Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 03, 2016

Reward Clinton's Hawkishness Because Trump's Foreign Policy Is Uncertain?

For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.

Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as do I). In a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these points. Some excerpts (taken from this partial transcript part 9, 10):

Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it’s worse than it’s ever been before.

Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would have been in much better shape.

We shouldn’t have gone into the war, and she thinks I’m a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.

Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that’s blind to the lessons, wants to start a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World War III.

Okay, folks. She – I’ll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She’s incompetent. She will get us into World War III.

The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.

Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical. He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan had to take back in the end when he introduced the biggest tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.

Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.


She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than she openly claims.

Clinton assures us that Trump is Putin's puppet who will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?

With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed.

Micah Zenko, who's opinion I value, agrees with my diagnose, Trump is less hawkish, but has a different judgement:

When it comes to foreign policy, Trump’s own positions make him the most immoral, poorly informed, and dangerous presidential candidate in recent American history.

If Clinton is elected, there will undoubtedly be troubling foreign-policy positions and actions which must be thoroughly questioned and scrutinized. I just deeply hope that citizens have the opportunity to hold a President Hillary Clinton to account.

The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to account for her "We came, we saw, he died" war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed) pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?

Who would I vote for? Not Hillary. Not for Trump either. Some third party candidate - probably Stein of the Green Party. It would be a "useless and wasted" vote in the short term though such votes have some light influence on the programs of the big parties. In the long term the example of voting third parties will hopefully induce more people to do the same. If it becomes a more common, regular thing to do it might over time break the duopoly of today's consensus in Washington. It is a small chance, but possibly a big long-term reward.

Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 19:22 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

If you vote for Hillary it's all your fault!


Posted by: Robert McMaster | Nov 4 2016 10:20 utc | 101

Vote Hillary. You own it!

Posted by: Robert McMaster | Nov 4 2016 10:21 utc | 102

Vote Hillary. Now shut up for four years.

Posted by: Robert McMaster | Nov 4 2016 10:21 utc | 103

All this pain and mess is your fault. You voted her in.

Posted by: Robert McMaster | Nov 4 2016 10:22 utc | 104

"Voting for lesser evil makes that person part evil themselves. It's inescapably right there in its own definition."

I have been guilty of saying something like the above myself at times. And yet, there is much more to consider than the simplistic statement implies.

In this election, we have an evil candidate that is guaranteed to fuel more wars as well as push Russia and China towards open hostilities. The other candidate is a lose cannon who seems to want to do business with foreign countries rather than bomb them --- but we have no guarantee.

Under the NAP, I am fully justified in voting for what I consider the relatively anti-war candidate even if the candidate's position on other issues are of concern. I don't see it as "evil" if I try to stop the most evil candidate of my lifetime from wining -- and I resent some simpleton saying it is.

Recall the Murray Rothbard backed anti-establishment candidates even if he did not vote himself. Presently Walter Block is backing Trump from an anarchist prospective. What? How can this be?

We believe that for liberty to grow and for the evil Empire to disintegrate without destroying the world as it does; then we need more time. Mrs. Clinton is a danger to the survival of the human race because she believes we can have a "limited war" with Russia. My god, how stupid does one have to be to want war with a nuclear superpower?

There are rumors that even some factions of the "deep state" are now worried what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring. Even people in the deep state have kids and grand kids. And finally, know in your heart that a vote for a 3rd party does not exempt you from making a choice between the two. Clinton or Trump will win the election. You may vote to block Clinton or not --- your choice.

I have not voted in a presidential election since 1980 due to not wanting to vote for evil. But this time, I think I will. (still conflicted)

Posted by: Mark Stoval | Nov 4 2016 10:49 utc | 105

@ V. Arnold | Nov 4, 2016 4:05:11 AM | 94

Strongly disagree with your assertion:

With the system as broken as it is, there is no fixing it; it must be brought down and built once again from scratch; …

That is something issuing from indolent complacency - those who are unwilling to get their fingers dirtied with the work needed to make the necessary adjustments required to make a system function, and furthermore unwilling to learn and use the tools of statecraft needed for that end. More than anything else, this is the cancer that will defeat the hegemon long before the hegemon collapses from internal causes.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Nov 4 2016 11:16 utc | 106

Formerly T-Bear @106:That is something issuing from indolent complacency ...

No. It issues from a rage that is driven by frustration with a system that really is 'rigged' against them.

Stop blaming the victim.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 4 2016 12:22 utc | 107

I see you've poured a generous round of Orange Kool-Aid for the house. How nice....

So not only is he a warmonger, and a proud serial rapist, his own history of off-shoring his products and buying foreign steel, as well as his feeling that American workers are overpaid, suggests he's no friend of labor.

So leaving aside his campaign is a fraud on any number of levels (cf. Trump University), I find the support for our nativist reactionary quite surprising. His still-unlikely election (The Huffpost model gives him a 1.7 pct chance of an Electoral College victory) would enable and empower the most atavistic elements in American society, beginning a new Trump Golden Orange Age of Misogyny, Racism, and Xenophobia (TM).

The mobs chanting "USA, USA, USA" and assaulting reporters are angling for an inclusive nation with a foreign policy more respectful of world opinion, I'm sure.

And isn't it ironic -- when we actually have an element of the "deep state" actually intervening in the election, in violation of long-standing DOJ policies and likely the Hatch Act as well, people are totally cool with that. Seems that this sort of manipulation is just hunky-dory, provided it's the other ox being gored.

Is Comey channeling his inner J. Edgar Hoover? Sure looks like it.

Maybe the FBI will be part of The Donald's insurgent army that rebels on Nov. 9. Or maybe they're just continue to violate the law with leaks in the Clinton Administration. Congressional Rethuglicans are making impeachment noises already.

In some good news, though, the local GOP plan to allow the rubes and yokels from rural, white Central Pennsylvania to traverse the state as "poll watchers" has been nixed by the courts.

Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 4 2016 12:23 utc | 108

answer to my question yesterday: same content because the email in question, leaked yesterday, quotes a note that had been released before, cf

(the comments are uncensored, for once!)

What is more interesting in the full text is that Turkey is said to move towards something "more tangibly Islamic" or so, and the language seems to imply that this is not without some support.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2016 12:23 utc | 109

The system is no so much broken as decrepit and corrupt, loaded down with time-serving parasites, old healed-over political scars, and corrupt graft and collusion.

150+ years on, the issues that drove the civil war live on, as we see every day on the TV. Our business elites do not know how to produce a good profit on a good product, they all want to use monopoly power to sell cheap crap at exorbitant prices to get rich. It is not that they don't want to compete, they don't have any idea how to.

Our cultural life has turned into a cesspool of shallow demands for attention for the associated advertising. Our elections are run like a whorehouse, where the politicians prance and preen for the money boys, who really decide who gets the job.

It is not worth fixing, too expensive, too complex for our little brains, and everybody necessarily on the take.

So vote for what you want, otherwise you will never get it, none of those "public servants" in DC are ever going to just give it to you.

Posted by: bemildred | Nov 4 2016 12:24 utc | 110

Formerly T-Bear | Nov 4, 2016 7:16:51 AM | 106

I think your "solution/analysis", misses today as it is;
"...those who are unwilling to get their fingers dirtied with the work needed to make the necessary adjustments required to make a system function, and furthermore unwilling to learn and use the tools of statecraft needed for that end."

