You know, as I looked through the new books on BARD yesterday, and that
includes all of the old books newly digitized, I noticed a book by an
investigative reporter that was written in the 70's about how, as the
annotation puts it, Nixon and Kissinger destroyed Cambodia as a neutral
country during the Vietnam War. I think the author's name is Charcross.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If Hillary Clinton Seeks (or Accepts) an
Endorsement From Henry Kissinger, She's Lost My Vote
We should draw up a list of people we believe are the real terrorists.
Henry Kissinger would get my vote to be fairly high on that list. I would
also vote for Senator Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and the
Corporate Media. For starters.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First, he must not have heard the debate in which Hillary said thatRepublican Undead:
Kissinger is a model for her or an advisor, or some such statement.
Second, I used to think this guy was a Progressive. But anyone who
thinks Jill Stein is too far left and a Putin admirer and is still
equating Putin with Communism, is somewhere off the deep edge.
Miriam
Pierce writes: "Kissinger is a bridge too far. He is responsible for
more unnecessary deaths than any official of a putative Western
democracy since the days when Lord John Russell was starving the
Irish, if not the days when President Andy Jackson was inaugurating
the genocide of the Cherokee. He should be coughing his life away as
an inmate at The Hague."
Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
If Hillary Clinton Seeks (or Accepts) an Endorsement From Henry
Kissinger, She's Lost My Vote By Charles Pierce, Esquire 10 August 16
On Monday, there was a fascinating piece in Tiger Beat On The Potomac
in which some unnamed people in the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton
whispered to a reporter that the campaign was sending out feelers to
what the story laughingly referred to as the foreign-policy "elders"
of the Republican Party. The list of foreign policy "elders,"
according to TBOTP's sources, included the following examples of the
Henry Kissinger: war criminal and abettor of abattoirs around the world.on November 8.
James Baker: political survivor, mastermind of the Great Florida
Ratfck of 2000, Bush family retainer.
George Schultz: potential Iran-Contra stool pigeon.
Condoleezza Rice: National Security Advisor during Worst National
Security Disaster in U.S. History.
Also:
Stephen Hadley, a national security adviser to then-President George W.
Bush
who also is considered an elder, dodged when asked to answer "yes or
no" on Thursday whether Trump has the temperament to be president.
Hadley's response, however, offered a glimpse into the dilemma facing
Republicans wondering whether to back Trump: By casting him off, do
you undermine your chance to shape the party's future? "It's a very
difficult position that a lot of Republicans are in and it sounds easy
so a number of my Republican friends have said, 'He does not have the
temperament, and therefore, I endorse Hillary Clinton.' And that is a
legitimate approach," he said during a POLITICO Playbook Breakfast.
"The problem with that approach is that Republicans will then say,
'Well, you know, you really weren't a Republican anyway' and shelve
them. And you then deal yourself out of the debate within the
Republican Party about what does the Republican Party stand for."
Hadley also once said this:
What the president has said is that we do not torture. And he said
that while we need to be aggressive in the war against terror, we also
have to do it in a way that complies with U.S. law, with U.S. treaty
obligations and with the Constitution.
This, as we have come to learn, is a fairly demonstrable non-fact.
Now, the story is intriguing if looked at in a certain way. Reading
the tea leaves laid out by anonymous bureaucrats to reporters is
always cut-rate Kremlinology, but let's do it anyway. I can't imagine
at this point that there aren't a number of somebodies within the HRC
campaign already planning what to do once the election is over and HRC
wins. (That seems fairly prudent to me.) What if there is some
internal tug-of-war breaking out between the people who want President
HRC to govern from "the middle,"
which
I consider a fairly mythical place at the moment, and some of the
people who want her to genuinely be an agent of change on every front?
(Let's guess that the latter group is made up of younger people.)
Certainly, that's a fascinating political story on which to keep a
weather eye for the rest of the campaign, and it can't be easy for the
candidate herself to navigate its course, either.
However.
I live in the bluest damn state there is east of Hawaii. My senators
are Senator Professor Warren and Edward Markey. Less than a third of
my fellow citizens are Republicans. (Granted, one of them is the
governor, but let's move on.) HRC could not lose the Commonwealth (God
save it!) even if she drank a polyjuice potion and campaigned here
transformed into Alex Rodriguez. So I can say this full in the
knowledge that what I say will not have the slightest effect on the
outcome of the presidential election. But it is not negotiable.
If Hillary Clinton actively seeks, or publicly accepts, the
endorsement of Henry Kissinger, I will vote for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld
(Jill Stein, you might've been a contender, but going off to RedRepublican Undead:
Square to talk about Vladimir Putin and human rights? Being an honored
guest of a Russian propaganda channel? I don't think so.) Kissinger is
a bridge too far. He is responsible for more unnecessary deaths than
any official of a putative Western democracy since the days when Lord
John Russell was starving the Irish, if not the days when President
Andy Jackson was inaugurating the genocide of the Cherokee. He should
be coughing his life away as an inmate at The Hague, not whispering in
the ears of a putatively progressive Democratic presidential
candidate. I can tolerate (somewhat) the notion of her reaching out to
the rest of the wax museum there, but Kissinger is a monster too far.
