Against: Fascism, Trump, Putin, Q, libertarianism, postmodernism, woke-ism and Identity politics. For: Democracy, equalism, art, science, Enlightenment values and common-sense liberalism.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Former Secretary of the Army Togo West confirms Hillary Clinton's Bosnia account
Keep this video in mind when you read the forthcoming expose of Obama's lies. It may appear over the weekend -- however, I may save it for Monday morning.
Obama has a huge mass of organized very enthusiastic supporters, most of whom are good people trying to fight for good. However, much of his support has been organized/socially engineered by the very forces who are destroying good--they are rabidly opposed to the FDR current within the Democratic party for example.
Obama will not be elected president. He will be attacked, smeared and shot down making his election impossible. Many, many of his supporters will be left stunned and confused. I hate this crap, but that's the way it is.
The USA is being Weimar-ized, and as in pre-WWII Germany, the op is being run, top-down from the same "neo-Venetian" forces. They don't want nation-states regulating their activities, they want corporatism, otherwise known as fascism, because they have to control the people who speak out against them and make horrid policy decisions fast in a dictatorial way.
I want to second that "Thank you, Joseph' comment."
I pray this comment gets tolerated by Joseph, but I want to point out that although Obama may get the Dem nomination, I'm trying to tell his supporters that he will not become president. He's just being used to get rid of Clinton, who might employ an FDR-type solution to the deep trouble that more and more people are beginning to realize we are in. Namely protecting home owners and actual banks (not investment houses like Bear Sterns), and government credit at low interest toward publicly owned and run infrastructure, and an attitude of international cooperation instead of permanent war.
The name of the game is use Obama to take care of Clinton, then destroy Obama thru scandal, then the Obama supporters will be left dazed and confused, allowing a populist-faced corporatist (e.g. fascist) to be put in power, maybe even via VP under a short-lived president.
If anyone reading thinks this hypothesis is nuts, I'd be very interested to hear a good explanation why so. If anyone thinks Obama will suffice as the face of populist-faced corporatism, I'd be interested in those thoughts as well.
Gary McGowan (I'm still trying to sort out this blogging/online identity stuff. I wish there were a button I could push to put everything I've ever said or will say over my real name.)
Joe, I've been reading your blog for several years now - I probably started shortly after you began it. In both 2000 and 2004, I voted for Ralph Nader. In both instances, I felt that the Democratic candidates did not speak to my concerns, or represent the positions on the majority of issues I care most about. In retrospect, knowing what I do now, I would probably vote for Gore in 2000 but I am still very skeptical about Kerry in '04. I don't REGRET voting for Nader in either election, but your writing had, more than any other influence, caused me to reconsider the voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning on principle - and for the first time since I turned 18 (1998) I am planning to vote for the Democratic nominee running for president, whoever it may be. But the reason I am writing this is your comment regarding not voting Democrat this year if Obama is the candidate. After all of your complaining about Progressives, and how they never accomplish anything because they fight lost causes and hold people to an unrealistic - or at least un-electable - standard, you are saying you will not vote for Obama because of the race-baiting behavior your have been posting on. I do not understand why this particular tactic is, to you, a legitimate reason to not vote Democratic, while for me in 2004, my disgust over Kerry's failing to take strong stands on issues like torture, extraordinary rendition, the expansion of executive power, the plight of palestinians or for that matter an even-handed appraisal of the Israel/Palestinian problem in general, and all the other issues that your standard 'progressive purist' will claim as reason not to vote for the Democratic Party's candidate are not. I don't understand why failing to take principled stands on important progressive issues is OK, because of the irrelevency of the "2% Kucinich vote" but your allegations of race-baiting are simply BEYOND THE PALE. If one instance is a response and accomodation to the harsh political reality in our country (kerry), why not the other(obama)? Also, the GOP used race for 40 years as a lever to win elections - now that a democrat may be behaving similarly, you say you won't vote for him, hence aiding the chances of a republican victory - isn't this the heart of your problem with 'progressive purists' ? Not the political axes they grind, but the counter-productivity of their votes, as they help Republicans?