That time is passed, long passed. The rot goes too deep for "state craft"; an archaic term not relevant in today's reality; at least in U.S. politics.
The deep state negates any possibility of "state craft" to even have any meaning in today's world.
The U.S. presidential election is nothing more than a cheap version of musical chairs between the pre-ordained.
The only world leaders, IMO, still indulging in state craft are Pres. Putin and his envoy, Sergey Lavrov; the rest; just tools of empire...
The U.S. hegemon is going down already; but, short of a nuclear conflagration, it will be a quite long process.
Again, IMO.
We'll see...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Nov 4 2016 12:37 utc | 111


Chipnik where you been? Missed you.

Posted by: skeedattle | Nov 4 2016 12:40 utc | 112

jdmckay @ 83

On the policy front, she has refreshingly sensible policies, that are sadly foreign to the mainstream consensus. Because these ideas come across as anathema to the way the US does business, it becomes more important to assemble extensive and detailed plans to spell out exactly how, and why, these plans are feasible. This way she doesn't come across as a punchline upon close inspection, but rather someone who's policies empirically hold water. I think this burden falls more heavily upon third party candidates due to how easily people are willing to write them off. It's as though critics will readily laugh at her if she doesn't have a white paper explaining how building some wind turbines instead of the F-35 makes sense; while support for funding the F-35 by a war hawk doesn't need to be substantiated beyond wearing an American flag lapel.

As for the candidate herself. I've heard her interviewed several times and she at times hits her stride, but at others she struggles to convey the coherence and passion that I would expect out of someone who, unlike the major party candidates, doesn't have to lie when she is speaking about what she believes.

I've voted for her twice now. I respect her as an individual and what she represents. I imagine it is very difficult psychologically to be the only candidate espousing a respect for social justice all the while knowing so few people will bother to listen let alone feel that is worth a vote.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 4 2016 13:05 utc | 113

@ V. Arnold | Nov 4, 2016 8:37:28 AM | 111

I realise you have made up your mind about this and there is no force in the universe that will change it, not even facts. That said, most of the drivel spouted on this thread comes from minds not tutored in rigorous civics as it once was taught, in fact most of the drivel would not even exist had exposure to rigorous civics happened. What have you done, other than bellyache as you have just done, as if the future was already cast in stone, to share your experiences with those not having such benefit. You can play that balderdash with those willing to listen endlessly to it. As per usual, you ave failed to read and understand and have developed some chimera between your ears, confounding that with what your interpretation of what was presented. I am not interested in pursuing your chimeras, life is too short for that. I do appreciate your applause when you find it suitable, but shall not distort my views to accommodate your fantasies, not now, not again.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Nov 4 2016 13:17 utc | 114

If you like the govt you got,you can vote Hell Bitch and keep it.
All the rest of US will vote Trump,cause we hate it.
Oh,and all pure of heart and mind can vote irrelevance.
Trumps tax policies are more beneficial to US than loopholes he and his fellow billionaires use repeatedly to avoid paying 15%,btw.
HRC is the most corrupt bubbleheaded moron to come along the electoral pike in our history,with a track record of disaster after disaster.
Only idiots,masochists and America haters could approve,which of course is her base.
Trump has been targeted by the zionists since he said the neutral stance re Israel Palestine.
Why would he repay his torturers with niceties?I think his election will finally remove Zion as the worlds untouchables.Isn't that worth something?One can't see the malevolence and total rejection of America First by zion?

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 4 2016 13:58 utc | 115

Never will I apologize to any for supporting, fully, the founding documents of the U.S. What those men turned out in the end was a helluva lot better than what they went in with - the Articles of Confederation. Oh, and I do love history.

I am the last person to tell any how to think or what to feel about anything, so whatever opinion or belief some here hold about the law of the land is your business. However, if you are going to attack me about 'facts' please show some manners.

Pouncing on my comment stating Jill Stein has never been vetted, which she hasn't, and all the voter has to go on is what she's told us, still does not mean she's qualified under the law of this land. Until that law changes, or a new constitution is drafted, it is what it is...the law. So beating me up for pointing out this fact serves what purpose, exactly. And just b/c some here don't like the founding documents nor the men who drafted them does not mean you are above the law by choosing to ignore them.

90 @psychohistorian - great comment

Posted by: h | Nov 4 2016 14:33 utc | 116

every president in living memory has gotten away with treason(which, for a conviction, requires the testimony of only TWO witnesses to the same overt act (or a confession in open court, hahaha)). but apparently our political class(also elected) just ain't up to the challenge, i mean, quite the opposite...they've only aided and abetted the criminality(think Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, etc).

so, it is 'just a goddamned piece of paper' afterall.

so go to the polls and write your congress critters, but mark my words, until you see the bailiff start clapping these motherfuckers in irons and leading them off to sing sing, don't expect any significant improvement in the general sordid arrangement.

the penalty for treason is life imprisonment.

Posted by: john | Nov 4 2016 14:41 utc | 117


Seriously, if you had lived in the US since the early 90s you would have been all too familiar with Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) whereby due to the incessant propaganda pushed out by the American MSM, normally intelligent people began to lose all sense of context/scope regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton and their relation/involvement w/ the plenitude of criminality of the US Empire.

Again, having lived through 2+ decades of this boring sh!te I thought that its effectiveness probably had run its course….oh how wrong I was!

Yep, thanks to sites like this and Saker I now see that CDS has a whole new international market whereby the entire planet can now be mindlessly bored to death with even more incessant/asinine calls to get that dastardly Clinton clan all the while – as has been going on since the 90s and way before – the true US PTB keep on murdering/stealing/killing, etc.

I am speaking very seriously now: this site, TheSaker and other sites have tremendously damaged their reputations as analytical resources b/c the authors and commentators have fallen prey to the exact same nonsense that the right-wingers fell prey to 20 years ago.

Hopefully, once this election Spectacle is finished you’ll be able to pull yourself out of the nosedive that has claimed the sanity of most if not all of the conservatives in the US.

Wake up pathetic brainswashees.

NOTE: Cue the foam-speckled CDS idiocy. Have fun being dragged around by your noses new-CDS-ers!

No really, you're all this close to finally bagging her. Keep trying, it's really not a ploy to keep you focused on trivialities.

Posted by: Ron Showalter | Nov 4 2016 14:47 utc | 118

b: " (and which Reagan had to take back in the end when he introduced the biggest tax hike ever)"

It's probably good policy to actually read articles you link to. According to the FactCheck article, Johnson's 10% surcharge on income tax in 1968 was the largest tax increase since 1968. The article doesn't even discuss anything prior to 1968 so your claim to "tax hike ever" is complete BS.

Yes, the Reagan 1982 tax hike was a whopper, but it was an adjustment of the previous year's whopper of a tax reduction -- together the two years still represented an overall tax cut.

It's starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh around here.

Posted by: Denis | Nov 4 2016 14:48 utc | 119

Just preselection bluster?

Department of Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX) accuses Hillary Clinton of 'TREASON!'

Posted by: ALberto | Nov 4 2016 15:06 utc | 120

Lot of treason going on. Pay to Play - especially Clinton Foundation personal piggy bank. Clean Skies, Patriot Act, NDAA, and all manner of laws or acts enacted to screw the common citizen aka "the country".

Posted by: fastfreddy | Nov 4 2016 15:28 utc | 121

@ Ron s. 118

"While the real PTB continue to murder, pillage, etc."

Please name names of the real PTB so we can get the ball rollin'! Otherwise, the Clintons are a really good start.

Another contributor from "Slate's" comment boards tries a little reverse psychology. Whoopty-fuckin'-doo.

Ostracizing a la Ancient Greece would be too good for the Clintons with their escape to Qatar when the hammer really comes down.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Nov 4 2016 16:01 utc | 122

Mina at 12. Yes they, Podesta, receive ‘troll’ type e-mails. The few I saw (didn’t see the one you posted but is typical) are all from ppl who have some kind of ‘social’ agenda within the nuttier range, either pro-an ‘inclusive’ stance or contra e.g. muslims is evil rapist / all ppl unite under the stars, or about aliens. At 18. It seems that commentators/posters don’t identify the ‘batch’ so the same things keep popping up?

