Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 9,983
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 9,983
- 2016 (66)
- 2015 (17)
- 2014 (9)
- 2013 (22)
- 2012 (10)
- Older Archives
She simply drips with it. Where to begin? In no particular order, you can start with her vote for the Iraq War Resolution where she assures everyone --
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." -- (more at link) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq
which turned out to be a lie. While we can number the American dead and wounded, the Iraq numbers are uncountable. In the speech above, she pledged her trust and loyalty to then President Bush, and we all know how THAT turned out. As one of his followers, she is responsible for a portion of it.
But there is more. Can we count the dead in Libya? The Republicans will babble on about "Benghazi" but she owns the failed state and the dead should haunt her. The New York Times put together a short two and a half minute video explaining what happened and why our people are still dying, thanks to her tenure as Secretary of State:
But there is even more. The suffering in Honduras can be laid at her feet, and her own UNREDACTED emails prove it --
"The released emails provide a fascinating behind-the-scenes view of how Clinton pursued a contradictory policy of appearing to back the restoration of democracy in Honduras while actually undermining efforts to get Zelaya back into power." -- (more details at link) -- http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup
It goes back further for me; I remember the silence of the White House she and her husband ruled during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Four years later, testimony by Physicians for Human Rights talked about how people were still being killed and said --
"It is appropriate and honorable for the Clinton Administration to acknowledge the United States's failure to respond appropriately to the 1994 genocide, as Secretary Albright did in December and President Clinton did last month. (snip) (T)he West's refusal to suppress the genocide in Rwanda was extraordinarily costly in three ways: first and foremost, it was costly in the terrible loss of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi Rwandan men, women, and children and of the courageous Hutu civilians who sheltered them. A second casualty of the genocide was the image and thus the potential effectiveness of the United Nations and its various organizations. (more at link) -- https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/190/39203.html
But no one mentions that debacle, because it occurred under her husband's leadership, and she was "only" the First Lady, with no influence, knowledge or bully pulpit to shout from...
Of course. Mistakes were made, and thousands died. The unanswered question will always be "why didn't she even TRY?" I would have had so much respect for her if she had gotten into a public screaming match with Bill about "stopping a genocide" instead of privately fighting over their troubled marriage issues. Sigh.
But this post is about Trump, and this unpleasant truth: his business failures did not kill thousands, and hers did. The positions he advocates are embarrassing, but hers have created disasters for countless. When given the opportunity to stand up for what was right, whether that be for victims of genocide, children with AIDS in Africa, unnecessary war in the Middle East or even democracy in South America, she was either invisible or on the wrong side.
And this video -- where he stands up against the GOP establishment and a hostile crowd -- is where he probably got the Presidency, if he runs against Clinton --
Yes, he's a buffoon and horrible and he has lowered the level of public discourse and he's a misogynist and racist and did I say horrible yet? But she's NOT a leader; he is, and he will call her out for the blood debt she has created, and there is not a member of this board who can defend her in these areas, because we all know what an absolute disaster her "foreign policy" experience has been not just for our suffering people, but for all of the planet.
If she runs against him, she will lose, and so will the down ticket Democrats, because it will be on a "throw the bums out!" rebellion.
This is my analysis of the situation. Yours may vary. During this primary, I will continue to support Bernie Sanders.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 6, 2016, 10:45 AM (49 replies)
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016
Clinton: ‘I’m really focused on moving into the general election’, MSNBC, May 3, 2016
Hillary Clinton is ready to put the Democratic primary in her rear view mirror and get to work on Donald Trump.
She made that abundantly clear in an exclusive interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Tuesday in West Virginia. Clinton also said that the FBI has still not contacted her regarding her private email server, and the Democratic front-runner detailed under what circumstances she would release transcripts of her paid speeches.
And Clinton said neither she nor her staff have yet been contacted by the FBI, which is investigating the handling of classified information on the private email server she used a secretary of state. (more at link)
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016
First on CNN: FBI interviews Clinton aides including Huma Abedin as part of email probe, CNN, May 5, 2016
(CNN) Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed -- some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.
The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said. Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment. The Clinton campaign has not yet responded to CNN's request for comment. David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, had no comment. (more at link)
Somebody is lying -- who?