I don't think anyone doubts that security was tight during the First Lady's visit to Bosnia, or that there were no security concerns. But this clips certainly does not confirm Hillary's account of landing during sniper fire, or that the greeting ceremony was cancelled. Everyone has seen the video of those comments, and the video of what actually happened.
I don't have any problem with you, or anyone vigorously supporting their candidate. But if Obama is the nominee, everyone needs to unite against McCain. To sit this one out, or vote for some minor candidate, would be no different than voting for Nader in 2000, and look where that took us.
"The name of the game is use Obama to take care of Clinton, then destroy Obama thru scandal, then the Obama supporters will be left dazed and confused, allowing a populist-faced corporatist (e.g. fascist) to be put in power, maybe even via VP under a short-lived president."
HILLARY the an inside corporate player. If they can get dirt on Obama they can get Hillary. She spent time in Arkansas where Barry Seal ran his "CIA" drug running operations.
Hillary and corporate jerk Rupert Murdoch held a fund raiser together. And she just gave an interview to extreme winger Scaife's newspaper while Scaife was sitting in the room. SHE is the the corporate player. Get it straight.
Not really. But I'm going to do it anyways. Did it in 1980, although I always regretted the decision. Come to think of it, Brzezinski was a big part of it on both occasions!
"HILLARY the an inside corporate player...."
Blah blah blah. Again and again and again, I hear from readers who spew progblog cliches that they have not independently researched. I have dealt with this one previously...
"Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist.
...In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions."
Not that I would expect you to care about things like her voting record, which is a far more important indicator than is the puerile "I saw her sitting in the same room with Scaife" argumentation you seem to prefer. Nor could I ever hope to sway you or to compel you to question your basic presumptions. Your mantra is "Kos said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
"I don't have any problem with you, or anyone vigorously supporting their candidate. But if Obama is the nominee, everyone needs to unite against McCain. To sit this one out, or vote for some minor candidate, would be no different than voting for Nader in 2000, and look where that took us."
I have admitted the equivalence from the beginning.
Hillary is NOT my candidate. Christ, I've said this, like, a jillion times -- do I have to say it again?
I do not like her and I wish that she had never run. She just happens to be the only thing standing between Obama and the nomination right now. I would give ANYTHING for Edwards to be in her position.
However, I will not tolerate the Obama/Kos smears against her.
Look at it this way: A cop can find evidence exculpating a suspect of a murder rap without actually LIKING that suspect. Right?
In a similar way, what we are undergoing here is a fast-motion replay of the smear campaigns of the 1990s. Bill Clinton was not really "my" president until the period when the Whitewater harangue segued into Monicagate. That's when I finally admitted that I could no longer stand the right-wing lies. Anyone subjected to that sort of smear campaign had to have something good about him.
I will not tolerate seeing a similar campaign succeed. And I am heartsick and infuriated to see the same lies come from the left.
DOES everyone need to unite against McCain? I've said this before, but it did not sink in, so I'll repeat it.
My late father -- a classic JFK liberal -- would not vote for LBJ because my Dad considered him a crook. Of course, a Goldwater presidency would have been worse than anything McCain has on offer.
You might say that I've started listening to the ghost of my Dad. His voice matters more to me than do my readers. So don't try to turn me around -- because you can't out-argue HIM.
Thanks Joseph! I can't praise your blog enough after reading some of the other nauseating blogs that seem to do nothing but attack Hillary at each and every opportunity. BTW, I was an Edwards supporter too, but by the time my state's primary was held he'd already dropped out. Keep it up, PLEASE!
"HILLARY the an inside corporate player...." “She spent time in Arkansas where Barry Seal ran his "CIA" drug running operations.”