Naturally enough, non-US citizens are uniquely concerned with foreign policy. But it is the no. 1. concern for US citizens as well, or should be. DT tax amendments can wait (or never see the light of day), but war with Russia is another errerr cup of radioactive tea. Trump has been from the beginning lets say non-belligerent (but see on trade with China, other topic), with one major exception: towards ISIS/variants, to the point of ‘barring/vetting Muslims’ - that kind of discourse at the beginning of his campaign, which was a clever move, playing to the media, and solliciting the attacks he knew would be forthcoming - racist, misogynist, divisive, Hitlerish figure- from the hysterical, cultish Dems. To hang them on their own pétard.

Re. Russia, DT has been afaik consistent, and in fact the campaign has been sous coupe , stealthily, about foreign policy. It all about Russia hacking, Russia rigging, Putin and Trump bro-mance, and so on. All that can be seen as a desperate deflection move from the Dem side (nutty claims) melded with the push of war-party factions (neocons, arms industry.)

Trump is half-way proposing *national renewal and withdrawal abroad*, an end to Empire building in its present form of senseless bombing, he prefers another approach, to be outlined…

Killary stands for a continuation of Bush-Obama foreign policy, as it is entrenched, paid for thru corruption, serving to line their own pockets. Ppl understand this, (many?) voters get it, confusedly.

Imho DT has always known much more than he lets on, difficult though to exploit, because patchy knowledge, hesitations.

Recall, he is not a newbie lunatic: He considered running in 1998 (Repub), and made some kind of bid? in 2000 (Reform Party.) Platform: fair trade, eliminating the debt, national health care. Wiki says he considered Oprah Winfrey as the ideal running mate.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 4 2016 16:02 utc | 123

b, my sentiments exactly, and i voted for stein.

Posted by: annie | Nov 4 2016 16:16 utc | 124

Well before I read todays post and thread I had at least 200 good reasons to vote for Dr. Jill Stein again and no good reason to vote for any other on the pres ticket. After reading commenter h I now have 201.

Thanks h!

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Nov 4 2016 16:46 utc | 125

It's time to say zombie Yankees live in a BANANA REPUBLIC one they rightfully deserve,it's gonna be a long ride as no other world powers have regime change plan!

Posted by: Nur Adlina | Nov 4 2016 17:02 utc | 126

Donald Trump is actually a sensible person. And genuinely caring. The Establishment has managed to cast him as dangerous and risky, but if one takes the time to go through his life you would find that he is far more reliable than many frauds that have been put in the the White House. That is a man who truly cares for the American people. Of course he would not be able to accomplish everything he is promising if (when) he is elected the President because democracy doesn't give absolute power to a president. And with the congress and the senate in full grip of the special interests he will be blocked every inch of the way whenever he tries to really execute his plans.But at least his election would be an eloquent message to the Establishment that the people has seen through them. And although the people might be powerless at the moment to effect a substantial change, the elites would get the memo that their days are numbered.

Posted by: Steve | Nov 4 2016 17:09 utc | 127

Donald is far less dangerous than putting nuclear weapons in the hand of an alcoholic. The world dodged a bullet when that was done in Russia in the 1990's. Yeltsin, though an alcoholic, was not a reckless maniac like the one competing with Donald Trump at the moment

Posted by: Steve | Nov 4 2016 17:14 utc | 128

Noisette: "Trump is half-way proposing *national renewal and withdrawal abroad*, an end to Empire building in its present form of senseless bombing, he prefers another approach, to be outlined…"

The Guardian, September 21, 2016, with direct quotes of DT: "One of the recurring themes of Donald Trump’s national security strategy is his plan to “take the oil” in Iraq and from areas controlled by Islamic State (Isis) extremists. It would drain Isis’s coffers and reimburse the US for the costs of its military commitments in the Middle East, the candidate insists."

IMHO, It does not sound like "withdrawal abroad". And there are details like rapes of 13 year old girl to be litigated.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 4 2016 18:29 utc | 129


Your article was hitting on all cylinders until...

"Who would I vote for? Not Hillary. Not for Trump either. "

Hillary is going to start a nuclear war with Russia and you are *not* going to vote against her?

You must have brushed up against an american somewhere for that kind of thinking to rub off on you.

Let's see, who is responsible for the most deaths up until 2016?

Trump: 0 known
Clinton: millions

"Who would I vote for? Not Hillary. Trump, because when the other choice leads to nuclear conflict, its a no-brainer."

Fixed it for ya.

Posted by: b4real | Nov 4 2016 18:39 utc | 130

re: b4real | Nov 4, 2016 2:39:58 PM | 130

I agree completely.

Since there is a very high likelihood of nuclear holocaust if Hillary gets elected, there really is no rational choice other than to vote for trump. This is simply a basic reality. It would feel better to vote for Jill Stein, but that would do nothing whatsoever to avoid nuclear war. There are absolutely no other reasonable options.

If you want to effectively disrupt the two-party coercing spoiler effect you should vote for Trump and campaign for strategic hedge simple score voting. Let me quote myself from what I said here in another thread:

{qoute} Because we are saddled with single-bid ("plurality") voting, we are stuck with "Duverger's law" (which has been very poorly defined), which mandates that single-bid voting inexorably leads to the establishment of an entrenched two-party system. If we had strategic hedge simple score voting we could, for example, give 10 votes the Stein, and from 5 to 9 votes to Trump (and then simply add them all up). But since we are stuck with a two-party system from which there is no possible escape, it is futile to vote for anyone but Trump if we wish to avoid death by nuclear fire. Hopefully if Trump wins the military will immediately begin taking orders from Trump, and ignore Obama. {end quote}

There are a lot of great things about the old Constitution, but as originally adopted, it allowed for virtually zero democracy (except for the election of House members). The "founding fathers" were really not such great folks as they have always been said to be. However, a few of them genuinely believed that the big owners were morally nicer than the common people (how quaint).

Posted by: blues | Nov 4 2016 19:26 utc | 131

The point is that John and Jane Q Public don't KNOW about the shit that went down in Honduras, Lybia, Syria, and the Ukraine. So we're arguing logic, without the facts. No one is informed in this country. First of all it takes an unconventional amount of time and effort to find non-governmental sources, even if you do have the educational background to understand the significance of the revelations. So they know nothing of Clinton's FP experience, or the increasingly hegemonic continuum of the office itself(make that any US office). All they know is that she wore a pantsuit whilst doing it, and it's time we gave a "Her" a chance. Hollywood has completely effed them all in the head.

'Member when Obama kept all of those Bush people? Well, John and Jane sure don't either.

"Write in Stein, write in Asshole.." Yeah or we could focus on getting ready for the mess we will have regardless. Voting only validates the current regime. And as for Zizek, he's a comedian. I doubt he'd vote at all if he were American.

Posted by: sejomoje | Nov 4 2016 19:47 utc | 132


Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

Posted by: ruralito | Nov 4 2016 20:07 utc | 133


Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

Absolutely nothing exclusive in that--it is a well-known fact. Arab-lobby is, probably, second in influence in Beltway.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Nov 4 2016 20:15 utc | 134

of course, my point was linking through Drudgereport, bargain basement merkin knuckle-draggery, never seen before by yours truly.

Posted by: ruralito | Nov 4 2016 20:22 utc | 135

In reply to Rufus Magister, 108, who states:-

"In some good news, though, the local GOP plan to allow the rubes and yokels from rural, white Central Pennsylvania to traverse the state as "poll watchers" has been nixed by the courts."

