back and let the deep state rape us and the world. Whenever I read posts like yours or the don't vote ones I wonder if the authors are not assets like the disruption trolls and concern trolls.

In this election, there's a clear hierarchy of bad, worse and worst.

Bad: Bernie Sanders is bad as he's a career politician and at 74 is clearly not going to successfully face down Israel or the deep state. But he'll try to improve taxes, benefits and health in favour of the working class.

Worse: Donald Trump is a career braggart and bully. He's going to skim something off the top for himself and will make deals with both the deep state and foreign leaders. On the other hand, Trump has successfully built some businesses and does know how to take good care of his beautiful family. There's a good chance that if the USA become a Trump asset, he'll take good care of it as well. There's considerable risk in a Trump presidency, both on the upside and downsite.

Worst: Hillary Clinton, a.k.a. Killary. A career liar, married to another one (and a serial rapist, albeit at one time master of a lot of superficial charm). This harpy has never seen a war she didn't like or a bribe too dirty to take. The ultimate backroom private interests whore, Killary has neither principles nor basic human decency. If Killary becomes President, the end of the world as we know it is nigh. Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 and eternal war (or perhaps a single last bright burst before the fifth extinction event).

Anything that any of us can do to derail Killary is a significant achievement in the pursuit of peace and the prospect of a fairer world. Do not flag, do not yield. Some must perish in the fight but in the end, we will overcome our tyrants.

Posted by: Uncoy | May 26 2016 14:01 utc | 13

I was in San Francisco last week and got the distinct impression from my highly educated democratic relatives that Clinton will win the primary as she did in New York. They do not particularly like Mrs. Clinton, but have swallowed the line that she will be able to 'get something done', without actually saying what that 'thing' is. They also believe that Obama did the best he could given the Republican opposition. This belief is so strongly ingrained among California liberals that no amount of facts to the contrary can erode it. It's like religion. Better not to talk about it in polite company. These are people who still believe that PBS, NPR and the New York Times are giving them the real truth.

Posted by: Knut | May 26 2016 14:03 utc | 14

Question is.....Will the PTB put the issues that will be broached over the MSM airwaves?

I for one, doubt it. If they do, the people of California, and the Nation, will be the real winners.

Posted by: ben | May 26 2016 14:30 utc | 15

If you hate Hillary, fine. But goddammit, save your damned selves for christ's sake."

If Trump gets elected, you don't get your "revolution" 4 years later. You get NOTHING. Why?

- Trump appoints Scalia's replacement, RBG's replacement, Breyer's replacement, Kennedy's replacement, and probably Thomas' replacement too.

- Trump gets to appoint judges for all of the vacancies that the GOP have spent 8 years refusing to confirm for Obama.

- The GOP gets to enshrine Voter ID, Voter suppression, Right-to-Work-for-Less, Revocation of worker protections, and every other bullshit plan they've had for the last 30 years into law -- and the Trump Court will protect any of that from ever being overturned. Yes, that includes an abortion ban.

- The GOP "repeals and replaces" the ACA with Jack Sh*t.

- Trump gets to send a lot of BernieBros off to die in foreign wars that his dick-waving gets us into.

- Trump gets to get a lot of BernieBros stuck in their school loans with nothing but crappy jobs to look forward to.

- Trump gets to enshrine racism and bigotry in America as he attempts to deport millions and make an equal number of millions into second-class citizens.

So, I say again...Don't like Hillary? Fine. But SAVE YOURSELVES.

Posted by: CaptainCommonsense | May 26 2016 14:41 utc | 16

Don't you love people with handles like common sense that are idiots?
Great stuff.Go Trump go Sanders.Give US a real choice,both are outsiders in an insider world.
And yeah this report could be a death knell for the Hell Bitch,deservedly so.
How about Obomba saying world leaders are rattled by Trump?Trump's approval rating shoots up!The clown circus disapproves.Sheesh.

Posted by: dahoit | May 26 2016 15:05 utc | 18

heh, good news. The maverick loud-mouthed moghul against the new pro ‘old’ New-Deal, Dem! Ratings thru the roof. Watchable, whoooo.

The chap who predicts elections correctly with the argument that it ain’t about the issues but about previous performance etc. says he can’t predict this one.

WaPo with vid

The 2-party system is bust and ppl either know it or realise subconsciously, the Dem/Rep attempts at camouflage of this fact get a FAIL mark.

The result: the Prez. election is at the same time both more about ‘personalities’ *and* about ‘politics.’