He is my line in the sand. I can choose who I endorse to lead my
country, a blessing that Henry Kissinger worked his whole career to
deny to too many people.
Plus, I really do want Bill Weld to be vice-president.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47453/clinton-camp
aign-h
enry-kissinger/http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a474
53/cli
nton-campaign-henry-kissinger/
If Hillary Clinton Seeks (or Accepts) an Endorsement From Henry
Kissinger, She's Lost My Vote By Charles Pierce, Esquire 10 August 16
n Monday, there was a fascinating piece in Tiger Beat On The Potomac
in which some unnamed people in the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton
whispered to a reporter that the campaign was sending out feelers to
what the story laughingly referred to as the foreign-policy "elders"
of the Republican Party. The list of foreign policy "elders,"
according to TBOTP's sources, included the following examples of the
Henry Kissinger: war criminal and abettor of abattoirs around the world.on November 8.
James Baker: political survivor, mastermind of the Great Florida
Ratfck of 2000, Bush family retainer.
George Schultz: potential Iran-Contra stool pigeon.
Condoleezza Rice: National Security Advisor during Worst National
Security Disaster in U.S. History.
Also:
Stephen Hadley, a national security adviser to then-President George W.
Bush
who also is considered an elder, dodged when asked to answer "yes or
no" on Thursday whether Trump has the temperament to be president.
Hadley's response, however, offered a glimpse into the dilemma facing
Republicans wondering whether to back Trump: By casting him off, do
you undermine your chance to shape the party's future? "It's a very
difficult position that a lot of Republicans are in and it sounds easy
so a number of my Republican friends have said, 'He does not have the
temperament, and therefore, I endorse Hillary Clinton.' And that is a
legitimate approach," he said during a POLITICO Playbook Breakfast.
"The problem with that approach is that Republicans will then say,
'Well, you know, you really weren't a Republican anyway' and shelve
them. And you then deal yourself out of the debate within the
Republican Party about what does the Republican Party stand for."
Hadley also once said this:
What the president has said is that we do not torture. And he said
that while we need to be aggressive in the war against terror, we also
have to do it in a way that complies with U.S. law, with U.S. treaty
obligations and with the Constitution.
This, as we have come to learn, is a fairly demonstrable non-fact.
Now, the story is intriguing if looked at in a certain way. Reading
the tea leaves laid out by anonymous bureaucrats to reporters is
always cut-rate Kremlinology, but let's do it anyway. I can't imagine
at this point that there aren't a number of somebodies within the HRC
campaign already planning what to do once the election is over and HRC
wins. (That seems fairly prudent to me.) What if there is some
internal tug-of-war breaking out between the people who want President
HRC to govern from "the middle,"
which
I consider a fairly mythical place at the moment, and some of the
people who want her to genuinely be an agent of change on every front?
(Let's guess that the latter group is made up of younger people.)
Certainly, that's a fascinating political story on which to keep a
weather eye for the rest of the campaign, and it can't be easy for the
candidate herself to navigate its course, either.
However.
I live in the bluest damn state there is east of Hawaii. My senators
are Senator Professor Warren and Edward Markey. Less than a third of
my fellow citizens are Republicans. (Granted, one of them is the
governor, but let's move on.) HRC could not lose the Commonwealth (God
save it!) even if she drank a polyjuice potion and campaigned here
transformed into Alex Rodriguez. So I can say this full in the
knowledge that what I say will not have the slightest effect on the
outcome of the presidential election. But it is not negotiable.
If Hillary Clinton actively seeks, or publicly accepts, the
endorsement of Henry Kissinger, I will vote for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld
(Jill Stein, you might've been a contender, but going off to Red
Square to talk about Vladimir Putin and human rights? Being an honored
guest of a Russian propaganda channel? I don't think so.) Kissinger is
a bridge too far. He is responsible for more unnecessary deaths than
any official of a putative Western democracy since the days when Lord
John Russell was starving the Irish, if not the days when President
Andy Jackson was inaugurating the genocide of the Cherokee. He should
be coughing his life away as an inmate at The Hague, not whispering in
the ears of a putatively progressive Democratic presidential
candidate. I can tolerate (somewhat) the notion of her reaching out to
the rest of the wax museum there, but Kissinger is a monster too far.
He is my line in the sand. I can choose who I endorse to lead my
country, a blessing that Henry Kissinger worked his whole career to
deny to too many people.
Plus, I really do want Bill Weld to be vice-president.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