Yokels? From rural, white Central Pennsylvania? Hold on. Just let me think for a minute.

Got it. Weren't they the people who built the country you're living in? Something like that?

Posted by: EnglishOutsider | Nov 4 2016 21:16 utc | 136

The Clinton got Qatar into Haiti.. that's sick...

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2016 21:26 utc | 137

No way am I voting for Trump, but I won't vote for Hillary either.

Should I write in Jill Stein? Maybe

Posted by: bbbb | Nov 4 2016 21:34 utc | 138

It's simple. Vote Johnson.

Posted by: Michal | Nov 4 2016 22:02 utc | 139

good to see that technological nightmares are here for everyone! (on Libya but also a lot on the emails issue)

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2016 22:28 utc | 140

in the same mail, details on the Libya attack. They should have known by then how "moderates" were the people attacking their embassies other stupid internet videos of the prophet...
Many of the Benghazi-obsessed seem unaware that the chaos at that consulate was occurring across the Muslim World. The first protest exploded outside of the American Embassy in Cairo. There, Muslim protesters overran the embassy perimeter fences and stormed the compound in what CNN described at the time as “an all out assault.” They were driven, protesters said, by anger about a video posted on the Internet that they believed insulted the Prophet Mohammed. Then, angry Muslims gathered outside of the Benghazi mission and soon the attack erupted.
Before those two crises played out, protests started at the American Embassy in Tunis which the participants attributed to the same Internet video. As the protesters made their way to the embassy’s perimeter walls, the police stopped them. With angry Egyptians still roaming the Cairo compound and the Benghazi consulate smoldering from arson, the next demonstration began, as protesters stormed the compound of the American Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen where they began looting and setting fires. In other words, what the modern critics either do not realize or consider is that the American government was facing chaos in multiple diplomatic facilities around the Middle East and North Africa. Even as terrorists were
attacking in Benghazi, angry Muslims who also might launch a terrorist strike were roaming the grounds of the Cairo Embassy, as they would for days to come. As each crisis calmed, another erupted. On the day of the attacks, according to government records and testimony before other committees conducting investigations, Clinton learned of the Benghazi assault at 4:05pm. Forty-nine minutes later, a cable arrived at the State Department saying that the shooting had stopped and the compound had been cleared. In the hours that followed, Clinton spoke with Obama, the National Security
Advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA and scores of others. At 6:41pm, she called the President of the Libyan General National Congress seeking his help. During the eight minute call, Clinton asked for the Libyan government to provide additional firefighters and security personnel to the Benghazi mission as well as guards to the U.S. diplomatic facility in Tripoli. Another eight minutes passed and she called deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in Tripoli for an update and to reach out to any sources he had in the Libyan government to
seek more assistance. . Six minutes later, she was on a conference call with eight other U.S. government officials. At 7:45pm, she joined a Secure Video Tele-Conference with senior officials with the White House, the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Then she called Obama to consult with him and keep him updated on developments. At almost midnight came new information that a safe house where American personnel had taken refuge was under attack. Over at the Pentagon, officials had taken action rapidly after word of the attack arrived.. An operations officer with the United States Africa Command who was controlling an unarmed Predator drone flying over the Libyan city of Darnah was told to redirect it to Benghazi, about an hour

ordered two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain to prepare to deploy; one was going to Benghazi and the other to Tripoli. He also dispatched a special operations unit from the United States. Finally, a team of American military commandos training in Croatia were ordered to head to Benghazi. The group, called the Commander’s In-extremis Force, was formed to rapidly handle unexpected emergencies; it was the only unit close to Benghazi with the skills necessary to conduct a rescue, kill the terrorists and avoid civilian deaths.. The group got as far as the Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy, placing them about an hour from Benghazi. But by that point, the assault in the Libyan city was over.
In the midst of all the bedlam came the first attempt to politicize the events of that day, although the Republicans were not yet focusing their attention on Benghazi. At that point, officials inside the Cairo Embassy were working to calm the situation outside by communicating a message to the protestors that denounced the video, saying they opposed “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

Posted by: Mina | Nov 4 2016 22:36 utc | 141

Anything red leader pretend(RM)is for,I'm against.
I notice Berman and RGLG speak from the same hymnal too.
136.According the the Trotskyites,America was built by slaves.
Fits their divide and conquer narrative.They all hate the Constitution too.Mole traitors.The enemy within.And notice they are the first to say Trump has neocon advisers.What else are there today?Was he going to add Dennis Kucinich?As someone noted,Trump is very intelligent,and his own man,no one else's!
Trump 2016.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 4 2016 22:51 utc | 142

Assange: Clinton Emails Prove Daesh Funded by Saudi, Qatari Governments

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The US establishment and media are working together to stop US Republican nominee Donald Trump to become the next American president, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a special interview with John Pilger aired by RT.

In the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday, Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of misleading Americans about the true scope of Daesh’s support from Washington’s Middle East allies.

Posted by: schlub | Nov 4 2016 22:56 utc | 143

For all those here that are thinking of abstaining or voting for Stein. Consider this fact, that either Trump or Hillary will win in any case. So the question is.. whom of the two candidates will do the most irreversible damage for the next four years? Trump who seeks peace or Hillary who has promised us war against Syria, Iran, Russia and possibly china potentially ending with a world war three scenario and a thermonuclear nuclear exchange. Hence abstaining or a vote cast for anyone but Trump is in effect a vote that goes to Hillary. In a rigged two party system there's no neutral ground here or a third party option period. Thus by de facto it's only a choice between the status quo or taking a chance on a wildcard renegade that the entire political establishment fears and hates. It's the only choice left here to be made.

Posted by: RayB | Nov 4 2016 22:59 utc | 144

Hillary is plug and play; "shovel ready", cash for clunkers; Oded Yinon Plan won't miss a beat. The rest of us - black, white, yellow, or red, will be screwed.

Posted by: fast freddy | Nov 4 2016 23:35 utc | 145

@144 I wouldn't be so sure that Trump is such a renegade. He's a salesman - he's selling himself to you just like how Obama sold you himself 8 years ago.
What did we get with Obama?
..and now Trump hires an ex gorldman/soros guy for Treas secretary, while his son says shoot David Duke, who reps much of Trump's electoral base

Posted by: bbbb | Nov 5 2016 0:22 utc | 146

@143 schlub.. thanks.. that is exactly how i see it..

those e mails are so good, there credibility has to be destroyed, some way, or some how.. doesn't seem to be working too well however, by the powers that be.. seems like more confirmation of a turf war on a high level..

Posted by: james | Nov 5 2016 1:33 utc | 147

IhaveLittleToAdd @ 113

On the policy front, she has refreshingly sensible policies, that are sadly foreign to the mainstream consensus. Because these ideas come across as anathema to the way the US does business, it becomes more important to assemble extensive and detailed plans to spell out exactly how, and why, these plans are feasible. This way she doesn't come across as a punchline upon close inspection, but rather someone who's policies empirically hold water. I think this burden falls more heavily upon third party candidates due to how easily people are willing to write them off. It's as though critics will readily laugh at her if she doesn't have a white paper explaining how building some wind turbines instead of the F-35 makes sense; while support for funding the F-35 by a war hawk doesn't need to be substantiated beyond wearing an American flag lapel.

well said.

As for the candidate herself. I've heard her interviewed several times and she at times hits her stride, but at others she struggles to convey the coherence and passion that I would expect out of someone who, unlike the major party candidates, doesn't have to lie when she is speaking about what she believes.