Re. personalities, Trump as the seemingly ‘real’ outsider (with no pol history) wins, never mind the straw hair. I’d have dinner with him, we could BS about lotsa stuff. With Bernie as well, though that might be more difficult. Hitlery? Not for a million dollars. ( => Many must feel the same. Trump and Bernie are sorta 'real', Hitlery is an obvious fake.)

The ‘politics’ part though leads to unfortunate ‘tribalism’ oppos which have been encouraged in the US since forever (divide and rule, power-sharing, etc.)

Posted by: Noirette | May 26 2016 15:08 utc | 19

OT;Just at TD,and reading comments about the election,when one respondent said the Saudis accused the US govt of doing 9-11,a few days ago.
Any word on that?Wow.
The person said the silence from the MSM was amazing.

Posted by: dahoit | May 26 2016 15:15 utc | 20

MRW, #7

Ah. But it would knock Hillary out of the race if that happened. Brilliant strategic move by Trump. He’s already the Republican nominee. So he wins either way.

Not necessarily. The last time I saw the polls they predicted Bernie would win over Trump but Killary wouldn’t. If the debate went well for Bernie it might spur the super-delegates to go for Bernie, as b points out in his headline.

Anyway, it makes for interesting and exciting election coverage and is extremely good (my cynicism showing through) for the MSM’s and their sponsor’s profits.

Posted by: juannie | May 26 2016 15:27 utc | 21

>> ...what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz...

No, it will be a golden parachute in the form of a juicy gig.

Posted by: dumbass | May 26 2016 15:34 utc | 22

>> the Saudis accused the US govt of doing 9-11,a few days ago.

Wh-wh-whaAAAAAT? Where?

Posted by: dumbass | May 26 2016 15:35 utc | 23

@Smoothie - from b's previous post - thank you for your response to my post. In regards to the S300 - it was a contract that was agreed by both Iran and Russia - the Iranians even partially paid for it. At the time - the Isrealis and Americans were making a lot of noise about carrying out unilateral airstrikes against Iran, aswell as with a form of hybrid warfare been conducted agains tit - e.g. murdering scientists, unleashing stuxnet. The Iranians had their back against the wall against this onslaught, they still remember when Saddam was busy firing missles in to population centres of Iran such as Tehran, where tens of thousands fled with terror to the countryside - worrying has Saddam launched chemical weapons in those missles. The fear and terror was real, and worst part was Iranian military could not deal with this threat or had anything to counter balance it. Russia lost a lot of goodwill by cancelling the contract. It showed itself to be an unreliable contractual partner. It was a bitter lesson for Iran. And now again they doing this. I understand Russia has its own interests however, when a contract is sign then it should fulfil it - not poiticise it. Anyway Ay. Khameni is putting a lot of faith in the new relationship - even strategic partnership - with Mr Putin. He is facing a lot of pressure agsint this. Lets see what comes from this in the long run.

Posted by: Irshad | May 26 2016 15:42 utc | 24

What does Trump have to gain from a debate with Bernie? More press, weakened HRC. Are those greater gains than potential downsides of losing to Bernie?

Posted by: Jim | May 26 2016 15:42 utc | 25

Jimmy Kimmel Live Trump agrees to debate Bernie for charity ...

Posted by: ALberto | May 26 2016 16:04 utc | 26

Bring jobs back to the US from China ..Trump.

Ppl making Apple products in the US would ‘need’ to earn enough to buy at least a clunky car and afford health care for kids (besides food etc.) Debt has already been used to the hilt..

How is this to be done? In a global landscape where iphones are sold for ginormous profits in (100? idk) countries.

Profits are distributed to shareholders and the top gurus, naturally tax is avoided thru various schemes. For Apple, the Irish-Dutch sandwich:


German and Japanese cos. make the major components of the Apple iphone, and the most profit. (After! the huge mark-up by Apple.) Not China, who does assembly, for ‘one dollar’ per hour.

link one ex, shows the complications:


Would Trump renege on this ‘capitalissst’ system to see Apple workers paid a fair salary to feed etc. their kiddies? That brings him into quasi - Communist territory!

Posted by: Noirette | May 26 2016 16:15 utc | 27

There is a great review about Clinton by Pepe Escobar that relates directly to why Killary won't debate Bernie. Check it out:

Regarding some of the comments regarding the role of lessor-evil-dom, that has been tried so often that it has led inexorably to our current situation. While sitting out the election may be anathema for some trained in the mythology of the electoral process, what electoral process? How is voting for or against people put forward by the oligarchy an election? At best it is little more than sanctioning who the oligarchs have selected.

