Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Cruising the Web

For those Trumpkins who are vowing revenge against Republicans who aren't sufficiently supportive of their guy, should simply read this story and think again.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House.

As Donald Trump’s poll numbers tank, dragging the whole GOP down with him, the possibility that Pelosi could return to the speaker’s chair after a six-year absence has suddenly grown very real. No one has done anything like this since the legendary Sam Rayburn did 60 years ago, and it is still unlikely to happen. Yet the House is definitely in play, according to experts on both sides of the aisle, which means the 76-year-old Pelosi could be wielding the speaker’s gavel again come January.
It's bad enough that their beau ideal has ruined what would have been a very winnable election and virtually guaranteed that the Clintons will be returning to the White House, but do they really want to be responsible for again enthroning Pelosi in the Speaker's chair? The best argument GOP House and Senate candidates should be drumming home in the next few weeks is that a vote for them is a needed check on a Clinton White House.

Why is the administration making this public?
t's not clear what to make of NBC's weekend report that the CIA is plotting a cyberattack against the Russian government (Vladimir Putin in particular) or why sources decided to go public about it.

To summarize: The CIA has apparently been planning a cyber counterstrike to expose information intended to "embarrass" the Kremlin and "unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin." Why this has been made public is anybody's guess, but Vice President Joe Biden confirmed with a wink and a nod to Meet the Press that America is "sending a message" to Russia. When asked whether the public would know about this message, Biden responded, very Bidenly, "Hope not."

While we try to wrap our minds around the idea of the public not finding out about a cyberattack Biden is openly promoting on a Sunday talk show, NBC does get a sense of the internal conflict with the administration about whether it's possible to retaliate against Russia in any meaningful way:
Yes, proposed covert actions should definitely be leaked and discussed on public TV. And I'm sure that Putin is quaking in his boots at the thought that we would release some information that would reveal that he has "unsavory tactics." That would be a real shocker to everyone, I'm sure.



Interesting Finds at Amazon: Updated Daily

Spring Savings in Grocery and Gourmet Food

Groceries under $10

Best Deals in Pet Supplies

Office and School Supplies

We keep finding out such revealing details in the WikiLeaks hacking of John Podesta's email. For example, here is a tidbit from Clinton's 2008 campaign about proposed attacks on Obama.
The e-mails, which were allegedly hacked from Podesta’s account and were published by WikiLeaks today, reveal that Clinton’s 2008 campaign had focus-group tested attacks focusing on Obama’s cocaine habit, his decision to not wear an American flag lapel pin, and the time he spent in Indonesia.
They proposed to attack Obama, whom they mysteriously kept referring to as "owe-BAH-uh," for such assorted sins as not covering his heart during the national anthem, his connection to Tony Rezko, his willingness to negotiation with Iran and North Korea without preconditions, his votes against allowing people to use handguns in self-defense, his proposed tax increases for his health care idea, having a Muslim father and growing up in Indonesia, a Muslim country, his votes in illinois against health care for babies who survive an abortion and are born alive, his support for giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, and his use of cocaine as a young man.

It sounds just like what the Republicans were saying about Obama during that election. I guess these attacks didn't focus-group all that well since Clinton didn't use them. But it's sure interesting that these were all lines of attack that they might have been willing to use if the focus groups had demonstrated that such attacks would have worked.

USA Today reports
on how foreign governments were able to make sure that they got the result they wanted from the money they donated to the Clinton Foundation.
The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.

While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.

Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
Isn't that all very convenient? What a cozy operation.

Sharyl Attkisson summarizes what we've learned from the WikiLeaks hacks and documents released through FOIA requests about how members of the media were tame mouthpieces for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. They received their marching orders and produced the stories according to those orders. It's a long and shameful list. Here are some examples:
The Atlantic

Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic, asked a Hillary Clinton aide for advance text of a speech. The aide dictated “conditions,” including “1) You in your own voice describe [Hillary’s words] as ‘muscular’,” to which Ambinder agreed. Ambinder formerly worked for ABC, CBS and National Journal.

