Huma’s Islamic journal: Bill bombed Iraq to distract from Monica scandal…

Capture

An article in the Muslim journal where Huma Abedin was assistant editor claimed Bill Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein to deflect from his Monica Lewinsky affair.

The claim made made in an article published in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, where Abedin was a member of the editorial board – the group of people who decide what is published in the academic journal.

It is the latest bombshell to emerge from the archives of the journal, whose editor-in-chief is Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, an academic in Saudi Arabia.

Abedin, who is not an academic, has been Hillary Clinton‘s closest aide since spending time as an intern at the White House, at exactly the time the Monica Lewinsky scandal was unfolding.

Capture

Strike: An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer launches a Tomahawk cruise missile as part of Operation Desert Fox – which Abedin’s journal says was ordered to distract from Bill Clinton’s scandals

Capture

Address: Bill Clinton used an Oval Office address to tell the nation of the airstrikes on the Saddam regime, to degrade his alleged ability to produce weapons of mass destruction

But the version of events published in her journal is one which is unlikely to be embraced by the presidential candidate, and especially not by Bill Clinton.

It is outlined in a provocative article published in 2002, and  headlined: ‘Arab/Muslim ‘Otherness’: The Role of Racial Constructions in the Gulf War and the Continuing Crisis with Iraq.’

The article was written by Sina Ali Muscati who was the time described as a ‘second year law student’ at the University of Ottawa. His academic credentials were not declared.

Key role: Huma Abedin, like her sister and brother, was a member of the editorial board of the journal and therefore responsible for selection what was published 

Key role: Huma Abedin, like her sister and brother, was a member of the editorial board of the journal and therefore responsible for selection what was published

Muscati wrote about the 1991 conflict and its aftermath, which saw Saddam Hussein remain in power throughout the 1990s, despite being bombed twice – in 1996 and in December 1998.

‘The crisis with Iraq has also probably benefited Clinton, serving as a good deterrent of attention from personal crises, such as his campaign funding scandals, legislative failures, or the Monica Lewinsky affair,’ he said.

‘By occasionally bombing Iraq in the name of humanity, at least, he has been able to look strong and presidential.’

Clinton’s bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was widely mocked as ‘Monica’s war’.

He ordered four days of strikes by bombers and cruise missiles at the height of his impeachment trial, brought in the wake of his admission that he had had a ‘not appropriate’ relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The strikes – known as Operation Desert Fox- were ordered the day after the House of Representatives issued a report accusing the president of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ and ended on the day the articles of impeachment were passed.

Previous strikes in 1996, Operation Desert Strike, were ordered during a campaign finance scandal.

Among the other allegations leveled in the article are claims that the Gulf War of 1991 was driven by a desire for profits and political gain, with the U.S. government and media glossing over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were ‘demonized’ and ‘characterized as subhuman’.

The article claimed that President George HW Bush, who ordered the invasion by a U.S.-led coalition force, saw his support rating jump nearly 90 per cent following the war. In fact he was voted out of office after his first term.

Capture

Same roles: Both Huma and her sister Heba Abedin were assistant editors at the journal, while their brother Hassan was associate editor.
At her side: Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton. The journal, where hse was on the editorial board before she was appointed as Clinton’s top aide, has opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11

The 2002 article claimed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died ‘directly from the war, from subsequent civil strife, or from the American and British enforced UN sanctions’.

It goes on: ‘Following the Gulf War, Iraqi rebellions publicly urged by the then President [HW] George Bush, but which received no American support, led to tens of thousands more Iraqis killed or made homeless by their army, almost under the noses of retreating American troops.

‘Subsequent sanctions have led to even more Iraqi deaths, including over 600,000 Iraqi children alone.’

The journal article said that Iraqis were viewed with a ‘racist outlook’ and described in the media, by the U.S. government and military in terms including ‘cockroaches’ and ‘barbaric’, pitting Muslims and Arabs as evil against a humanitarian Western force.

The article also questioned the motives behind the 1991 Gulf War – suggesting that the real reason was to protect American access to Middle Eastern oil and not for the liberation of Kuwait, as the U.S. government had claimed.

Same roles: Both Huma and her sister Heba Abedin were assistant editors at the journal, while their brother Hassan was associate editor.

Same roles: Both Huma and her sister Heba Abedin were assistant editors at the journal, while their brother Hassan was associate editor.

At her side: Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton. The journal, where hse was on the editorial board before she was appointed as Clinton's top aide, has opposed women's rights and blamed the US for 9/11

At her side: Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton. The journal, where hse was on the editorial board before she was appointed as Clinton’s top aide, has opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11

The 2002 article claimed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died ‘directly from the war, from subsequent civil strife, or from the American and British enforced UN sanctions’.

It goes on: ‘Following the Gulf War, Iraqi rebellions publicly urged by the then President [HW] George Bush, but which received no American support, led to tens of thousands more Iraqis killed or made homeless by their army, almost under the noses of retreating American troops.