Finally, regarding the possibility of a Trump-Sanders debate ... it will make for great theater and may actually be of benefit by further marginalizing Hitlery Clinton. That is only a good thing in the sense that one of three vile idiots is eliminated. Bernie may, or may not, be marginally better than Trump ... we'll never really know because the loser will disappear into the dust-bin. The best any of us can do is simply speculate.

Posted by: rg the lg | May 26 2016 16:43 utc | 28

Saudi Arabia: Legal Expert Says That U.S. Government Blew Up the Twin Towers on 9/11:

Saudi Arabia is livid over the recent passage of a bill in the U.S. Senate that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Middle Eastern nation. The bill was recently passed by a unanimous vote, and while the Washington Times reports that President Obama has vowed to veto it, that hasn’t stopped the Saudi Arabian media from coming out swinging against the U.S. government.

According to a Breitbart report, a reporter representing Saudi Arabia is now claiming that the U.S. planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to create the war on terror.

The article was written by Katib al-Shammari, a Saudi legal expert, and published in Al-Hayat, which is based in London. It calls out the United States for its recent threats to “expose documents” proving that Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 attacks, as well as detailing the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the worst terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. According to the piece, these threats fall in line with a United States policy he calls “victory by means of archives.”


Posted by: lysias | May 26 2016 16:44 utc | 29


If the debate went well for Bernie it might spur the super-delegates to go for Bernie, as b points out in his headline.

Exactly! Bernie knocks out Hillary for him.

Posted by: MRW | May 26 2016 17:00 utc | 30

Somewhere in my reading on the web, I came across a commenter who referred to Hillary as "Slithery Hillary."

I can't get it out of my mind and find myself looking at any of her promises, proposals, etc., to try to find where she can slither out of what she seemed to say plainly. Especially her left leaning words about the various TPP type treaties. IIRC, she said she was against signing the treaty because of some things which, also my recollection could be "fixed." Her wording was very lawyerly and needed explication to find the actual intent. The intent seemed to be to fool the electorate opposed to the TPP.

Reminded me of that more obvious kerfuffle caused by Obama promising, prior to the MI(?) '08 primary, to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty. Then one of his chief campaign aides promised the Canadian PM, Harper, that of course Obama would do no such thing. And this got out, but Obama still skated.

But for anyone paying attention, it was clear he would not enact much or any of what seemed to be anything remotely related to the goals of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party.l

Posted by: jawbone | May 26 2016 17:14 utc | 31

"The overwhelming majority of the super-delegates is promised to Clinton and could give her the majority. But if they see that the party will lose with Clinton as candidate and may well win with Sanders then they have all reason needed to switch their votes."

If I recall correctly, the consensus at Naked Capitalism was that Dem party insiders' personal best interests are better served by losing with Hillary than winning with Bernie.

B, do you figure that it is more likely that Bernie will promise to refrain from breaking rice bowls and remove the threat of a party takover by "outsiders"?

Posted by: frijoles junior | May 26 2016 17:24 utc | 32

Keep in mind that vote counts in the U.S. are, and have long been, a media fiction. Remember the comments of Lenin on voting and you will stop wasting your time and efforts.

Posted by: Tony B. | May 26 2016 18:13 utc | 33

Will the Bernie Sanders-Donald Trump debate actually happen? Sanders’ team thinks so

But CBS News reported Thursday that several sources said Trump was joking and had no intention of participating in a debate. Weaver, in appearances later on CNN and MSNBC, said he believed Trump’s offer was serious.

"Let's see if he has the courage to get on a stage with Bernie Sanders and go one on one about the important issues facing the country,” Weaver said on MSNBC. “That’d be the real test.”

Weaver said on MSNBC “some backchannel discussions” had begun about a possible debate, but did not elaborate, according to Bloomberg.

The campaign has heard from “every network” about a possible Trump-Sanders matchup, Weaver told CNN.

Sanders hammered Clinton for declining to debate ahead of California’s primary, where the two are in a statistical dead heat.

Posted by: b | May 26 2016 18:45 utc | 34

b@ 33: Glad the Sanders folks believe a debate will happen. I don't.

