Rush Limbaugh (11/23/15): “She didn’t do this to side with Juanita Broaddrick. It just ended up happening. I don’t think Hillary knew that Juanita Broaddrick had reignited, rebirthed the allegation.”
Hillary Says Rape Victims (Like Juanita Broaddrick & Bill Clinton’s Other Victims) Should Be Believed (Limbaugh)
personal injury lawyer
Ignore international law and replicate Dresden in the Middle East
BY KURT NIMMO
An article published in the New York Times on Tuesday argues the only way to eliminate the Islamic State is to take out the government of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.
“There is probably no solution to ISIS until there is a solution to Assad,” J. M. Berger told the establishment’s newspaper of record.
Berger is a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a think tank funded by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefellers, the United Nations, banks and the military industrial complex.
“Assad is not a sideshow,” said Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “He is at the center of this massive dilemma.”
The International Institute for Strategic Studies was established with funds “generously provided by the Ford Foundation” and the “interests represented include finance and investment, international banking, insurance” and a variety of other transnational corporations. The Ford Foundation works in tandem with the CIA, the same folks who engineered al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
“The answer is simple: To beat ISIS, you need the enlistment of the Sunni forces that won’t happen as long as Assad remains in power in Damascus,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The shortest and most effective way to deal with ISIS is for the United States and Russia to come to an agreement about the removal of Assad, and they will get support from others. Then the Sunni forces, the rebels, can deal with ISIS on the ground.”
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a pro-Israel think tank that has a crossover neocon membership. Board members include Henry Kissinger, Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, Condoleezza Rice, George Shutlz and other deep insiders. Current and former members served in senior positions in the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Times argues for “establishing an alliance to carry out an intensified war” against the Islamic State and “prioritiz[ing] the removal of Mr. Assad.”
According to Shabtai Shavit, a former chief of Mossad, international law and the Geneva Conventions must be discarded.
“With this enemy, we have to push aside arguments on law, morality and comparisons of security and the rights of the individual. That means to do what they did in World War II to Dresden. They wiped it off the map. That is what has to be done to all the territorial enclaves that ISIS is holding.”
Left out of the argument is the fact there wasn’t a “civil war” in Syria until the United States and its NGO partners—NED, NDI, IRI, Freedom House and others—engineered the so-called Arab Spring. This was admitted by the very same newspaper of record now suggesting the Arab Middle East should suffer the same fate as a firebombed Dresden.
Also excluded is the fact the Islamic State is the bastard child of the United States and its medieval partners in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. Turkey and Jordan have also played an instrumental role.
Prior to Bush’s invasion—supported by the above mentioned organizations—al-Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq and the creation of ISIS and the subsequently the Islamic State would not have occurred. 9/11 would not have happened if the Carter and Reagan administrations had not pumped billions into Afghanistan in the late 1970s and 1980s and created the Afghan mujahideen that would later become al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Also ignored is the fact what is happening in Syria and elsewhere is precisely what the United States desires, as revealed in Defense Intelligence Agency documents.
These political realities are strictly forbidden in any discussion on the current dilemma in the Middle East, a dilemma created by the global elite and their partners. Instead, the only option available, according to The New York Times and much of the corporate media, is to increase the suffering and misery of innocents and move forward with policies responsible for the current situation.
by IAN HANCHETT
Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to say “radical Islam” and declared, “We are at war with violent extremism” while implying that those who refereed to radical Islam were saying “we are somehow against Islam” during Saturday’s Democratic presidential debate on CBS.
Hillary was asked if she believed with GOP presidential candidate and Florida Senator
She responded, “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists who have–
Anchor John Dickerson then cut in to point out Rubio said “radical Islam” not all Muslims. Hillary then continued, “I think that you can talk about Islamists, who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it’s not particularly helpful, to make the case that Senator Sanders was just making, that I agree with, that we’ve got to reach out to Muslim countries. we’ve got to have them be part of our coalition. if they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam, that was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11, when he basically said, after going to a mosque in Washington, we are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people, but I don’t want us to be painting with too broad a brush.”
Dickerson then pointed to a speech Hillary gave where she said it was important to show “respect, even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Hillary responded, “I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect. Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary, in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I plead that it’s very difficult when you deal with ISIS, and organizations like that, whose behavior is so barbaric, and so vicious, that it doesn’t seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power, and that’s very difficult to put ourselves in the other shoe.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton has locked up public support from half the Democratic Party insiders who get to cast ballots at the party’s national convention.
Their backing gives Clinton a commanding advantage over her rivals for the Democratic nomination for president.
Clinton’s margin over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is striking.
Not only is it big, but it comes months before primary voters head to the polls.
The Associated Press contacted all 712 people known as superdelegates, and more than 80 percent responded.
They were asked which candidate they plan to support at the convention next summer.
Clinton got endorsements from 359, while Sanders was endorsed by eight. Two superdelegates supported O’Malley, and the rest were uncommitted.