“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, September 08, 2016

NBC News and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America partnered up to host what they called a Commander-in-Chief forum

What an absurd waste of time. The very premise of the “Show” was to decide who would be the better Commander in Chief. It went down hill after that.

Matt Lauer pretended to be serious and thoughtful. He failed. He did not pretend to be balanced. He was successful at that.

Later didn’t even bother to ask the same questions of the candidates and tried more gotchas on Trump and made absolutely no follow-up to Hillary’s usual blather.

The only thing serious about the “Show” was Matt Lauer trying to look serious.

Hillary lied about there being no US troops in Iraq. There are 4647.  There are also an equal amount of private mercenary contractors. In total there are over 10,000.

As to the idiotic premise about which candidate is better prepared to be CINC, we may as well contract that out as well. We could try Raytheon or better yet, Universal Studios.

The only president that was qualified to be Commander in Chief since the last time we won a war, 71 years ago. was Eisenhower.

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama ? Which one of them was qualified and what exactly were their qualifications. Reagan did have a  fancy salute.

It was all absurd bullshit, almost as absurd as the basic premise of the “Show”. I hope the Kardashians didn’t get bumped.

78 comments:

  1. Nah, you better go back and look at it again, Deuce. She stated very clearly that we had Special Forces, advisors, trainers, enablers, etc. in both Iraq, and Syria.

    As for keeping the oil fields, I'm sure old dumbo would have no idea that article 53, I think it is, of the Geneva Conventions expressly forbids taking the natural resources that belong to the people of another country. Short version: It's a War Crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes me wonder, though, how many troops we would have over there, right now, getting their asses shot off protecting all of the oil fields, and oil field workers, keeping the roads open for the movement of suppiies, guarding the thousands of miles of pipelines, operating/guarding the Ports,

      and, in general, fighting off 30 Motherfucking Million pissed off, starving Iraqis, intent on killing us for stealing their only resource, and source of income?

      Delete
    2. Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.




      U.S. Steps Up Its Attacks on ISIS-Controlled Oil Fields in Syria


      By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITTNOV. 12, 2015

      A United States Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle on Thursday in Lakenheath, England, before operations over Iraq and Syria. Credit Senior Airman Erin Trower/USAF

      ERBIL, Iraq — The United States and its allies have sharply increased their airstrikes against the sprawling oil fields that the Islamic State controls in eastern Syria in an effort to disrupt one of the terrorist group’s main sources of revenue, American officials said this week.

      For months, the United States has been frustrated by the Islamic State’s ability to keep producing and exporting oil — what Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter recently called “a critical pillar of the financial infrastructure” of the group — which generates about $40 million a month, or nearly $500 million a year, according to Treasury Department estimates.

      While the American-led air campaign has conducted periodic airstrikes against oil refineries and other production facilities in eastern Syria that the group controls, the organization’s engineers have been able to quickly repair damage, and keep the oil flowing, American officials said. The Obama administration has also balked at attacking the Islamic State’s fleet of tanker trucks — its main distribution network — fearing civilian casualties.

      But now the administration has decided to increase the attacks and focus on inflicting damage that takes longer to fix or requires specially ordered parts, American officials said.

      The first evidence of the new strategy came on Oct. 21, when B-1 bombers and other allied warplanes hit 26 targets in the Omar oil field, one of the two largest oil-production sites in all of Syria. American military analysts estimate the Omar field generates $1.7 million to $5.1 million per month for the Islamic State. French warplanes struck another oil field nearby earlier this week.

      The goal of the operation over the next several weeks is to cripple eight major oil fields, about two-thirds of the refineries and other oil-production sites controlled by the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL.

      “We intend to shut it all down,” Col. Steven H. Warren, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an email on Thursday.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/us/politics/us-steps-up-its-attacks-on-isis-controlled-oil-fields-in-syria.html?_r=0

      Seems perfectly justified to me.