Posted by IdaBriggs | Thu May 5, 2016, 05:29 PM (31 replies)
Hacker 'Guccifer': I Got Inside Hillary Clinton's Server, NBC News, May 4, 2016
The Romanian hacker who first exposed Hillary Clinton's private email address is making a bombshell new claim -- that he also gained access to the former Secretary of State's "completely unsecured" server.
"It was like an open orchid on the Internet," Marcel Lehel Lazar, who uses the devilish handle Guccifer, told NBC News in an exclusive interview from a prison in Bucharest. "There were hundreds of folders."
For more of Cynthia McFadden's interview with Guccifer, watch Nightly News on Thursday and the new NBC series "On Assignment," which debuts Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/ 6 p.m. CT.
Who knew NBC was a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
ON EDIT: A little more at link, and elsewhere "the network that shall not be named" has more information, including his claim he has 2 gigs of proof -- IT BEGINS...
Posted by IdaBriggs | Wed May 4, 2016, 06:41 PM (14 replies)
because I am able to articulate MANY of my legitimate concerns about Hillary Clinton's judgment and actual qualifications, and am continuing to voice my support for Sanders during the Democratic primary, are now going to be referred to THIS thread to save me from having to repeat myself.
ACCORDING TO SKINNER --
And in the current Terms of Service --
"In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose."
The Democratic Primary is NOT OVER. There will be a contested convention. The convention takes place at the end of July, 2016. Don't like that? Not. My. Problem. Think that insulting fellow Democrats is demonstrating support for your candidate?
It's not. It is just BULLYING and turns people off from participating in the process.
Right now I am a DEMOCRAT who is supporting a DEMOCRAT and also supporting the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE of letting people vote. Millions of people are extremely unhappy with Hillary Clinton, and telling us to sit down and shut up or mockingly telling us that we don't belong in the Party is Total Asshole Behavior.
So if I am sending you to this thread because you state or imply that something I post makes me a Trump supporter, not only are you LYING, you are ALSO being rude, obnoxious, and crossing lines that damage not only this site and its membership, but also support for Democrats in general in the real world by tempting me to believe ALL Hillary supporters are abusive, bullying trolls.
You need to knock it off. And an apology might help, too.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Wed May 4, 2016, 09:38 AM (12 replies)
I guess I'm special -- Wow.
Thank you to the DUer who shared this with me; I trashed the Hillary Group some time ago so I wouldn't be tempted to be rude to them in their "safe space" but I certainly never expected to be the object of that type of vendetta.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 2, 2016, 03:27 PM (34 replies)
And unfortunately, a lot of them are.
Yes, I've started reading DUer Paul Thompson's "Clinton Email Scandal Timeline" and I am ANGRY. If you aren't, you should be. Here's a link: http://thompsontimeline.com/IS_CLINTON%27S_EMAIL_SCANDAL_FOR_REAL%3F
Now, let's go over some of it, shall we?
SHE LIED UNDER OATH <== Did she learn NOTHING from the impeachment of her husband about how seriously that is viewed?
SIGNED STATEMENT UNDER OATH on August 10, 2015:
"I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."
Except she was lying, because not only did Sidney Blumenthal turn in a bunch she "forgot", but the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT found ten more between her and General David Petraeus from January/February of 2009 when her machine had no encryption and he was Commander of United States Central Command.
SHE MIGHT BE AN IDIOT <== On what planet would someone think communication between the United States Secretary of State and the Four Star General Commander of United States Central Command wasn't classified?
Can we assume they were too busy to be trading Lolcats?
SHE IS A TERRIBLE CRIMINAL<== Oh, but it gets better -- I had wondered why she had her staff PRINT off 30,000 emails and then make such a production of presenting them. She knew how to do an email dump electronically (her attorney had copies of the unrelated emails on a thumb drive in his office for months!), so why kill the trees?
The State Department found that all of nine and parts of six emails handed over by Blumenthal (my note: about Libya) were missing from the 30,000 emails Clinton had turned over.
Huh? "Parts of six" -- She had her staff dump the emails to Word, delete stuff they shouldn't have been sending and assumed no one would notice/do a comparison with any other copy!