Posted by: ben | May 26 2016 18:57 utc | 35


Doesn't sound like much to get upset over, though I don't see why Trump will continue the neocon arc of continuous foreign policy failure and stubborn isolation of Russia and continue to make war on israel's enemies.
8 years of Obama followed by 4-8 years of Bernie or Hellary?
No thanks. Let's see if Trump can be a JFK type without taking some MK Ultra Mexicali or Arab Muslim's bullet first before jumping off the ledge.

Posted by: farflungstar | May 26 2016 19:03 utc | 36

Posted by: Noirette | May 26, 2016 12:15:56 PM | 26

Sorry Noirette, this makes him a National Socialist.

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2016 19:36 utc | 37

With regard to Clinton's breaking of the law for her private, poorly secured email server, every bit of coverage for the IG's criticism is matched or even exceeded with the Clinton machine/mouthpiece responses such as this one in the NYT: In other words, some candidates get what they say reported as if it was news.

Personally, I agree with Ray McGovern and Brian Becker (who can be heard here in the middle of this episode of Loud and Clear addressing the topic: that the IG news is intended to masquerade as actual prosecutorial activity, getting the news out during a quiet time so that it will fade in memory by the time the head-to-head election battle kicks off.

And of course she's not going to debate Sanders; that's been her strategy all along. I don't think Trump will debate Sanders either, but it would be entertaining if he did. Either way, I suspect Sanders is headed to a win in California, although it won't be enough to overcome Clinton's shady lead via super delegates. The polls say otherwise, at least as reported by fivethirtyeight, but the Sanders supporters I know are going to get out and vote and I don't know if Hillary's useful idiots will be motivated to come out and vote in an otherwise almost meaningless primary.

Posted by: WorldBLee | May 26 2016 19:53 utc | 38

Seems like the debate is on

Then Trump laid out what the arrangement might look like: "What we'll do is raise maybe for, maybe women's health issues or something, if we can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well."

The event would "get high ratings" and "should be in a big arena somewhere," Trump said.

Posted by: somebody | May 26 2016 20:05 utc | 39

What a sick joke.
All this excitement about a moronic spectacle between self loving moronic hate monger in Trump - and a cowardly, empire loving fake Leftist in Sanders who absolutely refuses to take on the evil Hillary Clinton in debates, let alone the Empire and the corporate controlled state. Motivational speeches about NOT taking on the evil Emire is the most useless deceitful thing in Left politics.

If these two are the preferred candidates by the people who are sick of the corrupt system, then the people are f#@ked in the head too

Posted by: tom | May 26 2016 20:36 utc | 40

I find it interesting to read comments here that refuse to see the potential propaganda/educational nature of a Sanders/Trump match up.

In spite of any outcome, I would listen to a Sanders/Trump debate where I would puke before subjecting myself to a war criminal Clinton II/Trump debate

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 26 2016 20:58 utc | 41

Trump: I'll debate Sanders for $10 million for women's health issues

Hillary Clinton has declined to debate Bernie Sanders ahead of the June 7 California primary, but Donald Trump says he might be willing to.

“I’d love to debate Bernie, he’s a dream," Trump said to reporters Thursday in Bismarck, N.D. But, he added, the debate would not come cheap: “I’d love to debate Bernie, but they have to pay a lot of money for it."

How much is a lot? "Something over $10 million," Trump responded.

“If we can raise for maybe women’s health issues or something, if we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity," Trump said.

Posted by: okie farmer | May 26 2016 21:00 utc | 42

thanks for the entertainment b.. what a gong show the usa political process has become..

i go with window # 13 - bad, worse, worst, lol..
and i go with tom @ 39...

how much does hilary have to pay trump do not do it? lol. or was he paid by hilary to run in the first place?, and on and on as the stomach turns..

Posted by: james | May 26 2016 21:12 utc | 43

Most likely Hillary’s decline, arrogance in play, also may have been triggered by Polls. PPIC poll California numbers a statistical dead heat Clinton 46% - Sanders 41%.

“Sanders Catches Clinton”

MSNBC no more. Today, here is Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Morning Joe.

“Hillary Email IG Report “DEVASTATING” (VIdeo

Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” NBC chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell reacted to a State Department Inspector General report criticizing Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was serving as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

Mitchell first dismissed the Clinton campaign’s defense, comparing Clinton’s behavior to that of her predecessor former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then declared the report to be hard to be seen as “anything but devastating.”[..]

AND Joe Scarborough said,

Stop the Lying, stop digging

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hillary faces a lot of heat.