      And 'taking' the oil fields are using them for some other purpose than funding ISIS seems justified as well.

      The Donald does need to fill out his ideas here.

      Delete
    3. Obama directly caused the rise of ISIS by taking the troops out too soon.

      The Donald is correct about this.

      Delete
    4. .

      Bob, the reference to Art 53 you posted above refers to prohibited actions by the Occupying Power. In order to be the 'occupying power' you must have 'effective control' over the occupied population.

      The point you seemed trying to make doesn't apply. An understandable mistake. It's what you do.

      <(:o()

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      Obama directly caused the rise of ISIS by taking the troops out too soon.

      The simplistic mutterings of the tragically uninformed.


      Bush created ISIS when he invaded Iraq in 2003. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before that. By 2004, they were there and they were fighting us. ISIS heritage is clear to any one with eyes to see.

      I've provided you with numerous contributing causes for the rise of ISIS but you ignore them choosing instead to accept the scapegoating tactics of the band of neocons and interventionists responsible for the war and desperately trying to shift the blame away from their own ineptitude, corruption, and guilt.

      Here is just one of the factors I have provided you with before...

      The Stolen War: How corruption and fraud created a failed state in Iraq—and led directly to the rise of ISIS.


      The causes of America’s devastating misadventure in Iraq remain an enduring source of debate. How could the United States, after spending an estimated $1.7 trillion in tax dollars and deploying more than 115,000 soldiers to topple Saddam Hussein and rebuild the country, wind up with a failed state that has given rise to a brutal new brand of terrorism? Was it a failure of military strategy, or of political will? Did we end the war too soon, or wait too long to get out? Did we spend too little on rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, or target our aid in the wrong places?

      The answer may be far simpler, and ultimately more humiliating: The men we placed in charge of Iraq robbed us blind. If American resources had been used as mandated, rather than pocketed by our allies, ISIS as we know it would not exist.

      “Maliki and his guys had it down to a science,” says the businessman who bid on the energy deal. “You didn’t always know who was getting greased, but it was always government officials, and Maliki got a cut on every deal. They set up an elaborate system that made it look like development was taking place with legitimate contracting and bids, but it was all graft. That’s where a lot of American money disappeared.”
      ________________________________________

      It is hard to overstate the devastating role that corruption has played in the failure of Iraq and the rise of ISIS. According to a report last March by the Iraqi parliament’s auditing committee, the country’s defense ministry has spent $150 billion on weapons during the past decade—but acquired only $20 billion worth of arms. Much of the equipment it did obtain was useless, 1970s-era matériel from former Soviet bloc states that was invoiced at up to four times its actual value.

      Late last year, well-placed sources tell me, the Pentagon delivered a shipment of new weapons to the Iraqi government, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, which were supposed to be sent to Sunni fighters in Anbar Province. Instead, corrupt officials in the Iraqi ministries of interior and defense sold the arms to ISIS, which is using them to kill Kurdish peshmerga fighters.

      “The Kurds are still using equipment we gave them in 2003,” says a former CIA official who spends a good deal of time in Iraq. “They’re forced to buy ammo and weapons that the U.S. government gives to Baghdad from corrupt Iraqi government officials...”


      .

      Delete
    6. If there is no 'effective control', then the war is not over.

      You're back then to 'the rules of war', whatever they might be.

      Try again, Quirk.

      The way I look at it is, ISIS shouldn't have the oil, cause they do really bad shit the money therefrom.....

      If Obama is bombing the oil fields to prevent them being utilized by ISIS, well, more bombing to him.

      I suggest you file a 'Friend of the Court' brief pro se with some International Court or other, if you don't like it.

      Or go back to listening to mafia hit stories at the barber shop.

      Delete
    7. Give it up, Quirk.

      You're mafia barber shop material.

      Just look at your logo - <(:o()

      Delete
    8. .

      If there is no 'effective control', then the war is not over.

      Of course, it's not over. What the hell do you think they are doing over there?