‘Subsequent sanctions have led to even more Iraqi deaths, including over 600,000 Iraqi children alone.’

The journal article said that Iraqis were viewed with a ‘racist outlook’ and described in the media, by the U.S. government and military in terms including ‘cockroaches’ and ‘barbaric’, pitting Muslims and Arabs as evil against a humanitarian Western force.

The article also questioned the motives behind the 1991 Gulf War – suggesting that the real reason was to protect American access to Middle Eastern oil and not for the liberation of Kuwait, as the U.S. government had claimed.

‘Indeed, it seems that had Iraq not been an Arab and Muslim country occupying huge oil reserves, the Gulf War would have been unacceptable,’ it reads.

In the article’s view, ‘Saddam Hussein seems to have paid a great service to the West.’

‘Gulf oil reserves were brought under greater Western control, the glory of American military might was assured, lucrative arms sales increased, and Western leaders were popularized.

‘Moreover, the costs fell mainly on the Iraqi people, who were largely the ones to pay the price of blood.’

The article openly accused the U.S. of double standards in claiming that Saddam Hussein was a ‘brutal aggressor’ for invading its neighbors – while the U.S. had been condemned by the United Nations for its own invasions of Grenada and Panama in the 1980s.

‘In fact the Panama invasion claimed between 1000 and 4000 lives, making it even bloodier than Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,’ according to the article.

The article also appeared to defend Saddam’s decision to invade: ‘Kuwait’s economic policies were far more damaging to Iraq than Panama’s were to the US.’

It also questioned why the U.S. ignored what it claimed was the historical conflict between Iraq and Kuwait to serve its own ends – and why America would take the side of Kuwait in the first place.

Hillary pictured with Saleha Mahmood Abedin, mother of Huma, at a women's college in Jeddah in 2010. She remains editor-in-chief of the journal

Hillary pictured with Saleha Mahmood Abedin, mother of Huma, at a women’s college in Jeddah in 2010. She remains editor-in-chief of the journal

‘Another purported objective of the war, preserving peace and liberty in Kuwait, makes little sense. Kuwait is a dictatorship with a poor human rights record. It abolished its parliament shortly before the Iraqi invasion to become an absolute monarchy, leaving little freedom to defend there.’

The article also alleged further hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. and Israel who had focused on Arab/Muslim conflict when they ‘have done nothing’ to restore the Palestinian rights demanded by the UN Security Council.

It also criticized U.S. journalists who ‘frequently refer to occupied Palestinian land as ‘disputed’ territory, as US diplomats do’.

The article suggests that the American people were hoodwinked into supporting war with Iraq due to the media and were ‘convinced that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat’.

At the time of publication, Abedin was an aide to Clinton, who was then the junior senator for New York.

That same year Clinton voted in favor of giving her husband’s successor, George W Bush, authority to declare war on Hussein. Clinton has also been consistently pro-Israel.

Family: Huma Abedin is married to disgraced sex pest congressman and failed would-be New York mayor Anthony Weiner

Family: Huma Abedin is married to disgraced sex pest congressman and failed would-be New York mayor Anthony Weiner

The journal is heavily associated with the Abedin family.

The editorial board – the group who decided on the contents – included Huma’s mother as editor-in-chief, her brother Hassan as associate editor and her sister Heba as another assistant editor.

 The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Abedin’s role at the journal or whether she was paid for her position.

Huma Abedin was listed on the journal’s masthead for more than a decade after she joined Clinton’s team in 1996, rising from White House intern to one of the presidential nominee’s closest confidantes.

She is a likely pick for chief of staff in a Clinton administration.

Abedin, who is married to disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner, who is Jewish, has denied having a working role on the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs.

Her name first appeared on the magazine in 1996 and was dropped in 2008 around the time she went to work for Clinton at the State Department.

‘My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period. She did not play a role in editing at the publication,‘ a Clinton spokesman told the New York Post earlier this week.

That claim appears contradicted by her presence on the editorial board. Abedin herself rarely makes public statements, although she used an interview with Vogue – whose editor Anna Wintour is a vocal Clinton supporter – to speak of her Muslim faith and fluency in Arabic.

The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’ contents often appear to be at odds Clinton’s avowed positions on feminism, homophobia and Middle Eastern policy.

An earlier article published in the academic Islamic journal also alleged that there were deep ties between the upper echelons of U.S. politics and pro-Israeli, Jewish-Americans, suggesting that Jewish people have been able to ‘work the system’ and are ‘greatly aided by the American memory of the Holocaust’ and Israel serving as America’s ally in the Middle East.

And in the wake of 9/11, Abedin’s mother, who has been accused of espousing the views of the Muslim Brotherhood through the publication, wrote an editorial suggesting that the U.S. bore responsibility for al-Qaeda‘s attack.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3758922/Bill-Clinton-bombed-Iraq-distract-Monica-scandal-Huma-Abedin-s-Muslim-journal-claimed-boss-s-husband.html#ixzz4ISWvQ0uF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

“Tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars”

Glenn Greenwald | The InterceptAUGUST 25, 2016

AS THE NUMEROUS and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.