CNBC

CNBC anchor John Harwood, who moderated a presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, appears to have offered helpful thoughts and analyses to the Clinton campaign.

CNN

The Clinton campaign emailed that CNN politics producer Dan Merica and Clinton were “basically courting each other.”

In an email, Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile (then a CNN contributor) said she obtained an advance presidential debate question and passed it on to the Hillary campaign. The question was later asked in a March 13 Democratic presidential town hall including Democrat Bernie Sanders and co-hosted by CNN. Brazile says she didn’t do what she allegedly said she did in the email.

CNN political commentator Maria Cardona emailed Democratic National Committee officials a draft of her opinion piece that attacked Bernie Sanders prior to the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. She invited the DNC’s editorial input and made changes accordingly, asking the DNC, “Is this better?”

....Politico

Staffers at Media Matters say they “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith [formerly of Politico now editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed.com],” according to Daily Caller. “Ben Smith will take stories and write what you want him to write.”

Politico chief investigative reporter Ken Vogel emailed soon-to-be-published story to Democratic National Committee official Mark Paustenbach “per agreement” and invited his “thoughts.” Paustenbach gave the draft to the DNC’s head of communications, Luis Miranda. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach told Miranda.

In his effort to get an interview with Chelsea Clinton, Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political reporter offered to provide questions in advance, “precisely” agreed upon with a Hillary Clinton aide. “The interview would be ‘no-surprises’: I would work with you on topics, and would start with anything she wants to cover or make news on. Quicker than a network hit, and reaching an audience you care about with no risk,” Allen wrote the aide. After the email became public, Allen apologized and said he would never do what he offered to do in his email.
It's so funny to see this evidence of what conservatives have always suspected was going on.

Kyle Smith looks at some of the lessons that we've learned from this election.
1) No experience required . . . In the matchup of neophyte Sen. Barack Obama against the polymorphously experienced Sen. John McCain in 2008, Obama’s thin résumé was shrugged off by the voters, thanks in part to a complicit media that preferred to cast Obama as refreshing rather than underqualified. In 2016, though, a businessman with no political or military experience whatsoever has a shot at being elected president. Trump would be the first person never to have been either a military leader or a political officeholder ever to attain the presidency — and he turned this startling lack of engagement with the political system into an asset in a year when voters felt alienated from Washington. The idea that a true outsider could capture the White House no longer looks at all far-fetched. Some other business leader or celebrity could be a viable candidate in 2020.

2). . . but character still matters. One huge advantage held by professional politicians is that they’ve already been vetted, faced opposition research. Trump, despite having been a public figure for more than 30 years, never faced the same scrutiny, as we learned in the dizzying final weeks of the campaign. Why? Because it was never in anyone’s direct interest to take him on. If he had run for any significant lower office, the resources of a political party would have been focused on destroying him by digging up dirt from his past. Any public figure with skeletons in his closet should assume they will be not only found but fetishized.

Josh Jordan, known on Twitter as Numbers Muncher, had a great rant on Twitter yesterday to refute the idea that the media rigged the election against Donald Trump. He reminds us how the media basically helped create the Trump success in the primaries.




It is indeed shameful for a major-party candidate to seek to undermine Americans' confidence in the election, the WSJ points out that such accusations have plenty of precedents.
But the liberal freak-out over Mr. Trump’s allegedly “unprecedented” and “dangerous” remarks could use some perspective. Where would Mr. Trump possibly get the idea that the system is rigged?

Well, maybe he listened to Bernie Sanders, who in January described his “message, which says that the economy today is rigged, that it benefits the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of everybody else, that the campaign finance system that exists today is corrupt and undermining American democracy.” Or maybe Mr. Trump caught Elizabeth Warren at the Democratic convention saying “the system is rigged” or “the rigged system” five times in one speech.

President Obama and Eric Holder also regularly push the canard that voter-identification laws are attempts at racially motivated disenfranchisement. As recently as 2014, Democrats attempting to keep the Senate tried to motivate minority turnout with ads that explicitly played on black fears of intimidation.