      I suggest you file a 'Friend of the Court' brief pro se with some International Court or other, if you don't like it.

      Show me somewhere in my post were I objected to Obama taking oil wells. My post merely pointed out that you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

      That's rather redundant, I know, but it's a slow night.

      .

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. I agree about Eisenhower.

      'Never get in a land war in Asia'

      'Beware the military industrial complex'

      My :) was for Deuce, not Rufus.

      Delete
  3. 3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?
    The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

    Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

    The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

    The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

    Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

    The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

    The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

    To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

    The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.

    Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

    Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

    Collective punishment is prohibited.

    The taking of hostages is prohibited.

    Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

    The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

    The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

    Cultural property must be respected.

    People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).

    Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

    Occupation and International Humanitarian Law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

      Delete
    2. We're not currently occupying anything.

      Hostilities continue.

      It's the most intelligent military campaign of our lifetimes.

      Obama is attacking the oil facilities.

      Wants to 'shut them down'.

      This is what Trump wants to do, deny the oil to ISIS.

      The only difference is he might actually get it done.

      Quirk will continue to criticize every move from his Throne at The Mafia Barber Shop.

      Assad meanwhile is continuing to gas little kids in Aleppo....and ISIS continues to behead, at home and abroad....

      Life and death go on....

      Delete
    3. .

      And Turkey continues to kill the Kurds. And Saudi Arabia continues to deny the use of cluster bombs. And many children are left bleeding out when hit by 500 lb bombs or missiles all because it was 'absolutely required by military necessity'. And ISIS accuses Assad of using chlorine in population areas. And Assad accuses ISIS of using chlorine in population areas.

      .

      .

      Delete
  4. .

    The US is not an 'Occupying Power' in Iraq/Syria. They are currently incapable of effectively controlling the population. The best they can do is to control with extreme prejudice the many they take out in the bombing runs.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. None of it would be happening if O'bozo had not taken the troops out too soon.

    Everyone with a brain agrees on that simple fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Don't be silly. I responded above.

      .

      Delete
    2. Soon you'll be back to your old correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation bullshit, and I can't stand to watch you further degrade yourself....

      So I drop the topic.

      Delete
  6. Hillary voted for going into Iraq.

    Now she says she made a mistake.

    Then O'bozo took the troops out too soon, compounding the mistake.

    She attacked Libya.

    So far I haven't heard her say that was a mistake.

    Under O'bozo, who supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the entire mid east is in now flames, with Iran mocking our Navy vessels daily.

    This whole process is called:

    The Arab Spring

    ReplyDelete
  7. Obama/Clinton Arab Spring

    Reversing Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy Course

    How CIA Director John Brennan helps make Trump’s case.

    September 8, 2016

    Joseph Klein


    Donald Trump is not exaggerating the utter failure of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. (((((When President Obama began his first term in 2009. Iraq, Syria and Libya were relatively stable. Now they are failed states.))))) The legacy left behind by the Obama administration, as Trump put it with particular focus on Hillary Clinton, “has produced only turmoil and suffering.”

    CIA Director John Brennan said in an interview with the CTC Sentinel, published on September 7th, that "I don't know whether or not Syria and Iraq can be put back together again. There's been so much bloodletting, so much destruction, so many continued, seething tensions and sectarian divisions.”

    Although not referring to President Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by name, Brennan no doubt had them in mind when he said: “We saw with the Arab Spring, people, including here in the United States, optimistically thinking, ‘Well, if you just move out those authoritarian leaders, democracy is going to flourish, and people will welcome the opportunity to have a fully participatory political system.’ That ain’t the way it turned out.”

    In a speech he delivered on May 19, 2011, Obama embraced the changes he saw coming as a result of the Arab Spring and proclaimed that “after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”

    As Brennan said, “That ain’t the way it turned out.” The entire region is mired in deadly sectarian conflict, which has opened the door for ISIS and other terrorists to foment further violence and destruction.