Posted by: likklemore | May 26 2016 21:44 utc | 44

The women's health issues charities banner raised by Trump is genius.

Posted by: Cortes | May 26 2016 21:52 utc | 45

@44 Cortes

Make it women's - Hillary's - mental health issues. Trump's demanding a cut off the top of the selection scam rakeoff is 'genius'.

Posted by: jfl | May 26 2016 22:31 utc | 46

@28 lysias quotes Breitbart ...

Saudi Press: U.S. Blew Up World Trade Center To Create ‘War On Terror’

The article, written by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari and translated by MEMRI, claims that American threats to expose documents that prove Saudi involvement in the attacks are part of a long-standing U.S. policy that he calls “victory by means of archives.”

Middle East Media Research Institute

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a[n] Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews. According to the MEMRI web site: "MEMRI emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel." ...

Good idea to direct attention away from Israel and 9/11 ... from Israel's point of view.

Breitbart's link to MEMRI's 'translation' ... I got 'MEMRI is currently performing scheduled maintenance to improve our site for our visitors. Please check back shortly.'

Posted by: jfl | May 26 2016 22:50 utc | 47

@46 maybe the Israelis can set up a debate between the KSA and the USG over which one blew up the WTC and donate the proceeds to Israeli West Bank Settlers' issues.

Posted by: jfl | May 26 2016 22:55 utc | 48

uncoy @13: Bad: Bernie Sanders is bad as he's a career politician and at 74 is clearly not going to successfully face down Israel or the deep state. But he'll try to improve taxes, benefits and health in favour of the working class.

NYT today: "A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what they see as the party’s lopsided support of Israel.

Two of the senator’s appointees to the party’s platform drafting committee, Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats no longer hewed to the party’s staunch support of the Israeli government. They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform, the party’s statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July."

Sanders is at best sloppy when he personally speaks on foreign affairs, but an astute politician does not have to be an expert if he/she can discern which experts should be trusted. So, we can compare: Hillary and neo-cons, Sanders with West and Zogby, and Trump who praised John Bolton.

From Mother Jones (google "Trump Bolton"): In that Meet the Press interview, host Chuck Todd asked Trump to identify his "go-to" experts for national security matters. Trump said he "probably" had two or three. Todd pressed the tycoon for names, and the first one Trump mentioned was John Bolton, the George W. Bush administration's ambassador to the United Nations. "He's, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about," Trump said.

This is not the case that Trump shares Bolton's views, which are as atrocious as one can find near Potomac, but the case that Trump truly does not know a thing about foreign policy and to the degree that a five year old can make more reasonable statements on the subject than our establishment, he can do it too.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 26 2016 23:35 utc | 49

Who would like to bet in the current snipe-fest between the KSA and the US as to who will spill the beans first about Mossad or Larry Silverstein's involvement in the WTC September 2001 attacks?

Posted by: Jen | May 27 2016 0:06 utc | 50

10 People You Can Vote For In 2016 Not Named Trump Or Clinton

Bernie Sanders (Democratic Party?)

He’s not really a 3rd-party candidate because he’s running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party crime syndicate ­ but some believe he seeks to cause an insurrection in the DNC for the purposes of fomenting a third party revolution. That said, despite his feverish voter base, there are many who dislike him. Anarchists hate him because he’s a statist and has ties to the military-industrial complex; conservatives hate him because he invokes socialism in a positive context; mainstream Democrats hate him because they believe he is increasing the chances Donald Trump will be elected president (even though this theory is incorrect). Everyone else loves him because he is riding a wrecking ball into the political establishment. Young people, in particular, recognize that Sanders is not only calling for all-out reform of not only the banking, healthcare, and education systems ­ he is looking to dismantle parts of the corporatocracy running thedeep state. What becomes of his movement post-election will be for the history books.

Jill Stein (Green Party)

If Bernie Sanders is significantly left of Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein is that much more left of Bernie Sanders ­ at least in rhetoric. Many believe this is the year of the Green Party and that its popularity will grow considerably because of the schism forming in the Democratic crime syndicate. While it is extremely unlikely she can win the presidency, the rigged duopoly of our political
of our political system has been laid bare, and Stein represents a momentum on the left that hasn’t been felt in a long time. The progressive agenda she advances is in keeping with many of Bernie Sanders’ platforms, and it is quite possible that once the primaries are over, we could see a political coalition between the two.