I think she's done well in speeches/interviews I've see, several exceptionally so. But your point taken. I do think she made a mistake choosing a one issue vice-president, he's the reason I hear most from people who would otherwise seriously consider her.

Anyway, thx for answering my question. Cheers!!!

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 5 2016 2:33 utc | 148

"The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to account for her "We came, we saw, he died" war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria."

You do this by not voting for her. Once she's elected, good luck with that.

Posted by: ian | Nov 5 2016 4:35 utc | 149

Disgusted by this sorry spectacle of US politics of lesser evilism. But there is a good reason for it. Here it is:

Posted by: Kalen | Nov 5 2016 4:38 utc | 150

A peak behind the curtain. In case anyone has any illusions as to how Washington really works and who is actually pulling the strings.

Obama hired Clinton as sec’y of state by reaching out to Israel supporter Hoenlein — NYT

“Remember all that “Team of Rivals” stuff when Obama became president and named Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? According to a big piece in the New York Times this Sunday, that’s horse feathers from the mythology department.Obama named Hillary Clinton to appease the Israel lobby on foreign policy; and the Israel lobby actually cut the deal.”

From the Times article:

Once elected, Obama seemed to understand that he needed someone to lend him credibility with the Israeli government and its American defenders…An aide to Obama called Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and asked him to call Hillary Clinton to see if she would be “agreeable” to being named secretary of state.

In assessing the appointment of SOS, the most powerful post in the U.S. cabinet (after the presidency itself), the overriding consideration seems to have been the appeasement of the Israel lobby.

One would expect Obama to reach out directly to Hillary in regard to the position of SOS. Instead the query was channelled through the Jewish lobby. WTF? Didn’t Obama have a direct line of communication with Clinton? So why didn’t he use it.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Nov 5 2016 10:22 utc | 151

Piotr, maybe I should have said “ostensibly” proposing or “seeming to propose” - in the sense that many see him as anti-war against Russia on which he has been consistent, while against ISIL/variants whom are unversally loathed by the public.

The remark you quote goes in the anti-ISIS direction. As for ‘taking the oil’ from ISIS and thereby ‘draining their coffers’ this has been proposed many times as part of the strategy for defeating ISIS - cut off supply lines, stop their funding (they are mercenaries who will melt away) - part of that funding comes from oil sales, mostly via Turkey. I agree it is not complete ‘withdrawal.’ Remember though the he has spoken out endlessly against ‘meddling’ and condemned US intervention in Iraq, Lybia, Syria and elsewhere. (Of course easy to do as they were instigated in the past.)

As for ISIS controlling the oil, here are the Dems busy at controlling it or attempting to. Maybe Trump knew that.

Wikileaks Podesta (ed. by me.) 2014. Title:

An interesting opportunity.

Steve, with the occupation of Ninewah by ISIS, and of greater Kirkuk by the KRG, we have an interesting possibility. It is my understanding that the pipelines that brought Kurdish crude to Kirkuk to be shipped via the Kirkuk Ceyhan pipeline can be reversed. If this is so this provides an opportunity for the Northern Oil Company--part of the central government, to ship out up to 200,000 b/d (I think the pipeline would take that much, but would have to check. But clearly close to that as the Kurds on good days were sending up to 175,000 b/d to Kirkuk. See attachment for layout (slightly obsolete) of pipelines. (...)

Idea would be: --Kirkuk to keep producing (shutting down operating wells is a laborious, costly, and very detrimental process. With Beiji refinery, fed by up to 100,000 b/d from Kirkuk and the Ceyhan line in enemy hands, that's a lot of capacity shut in.) with production either sent to Kurdistan for refining or shipped out via the 300,000 b/d line that, very fortunately, KRG now has to Ceyhan. --KRG would 'temporarily' market all oil exported via that line--its own quantities, say 100,000 b/d, plus Kirkuk. (This would be a compromise to the KRG).

--But proceeds would be put in the Fed Reserve "DFI" account with some special arrangement for the Kurdish 17% of total revenues country-wide (the idea Brett was working on--this would be a compromise to the Central Government).

This would all be a 'temporary,' 'emergency' action given the situation. (…..) I will be in an Northern Iraq energy conference in London next week, and can shop the idea in principle to Ashti and perhaps Turkey's Yildiz. But this will take someone like Jones or you to pitch to the Kurds.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 5 2016 11:57 utc | 152

correction: i miss-typed the title, which is 'possible oppo'

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 5 2016 12:02 utc | 153

"[T]hose e mails are so good, there credibility has to be destroyed...."

Yes, the secret evidence that decades of investigations by Justice and Congressional Republicans failed to find. Fan of the The DaVinci Code then?

These emails of unknown authorship on unknown subjects with unknown contents. Many, most, all duplicative of known material? They will contain no doubt brutal revelations, rather like Wikileaks and Podesta. You know, as a liberal Catholic, he tried to organize liberal Catholics! My god, what corruption....

Just like the big pay-to-play scandal at the Clinton Foundation that the AP failed to find. Nor did the FBI, in their partisan investigation based on their reading of a discredited book. Which prosecutors repeatedly told them was a load of crap.

That of course didn't stop far right elements within the FBI from document dumps, leaks and political pressure on Comey. Guiliani has bragged about being the point man in the conspiracy. I'm sure the late J. Edgar Hoover would be proud that his heritage of political manipulation by the Bureau lives on.

I find it more than passing strange that none of our "deep state" conspiracy theorists are exercised over the actual, open interference of the discontented siloviki with the election. Commentators have noted, disturbingly, that this means that should The Day-Glo Duckhead gain the Oval Office, he will find a cadre of the state's "bodies of armed men" willing to violate norms of legality and decency to do the bidding of Our Fearless Leader.

I look for these violations to start with the Donald's announced campaign of voter intimidation via "poll watchers."

Like both Vonnegut and Nick Lowe say: "So it goes." "All day discussions with the Russians/But they still went ahead and vetoed the plan."

Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 5 2016 13:44 utc | 154

I was just watching some RT video footage of a HRC rally, followers in the back were holding up very large letters spelling out her name. The "H" was her campaign logo the rest of the letters were outlined in white. Because the venue background color was also dark blue like the "H", it can't really be seen because it blends in. But the rest stand out massively against it:


Sounds about right. LOL

Posted by: Dean | Nov 5 2016 14:54 utc | 155

RT airing NOV 4 of Assange/Pilger interview days ago:

Trump won’t be permitted to win' - Assange interview with John Pilger (Courtesy Darthmouth Films)

Posted by: schlub | Nov 5 2016 17:47 utc | 156

This article which I read on 5 nov. purports to show that the MSM TV news have already composed a ‘results’ page crowning Killary. 42 % HRC vs 40% DT (the rest to Jill and Gary, other..)

Sott news (idk anything about them) - the results page is a pro job, not some fake thing. Of course 'templates' and the like are prepared before the election, and some might be 'filled in' as 'examples', just internal stuff, insider hopes.

Hardly a Clarion call from the Beacon on the Hill, the most wondrous, admirable Democracy.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 5 2016 17:58 utc | 157

It is worse than just what HRC stands for. As a person she has no redeeming values what so ever. The Podesta, Weiner, Abedin, and Clinton emails are beginning to come out revealing the whole picture and it is as we feared, the depravities and criminal corruption go bone deep.

Posted by: BRF | Nov 5 2016 18:05 utc | 158

@ Noirette who wrote
Hardly a Clarion call from the Beacon on the Hill, the most wondrous, admirable Democracy.

I assume you were referring to the latest Obama BS out stumping for the next puppet in line where he said things like:

“As flawed as our foreign policy can be, and whatever blind spots we have, we really are the indispensable nation,” he bragged.