    When President Obama took office, ISIS’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, was largely defeated. In a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King, Vice President Joe Biden was already predicting that with “90,000 American troops” coming home soon, Iraq could become one of the Obama administration’s “great achievements.” Biden added: “You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

    (((((At the end of 2011, when Obama removed all remaining U.S. troops from Iraq against military advice, he said, “we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”)))))

    (((((Once again, to quote Brennan, “That ain’t the way it turned out.” Without a strong residual U.S. military force in place, the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq were able to reconstitute themselves. They re-emerged from bases they had set up in Syria as the separate jihadist terrorist group, ISIS or the Islamic State.))))) Here is how CIA Director Brennan described ISIS’s incredible growth in his interview with the CTC Sentinel:

    “In some respects, they’re similar to a startup in the business world. Their numbers in Iraq were down to 600 to 800 or so after they were pummeled by the U.S. military and others. They had very limited capability. And then all of a sudden, as a result of things that were going on inside of Iraq and Syria, they regained momentum. And they grew exponentially, which then led to the separation between ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra.”

    The Obama administration has waffled on Syria....


    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264108/reversing-obamas-failed-foreign-policy-course-joseph-klein

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any logical reader would be able to grasp the connection between the O'bama/Clinton policies and the resultant chaos.

      Delete
    2. .

      John Brennen. The guy who has bragged that he was there with Bush when the decision was made to go into Iraq, the guy who spent 30 years in the CIA during periods when the CIA failed to predict the complete collapse of the Soviet Union, who covered for Bush on Iraq, who with Clapper covered for Clinton on the Benghazi talking points, who justified his part in passing along politically motivated increased 'terror warning' because "that was my job", who was up to his ass in authorizing the illegal programs of 'extraordinary rendition' and torture, who came up with justifications for drone strikes outside of war zones, that lied about the collateral damage, the civilian deaths, who came up with the 'guilty unless proven innocent' ROE and algorithm that treats any military-aged male in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit information to prove them innocent, who was called a terrorist for his actions by the Chief Prosecutor for the Guantanamo Military Commissions, who lied three or four times under oath in Congressional hearings on the fact that the CIA had hacked and tampered with the data on computers of U.S. Senate employees investigating CIA torture before finally being forced to admit he lied.

      That John Brennan?

      The only question with John Brennan is why he's not in prison rather than out trying to sell he CYA book.

      The most telling criticism of the Obama/Brennan relationship is that Obama actually nominated him as CIA Director. Twice.

      The only good thing about his time in government service was that in opposition to his nomination as CIA Director it prompted Rand Paul's filibuster that while it didn't succeed in stopping the Brennan nomination it did result in the Obama administration admitting it had no authority to use drones to take out Americans without benefit of a trial.

      Brennan is a political hack, a 'for hire' bureaucrat who has spread his mischief under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a self-admitted liar. By using him as an appeal to authority you embarrass yourself.

      While much of what Brennan says above is true, it merely shows him to be an accomplished liar. He uses the technique employed by the most practiced and accomplished liars, sprinkling in as many facts as possible to disguise the fact that he is offering us a big lie, in this case his part in the FUBAR that was the Bush Iraq war.

      In this case, I can't even blame the neocons or the foreign interventionists. Brennan is simply an amoral political hack willing to do anything for anybody in order to progress up the food change. And when his political career is over and his actions have gone to shit he is trying to sell CYA books designed to cover his crimes.

      Brennan might qualify as Director of CYA but definitely not Director of the CIA.

      Once again, Bob, you offer us The Big Fail.

      .

      Delete
  8. Trump is ahead by 21 in The Great State of Idaho.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Trump is ahead in Maine District 2.

      Delete
    2. .

      Right, and on the south side of Norton St. in Liverpool, Ohio.

      .

      Delete
    3. And in Florida.

      And, nationally.