African-American registration and voting increased, and at a faster rate than white participation, after allegedly racist North Carolina and Georgia recently passed voter ID laws, but that’s not the point. Democrats can’t sauce this goose and then complain when Mr. Trump adopts their tactics for his purposes.

As it happens, David Remnick reported in the New Yorker last year that John Kerry is convinced that the George W. Bush campaign manipulated the voting machines in 2004 to carry Ohio. The Secretary of State even used this “very personal experience” to reassure Afghans that free and fair elections are hard, even in advanced countries. We can’t recall the media assault on the top U.S. diplomat for subverting U.S. democracy with such baseless speculation, and where Mr. Trump does have a point is when he says the press corps is nearly unanimous against him.

This is usually the case with Republicans, though the difference this year is that journalists say openly that Mr. Trump is a unique threat to democracy. The First Amendment stalwarts would have more credibility if they hadn’t portrayed Mitt Romney as a plundering executive with retrograde family values, or tried to take down John McCain in 2008 with innuendo about philandering. GOP voters understand that it doesn’t matter how admirable their nominee is, the press will still trash him.

***
The question for the media this year is that if Mr. Trump poses a threat to the American way, where were they during the GOP primaries? Back then, progresssive partisans who now say Mr. Trump will end civilization turned out columns like “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination” or “Why I’m more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump.”

Many in the media cheered on Mr. Trump when it appeared that he might oppose the GOP’s traditional free-market agenda. NBC’s “Access Hollywood” tape with Mr. Trump and Billy Bush is 11 years old, and weren’t Howard Stern’s greatest hits as relevant last autumn as they are said to be now? It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that the stories coming out in late October are no accident.

Disqualifying Mr. Trump with a dump of sleazy passes at women was sure to enrage his supporters who know the history of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump always overreacts and thus he’s on a path to lose—and if he keeps raving about “the illusion of democracy,” as he did last week in West Palm Beach, he’ll deserve to. But in winning ugly, Mrs. Clinton and the left will pay a steep price in even more polarized and divisive politics. (links in original)

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

Today's Best Deals



Deal of the Day in Books

A philosophy professor at the University of Texas as Austin writes about what it is like to be the only conservative at his university and to come out in favor of Trump.As someone who is probably the only conservative on my school's faculty that I'm aware of this passage resonated with me.
I try my best to keep politics out of the classroom. Once, a student said to me, “You’re a conservative, aren’t you?” I responded that I was disappointed that he could tell, because I try to present views on all sides fairly, keeping my own views in the background. He answered: “I know. That’s how I could tell.”
Our administration has always stressed to us that we should not be talking about our own political opinions in the classroom. It's fine for me to have a blog that students might find and read and realize that I'm conservative, but those opinions should not leach into the classroom. I really try to follow those principles. I'm especially sensitive to keeping my politics out of the class since I teach three classes on government and politics. The students in those classes are learning about how our system works and exploring their own ideologies so it would be particularly inappropriate for me to inflict my opinions on them. It's much easier to be even-handed and let them express their own views. But from what students tell me, quite a few of my colleagues are not similarly reticent. Once, when students were asking me what my political opinions were and whom I was going to vote for, I replied that the principal wanted us to keep our views private, and they just burst out laughing.

Does this report surprise anyone who has ever read anything about Hillary Clinton from her time in Arkansas and the White House? It has frequently been reported that she is an arrogant, disagreeable person who regards the secret service as beneath her and treated them rudely. And she, apparently, has not changed.
Department of State security officers found then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton so unpleasant they refused to work on her security detail, a former agent claims in newly-released FBI documents.

The FBI Monday released 100 pages of documents relating to its investigation of Clinton’s private email server. The documents incorporate summaries of several interviews the FBI conducted, including one with a woman who served as an agent with the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) during Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

During her interview, the agent said Clinton treated agents rudely and with contempt, and was so unpleasant that senior agents typically avoided being on her security detail.