Joseph responds very well to that above (I greatly respect and admire his ability to do like that. I ain’t got it.). I would only add that Hillary Clinton is not a fascist or fascist enabler, by character or actions. Of course, one has to have a historical understanding of what fascism is, and see how it applies to right here and now, for that statement to be meaningful. The question I’d like people to see is, who, as president would ignore the smokestacks [Auschwitz] and who would not. Hillary Clinton would not. She is a politician of her/our times, and panders too much to popular opinion and issues thereby, but fascist, not.
First of all, this video is old. clearly it is a longer version taken on St. Patrick's day. I saw this and dismissed it then. I still dismiss it now.
The only reason I bring that up is because I come here to have things brought up that are current and relevant. This is neither.
Here's my own rush transcript of what Togo West said.
I was on that trip, and you know, I remember Sinbad and I remember the First Lady."
"A couple things, and I want to say this carefully because I don't want to suggest any difference in care about the security and safety of members, the military cared about the safety of everyone, but you can understand that they would have said to the First Lady, 'We're not going to take any chances with you. Run. Duck. This is a hot spot, this is serious'"
I remember very - and you're right, the C-17 was chosen because (and I actually think our pilots were showing off a little bit.) we're chosen because they could land on a dime and get off. And that's the key. Land. Get off. get the first lady and the rest of us into the armored vehicles.
I think the point about Sinbad being a comedian that was quickly said by the Senator is not one to be missed, he's a comedian and bless his soul he is a wonderful person, but I don't think you're ever going to get him to say that he was in personal danger that he couldn't handle. Does that mean there's a difference in the two accounts? No. It was a while back but I'm the one who has said consistently, it was a hot zone, it was a combat zone and they needed to be very careful with the first lady
Now, read the parts in bold. and you can clearly see that he doesn't personally describe or confirm anything. He compares her version to Sinbads version, he doesn't describe what actually happened himself, he just talks about what the procedure would be for handling the First Lady in a potentially dangerous situation. If anything this emphasizes how concerned the military was with the safety of the surrounding area given that they were charged with protecting her and I don't think they would have let her stand around if they didn't think it was safe.
There's no question that the safety of the First Lady is very important, there's no question in my mind that the Military would take every precaution with her including the recommendation as a matter of course that she leave the landing area immediately. The fact is, she lied about what she actually did when the plane actually landed and she actually got off of it.
Am I hearing Togo wrong? It's fantastic wordplay on his part, because he's speaking as truthfully as possible without directly corroborating any of the actual events of that day.
"My late father -- a classic JFK liberal -- would not vote for LBJ because my Dad considered him a crook. Of course, a Goldwater presidency would have been worse than anything McCain has on offer. "
Can I understand by this that you consider Obama to be a crook ? Can I ask why ? Because Kos supports him and has been smearing Clinton ?!? Because Obama campaign has been using some political strategies you don't like (while Clinton is white pure and innocent) ? because of his pastor most stupid sermonts caught on tape ?
you don't have much evidences or facts to support your very recent discovery that Obama is a crook comparable to LBJ because you were pissed by some of his supporters smearing of Hillary.
They smeared McCain BIG TIME when he was running against Bush in 1999. Was he doing something right like you pretend Clinton is doing because she's the victim of a smearing campaign ?
Togo did not confirm Hillary's account. He walked a fine line and did all he could to prop her up. He did not say there was sniper fire, they had to run to the cars or that the ceremony was canceled. He did not come out and defend her account after the video was released.
There was a ceremony, there was no fire, Chelsea was there. I'm gonna believe my own lying eyes which saw the video.
Your too good an observer to make this mistake. Is your recent posting some kind of experiment?
You've accomplished one thing, I'm actually going to go read Dkos.
18 comments:
Thank you Joe, for posting this video, and for everything you do.
SluggoJD
I'm curious Joseph, what are you doing to do after she loose the primaries ?
Will you become a equivalent of a "progshit" who goes against his Democrate candidate ? Will you support Nader or McCain ?
I guess it's ok when YOU do it.
I'd like to second that "thank you, Joe".