      Delete
  9. QuirkThu Sep 08, 01:14:00 AM EDT
    .

    Bob, the reference to Art 53 you posted above refers to prohibited actions by the Occupying Power. In order to be the 'occupying power' you must have 'effective control' over the occupied population.

    So an area of land, that one nation tries and fails to have effective control of is not an Occupying Power.

    Hamas's importation of tens of thousands of Iranian rockets, having the ability to spent over a billion dollars constructing tunnels for the sole purpose of kidnapping and murder of Israelis does not show any "effective control" over the Gaza Strip.

    Effective Control? That would imply to ability to stop millions of rounds of ak-47 ammo, coupled with should fired grenade launchers would be a litmus test for "effective control"

    Hamas rules the gaza strip, it imports billions of dollars of war material every year, it fires rockets into Israel, it kidnaps and murders Israelis all this proves quick's statement.

    "QuirkThu Sep 08, 01:14:00 AM EDT
    In order to be the 'occupying power' you must have 'effective control' over the occupied population.

    Israel, nor Egypt has "Effective Control' over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

    Quirk, thanks for your brief, but honest assessment of the actual reality of gaza.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      You once again prove yourself to be an apologist for Israel in that you have no problem at all in offering up bubblegum and bullshit as fact.

      Was France occupied by Nazi Germany in WWII? Western Poland? Norway? Greece? A dozen other countries? Yet, all of these countries had active resistance movements throughout the war.

      Israel has controlled and now controls with Egypt all of the borders of Gaza. They are conducting a blockade of the coast. They control who gets in and who gets out. They control what food, medicine, materials are allowed in. They destroyed Gaza's airport and won't allow any access by air or boat. They control Gazan finances in that they decide when or if taxes collected for the PA are allowed to be distributed there. They reserve the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities. As with any prison, Israel surrounds Gaza with a barrier with watchtowers. It even has a do not enter 'kill-zone'. Only a fool would argue that Israel doesn't have effective control of Gaza.

      Perhaps some hick from Idaho might buy into your argument but the rest of the world including the UN and the US reject it.

      Ash was right in calling you on the bull you are constantly pulling out of your ass. You do it on everything having to do with Israel, from the important to the trifling. The range goes from important stuff like the occupation to silly stuff like your claim that the Israelis favor Trump for president over Clinton.

      You can't seem to get anything right.

      .

      Delete
    2. You've been shown up for the fool you are, Quirk.

      Delete
    3. .

      As usual, the faux farmer offers nothing of substance, merely the dialogue of a spoiled five year old in the middle of a hissy fit.

      .

      Delete
  10. QuirkThu Sep 08, 01:49:00 AM EDT
    .

    The US is not an 'Occupying Power' in Iraq/Syria. They are currently incapable of effectively controlling the population. The best they can do is to control with extreme prejudice the many they take out in the bombing runs.


    WiO
    Israel is not an 'Occupying Power' in Gaza. They are currently incapable of effectively controlling the population. The best they can do is to control with extreme prejudice the many they take out in the bombing runs after Hamas shoots rockets into Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know it's offensive to imply israel has the right to be judged by the same standards as the USA.

      But in this case Israel has killed far fewer civilians than the USA and is far more careful about so and at last look ISIS hasn't attacked the USA DIRECTLY with rockets on their border for over a decade.

      Delete
    2. .

      The question was about 'occupying powers'. See my response above.

      .

      Delete

    3. See my response above:

      "Quirk is a fool"

      Delete
    4. .

      As usual, the faux farmer offers nothing of substance.

      .

      Delete
  11. Josh Rogin ✔ @joshrogin

    Most of Trump's DC policy staffers quit last month after the campaign refused to pay them

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/08/inside-the-collapse-of-trumps-d-c-policy-shop/ … by me @PostOpinions

    12:22 PM - 8 Sep 2016

    ReplyDelete
  12. By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, September 7, 2016

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    On Sept. 2, the FBI released a lengthy explanation of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and a summary of the evidence amassed against her. It also released a summary of Mrs. Clinton’s July FBI interrogation.