It's never the crime that gets Washington people in trouble -- it's always the cover up. WHY would she be SO STUPID? That whole "I love my Blackberry because it is just the easiest, best tool ever!" makes no sense when you read this bit --
Clinton turned down the offer to have a secure computer installed in her office so she could check her emails from the comfort of her desk. Instead, even though she was highly dependent on email communication, she had to leave her office, retrieve her BlackBerry from security, go to a nearby secure area, use her BlackBerry, and then give it back to security before returning to her office, every single time. As a result, she would sometimes complain about having to go hours between checking her emails.
That's not convenience - that's cover up.
SHE BETRAYED HER OFFICE <== Why didn't she tell someone to have "no security clearance" Sidney Blumenthal arrested or investigated for how he was getting his hands on NSA and CIA information? They sent and received over a thousand emails (almost every other day!), and --
Many of these contained highly classified information. Curiously, most of those were sent by Blumenthal, even though he was a private citizen with no security clearance whatsoever. Blumenthal appears to have been running a private intelligence back channel operation to Clinton using information from a former CIA official named Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller left the CIA in 2005, but at least one email shows he got his information from an active CIA official. Furthermore, we know from a June 2011 email that was completely unredacted by accident (and then later redacted) that Blumenthal sent Clinton information from NSA reports about a meeting of rebel generals in Sudan that had taken place mere hours earlier!
Did she not know? Only if she couldn't read:
He often included warnings in all caps and specifically stated that his information came from sources that had to make the information born classified. For instance, in July 2012, he sent Clinton an email about Egypt he said was "CONFIDENTIAL," which is the third level of classified information according to US government regulations. Then he gave this warning: "SOURCE: Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE."
I believe that language was copied word-for-word from something Blumenthal shouldn't have had so if he had it, who else did? And the fact our intelligence people have "access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood" AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD NOW KNOW IT BECAUSE SHE ASKED STATE TO RELEASE ALL OF HER EMAILS AND THEY DID -- HILLARY THINKS THAT ISNT A BIG DEAL?
That's just one example. Hillary was emailing with foreign leaders, our military heads, and the freaking top people at NATO about everything from the Libyan Civil War to North Korea's nuclear arsenal. I'm all about "transparency in government" but there are reasons "classified" stuff stays "classified" while people's lives are at risk.
I am flabbergasted at the arrogance and ego of not only endangering national security in this way, but then making jokes about it and running for President after this level of monumental screw-up.
Its arrogance to think this doesn't matter, and arrogance that is bringing her down. Well, that and stupidity.
SHE REALLY IS AN IDIOT <== She may not know how the Internet actually works.
When a company named Platte River Networks took over management of Clinton's email server in mid-2013, it transferred all the contents of her server onto a new server and managed that, but also kept the old server.
So ANY EMPLOYEE OF Platte River Networks, BUT NOT THE FOLKS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, could access the email records of the (former) United States Secretary of State? And none of the Platte River Network staff had security clearance or background checks or anything, and bonus! After they copied the data from the old sever to the new one, they kept it because why? Maybe to repurpose and sell on Ebay? <== Sarcasm
But it gets better!
Platte River Networks had a contract with another company called Datto (My Note: Also no security clearance or background checks or anything), which made monthly copies of the server in the cloud. But Platte River Networks didn't know this was happening since they didn't ask for it or pay for it, and they only found out about it after the FBI had taken the servers away.
Monthly backups On. The. Cloud. Google "naked pictures" of any celebrity, and then come back and tell me how secure that is -- why not just "cc" the local spy agencies and save everyone the trouble?
Paul has done a great job of documenting, linking and putting this all together -- it's big, it's ugly, and it's bad. There's more - way more -- but I am beyond convinced that if the FBI doesn't recommend indictment, the precedent created from "how to handle classified material" through "government employees don't get to hide government records" will be catastrophic.
PaulThompson announcement thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511879555
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 2, 2016, 10:49 AM (385 replies)
Hillary and Bill Clinton do. Maybe Donald Trump isn't really that bad?