Obama has a huge mass of organized very enthusiastic supporters, most of whom are good people trying to fight for good. However, much of his support has been organized/socially engineered by the very forces who are destroying good--they are rabidly opposed to the FDR current within the Democratic party for example.
Obama will not be elected president. He will be attacked, smeared and shot down making his election impossible. Many, many of his supporters will be left stunned and confused. I hate this crap, but that's the way it is.
The USA is being Weimar-ized, and as in pre-WWII Germany, the op is being run, top-down from the same "neo-Venetian" forces. They don't want nation-states regulating their activities, they want corporatism, otherwise known as fascism, because they have to control the people who speak out against them and make horrid policy decisions fast in a dictatorial way.
God help us all.
I want to second that "Thank you, Joseph' comment."
I pray this comment gets tolerated by Joseph, but I want to point out that although Obama may get the Dem nomination, I'm trying to tell his supporters that he will not become president. He's just being used to get rid of Clinton, who might employ an FDR-type solution to the deep trouble that more and more people are beginning to realize we are in. Namely protecting home owners and actual banks (not investment houses like Bear Sterns), and government credit at low interest toward publicly owned and run infrastructure, and an attitude of international cooperation instead of permanent war.
The name of the game is use Obama to take care of Clinton, then destroy Obama thru scandal, then the Obama supporters will be left dazed and confused, allowing a populist-faced corporatist (e.g. fascist) to be put in power, maybe even via VP under a short-lived president.
If anyone reading thinks this hypothesis is nuts, I'd be very interested to hear a good explanation why so. If anyone thinks Obama will suffice as the face of populist-faced corporatism, I'd be interested in those thoughts as well.
Gary McGowan (I'm still trying to sort out this blogging/online identity stuff. I wish there were a button I could push to put everything I've ever said or will say over my real name.)
Joe,
I've been reading your blog for several years now - I probably started shortly after you began it. In both 2000 and 2004, I voted for Ralph Nader. In both instances, I felt that the Democratic candidates did not speak to my concerns, or represent the positions on the majority of issues I care most about. In retrospect, knowing what I do now, I would probably vote for Gore in 2000 but I am still very skeptical about Kerry in '04. I don't REGRET voting for Nader in either election, but your writing had, more than any other influence, caused me to reconsider the voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning on principle - and for the first time since I turned 18 (1998) I am planning to vote for the Democratic nominee running for president, whoever it may be.
But the reason I am writing this is your comment regarding not voting Democrat this year if Obama is the candidate. After all of your complaining about Progressives, and how they never accomplish anything because they fight lost causes and hold people to an unrealistic - or at least un-electable - standard, you are saying you will not vote for Obama because of the race-baiting behavior your have been posting on. I do not understand why this particular tactic is, to you, a legitimate reason to not vote Democratic, while for me in 2004, my disgust over Kerry's failing to take strong stands on issues like torture, extraordinary rendition, the expansion of executive power, the plight of palestinians or for that matter an even-handed appraisal of the Israel/Palestinian problem in general, and all the other issues that your standard 'progressive purist' will claim as reason not to vote for the Democratic Party's candidate are not. I don't understand why failing to take principled stands on important progressive issues is OK, because of the irrelevency of the "2% Kucinich vote" but your allegations of race-baiting are simply BEYOND THE PALE. If one instance is a response and accomodation to the harsh political reality in our country (kerry), why not the other(obama)? Also, the GOP used race for 40 years as a lever to win elections - now that a democrat may be behaving similarly, you say you won't vote for him, hence aiding the chances of a republican victory - isn't this the heart of your problem with 'progressive purists' ? Not the political axes they grind, but the counter-productivity of their votes, as they help Republicans?
I don't think anyone doubts that security was tight during the First Lady's visit to Bosnia, or that there were no security concerns. But this clips certainly does not confirm Hillary's account of landing during sniper fire, or that the greeting ceremony was cancelled. Everyone has seen the video of those comments, and the video of what actually happened.