    The interrogation was in some respects standard and in others very troubling. It was standard in that she was confronted with emails she had sent or received and was asked whether she recalled them, and her judgment about them was challenged. The FBI was looking for gross negligence in her behavior about securing state secrets.

    The failure to secure state secrets that have been entrusted to one for safekeeping is known as espionage, and espionage is the rare federal crime that does not require prosecutors to prove the defendant’s intent. They need only prove the defendant’s gross negligence.


    At one point during the interrogation, FBI agents attempted to trick her, as the law permits them to do. Before the interrogation began, agents took the hard copy of an innocuous email Mrs. Clinton had sent to an aide and marked it “secret.” Then, at her interrogation, they asked Mrs. Clinton whether she recognized the email and its contents. She said she did not recognize it, but she questioned the “secret” denomination and pointed out to the agents that nothing remotely secret was in the email.

    By examining the contents of the email to see whether it contained state secrets, which it clearly did not, Mrs. Clinton demonstrated an awareness of the law — namely, that it is the contents of a document or email that cause it to be protected by federal secrecy statutes, not the denomination put on it by the sender.

    This added to the case against her because she later told the FBI that she had never paid attention to whether a document contained state secrets or not. In the strange world of espionage prosecution, this denial of intent is an admission of guilt, as it is profoundly the job of the secretary of State to recognize state secrets and to keep them in their secure government-protected venues, and the grossly negligent failure to do so is criminal.

    The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Mrs. Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what “C” means in the margin of a government document. “C” in the margin means “confidential,” which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets. The other two levels are “secret” and “top secret.” Under federal law, Mrs. Clinton was required to keep in secure government venues all documents in those three categories. The FBI found that she had failed to do so hundreds of times.

    By denying that she had paid attention to notes in margins designating the presence of secrets, by denying that she recognized a secret when she saw one, and by denying that the location of planned drone strikes is secret (an obvious secret with which FBI agents confronted her), she succeeded in avoiding incriminating herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But by saving herself from indictment, she may have doomed her campaign for president. In this dangerous world, how can a person seeking the presidency be so dumb or ignorant or indifferent or reckless or deceptive about what is a secret and what is not?

      The records released last week also reveal that the FBI must have been restrained from the outset from conducting an aggressive investigation. It did not present any evidence to a grand jury. It did not ask a grand jury for any subpoenas, and hence it didn’t serve any. It did not ask a judge for any search warrants, and hence it didn’t serve any. The data and hardware it gathered in the case were given to it in response to simple requests it made.

      I counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have what it needed. This is the FBI’s own fault. This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials.

      Someone restrained the FBI.

      The FBI did not ask Mrs. Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them — particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.

      Now the FBI has interjected itself into the presidential campaign by releasing these documents. Hillary and the FBI Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence pointing to Mrs. Clinton’s guilt, it is highly improper and grossly unfair to release evidence gathered against a person who will not be prosecuted. Moreover, it is tendentious to release only part of the evidence — only what agents want the public to see — rather than the complete file. Yet all this evidence is secret under Department of Justice regulations. Had any of it been intended for or presented to a grand jury, the release of it would have been criminal.

      What happened here? The FBI seriously dropped the ball, and Mrs. Clinton was more concerned about being indicted than she was about losing the race for the presidency.

      It is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do — exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI’s failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it. Yet some in the FBI are not professionally satisfied by this outcome. They know that a strong case for prosecution and for guilt is being ignored for political reasons.

      What else do they know?

      • Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/7/fbi-managers-instructed-to-exonerate-hillary-clint/

      Delete
    2. .

      The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Mrs. Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what “C” means in the margin of a government document. “C” in the margin means “confidential,” which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets.

      Hard to believe; yet, here is an even better one.


      Thrump was incensed. It would have been better had he been metagrabolized.