“[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” the interview summary says. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”
Note that this isn't some gossip from unidentified Secret Service agents, the excuse been used to dismiss similar stories in the past, but a report from one government official to the FBI during an investigation. Think about the classlessness of someone who would be rude to people who have sworn to literally protect her with their very lives. Sure, Donald Trump is a boorish vulgarian, but Hillary has her own faults that should be appalling Democrats, but so few Democrats will speak out against her.

Rather than being such a brilliant businessman as he claims, Donald Trump makes most of his money these days from licensing his name to other businessmen. And what I've been wondering from the start of this inglorious adventure is how his antics on the political stage will affect that aspect of his business. Are the people who can afford to shell out the big bucks to stay at a hotel with his name on it or buy his steaks and ties going to still be willing to do so when his name has become anathema to so very many? Apparently not. The actual data is difficult to acquire for privately-owned businesses, but there are some signs that his campaign might be hurting the bottom line.
Across the country, voters alarmed by the tenor of Mr. Trump’s campaign and the emerging accounts of his personal conduct are engaging in spontaneous, unorganized and inconspicuous acts of protest that take direct aim at perhaps his most prized possession: his brand name....

It is difficult to measure the economic impact of such protests on Mr. Trump’s far-flung businesses. His holdings are privately controlled, and he has a well-documented history of exaggerating his financial performance. Amanda Miller, the vice president of marketing for the Trump Organization, said in a statement on Sunday that the Trump brand “remains incredibly strong, and we are seeing tremendous success across business units.”

The nonstop exposure provided by the presidential campaign has its upsides: Sales at Mr. Trump’s winery in Charlottesville are up 55 percent, said Kerry Woolard, its general manager. A few customers have headed there straight from his political rallies, she said.

But there are signs of a strain: An online travel company, Hipmunk, has found that bookings for Trump hotels on its site fell 58 percent during the first half of 2016, compared with the same period a year ago. Eric Danziger, the chief executive of Trump Hotels, said that data from sites like Hipmunk “does not provide an accurate representation of our performance.”

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Deals in Jewelry

This is how ignorant of history today's millennials are according to a recent study by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
The survey also revealed a general lack of historical knowledge, especially among young adults. According to the report, one-third (32 percent) of millennials believed that more people were killed under George W. Bush than under Joseph Stalin.

While I wait anxiously to see if the Cubs hitting can recover tonight, this made me laugh out loud.

26 comments:

Marshall said...

Two things:

You wrote, It's bad enough that their beau ideal has ruined what would have been a very winnable election and virtually guaranteed that the Clintons will be returning to the White House, but do they really want to be responsible for again enthroning Pelosi in the Speaker's chair? The best argument GOP House and Senate candidates should be drumming home in the next few weeks is that a vote for them is a needed check on a Clinton White House."

Wasn't Romney v. Obama a "very winnable election"? Yet the Democrat smear machine (with overt help from the media) demonized a demonstrably nice man. The Republicans then (and now) didn't know how to fight back. That's why the idea of Trump (if not the man) resonates with most of America.

The Republican leadership is inept (there are so many simple things they could do) -- and Paul Ryan's "own-goal" teleconference is a prime example. Why didn't he just keep his mouth shut?

And two: The photo is not of Mandy Potempkin; The character's name (in the Pricess Bride) was Inigo Montoya.

mark said...

Yes, teachers have an obligation to keep personal politics out of the classroom. But it's a bit tricky to balance that with an obligation to assure children that talk of rounding up and deporting them and their families is immoral, un-American and cowardly.
But yes, we should avoid telling them which party is responsible.

Norman Rogers said...

Mark, why don't you try keeping your mouth shut? And you wonder why our liberal arts colleges are now filled with "snowflakes"? Why do you feel obliged to infect your charges with your silly politics? OBTW, why is ordinary law enforcement (immigration law, in this case), "immoral, un-American, and cowardly"?

mark said...