That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.

The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s principal objectives; decide for yourself if its tyrannical donors are acting with the motive of advancing that charitable goal:

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

Another primary project of the Clinton Foundation is the elimination of wealth inequality, which “leads to significant economic disparities, both within and among countries, and prevents underserved populations from realizing their potential.” Who could possibly maintain that the reason the Qatari and Emirates regimes donated millions to the Clinton Foundation was their desire to eliminate such economic oppression?

It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?

Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven. In other words, these regimes were tricked: They thought they would get all sorts of favors through these millions in donations, but Hillary Clinton was simply too honest and upstanding of a public servant to fulfill their expectations.

The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalistssuggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?

While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.

Indeed, as I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.

The elusive nature of quid pro quo proof — now the primary Democratic defense of Clinton — has also long been the principal argument wielded by the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the arguments of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform advocates that large financial donations are corrupting:

Senate opponents of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note into the debate as reformers began an uphill quest to change a system they say has corrupted American government. …

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s chief opponent, challenged reform advocate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate colleagues who have been corrupted by high-dollar political contributions.

”How can there be corruption if no one is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in on McCain’s frequent speeches about the issue in his presidential campaign. ”That’s like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”

When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, confronted him. Standing just eight feet from him on the Republican side of the chamber, Bennett charged that McCain had accused him of corruption in seeking pork-barrel spending for his home state.

”I am unaware of any money given that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”

The inability to prove that politicians acted as quid pro quo when taking actions that benefited donors has long been the primary weapon of those opposing campaign finance reform. It is now the primary argument of Democratic partisans to defend Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent on exactly this point, one that Democrats once cheered:

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Given who their candidate is, Democrats really have no choice but to insist that these sorts of financial relationships are entirely proper (needless to say, Goldman Sachs has also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, but Democrats proved long ago they don’t mind any of that when they even insisted that it was perfectly fine that Goldman Sachs enriched both Clintons personally with numerous huge speaking fees — though Democrats have no trouble understanding why Trump’s large debts to Chinese banks and Goldman Sachs pose obvious problems). But — just as is true of theirresurrecting a Cold War template and its smear tactics against their critics — the benefits derived from this tactic should not obscure how toxic it is and how enduring its consequences will likely be.

Assange: WikiLeaks Will Be Releasing A Lot More Interesting Intel On Hillary Clinton

Dick Weed

no wonder they tried to send in an assassin recently (what, UK cops took 2 hrs to respond, hmmm)
George Hill  Jr

They were laundering drug money .. thru the CF … that is why. Lets say you want launder some / a lot of Drug money … drug guy gives you money … you give drug guy DOS contracts (billions now unaccounted for or misused ) and other things in return…(favors) (what ever) that is why the pvt server…had to be there…life or death decisions …these deals had to be closely monitored and decisions hidden or obfuscated… anyway back to the theory … drug guy gives you $$$ you give Drug guy get sensitive information they need/trade/sell …think SAP GAMMA… yeah CF/CGI perfect for that! … then be sure to have no GAAP audit.. you can put pure BS on you CF/CGI website but no certified audit.. so no one has a clue…how much drug money where it comes from or where it goes all hidden in a global charity with ties to US DOS and USAID… There can never be a true audit… because it might just reveal the truth …because no audit it is a fraud… and most likely a drug money laundering operation… It would mean death (no more money) of the CF/CGI and the end of others ….you know if you get involved in money laundering big TAX problems … if you get Drug money laundering ..its is much bigger DEA’s ..asset forfeiture up to 100%….all CF downers could lose 100% of their assets…just imagine. look at the downers list and think … if CF is a drug laundering op then think all could lose up to 100% of their assets from forfeiture ..no court just admin action…hummm if that happens and drug cartel lose all their assets …. required..only suspicion to size up to 100% … then think well if she were gone…would you sleep well … hummmmmmmmmmmmm- Maybe if she loses she and bill will just disappear…just saying ..

‘Godfather of extreme nationalism’ Clinton blames Putin for rising popularity of right-wing leaders

Published on Aug 26, 2016

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has lashed out at her Republican opponent. She focused her entire speech in Reno, Nevada, solely on why Americans shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump. All in all, his name was brought up almost 50 times in the half-hour address.

Jennifer Bestemianova

Hillary Clinton also blamed Alex Jones and Trump for part of her crimes, i believe her brain damage is driving her crazy
Joseph Hinojosa

Latinos For Trump 2016 fuck you lying crooked Hillary
proticalsonn

I am curious how many people are in the same room listening to her? Sounds like less than 100 people!
View all 6 replies

Kohl

its even less. The only thing you can actually hear is pre recorded voices.
Annonymous User

She has no positive policies and is in her last dying hateful death spasm, blaming someone else for their demise instead of looking at herself in the mirror and blaming herself. The Clinton family in its entirety has not one redeeming quality. Not a single redeeming quality among them. A horrible hateful family.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,679 other followers