I don't have any problem with you, or anyone vigorously supporting their candidate. But if Obama is the nominee, everyone needs to unite against McCain. To sit this one out, or vote for some minor candidate, would be no different than voting for Nader in 2000, and look where that took us.
"The name of the game is use Obama to take care of Clinton, then destroy Obama thru scandal, then the Obama supporters will be left dazed and confused, allowing a populist-faced corporatist (e.g. fascist) to be put in power, maybe even via VP under a short-lived president."
HILLARY the an inside corporate player. If they can get dirt on Obama they can get Hillary. She spent time in Arkansas where Barry Seal ran his "CIA" drug running operations.
Hillary and corporate jerk Rupert Murdoch held a fund raiser together. And she just gave an interview to extreme winger Scaife's newspaper while Scaife was sitting in the room. SHE is the the corporate player. Get it straight.
"I guess it's ok when YOU do it."
Not really. But I'm going to do it anyways. Did it in 1980, although I always regretted the decision. Come to think of it, Brzezinski was a big part of it on both occasions!
"HILLARY the an inside corporate player...."
Blah blah blah. Again and again and again, I hear from readers who spew progblog cliches that they have not independently researched. I have dealt with this one previously...
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-and-clinton.html
The key quote comes form eripost at ledt coaster:
"Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist.
...In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions."
Not that I would expect you to care about things like her voting record, which is a far more important indicator than is the puerile "I saw her sitting in the same room with Scaife" argumentation you seem to prefer.
Nor could I ever hope to sway you or to compel you to question your basic presumptions. Your mantra is "Kos said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
"I don't have any problem with you, or anyone vigorously supporting their candidate. But if Obama is the nominee, everyone needs to unite against McCain. To sit this one out, or vote for some minor candidate, would be no different than voting for Nader in 2000, and look where that took us."
I have admitted the equivalence from the beginning.
Hillary is NOT my candidate. Christ, I've said this, like, a jillion times -- do I have to say it again?
I do not like her and I wish that she had never run. She just happens to be the only thing standing between Obama and the nomination right now. I would give ANYTHING for Edwards to be in her position.
However, I will not tolerate the Obama/Kos smears against her.
Look at it this way: A cop can find evidence exculpating a suspect of a murder rap without actually LIKING that suspect. Right?
In a similar way, what we are undergoing here is a fast-motion replay of the smear campaigns of the 1990s. Bill Clinton was not really "my" president until the period when the Whitewater harangue segued into Monicagate. That's when I finally admitted that I could no longer stand the right-wing lies. Anyone subjected to that sort of smear campaign had to have something good about him.
I will not tolerate seeing a similar campaign succeed. And I am heartsick and infuriated to see the same lies come from the left.
DOES everyone need to unite against McCain? I've said this before, but it did not sink in, so I'll repeat it.
My late father -- a classic JFK liberal -- would not vote for LBJ because my Dad considered him a crook. Of course, a Goldwater presidency would have been worse than anything McCain has on offer.
You might say that I've started listening to the ghost of my Dad. His voice matters more to me than do my readers. So don't try to turn me around -- because you can't out-argue HIM.
Thanks Joseph! I can't praise your blog enough after reading some of the other nauseating blogs that seem to do nothing but attack Hillary at each and every opportunity.
BTW, I was an Edwards supporter too, but by the time my state's primary was held he'd already dropped out.
Keep it up, PLEASE!
What McCain was and still is was unimaginable in 1964. Goldwater transplanted to today would have turned like a Joe Wilson.
(Beware, M'lord, the sword is poison tipped.)
Aitech,
You rock!
Like your perspective.
"HILLARY the an inside corporate player...." “She spent time in Arkansas where Barry Seal ran his "CIA" drug running operations.”
Joseph responds very well to that above (I greatly respect and admire his ability to do like that. I ain’t got it.). I would only add that Hillary Clinton is not a fascist or fascist enabler, by character or actions. Of course, one has to have a historical understanding of what fascism is, and see how it applies to right here and now, for that statement to be meaningful. The question I’d like people to see is, who, as president would ignore the smokestacks [Auschwitz] and who would not. Hillary Clinton would not. She is a politician of her/our times, and panders too much to popular opinion and issues thereby, but fascist, not.