Norman,
"Ordinary law enforcement"?
You're not really claiming that rounding up millions of people to deport is ordinary, feasible or moral, are you?
Do you understand that deporting people based on religion is not "ordinary", but rather unconstitutional?
Did you know that most of our military experts (not including our resident expert here) have condemned Trump's proposed Muslim ban (as well as his plan to kill children of suspected terrorists)?

Perhaps you believe that the Donald knows more than our generals, as he claims. Perhaps you think our generals are "rubble" or "clowns", as Donald claims.

Or perhaps you're just another ignorant trumpkin. No matter.

Norman Rogers said...

I'm sorry, Mark -- what benefit do we Americans get from permitting non-citizens to stay in our country without legal permission? What do you think is our obligation?

You are really confused (of course, you're a "teacher"). No one has proposed conditioning deportation on religion. Yes, Trump has stated that we as a country should not permit immigration from certain (Moslem) countries absent "extreme vetting". One, the President has such authority (I know, a teacher like yourself ought to be familiar with this). Two, it is a truism that not all Moslems are terrorists ... but virtually all terrorists are Moslems.

Do you have any other questions? I suspect you live in an environment where you all "think" the same. Poor you.

mark said...

Hey Norm,
Are you simply channeling trumpette (aka: tfhr) or are you him?



tfhr said...

Aqualung,

I think you're getting a little paranoid...again. Maybe Norm is really Equitus...and he's coming to get you.

marcwinger.com said...

You've got spunk, Betsy. But, I'm going to vote for the GOP nominee. It's a simple calculation to oppose Hillary. Not wasting my vote.

mark said...

trumpette,
Given your past lies about your id and history and your confusion/ignorance of the Constitution, it certainly makes sense.
Perhaps Norm is just an innocent dupe who agrees with Donald that our military leaders are "rubble" and "clowns".

Married Educated Female said...

Not as SCARY as ...Vice President Pelosi....!!!

tfhr said...

Aqualung,

Believe what you want - reality has never been of any apparent concern for you.

You'll vote for a candidate that believes she's above the law and you claim I have a problem with the Constitution? You'll claim that I lie but you'll vote for a serial liar for President. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Your sniveling is just a way to avoid debate and you know it. So why not drop the pretense that any of your stilted complaints matter to you?

You're a socialist - you won't deny it though you don't have the guts to admit it here - and yet you're a sellout voter for the most egregious crony capitalist to come along in your lifetime.

mark said...

Silly trumpette,
I haven't merely claimed you're a liar who mocks the Constitution - I've proven it using your own words. Words of a war-hero/military-intelligence expert, or ramblings of a fraud:

You should be a conductor on La Bestia - you're perfect for the job - "Right this way kiddies...Uncle marco has some dulces for you."

I hear the numbers of unaccompanied minors are swelling at the border...shouldn't you be waiting around the bus stations about now?

So with your feeble attempt to deflect, you're saying you're good with harvesting baby parts for campaign
funding, got it.


Maybe you could make a lamp shade or a "Baby On Board" sign - made of real baby - to hang inside your Prius, you repulsive ghoul!!!!

Now Libya is a failed state and a jumping off point for a massive human trafficking catastrophe - oh, wait - you're into that sort of thing

tfhr said...

You know, when you say something like "Silly Trumpette", I can't help but imagine that you say that with an affected lisp of some sort. Maybe with a flip of the wrist too. Do you really talk like that?

See what I did there? I mocked you. Just like I mocked you throughout that list of statements you've been keeping locked up in your precious, aggrieved, little head. It's both very funny and a little sad that you keep trotting them out as "proof" that I'm "mocking the Constitution". Are you now the embodiment of the Constitution? I didn't know that. I thought you were just a cryptosocialist that sold out for Hillary, though you can still be that and favor laundering tax dollars through abortion mills, supporting politicians that promote human trafficking and siding with the foreign policy genius that brought us the disaster in Libya and opened the door for genocide in Iraq. You can quote me on that.

mark said...

Opened the door for genocide in Iraq? No, I didn't vote for W. Unlike the Donald, I actually was against the war in Iraq.