Stein’s positions on the military-industrial complex, the environment, and countless other issues make her a formidable intellectual force in America today. She believes it is time to finallyreject the “lesser of two evils” and stand up for the “greater good.”

Finally, if such a thing matters to you, author and activist Chris Hedges ­ who believes America has become an inverted totalitarian empire ­ is on board for a Stein presidency.........

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 27 2016 0:22 utc | 51

If Trump isn't losing to Bernie in a debate, he'll take a dive. He will lose deliberately to knock Hillary out of the game. Strengthening Bernie kills Clinton. Happens all the time in professional wrestling, and Trump knows all about that.

Posted by: Donnie | May 27 2016 0:44 utc | 52

The event would "get high ratings" and "should be in a big arena somewhere," Trump said.
Posted by: somebody | May 26, 2016 4:05:48 PM | 38

Yep. The debate is a forgone conclusion. As Trump said he "knows the media".
Translation: The MSM will figure that $10 million is chump-change compared with the Potential Profit from a Trump-Sanders debate. Trump's offer was conditional on MSM stumping up the cash to guarantee their own windfall profit. They will and the debate will go ahead.
Corporate Greed is the US religion.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 27 2016 0:47 utc | 53

@28 lysias

Never mind that at he last minute the the slime ball Chuck Schumer, likely in cooperation with my psychopath senator Tom Cotton (both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee)slipped a poison pill into the lawsuit legislation giving the SOS or the POTUS the freedom to give Saudi defendants a pass on legal actions filed against them. Though Schumer and Cotton are from different persuasions, it doesn't mean they can't sleep together under the same rock.

Posted by: Skipper | May 27 2016 0:52 utc | 54

What a circus ... Good to see ya, annie!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 27 2016 1:06 utc | 55

@49 jen..
that is easy.. ksa... when the shite really hits the fan, these folks will be screaming this, that and the other thing.. in the usa, no matter who says something - it is always buried for 100+ years as state secret..

Posted by: james | May 27 2016 1:17 utc | 56

Haha, now the Dem establishment is caving in on it itself. Trump writing the script, Bernie hanging around long enough for them both to say 'hey, hilary, you know what... go stand outside will ya.' Just as SNL prophesised.

Both parties establishments aghast.

Posted by: MadMax2 | May 27 2016 1:27 utc | 57

@19 dahoit
Re 'OT;Just at TD,and reading comments about the election,when one respondent said the Saudis accused the US govt of doing 9-11,a few days ago.
Any word on that?Wow.'
I did see something about that in my news feed, don't know much about the credibility of source?

Posted by: Bluemot5 | May 27 2016 2:12 utc | 58

Jill Stein: Time To Reject The ‘Lesser-Evil’ & Stand Up For The Greater Good


Posted by: Jack Smith | May 27 2016 3:38 utc | 59


Sorry, didn't know any posting regarding donation to Green party - Jill Stein
forbidden here. :-)

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 27 2016 3:41 utc | 60

somebody at 37 I don’t see what you mean. I believe that when Trump yells on about jobs—China, he is sincere in the sense that he is not engaging in empty, hypocritical, demagoguery. Moreover he is right. So what is the next step? I guess I was hoping that maybe it would be of interest to discuss the issues, but that seems completely impossible in this campaign (not new, just far more visible.) I took Apple as an example, because it is well known.

Posted by: Noirette | May 27 2016 14:05 utc | 61

59;Will the MSM report that story?They haven't yet.
The whole issue for Sanders is the unelected Demoncrat party delegates.They are the only way for the HB to attain the nomination.His focus on that undemocratic process is an ace in the hole.
And yeah,Hillaryous is making a big mistake in not debating Sanders and Trump.

Posted by: dahoit | May 27 2016 14:21 utc | 62

One of the duopoly's offerings down. Two to go! The veil on this charade is slowly being lifted. The expense of conducting elections and sponsoring a sycophant government to rule over the people and in the plutocrats interests requires much less revenue than having to actually fund and oversee a naked police state to accomplish the same ends. The way it is now the people pay for their own on going oppression while at the same time fattening the coffers of their ultimate oppressors as long as they can keep the people fixated on the staging behind which the Apex elites conduct the theater.

Posted by: BRF | May 27 2016 14:44 utc | 63

Sounds like the Trump-Sanders debate is a done deal. Raw Story: Bernie Sanders credits Jimmy Kimmel for Trump debate — which he sees as chance to seize nomination:

It’s looking increasingly likely that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump will hold an unusual presidential debate — thanks to an assist by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.