“Our values and our ideals actually matter. We do a lot of good around the world. There are some things that we do that are either ineffective or imperfect, but there is a lot to be proud of,” the president said.

“The US having the most powerful military on Earth… helps up check the impulses of some other bad folks,” Obama said, giving North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and his country’s nuclear weapons program as an example.

The link I got my quotes from:

I keep waiting for countries to vote with their purchase of international currency....away from the US dollar and toward the Chinese Yuan.

American is a democracy only in myth now to go along with the God myth Americans are suppose to have trust in. The bottom line is that the global plutocrats that own private finance and Obama expect to continue that ownership with either Clinton II or Trump.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5 2016 19:06 utc | 159


What on earth do you mean that 'she hasn't been vetted?' You have said that twice on this thread, and the statement doesn't hold water. Do you mean that no-one has gone hunting for her birth certificate? Ms. Stein has run for office a number of times, she is an accredited physician who first entered politics on the basis of her medical expertise. Her biographical statistics have been available since her first public appearances. "All we know is what she has told us" - no, that isn't true. All we know is what she has been doing all her life, as well as her public efforts to be heard and these facts have never been disputed.

Is what you are saying 'Where's her birth certificate?' That is a really dumb question but I will answer it from wikipedia (last I heard wikipedia is not Jill Stein).

"Stein was born in Chicago, the daughter of Gladys (nee Wool) and Joseph Stein, and raised in Highland Park, Illinois. . ."

Oh, here's something from Stein herself: ". . .she now considers herself agnostic." Well, I guess we have to 'vet' that, don't we?

". . .In 1973 Stein graduated magna cum laude (that means 'with great praise') from Harvard where she studied psychology, sociology and anthropology. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Stein practised internal medicine for 25 years. . ."

Oh, please just go to wikipedia and read the rest of it. Believe me, she HAS been vetted!

Posted by: juliania | Nov 5 2016 19:19 utc | 160

I hear you. I don't generally believe in 'lesser of two evils' voting, in my opinion that's what's got us into this mess. The two main parties give us tweedledee and tweedledum and voting for someone who will represent your interests is 'throwing your vote away.'

If Ralph Nader had gotten just 15% of the vote, the major parties would HAVE to have addressed the issues he raised. When Nader gets like 0.3% of the vote, these issues can be ignored.

But this time I think, even though both choices have negatives, there is a real choice here. Trump has a wild personality but has shown the ability to get along with people when he has to and at least he talks about not spreading death and chaos across the world, and wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with Russia. I know, words are cheap (example A: 'hope and change') but Hillary Clinton is a certified, actual, sociopathic warmonger.

Trump 2016. IMHO.

Posted by: TG | Nov 5 2016 19:28 utc | 161

@ juliania,

In the same comment you are referring to h thanked me for a previous comment of mine.

I agree with you and wonder why h did this agnotology thing about Stein

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5 2016 22:33 utc | 162

I keep waiting for countries to vote with their purchase of international currency....away from the US dollar and toward the Chinese Yuan.
@159 psychohistorian

Big news in mainland China, but no one is paying attention to what happened a month ago... Not hard to miss I guess with the massive amount of election wank about. (I guess that's also why its a great time for the NYT to finally announce the revelation US is in partnership with 'sworn enemy' Al Queda.)

Why do you think the Chinese elite were so very keen to join a relic IMF currency that hasn't been used in nearly 50 years...? The Yuan didn't even make a couple of qualifying criteria...still, they get a seat at the big boys table.

New World Money
By James Rickards
August 30, 2016
"...The construction of the IMF’s special drawing rights (SDRs) valuation basket is reviewed every five years by the IMF Executive Board. But it can be changed more or less frequently at the Executive Board’s discretion.
The new effective date for the revised basket is midnight on Sept. 30, 2016. China is its newest addition..."


You dont have to be an economist to put 2 + 2 together. The globalists are within touching distance of war and financial reset. Hillary will deliver. The Clinton's must be stopped.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Nov 5 2016 23:24 utc | 163

@ MadMax2

China has built and executed 13 - 5 years plans as a communist country. I think you sell them a bit short.

You keeps your friends close but your enemies closer....

Time will tell if I am a fool to believe that in the big picture we are waging a global war about private finance.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5 2016 23:56 utc | 164

@164 psychohistorian

Wouldn't dare sell China short. They know what's coming. No one can fault them for building sandcastles in the middle of the south china sea of late.

But their elites need to be just as careful as their western counterparts in how they manage the mood of the people - the gap between the real economy and the fake economy is just as ripe for revolution.

China won't have trouble selling a war though, they'll draw second in self defence, and have the popular support at home to follow it through. In a non-nuclear war that is...

Posted by: MadMax2 | Nov 6 2016 0:24 utc | 165

Wow. Hills is circling the drain. The (((elite))) Luciferians are abandoning ship. Mebbe Podesta shuda cut off ALL his fingers. Cuz Lucifer isn't terribly impressed by the recent sacrifices. Had enuf pizza and hotdogs. And semen, human milk and menstrual blood is just plain icky.

The pussy-grabber is ahead by several hairs...

Posted by: Take Me | Nov 6 2016 0:59 utc | 166

The yokels and rubes are my relatives, if you must know.

Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 6 2016 3:44 utc | 167

Assange in Pilger's interview pointed out that Clinton's e-mail acknowledging KSA and Qatar supporting ISIS specified THE GOVERNMENTS OF ... not disguntled princes or old-school old-guys, the government(s).

@) Posted by: Mina | Nov 4, 2016 6:36:16 PM | 141
In the last Benghazi investigations last report, I learned for the first time that we had drone-assasinated the brother of the head of one of the local Benghazi militias, and there was thought that the attack on the compound was organized to revenge that.

FOX NEWS: Brother of Al Qaeda commander killed in drone strike a major candidate for presidency of Libya’s parliament

If someone had generically told me it was Al Qaeda -- I probably would have dismissed that -- why would Al-Qa’eda bother doing that -- and because I suspected it was "local actors" (who had already driven out all other foreign outposts in Benghazi). The Fox news reports indicates it may well have been both.

The killing last year of Qaid's brother, Abu Yahya al-Libi, is thought to have been one of the motives for Libyan jihadists to attack the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September, an assault that led to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Al Qaeda’s spiritual leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, focused his annual 9/11 message on America’s drone war just days before the consulate attack, eulogized al-Libi and called on “Libyan brothers” to avenge the loss.

I'm guessing this wasn't mentioned much because it didn't fit the narrative ... I only heard vague talk (and alarums) about the future threat of Al-Qa’eda in Libya (while ignoring the anarchy). I also was startled to hear we were using drones to assassinate local militia leaders (drones in Libya? why?)

The Fox report is from 2013, but I just happened to hear mention earlier this year. Somehow this explanation for the attack "resonates" It wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack ... it was vigilante justice for the killer of a home-town boy.

YMMV. I hadn't seen the Fox report before now, but the attack was assembled very quickly, within hours of Steven's arrival, and the assembled force was considerable.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2016 3:58 utc | 168

Oh noes! The upstart U.S. roundly schooled by a thousand-year old country across the sea. I'm still not voting - I'm letting it happen on purpose.

I think they stole the graphic from somewhere on 4-chan, but I already bathed tonight and don't care to dive into that cesspool for an appropriate original citation. Apologies to the OP.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Nov 6 2016 4:03 utc | 169

oh, I don't know if any info changed or expanded or refuted, but if we killed "a major candidate for presidency of Libya’s parliament" (whose brother happened to be Al-Qa’eda), I think that would represent "mission creep" particularly back then when we were still pretending that the intervention wasn't a clusterfuck and democracy would prevail ...

