Nice! I love how PBS failed to even bring that up last night. Debra must've really put the clamps down on them and threatened funding.
If they're going after Huma it's so they can pressure her to become state's evidence. She and Hillary may have been carpet munching lovers but I doubt a sentence of 200 years in prison appeals much to Huma. She'll flip. It's great to see that as. Finally a Republican knows how to play the same game as the Democrats. Emotional appeal and shock value is what wins. I really hope either Trump or Cruz win the nomination. Time to stick the knife into Hillary and twist it!
It's not the republicans after huma and the clinton foundations in this case. It's the State Department.
I didn't say that. But he does brag about what he did, which is a criminal violation of the Logan Act. I'll get you the page number in his autobiography where he admits scuttling the peace talks. You can go to the library to read it yourself. George Will agrees with me, by the way. And we know what a liberal he is.
Such a damning quote must surely be available on the internet. I'm certainly not going to the library to research your position. And no, George Will didn't agree with you. I read the column, and the section you claim is him agreeing with you is his synopsis of the position of the author he is writing about, not George Will's position. The only way you can use his words to back your claim is to quote them out of context (big surprise).
I heard yesterday that the Clinton Foundation was created in Canada to shield the identity of donors. It was on a partisan website, but if its true. . . I get the sense that Hillary is feeling like things are slipping away, and that she is completely on the rocks. Her supporters are panicking too, resorting to calling Bernie the old white guy who is depriving a woman of the presidency. I am savoring these times immensely.
Please provide your supporting facts behind this. I'm calling BS. Remember exactly how we got into VN?
Sorry, but totally disagree. That hole you're talking about is not one I'm standing in. I'm guessing that many of you were not even around - much less old enough to remember those days. dsapsis is living in some sort of mythical fantasy world where reality does not exist. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of both "parties". I'm not terribly excited about a single one of the candidates of any party. That being said, HRC should be in jail. The whole idea that there is even any question whatsoever about her criminal behavior is bizarre. She IS a criminal. She is simply not yet a "convicted" criminal.
The contention that LBJ would have ended the war but for Nixon is ludicrous. Nothing about the reality of what was transpiring at the time backs up that accusation.
You could start with the referenced Will story and click on some links. The one that IYC claims is stated only as setup to the IRS joke. Yeah. That one. The Hughes book is extensively researched, and I'd say prima facie evidence number one is the FBI recording of Chennault reporting for her boss. There is a litany of papers and books well-documenting the manners in which Mr. Nixon sought to wield control, and while the the evidence for this story is actually deep, I do love the Beeb parallel universe that has folks posting to claim Richard Nixon was a saint (in comparison to Mrs. Clinton) and that we folks that are pointing out the absurdity of that comparison are in a mythical fantasy world. Thanks for that. Really. And while I am at it, thanks also for thinking of me as young and not around "back then". I actually canvassed the 1968 election (for Humphrey, natch). You?
It would really be nice if people would read up on the political history of the Vietnamese era. On the morning that Kennedy was shot I was standing in a foxhole, in about 6 inches of water, in a 40 degree light rain qualifying with an M14 rifle when the Company Commander called a cease fire to inform us of what had happened in Dallas. That was in about the fourth week of eight weeks of basic training and before we had even finished that eight weeks Johnson had already sent another 3 thousand or so troops to Vietnam. Up until then we had a few hundred advisers there with no involvement in any armed conflicts. Johnson was chomping at the bit to "Americanize" Vietnam and Nixon had nothing to do with it. It was all Johnson and Robert McNamara. An excellent book on the history of that era is "Lessons in Disaster" McGeorge Bundy and the path to war in Vietnam written by Gordon M. Goldstein. Most of the political experts on that era suggest that if Kennedy had not been killed we would have never gone into Vietnam on a war footing.
I'd say you're pretty far off base to be honest. First of all, the Hughes book is somewhat speculative at best. Could you make an argument that Nixon - via Chennault - effected policy while still VP? Sure. Is it reasonable to then extend that assumption to delaying the war for 6 years? Only if you know nothing whatsoever about facts. You're making a deep mistake in assuming that I (or others I'm guessing) are defending Nixon. I'm certainly not. I'm just unwilling to confuse "opinion" (as to what "might" have happened if bombing had been halted, and them assuming that it would have shortened the war by 6 years - which is absurd to conclude in the extreme) with FACTS - such as the reality that what Hillary has factually done is a crime. And that what she has done has without a solitary nanometer of question had a negative impact on security. Nixon was absolutely not a saint. The Hughes book gives more information based on his statements as to what was on tons of otherwise not reviewed recordings. But it is also a speculative conclusion based on HIS interpretation of recordings, pointing to an "opinion" of what "might" have happened otherwise. Put another way, I was at the track this past weekend. I DID fail to get on the gas soon enough pretty consistently on one particular turn, and left speed on the table. That's without dispute. An OPINION or CONCLUSION is that maybe I'd have cut half a second off my lap time. Maybe it would have. Maybe it would not have. Hillary clinton had a massive number of emails deleted from her private mail server (which she should never have had). She then claimed that no classified content was EVER on that server. She then claimed that no material "classified at the time" was EVER on that server. She then claimed that she never "knew" about any classification problems on that server. She then claimed that the server had "never been hacked" and that any material that was found to be "classified now" was "inappropriately reclassified after the fact". We know factually, as reported by the FBI, that a significant amount of material, classified in some cases above TS, were found to be remaining (after she illegally deleted a ton of mail), and that she directed in at least one case that material be "declassified" and then sent via that mail server. As somebody who has had to deal with classified material over a long time, her excuses are so full of crap that they are even more beyond belief than the suggestion that Nixon extended the VN war by 6 years. And I'm actually disappointed that you are old enough (probably very near my age) to know better. I am so sick and tired of people arguing that we should not be taking Hillary to task because other people (specifically, Republicans) are worse. I would have been fine to have Hillary and Nixon sharing a jail cell.
Another very good book for those of us who have served is "A Bright and Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan. I read it many years ago, and found it to really capture parts of the story - being particularly relevant for those of us who spent quite a long time in Combat Arms.
Clinton email chain discussed Afghan national's CIA ties, official says Remember the outrage over Valerie Plame?
I think so. Wasn't she an undercover asset in the early treacherous years of Afghanistan? Oh, I remember now, she was the undercover agent assigned to the Washington party scene. Is Scooter still in jail?