Silly trumpette.

tfhr said...

mark,

You should try something a little more manly, like "fiddle-de-dee", and besides, you've kind of worn out the whole "silly" thing.

Are you questioning the use of genocide by ISIL? Good thing you're not a Yazidi. U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs spokesman David Swanson said, "This is a tragedy of immense proportions, impacting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people."

Here's a BBC article you should read:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29333327

Thousands of Yazidi women and children have been sold into slavery by ISIL and Yazidis that refuse to convert to Islam are exterminated. This began in 2014 when Obama's JV team rolled into town. Remember?

Here's a story about Yazidi girls jumping from Sinjar to avoid capture:

http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/140820142

Have you read that one? Do you know what happened at Mt. Sinjar? It seems the girls didn't share your favorable view on human trafficking.

So you didn't vote for W. I guess in your circle that's expected but you will vote for Hillary and she supported W's decision to go into Iraq. Remember? Then she decided she wanted to pull the rug out from under the Surge. Remember?

After that, Hillary headed up Obama's crack foreign policy team that handed Iraq to ISIL by yanking our troops. If that wasn't enough, she repeated the process by advocating an air war against Libya and in a manner reminiscent of her ability to walk away from people on the ground in Iraq, she abandoned that country as well, including some Americans you may have heard about. Oh well, what difference does it make, at this point, anyway?!

I'll tell you what difference it makes: Thousands of Yazidis have been slaughtered, raped, and sold into slavery. She consistently makes bad decisions and will do anything or say anything to avoid taking responsibility. And you're going to vote for her, you sellout!

But you are a socialist - you never deny that - so I guess I shouldn't be so amazed that you can turn a blind eye to mass slaughter. It comes with socialist territory, so I shouldn't be amazed at all, just disgusted.

mark said...

Silly trumpette,
You know that ISIS was created when Bush, Cheney, Bremer, etc. made the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi military. Obama's failures belong to him, and Bush's failures belong to him.

tfhr said...

Your alternate reality is a poor substitute for the facts. ISIS has recruited something on the order of 85,000 foreign fighters and if you believe they all come from Iraq, you're greatly mistaken.

Obama threw away Iraq. You should look into how ISIS grew in strength in Syria. Obama's willful neglect of ISIS as it swept across Syria and back into Iraq is yet another one of his national security and foreign policy failures. ISIS is operating in Libya and in the Sinai where it has killed scores of Egyptian troops. ISIS even operates in parts of Afghanistan where it challenges the Taliban and of course, AQ.

But you're backing Hillary, who gave the green light in the Senate to use force in Iraq and then attempted to head off the surge when she decided she should follow that trend. You have to be willing to suspend disbelief to remove Hillary from that equation you have with Bush and Obama

Libya was not a failed state until Hillary persuaded her boss to use the USAF and the USN to bring it to that point. And yet there you are, chomping at the bit to vote for the woman who followed the advice of her crony, Sidney Blumenthal, and helped open the flood gates of a massive wave of illegal immigration that threatens democracies across Europe. And you will vote for her.

I would have expected that with you being a socialist, you would have taken particular umbrage to what Hillary's adventurism had wrought in Europe, but as a pathetic sellout, I guess you'll rollover and give her a pass there too.

mark said...

Poor (silly) trumpette,
You went all in supporting the war in Iraq and defending the disbanding of the Iraqi military, which led to the formation of ISIS. Two decisions now seen as disastrous. You could accept your mistakes and move on, but instead you choose to blame others and make inane accusations. Sad!

tfhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tfhr said...

mark,

Ever clueless, you're wrong again. Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, the forerunner to ISIL,ISIS, IS, and Obama's JV team, was in existence as far back as 1999. It was founded by al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian that sawed off Nicholas Berg's head, and it began in, wait for it...Jordan. But don't let facts get in your way, dumbass. It became an army and imagines itself a caliphate by taking on Assad and invading Iraq.

Do you know what became of al-Zarqawi?