I only remember hearing on TV that the deceased was the brother of a militia leader, which seemed to me to be very very small fry to be killing by drone ...

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2016 4:05 utc | 170

@ Susan Sunflower

It has been the modis operendi of the US since WWII to identify and neutralize opponents to the ways of the West. It was quite galling to learn years ago that they have corrupted the Peace Corps birthed by Kennedy to help with the identification process.......I love my country but not what it has become under control of the global plutocrats.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6 2016 4:18 utc | 171

@171 Modus Operandi. Carry on..

Posted by: Lozion | Nov 6 2016 4:31 utc | 172

Sure -- but I've always maintained that the entire Benghazi clusterfuck began as a PR disaster when Rice attempted to blame the attack on "crazy muslims angry about a stupid movie" as a way to conceal -- on the eve of THAT election -- that Libya had fallen into chaos (because at that time they intended to "repeat Libya" in Syria within a few months and hoped make the attack a one-off non-significant crazy Muslim thing).

The Benghazi attack (and subsequent conspiracy theories and investigations) ironically acted to prevent (what I believed was planned) American intervention in Syria. It's all so very very dirty. Trying to get anyone to care about any arms going from Libya (shipped by anyone, sold or "gifted") is largely unmentionable except as a "mystery" and I suspect it may have been "fronted" by some "doing a favor for the Qataris" or similar coverstory that was designed to be like "Chinatown" ...

It appalls me that in our drone assasination we justify spending tens of thousands of dollar to kill a local militia leader, or some kid eating lunch or to blow up a car driving down the road ...
We are unwilling to expend the time or effort to develop local contacts or do it our selves on.the.ground. or even by local aircraft ... Like the "all volunteer army", this remote control is "the devil" in making war "painless" and "invisible" ... I didn't know whether to laugh or sneer when those stories came out about the remote control drone pilots in Arizona suffering PTSD ... and the military's transition from Civilians (to avoid Geneva Conventions) to Military drone pilots passed pretty much unnoticed.

Does Hillary Clinton even bother to mouth those Hallmark card platitudes about Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Man (or People) ... I'm guessing she doesn't even bother ... and no one cares

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2016 4:31 utc | 173

corrupt the peace corps, discover that the "green revolution" (monsanto and chemical dependent modern agriculture in the 1950s) -- I remember when nuclear power was going to be too cheap to meter and -- horrific thought now what with global warming -- would make the deserts bloom (KSA in particular) because nuclear power would allow massive desalinization to permit humongous irrigation projects (augmented with fertilizer and additives to make the desert arable).

It's also a funny throw back ... how Biden is going for a nostalgic "moon shot for a cancer cure" (shades of Adam Curtis on government giving up on big $$$ ideas for progress (hydroelectric dams and space travel) to sell us "safety" and by extension war instead, and claiming we can't afford to maintain our infrastructure. Gadaffi had big utopian dreams of an African Union and Saddam had turned Iraq into a medical mecca and destination for the region -- top flight hospital and medical schools.

We live in an age of diminished -- going, going, gone -- expectation. Those stories from Peace Corps veterans are STILL inspiring. In the 1990's (there abouts) we achieved the same stuff with privatized militias who both provided "security" to "American mulinational interests/installations" and foreign politicians (and who also debriefed for the USA) like Blackwater ... then that got discovered to be -- gosh -- problematic ... and now we just have military "joint ventures" all over the world ...often trading American technology to prop up the host regime for foot prints and staging areas for our spying, intercepts and covert ops. Satellite technology is an apparent curse

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2016 4:50 utc | 174

Being an old techie surfing my favorites I came across this posting

Here is one of the comments that had twice as many down votes as up votes when I read it but says what needs to be said.
what's TRULY important here isn't the volume of relevant e-mails, but rather the potential proof that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE was happening from the Clint-stones, just like what happened in Watergate when Nixon tried to cover up the Watergate hotel break-in [regardless of how justifiable it was; McGovern was a closet COMMUNIST, and I bet Nixon wanted PROOF].
It was the COVERUP that took down Nixon.
COVERUP is nothing new to Mrs. Clinton. The shredding of 'White Water' documents back in the 90's - documents from the Rose Law firm that somehow ended up in the White House - in addition to her handling of the 'Bimbo Eruptions' [THEIR name for it], and a few other things I can't remember the details on at the moment. There has even been SOME evidence to suggest that evidence was DELIBERATELY TAMPERED WITH in Mrs. Clinton's first major law case, as 'Hillary Rodham', defending the rapist of a 12 year old girl, and getting him off with 'time served', because the rape evidence had become "lost" [while in HER custody].
It might not even require 32k e-mails (i.e. "the 5 percent") to make a difference here. All you need is just a handful that clearly demonstrate either Obstruction of Justice, or outright mishandling or illegal disclosure of classified information, to be enough for a conviction.
But yeah, 95% of the 650,000 is just about right. Investigators have been talking about the 30,000 or so "missing" e-mails for a while. Why _WERE_ they 'missing' ? Inquiring minds want to know!
up 26 down 58

But maybe we will clearly see soon that rule of law is just for little people.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6 2016 5:07 utc | 175

@ me at 175

I apologize for not providing the comment writer's screen name of bombastic bob....grin

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6 2016 5:10 utc | 176

@173 Susan Sunflower

An extremely illustrative interactive graph on US drone strikes im Pakistan since 2004. Watch it rain from 2009.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Nov 6 2016 10:37 utc | 177 has leaked pix of already printed Newsweek issue with Hitlary being declared winner and the inside story about her road to becoming the POTUS.

Posted by: ProPeace | Nov 6 2016 12:06 utc | 178

|As the domesday clock ticks down to midnight, when you cast your ballots, just remember Hillary Clinton has an administration shovel ready to grab the reins of power. Donald Trump doesn't. You decide which is in your best interests, not which is lesser of the evils where there are only better or worse choices.

This election may well be decided by voters after all and will probably expose vote rigging of massive proportions in the process.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Nov 6 2016 12:40 utc | 179

For some reason the comment posting times out even with the shortest comment. What gives?

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Nov 6 2016 12:42 utc | 180

Come Wednesday the world will know if George Orwell gat it right or not, whether it is Big Brother or Big Sister watching. He did get 'always being at war with X (someplace or another)'.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Nov 6 2016 13:01 utc | 181

psychohistorian at 159. :) - I was thinking exactly about that, clever.

I keep waiting for countries to vote with their purchase of international currency....away from the US dollar and toward the Chinese Yuan.

As you no doubt know, moves away from the dollar are slow but evident (ex. Special Drawing Rights, IMF, World Bank.)

A few days ago the CH MSM published the holdings of the Central Bank (they do this regularly as 1/3 to 1/2 of the profits are returned to the ppl) and I was not too surprised to see that in the past 2 months they have sharply reduced dollar ‘exposure’ in favor of the Yuan and Euro and a consequent slice labelled ‘other’, not specified. (Terrified by the US election I guess.)

In CH things are moving sluggishly and confusedly on the finance front. We will vote on the ‘full money initiative’ which amounts to nationalising the Central Bank and giving money-creation over to the voters/Gvmt, away from the Banks. (A guaranteed minimum income was voted down just recently.) The last idea (supported by full money and guarant. income types) is to do away with income taxes, by instoring a .2 (point two) tax on electronic money transactions. This would bring in more than all present taxes combined, and would shut down day traders and drive hedge funds away.

This is the kind of thing US citizens should be discussing!, but none of the candidates can go there:

The elephant in the room is that dollar hegemony is defended by the gun. Oops I meant no-fly zone.

(see Mad Max above whom I hadn’t read while composing this response to 159.)