      He used Twitter to post this...

      "Lyin' Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she did not know the 'C' marking on documents stood for classified. How can this be happening?"

      :o)

      Good question Donald. Good question.

      You can't make this stuff up folks.


      .

      Delete
  13. Trump is doing a good job talking about school choice on Fox right now.

    He's in Ohio, I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. End Hillary's and the Teacher's Unions death grip on public education now !

      Delete
    2. (think how a Charter School would have benefited Quirk, for instance !)

      Delete
    3. .

      Right, Trump is spending a lot of time on the south side of Norton St. in Liverpool, Ohio. He figures that it will be a gold mine for him on election day and the polls support it.


      Delete
  14. Trump made himself look ridiculous last night, asserting that the US should have taken Iraq’s oil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 Debates coming up, with 100 Million Viewers.

      I think my "Clinton +6" might just be a touch low. :)

      Delete
  15. It depends on what meaning one attaches to the work 'take'.

    Quirk has affirmed that Obama is 'taking' the oil -

    Show me somewhere in my post were I objected to Obama taking oil wells.

    Obama is certainly trying, at least half heartedly, to blow them up -


    But now the administration has decided to increase the attacks and focus on inflicting damage that takes longer to fix or requires specially ordered parts, American officials said.

    The first evidence of the new strategy came on Oct. 21, when B-1 bombers and other allied warplanes hit 26 targets in the Omar oil field, one of the two largest oil-production sites in all of Syria. American military analysts estimate the Omar field generates $1.7 million to $5.1 million per month for the Islamic State. French warplanes struck another oil field nearby earlier this week.

    The goal of the operation over the next several weeks is to cripple eight major oil fields, about two-thirds of the refineries and other oil-production sites controlled by the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL.

    “We intend to shut it all down,” Col. Steven H. Warren, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an email on Thursday.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/us/politics/us-steps-up-its-attacks-on-isis-controlled-oil-fields-in-syria.html?_r=0

    The Donald might be better off dropping the word 'take' and using words like 'control' or 'manage' the oil fields.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show me somewhere in my post were I objected to Obama taking oil wells.

      Quirk Thu Sep 08, 02:20:00 AM EDT

      Delete
    2. Quirk of course is a war monger of long standing here, and this is another instance of it.

      ;)

      Delete
    3. (actually I think he could have benefited from a Charter School when younger- so confused at times !)

      Delete
    4. .

      Quirk has affirmed that Obama is 'taking' the oil -

      Bob, were you dropped on your head as a kid or do you come by your diminished intellect naturally.

      .

      Delete
    5. Show me somewhere in my post were I objected to Obama taking oil wells.

      Quirk Thu Sep 08, 02:20:00 AM EDT

      Search as I may, I can't find Quirk anywhere objecting to Obama taking oil wells.

      While I always find joy in making a fool of Quirk, I must hit the road for awhile......

      Cheers !

      The last word is yours, Quirk....

      Delete
    6. .

      Show me somewhere in my post were I objected to Obama taking oil wells.

      The English major once again shows his metal, unable to understand context or the be able to interpret a simple sentence. And, of course, don't even think about asking him to draw any logical relationships from the same sentence.

      Ignore the fact that it was a typo and should have read 'taking out' the oil wells.

      Stick strictly to the sentence as written.

      It is a simple interrogative sentence requesting the farmer to show where I objected to Obama taking oil wells.

      To anyone actually familiar with the English language there are just three logical responses possible.

      1. Admit you can't do it.
      2. Post the actual quote from me where that language was used. Or...
      3. Ask for a clarification on the question.

      But what do we get from the faux farmer? We get the false assumption that I actually said Obama was taking the oil wells...evidently from 30,000 feet.

      SOP for the IMA.

      .


      Delete
    7. .

      I would suggest you revisit your old English textbooks, Bob, but I'm not sure they get to the difference between 'declarative' and 'interrogative' sentences in your old McGruffy's Readers or those vintage Dick and Jane books you had from the 50's.