Gary McGowan
Oh, and...
I'll guarantee you that McCain's V.P. running mate will be a made-man fascist.
And I don't believe McCain would live long enough to see four year's in office. He's simply not a well man up to the stresses.
Gary McGowan
However, I will not tolerate the Obama/Kos smears against her.
Obama/Kos ? They are one entity now ?!?!? Should I now refer to you as Hillary/Cannon ?
And what makes your smearing of Obama more respectable than Kos smearing of Hillary ?
First of all, this video is old. clearly it is a longer version taken on St. Patrick's day. I saw this and dismissed it then. I still dismiss it now.
The only reason I bring that up is because I come here to have things brought up that are current and relevant. This is neither.
Here's my own rush transcript of what Togo West said.
I was on that trip, and you know, I remember Sinbad and I remember the First Lady."
"A couple things, and I want to say this carefully because I don't want to suggest any difference in care about the security and safety of members, the military cared about the safety of everyone, but you can understand that they would have said to the First Lady, 'We're not going to take any chances with you. Run. Duck. This is a hot spot, this is serious'"
I remember very - and you're right, the C-17 was chosen because (and I actually think our pilots were showing off a little bit.) we're chosen because they could land on a dime and get off. And that's the key. Land. Get off. get the first lady and the rest of us into the armored vehicles.
I think the point about Sinbad being a comedian that was quickly said by the Senator is not one to be missed, he's a comedian and bless his soul he is a wonderful person, but I don't think you're ever going to get him to say that he was in personal danger that he couldn't handle. Does that mean there's a difference in the two accounts? No. It was a while back but I'm the one who has said consistently, it was a hot zone, it was a combat zone and they needed to be very careful with the first lady
Now, read the parts in bold. and you can clearly see that he doesn't personally describe or confirm anything. He compares her version to Sinbads version, he doesn't describe what actually happened himself, he just talks about what the procedure would be for handling the First Lady in a potentially dangerous situation. If anything this emphasizes how concerned the military was with the safety of the surrounding area given that they were charged with protecting her and I don't think they would have let her stand around if they didn't think it was safe.
There's no question that the safety of the First Lady is very important, there's no question in my mind that the Military would take every precaution with her including the recommendation as a matter of course that she leave the landing area immediately. The fact is, she lied about what she actually did when the plane actually landed and she actually got off of it.
Am I hearing Togo wrong? It's fantastic wordplay on his part, because he's speaking as truthfully as possible without directly corroborating any of the actual events of that day.
Zachary
"My late father -- a classic JFK liberal -- would not vote for LBJ because my Dad considered him a crook. Of course, a Goldwater presidency would have been worse than anything McCain has on offer. "
Can I understand by this that you consider Obama to be a crook ?
Can I ask why ? Because Kos supports him and has been smearing Clinton ?!? Because Obama campaign has been using some political strategies you don't like (while Clinton is white pure and innocent) ? because of his pastor most stupid sermonts caught on tape ?
you don't have much evidences or facts to support your very recent discovery that Obama is a crook comparable to LBJ because you were pissed by some of his supporters smearing of Hillary.
They smeared McCain BIG TIME when he was running against Bush in 1999. Was he doing something right like you pretend Clinton is doing because she's the victim of a smearing campaign ?
Togo did not confirm Hillary's account. He walked a fine line and did all he could to prop her up. He did not say there was sniper fire, they had to run to the cars or that the ceremony was canceled. He did not come out and defend her account after the video was released.
There was a ceremony, there was no fire, Chelsea was there. I'm gonna believe my own lying eyes which saw the video.
Your too good an observer to make this mistake. Is your recent posting some kind of experiment?
You've accomplished one thing, I'm actually going to go read Dkos.
Post a Comment