I know -- blasphemy, right? On a DEMOCRATIC message board? Implying that socializing with "Donald the Devil" is acceptable? I mean, if an OBNOXIOUS MISOGYNISTIC RACIST invites you someplace, obviously you graciously decline -- maybe you have to wash your hair or something, right? I mean, unless it's a relative or a friend or something...
Or something like money?
Donald Trump Says His Money Drew Hillary Clinton to His Wedding, ABC News, Aug 7, 2015
Well, the guy with the money is under the impression it bought him access to power and thus preferential treatment, but Hillary thought there was a friendship -- a long lasting one, because he's given her campaigns thousands, and is a large Clinton Foundation donor. So what's a little racism and misogyny compared to friendship and cash deposits? It's not like anyone thinks there is a "perception of problems" with large donors using their money to influence politicians in bad policy, right?
Seriously, if Donald Trump is good enough for Hillary Clinton's friendship and emotional support at a wedding, maybe we need to stop demonizing him. That's not going to be easy, but unless he suddenly had a lobotomy, he has undoubtedly held some crazy views for a long time, and the Clintons were able to look past it, so I guess we should, too.
Okay. Now that we've got that one out of the way, what about Rupert Murdoch? Yes, he started FOX News (aka "FAUX News") and we all know about that "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that is hell bent on destroying America, but really, aren't we just being MEAN? After all, they are REALLY more "Clinton Friends" who have contributed to the many benevolent and charitable works of the Clinton Foundation --
The Fox News Connection To Clinton Foundation Donations That Chris Wallace Forgot, Media Matters, May 17, 2015
Chump change! And it's not like there are any OTHER good charitable foundations out there doing good works these folks could have donated to -- it was about the relationships of trust everyone had built.
And once you understand that FOX News is totally cool with the Clintons, it makes it easier to understand that NewsMax has really been misunderstood by the people on this site, too. Those good people aren't just spreading lies, innuendos and misinformation - they spread cash, too!
Right there below James Murdoch is "NewsMax Media" -- they've donated between $1 million and $5 million. And people who do charity like that -- how can we say mean things like how untrustworthy and dishonest their efforts are?
So we've now determined that Trump isn't really so bad, and FOX News and NewsMax aren't either. I mean, if they were horrible people (like criminals or nasty or had bad reputations or something) the people heading the Foundation would have rejected the funds the way good people do.
Now, this next one is a tough one, but it is time to accept that President George W. Bush Jr. maybe WASN'T an incompetent president and war criminal who won the 2000 election through election fraud. I won't lie -- that is a difficult pill to swallow for me, but apparently Hillary and Bill have long since moved on and have a positive relationship with him, so maybe it's time the rest of us got over it, too? Bill and George even started a Charitable Foundation together in 2010 (disbanded in 2012) --
In a country where teachers make "good money" at $35 a week/regular people make $2 a day, $54M in two years probably uplifted the whole country, right? (Don't google current conditions because you'll get depressed, and adding "corruption" to any "Clinton Haiti" search is not good for the blood pressure.)
After all the hard work helping Haiti, plus Hillary being so supportive of the Bush Jr. Agenda while she was in Congress, how can one question the friendship?
Yes, HILLARY CLINTON has moved on from any actual dislike of Republican leadership and money (do we even have to look up the voter registration rolls of the Wall Street people she gave her little "talks" to?), so I can only believe it is time for the members of THIS BOARD to follow her example. The woman is a Democrat, for heaven's sake -- she bravely served on the Board of Walmart while they actively busted unionization efforts, opposed marriage equality efforts until it was the law of the land, and is open to discussing constitutional restrictions on abortion -- and as leader of our party, we need to do what she has done:
Embrace all things Republican.
It's the only way to save America!
I just hope a jury understands I am not promoting these things -- it looks like TOS to me, but if Hillary says it's okay....
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sun May 1, 2016, 10:19 AM (57 replies)
I started actively looking for *anything* accomplishment wise that would make me think "she's a leader" and really, there isn't ANYTHING except one amazing speech to the United Nations back in the 90s where she said "women's rights are human rights".
Other than that, nothing except fundraising and speeches.