Sanders suggested the debate, which he wants to be held in California ahead of the state’s June 7 Democratic primary, and Kimmel asked Trump whether he’d be willing to go for it during an appearance Wednesday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

Trump said he would do it, and Sanders appeared Thursday night on Kimmel’s talk show, where he offered some thanks to the host.

“You made it possible for us to have a very interesting debate about two guys who look at the world very, very differently,” Sanders told Kimmel.

Sanders said he hoped to hold the debate at “some big stadium here in California,” and added that Kimmel’s network, ABC, had already contacted his campaign about televising the event.

Posted by: lysias | May 27 2016 15:47 utc | 64

Posted by: Noirette | May 27, 2016 10:05:41 AM | 62

The communist manifesto tells the workers of the world to unite. Trump has a nationalist "America first" agenda which separates Hispanic families and does not include Muslims.

Posted by: somebody | May 27 2016 17:02 utc | 66

add to 66 - to make it clear - German national socialists were sincere in that they cared about jobs - they designed the German motorways.

Posted by: somebody | May 27 2016 17:05 utc | 67

Deep down inside, a lot of you feel the Berne eh? Why would Trump want Bernie as the Democrat nominee when he would have an easier time against Hillary?

Posted by: TrumpTheBurn | May 27 2016 20:53 utc | 68


Actually, it's pretty clear from the posts that everyone here hates Sanders as much as they hate Clinton and Trump.

Posted by: Inkan1969 | May 27 2016 22:33 utc | 69


Jack Smith is not everyone at MoA Bernie Sanders exists at the edge of, but within a system that is being rejected by the public. I agree with many of his domestic and international policies but he comes from a system of compromise that won't accept the radical changes needed to save our species.

I have been watching the world go around since studying the future in the early 1970's at college. The same global plutocratic families run our world as 40 years ago and as I learned 140 years ago and 240 years ago and...... Our world is controlled by these folks that own private finance in the world and maintain that ownership through unfettered inheritance. My problem with Bernie is that he wants to reinstate Glass Steagal instead of addressing the root of our evolutionary problem........non-sovereign finance or private finance global feudalism.

It is time to kill the Gawd of Mammon and get on with trying to act civilized.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 27 2016 22:58 utc | 70

It ain't happening folks........

Posted by: notlurking | May 28 2016 0:44 utc | 71

Actually, it's pretty clear from the posts that everyone here hates Sanders as much as they hate Clinton and Trump.
Posted by: Irritating Inkan1969 | May 27, 2016 6:33:23 PM | 69

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 28 2016 4:39 utc | 72

What this means is that among the total electorate — both Parties, and also including independents — Sanders has been the consistent leader as the person most preferred to become the next U.S. President.

There is no mystery as to why this is the case: Sanders has consistently had the highest net favorability rating of all of the Presidential candidates in both Parties. This is not speculation, and it is not debatable; it is the data.

In fact, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are rated more unfavorably than they are rated favorably — each of those two is in net-negative territory on favorability. In other words, with only Clinton and Trump as being realistically possible to become elected President, the U.S. Presidential contest is not between two attractive candidates, but between two unattractive ones.

Posted by: TrumpTheBurn | May 28 2016 10:33 utc | 73

74;Trump is unattractive to the Zionists,as they've made perfectly clear,while the HB is their favored choice.
Which means vote for Trump,unless you are an America last type of person.

Posted by: dahoit | May 28 2016 13:52 utc | 74

Sanders for months was described as "grouchy unelectable old man", and now we clearly dropped the first two, while neither Trump nor Clinton are particularly young. The super-delegates will have to ponder if they want reliable member of Democratic machine or a sure bet to be elected in November.

From the point of view of Democratic orthodoxy, Sanders a) talks to much about "class" and not enough about "groups that form Democratic rainbow coalition", b) is oblivious at best to the gun issue, c) is not as much wrecker of imperial foreign policy as Trump, but perhaps a more effective one: Cornel West for SoS? But he did not denigrate the "groups", imperial foreign policy is not a priority for non-machine democrats and on guns, I privately think that this is the best sacrifice to gain "blue collar hunter vote". The battleground is not in gun-averse cities but in Ohio etc. (even Maine and New Hampshire). Sanders is competitive in Georgia! (the other end of Appallachian Trail I presume, so he is a bit "local" there).

My conclusion is that the only chance of Sanders is to trail Clinton as narrowly as possible and try the convention. From that point of view, "personal" attacks on Hillary are out of the question, and surely they can be left for GOP and the media.