      .

      Delete
    8. Ah, so now it's a 'typo'.

      The old 'typo' excuse.

      Bwabwabwahahahaha

      Every word can be a 'typo' in Quirkese....anything can mean its opposite.....

      Ha ha ha

      Though even if he dropped the 'typos' he'd still be indecipherable....

      Wife is not back with the car yet.....but I'm checking out anyway.....

      What, after all, is the use ?

      'Typo', my arse.

      Cheers !

      Delete
    9. Did you pull a knife on him Bob?

      Delete
    10. .

      Once again, the English major proves he can't read and comprehend English.

      What don't you understand about...

      Ignore the fact that it was a typo and should have read 'taking out' the oil wells.

      Stick strictly to the sentence as written.



      Lose a few more brain cells while wiping your ass?

      .

      Delete
  16. Bombing an oil well that is supporting the enemy is Not a war crime; it's just war.

    However, occupying a defeated country, and "taking" its natural resources (oil) IS a War Crime.

    And, even if it wasn't, it would be insanity.

    How many Hundreds of Thousands of troops would be needed? 300,000? A Half a Million?

    What would be the Cost of That? $300 Billion/yr? More?

    How many Dead and Wounded? Three? Four Thousand / yr.?

    Into perpetuity?

    Insanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 300,000 fighting for the oil -

      3,000 Dead / Year

      18,000 Wounded / Year?

      Forever?

      Moronus Maximus

      Delete
  17. Rat's candidate:

    What's an Aleppo?

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/09/08/gary-johnson-no-excuse-aleppo-the-view-sot-nr.cnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes a stoner hears a spoken word out of focus. No big deal. 3/4 of the country would believe it is an all natural substitute for “jello".

      Delete
  18. My posts have been a little late. I spent the day in NYC getting my visa straightened out of another trip to Russia next week.

    I was downtown so I happened to drive my both the WTC and The Intrepid which is moored along the West Side Highway.

    Thinking more about the CINC Show, Trump was correct in contemplating a shakeup in the Pentagon and i agree with him that there is every good reason to normalize relations with Russia. Who benefits (other than the defense establishment ) with another Cold War?


    No one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Right, and Trump is the guy who is now saying cancel sequestration. We need more money to beef up our defense.

      Who benefits from that other than the MIC?

      No one.

      Trump will say ANYTHING depending on his particular audience at any given moment.

      Can't believe a word he says. It's bound to change tomorrow. Look at any major issue. His positions are in constant flux.

      .

      Delete
    2. Here is Trump urging the takeout of Ghaddaffi

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnZFQiDR4hQ

      Delete
    3. Hillary, otoh, The Supreme Truthteller.

      Delete
    4. .

      What the heck does Hillary being a liar have to do with Trump's bullshit?

      Are you implying (or coming right out and saying) that because Hillary is a congenital liar Trump gets a free pass?

      Sounds like you are spending too much time with the faux farmer.

      .

      Delete
  19. Btw, $300 - $500 Billion / year

    for

    1 Billion bbls of oil

    comes out to

    $300.00 t0 $500.00 per Barrel.

    Pretty high when the going rate is in the mid $40.00's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No wonder Moronus Maximus keeps going bankrupt.

      Delete
    2. .

      Don't look for Trump to try to justify it. It's not his money.

      On the other hand, it's merely business as usual in D.C.

      Does anyone really believe anyone in the federal government other than a few IGs really give a toot about the checks they right. Same principle, 'not my money'.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      Sorry, Trish, I'll try to do better.

      .

      Delete
    4. Quirk thinks he's always in the write.

      Delete
  20. Traveling to Russia again, eh?

    Okay, buddy, I guess we'll have to quit saying mean things about the donald, and the vlad, eh?

    Oh, well . . . Football is starting up. :)

    ReplyDelete