She jumps on "already accomplished stuff" where other people do the heavy lifting, and seriously,
Al Gore made climate change into something non-scientists could talk about. Princess Diana helped AIDS victims by being photographed hugging them, and worked tirelessly to ban and remove land mines. Jesse Jackson is front and center when it comes to African Americans dealing with discrimination.
Hillary Clinton -- got Bush Junior to give $20B to New York after 911 and then played cheer leader for an unnecessary destabilizing war. As a legislater, she joined in on efforts to "pass" things but never had the power or influence to actually PASS ANYTHING that would benefit people. As Secretary of State, her failures outnumber her successes and that doesn't even include the illegal stuff with her "private server". My personal favorite? Using the Clinton Foundation to "rebuild Haiti" - millions of dollars raised, nothing actually accomplished, and children starving in tents seven years later while charges of corruption are ignored.
Her signature issue -- women's rights -- is another nothing. Access to abortion has dramatically decreased in the US in multiple states and do we want to discuss how women are doing in the non-European world between the refugee crisis she helped create and ISIS and the African AIDS crisis? We have more poor and homeless children than we did twenty-five years ago, because the policies she advocated for were absolute disasters in dealing with real world issues (but by cutting services, money was saved).
Even her attacks on Bernie Sanders have by and large utterly failed due to their stupidity -- PopeGate? WifeRudeness? Misogynist/Racist/Scammer/Spoiler -- if it comes from the Hillary camp, at this point you know they are lying. Don't even get me started on the Obama campaign -- Kenyon Muslim?
In summary, I can't find anything where she pulled a "point and shoot" to actually successfully solve a problem.
And oddly enough, that is a comfort to me. I make no secret that I believe she will be the recipient of an FBI recommendation for indictment fairly soon, but knowing she is an actual incompetent, and the more she talks, the less she is liked, the more her background is examined as a serious candidate, the more obvious it becomes she doesn't support core Democratic principles in practice, the more her financial interests are examined, the more obvious the cronyism and corruption become -- this comforts me.
My resolve is strengthened. I will not despair. We are not choosing "management" but Leadership and I support Bernie Sanders.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 09:01 AM (10 replies)
I find the show to be absolutely educational and inspiring, and this isn't the first time or three I've watched it. I just finished Season 3: Episode 19 "The West Wing Special Episode" where they interview former Presidents (Ford, Carter and Clinton) and staffers from Kissinger to Rove (who liked that he was making decisions that influenced lives) with everyone talking about what it was like -- the honor and the stress and the dedication -- to work in the White House.
President Bill Clinton talked about how "everybody" missed working there, and it was obvious to me he was one of the people missing it. President Ford talked about having to make tough decisions that other people didn't approve of "for the good of the nation" when he pardoned Nixon, and President Carter about how "being patient" allowed him to get all the hostages in Iran safely home but cost him the election. The staffers talked about being able to speak "truth to power" and the importance of a moral compass with a willingness to sacrifice electability to do the "right thing for the country" like when Harry Truman desegregated the military "because it was more important than getting re-elected".
I found the "moral compass" argument to be extraordinarily compelling. Bernie Sanders is the only current candidate that I believe uses one.
"The West Wing" is an amazing show, and it has once again reminded me of just how high the stakes are -- not just with the "face" of the winner, but also the caliber of the people they will surround themselves with. So much has changed, and yet, so much still needs to be done....
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:37 AM (6 replies)
Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions, ABC News, January 31, 2008
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.
Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.
The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.
(more at link)
My favorite bit in the article (which has accompanying video at the link) is where President Clinton defends her actions because:
"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve."
That's pure Hillary Clinton - totally THERE for you, UNLESS she thinks there is no way she could change that which explains her stance on everything from LGBT marriage to $15 minimums to peace in the Middle East.
She can't CHANGE opinions, which is what a LEADER does -- instead, she does the "if you can't beat them, join them" thing, which makes her totally ineffective as a positive force for change.
I used to think it was just a lawyer thing - she supports what her PAYING CLIENTS want - but now I think its Not JUST that - she's a FOLLOWER, and the people SHE FOLLOWS are leading US into destruction.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 10:36 AM (69 replies)