I noticed you didn't refute my instructive commentary about the genocide that has befallen the Yazidis but that's probably because you could care less about them.

Perhaps you'd like to deny Hillary's record on Iraq? How about her role in destroying Libya? You're going to have to do that if you still plan to vote for her - you sellout - unless you accept being a hypocrite too!

mark said...

There is varied opinion among many respected intelligence experts as to when ISIS was founded. None of them, contrary to the conservative lie, say it started under Obama.
Many of those experts are critical of Bush, Cheney, Obama, Clinton, etc. so I have no doubt that they all made disastrous decisions.
None of those experts claimed that people who opposed the war in Iraq were traitors who supported Saddam and terrorists. None of them claimed that bin Laden was dead years before Obama had him killed (and since they didn't make that claim, they didn't need to idiotically blame it on "a lack of communiques". So thanks, trumpette, but I'll continue to try to learn from actual intelligence experts, and not the frauds who put politics first.
None of them, to the best of my knowledge, are often up at 3 in the morning writing moronic posts about people being losers and criminals, and that Hillary should be in prison.
Though there is someone who comes to mind on that score.

tfhr said...

Well you went off of the rails there didn't you?

You tried to blame Bush for ISIS. I refuted it with facts and now you're babbling. I guess this is why you always run like a scalded dog from the challenge of a debate. Kind of embarrassing for you.

Still nothing from you to account for your complete disregard over the fate of the Yazidis.

Oh,and the next time I have to take a relative to the emergency room, I'll be sure to get your approval first, dick.

And the beat goes on.

mark said...

Sorry to hear that you have so many sick relatives that necessitate so many early morning posts.

No, I didn't (and don't) blame Bush for ISIS. The hideous acts of ISIS belong to the members of ISIS. I blame Bush for lying us into Iraq and his decision to disband the Iraqi army. Just as I blame Obama for mistakes/weakness that has worsened problems in the Middle East. You continue to defend both disastrous decisions by Bush.



tfhr said...

You're a dick. The next time you take someone you love to the hospital I hope some jackass says something truly stupid to you and that you remember that you earned it.

Your inability to do anything but sling insults makes it necessary for you to believe that my early morning posts are something to attack. Up until about a month ago, I used to leave my house at four in the morning to start my work day. My alarm clock was set to go off at three. That's life around the DC area.

You may notice - that I usually don't post this late in the evening, at least not in the past, but now that I live closer to work, I'm not leaving before six on most days. Last night my new routine took an unexpected change. One thing that doesn't change is your consistent portrayal of a miserable wretch that is unable to engage in anything resembling a debate and instead defaults to anything to avoid facts.

Here are some facts: You wrongly claimed that ISIS came from the disbanded Iraqi army. I showed you who started ISIS and when. You can deny that if you want and you can ignore the genocide being waged by ISIS but it is happening.

It is also a fact that Hillary supported Bush's decision to use force in Iraq. Then she supported Obama's decision to abandon Iraq. Then Hillary recommended using our military to rubble Libya. The cherry on top is that you will vote for Hillary even though she did those things. You're a hypocrite. Oh, and a sellout.

mark said...

Good one, trumpette. The guy who accuses me of hanging out at bus stations to pick up children is whining that I compare his 3:00 a.m. posts to the Donald's tweets.
No sense of irony? None?

tfhr said...

Did you compare my post to a tweet? Where? You sure know how to change a subject but since you've shown that you can sellout at the drop of dime, why should that be a surprise?

Recapping:

You opposed the use of force in Iraq BUT you will vote for Hillary, who, along with other Democrat and Republican senators, approved the use of force.

You opposed the use of force in Iraq BUT you will vote for Hillary despite the fact that she advocated for the use of force in Libya AND that action did not have Congressional approval.

You cannot prove your claim regarding the origins of ISIS and rather than admit that you were just running your mouth, you've opted to just ignore it like you have done with the genocide against the Yazidis, another point I corrected you on in this single thread.

Lather, rinse, repeat.