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 6 2016 14:04 utc | 182

@ Noirette,

Thanks for the updates on CH "full money initiative". I do wonder though on what volume of electronic money transactions you base the assumption that the tax would bring in more money than all present taxes combined? If it is onerous enough to shut down day traders and hedge funds, is the volume still sufficient to eliminate income taxes or whatever other taxes you have currently?

I agree that it is sad that there is no public discussion of private finance and wish there could be a global one so folks everywhere could see how those that own private finance operate and maintain their control.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6 2016 16:58 utc | 183

Sure looks like it's all gamed & arranged!
minutes ago news Sun 6th late aftn.
Exactly this was predicted a week ago with the FBI case opening announcement, that it would be dragged out to exactly this time, the following weekend, only 24-48 hours before the 'election', then...

FBI renews recommendations that Clinton should not face prosecution

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has cleared Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton after a renewed probe into her use of private email server as the US secretary of state.

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to the Republican-controlled Congress on Sunday to make the announcement.

Earlier, Comey had sent a letter, notifying the lawmakers of newly discovered emails pertinent to the case.

Posted by: schlub | Nov 6 2016 22:31 utc | 184

Dollar and US hegemony was never planned to be permanent. The early books and lots of current statements indicate that the dollar will give way to a global currency and US hegemony to a global oligarchy. It's to be regionally administered. China is to administer all of Asia. Her 8 Immortals, the oligarchs who arranged w David Rockefeller the buildup of China via massive Western investment, are fully onboard the NWO. Their economy is entirely integrated w it. Their ridiculously wealthy oligarchs are not democratic, nor communist. Their best shot at preserving their illegitimate wealth and power i to remain in the NWO.

It is tremendously persuasive to see anyone painted as "the enemy of your enemy" as your friend. That is why China has been painted as opposing the US. They want your acceptance of the NWO until it's too late. So US hegemony will fail and "multipolarity" be declared. But it's only regional administration of the same old NWO. Do you really think that if you think good thoughts while retaining the Fed/IMF system, the World Bank, WTO, BIS, etc.-- Do you really think that if you retain all the parts of it that it will somehow be something different if you just label it differently?

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 7 2016 4:14 utc | 185

@ Penelope

If the BRICS were to pipe up "now" and say they wanted an end to the tools of private finance they would not get very far. But given another step down the devolution path for US empire and that scenario may end differently. The BRICS don't spout the same BS as the private finance led West and on that basis I place my hope for eliminating private may not be seen as happening until it is a fait little folk may not even see the build up to the final tipping point until it is past. There is movement away from countries using the Reserve Currency in exchange and that just needs to build further.

When is the US/EU going to build their first 5-year plan?....grin

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 7 2016 4:54 utc | 186


WikiLeaks email publication servers under targeted DoS attack since releasing DNC leak2 - WikiLeaks

"WikiLeaks has come under DoS attack since publishing a new tranche of DNC e-mails, the whistleblowing website has announced on Twitter."

Posted by: Dean | Nov 7 2016 9:41 utc | 187

@Noirette 182, 'We will vote on the ‘full money initiative’ which amounts to nationalising the Central Bank and giving money-creation over to the voters/Gvmt, away from the Banks. ... This is the kind of thing US citizens should be discussing!'

Yeees indeed it is. The link you posted earlier pointed out that the ... FMI? ... is a version of the plan outlined in Creating New Money (pdf). It is, in fact, the implementation of 'the end of private finance' that psycho is always talking about. It's a well-reasoned and well-put forward proposal, and would end the miracle of compound interest at the very base of the rentier's pyramid. Your link had a one-page summary - the whole 'book' is only about 100 pages - for those 'in a hurry'. The executives, among us, whose attention spans are no longer than one-page :)

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2016 10:04 utc | 188

@Noirette 182, '... but none of the candidates can go there'

That's why we have to leave the menagerie, the animal farm, if we ever want to change anything at in the USA.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2016 10:36 utc | 189

Well there's a big surprise. The big nothing Benghazi investigation produced the big nothing email investigation. And email redux has crapped out like the original.

The big fix? Or was it all much ado about nothing?

And still no one here gives a rat's ass about the rogue siloviki interfering in the election. Love those MofA values....

Posted by: rufus magister | Nov 7 2016 12:16 utc | 190

160 juliana -

The national parties are required by law to ensure their respective presidential nominee who is being placed on all 50 state ballots must meet federal requirements – here’s Virginia’s ‘Federal Law, Deadlines and Ballot Access Requirements’ -

Speaking only to the U.S. Constitutional process when nominating a presidential candidate, the national party is the entity who provides a sworn statement certifying their presidential nominee is qualified to be on the ballot. This statement is signed by the national party chair and notarized by the party secretary (typically).

That’s the legal process, but the party process is whole lot messier than that. American history is replete with numerous examples of city, state and national candidates running for office, swearing they are qualified only to learn they failed to meet the required qualifications when subjected to rigorous vetting. Rigorous vetting is an expensive endeavor, which is one of the chief reasons why State Board’s of Elections leave the vetting process up to the respective party.

Ms. Stein may very well be 110 percent qualified but I was unable to affirm this to my own satisfaction, which of course, was by no means a rigorous vetting of her. That simple. And until she is vetted, extensively (by outside sources who typically do not rely on Wikipedia for their research), I will remain skeptical solely based on the scant first source material available supporting her resume/qualifications.

I hope this helps. Qualifying to run for a public office is not simply about a birth certificate, although such a document is one needed among others. It is way, way more complicated than that. Sure the scavenger hunt across continents in '08 and '09 would leave one with the impression that a birth certificate was all that was needed, but that would be a mistaken understanding.

FWIW, I’m thinking if Trump wins Stein may very make for an attractive leadership pick for a cabinet position. Something to consider if sitting on the fence with your vote. He's going to need new faces with solid skills. Clinton's cabinet was picked long ago so same old same old. Just sayin...

Posted by: h | Nov 7 2016 19:39 utc | 191

(In reply to Rufus Magister, 190, and sorry if I got a little uppity about yokels earlier.)

What's all this fuss about emails? They tell us nothing but what was already obvious.

President Carter characterises the US as an oligarchy. So it is, or tending that way, as are most Western countries. If there are oligarchs and their henchmen around how did we expect them to communicate? Telepathy?

No, they use emails as the rest of us do. Pretty tame emails too, judging by the few I've seen. I bet if you could see the Ukrainian or the Russian oligarchs' emails you'd see worse. A lot worse, if one can believe the few that are claimed to have been hacked.

The problem is not that the oligarchy uses emails, nor is it surprising what's in them. The problem is that there's an oligarchy in the first place.

As for the scandals, the media and the PR men play those up because they think it's what the public want. They think it's what influences them.

But an election's not just what the media and the PR men make of it. Nor need it be only what the candidates make of it. It's what the people make of it as well. If the people see only the farce then that's all they get. If they dismiss the farce and look at the issues behind it then I think they would find that this is a deeply significant election, for America and for the rest of us.

I think much of the disdain for this election that we see from the earnest left - isn't that roughly who this site is read by? - results from the fact that it's very difficult for them to support Clinton as they would have supported Sanders. They're really looking to salve their consciences if they vote Clinton. so they assert the election's all a farce and Trump a monster who has to be vanquished, even at the cost of voting for such damaged goods as Clinton. Bit of that with the Trump people as well, in reverse.

All that's just froth too. There's really nothing like just looking at the issues, if democracy means anything at all.

Posted by: EnglishOutsider | Nov 7 2016 20:04 utc | 192

Download best web movie streaming app and get full tutorial from this site.
tv portal download

Posted by: hackbs | Nov 8 2016 17:53 utc | 193

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.