I think that even if Sanders looses, he may push major policy changes. Clinton would be wise to pick Sanders-approved VP, and actively support the updated party platform.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 28 2016 14:52 utc | 75


Except there will be no Trump-Sanders card, just punking you for the Sunday comps on Faux. Sanders is reduced to Nader, but still not significant enough to deraul the Clinton-WADC-Wall Street cash machine. Trump will blow up, there's nothing left to fill 180 days of news coverage, except to drag out Palin.

Posted by: Guk Tahdar | May 28 2016 18:09 utc | 76


Except there will be no Trump-Sanders card, just punking you for the Sunday comps on Faux. Sanders is reduced to Nader, but still not significant enough to deraul the Clinton-WADC-Wall Street cash machine. Trump will blow up, there's nothing left to fill 180 days of news coverage, except to drag out Palin.

Posted by: Guk Tahdar | May 28 2016 18:09 utc | 77

ok somebody i understand

Posted by: Noirette | May 28 2016 19:24 utc | 78

@27 Noirette

Interesting article from Monthly Review, Imperialism and the Transformation of Values into Prices. Striking rendition of the 'smiley' graph. Sort of a "which side are you on?" moment.

Posted by: jfl | May 28 2016 21:01 utc | 79

@27 Noirette

Further on Apple and the rest in 'the South' ...

China Electronics Factory Replaces Workers with Robots

“We are applying robotics engineering and other innovative manufacturing technologies to replace repetitive tasks, and through training also enable our employees to focus on higher value-added elements in the manufacturing process,” said Foxconn in a statement.

55 percent of the workforce in the Kunshan office was laid off and replaced by artificial intelligence. Two-thirds of the population in Kunshan are migrant workers from other cities in China.

"The Foxconn factory has reduced its employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000, thanks to the introduction of robots. It has tasted success in reduction of labor costs. More companies are likely to follow suit," said Xu Yulian, from the city of Kunshan publicity department.

A 2014 explosion killed 146 workers from the Foxconn factory, blamed on inadequate safety standards, and authorities now have focused on a more tech-intensive work place. The firm currently employs more than a million people.

Laid off. Just as American workers were 'laid off' when Apple moved its manufacturing to China. Fired. Is what they are struggling not to say. 'Those jobs are not coming back.'

The Chinese people were hanging on, waiting for work conditions and wages to improve ... but it's the Plutocrats' Republic now. The People have been fired.

Capitalism is capitalism. North America, Europe, China, Korea ... makes no difference.

Posted by: jfl | May 29 2016 12:44 utc | 80

jfl at 80. that was realley interesting, thx.

Posted by: Noirette | May 29 2016 15:02 utc | 81

@82 Noirette

I wonder what you make of this ...

France Paralyzed by the ‘War of the Lefts’

A case can be made that the Hollande-Valls duo is so disconnected from the street pulse that they had no idea this bill would be met with so much hostility. They should have gone for a wider reach – and should have previously invested in a lot of dialogue, not to mention semantic niceties, with the unions.

So what next? The sound money is on some sort of compromise; the text of the bill will be amended by the Senate next month, before coming back to the Assembly. This means it will be “retouched” – as even the government is now admitting; and that will mean a victory for social movements. Whatever happens the War of the Lefts won’t be over. And the final result may even come up in the form of a collective suicide – to the benefit of the Right.

If there is no solution in the coming days, the Hollande-Valls duo will have to back down. The French security system won’t be able to cope, simultaneously, with a high terrorist alert and policing myriad demonstrations (a huge one is already scheduled for June 14). A lot is riding on the success of the Euro football, not the currency. Football, in this case, is far from politically neutral; if the whole show is a major success, it’s Hollande who will reap the benefits.

... not just of Pepe's take but of the whole situation?

Posted by: jfl | May 29 2016 23:23 utc | 82

The fix is in. Exit polls have been cancelled for Cali and NooJoisey.

Posted by: JohnG | May 30 2016 22:53 utc | 83

@84 JG

Gotta link? Or is this telepathic communication?

Posted by: jfl | May 31 2016 0:37 utc | 84

"Capitalism is capitalism. North America, Europe, China, Korea ... makes no difference."

Capitalism Without Rules or Laws IS Fascism!!!!

Posted by: JohnF | Jun 7 2016 15:41 utc | 85

The comments to this entry are closed.