Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the difference is qualitative. Supplying conventional weapons is one thing, handing out nukes is another.
hate liars murderers and thieves...and you forgot wolfowitz
Then you must not like the Clintons very much then eh?
The only thing President Johnson did was succeed in his plan to have President Kennedy Assassinated.
The hell we don't, all's we need to do is launch bombing missions and let the Airforce handle it. We mostly have to bomb all the key targets.
same scum from the same pond....
Hillary Clinton: Who's Party?
Rubbing shoulders with the "Conservative" elite and "opposition" Republicans
Steve Watson | May 10 2006
Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clintons initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign, reports the Financial Times.
Such elite back slapping and shoulder rubbing again highlights that when it comes to getting ahead it pays to be on the same page.
The notion that leading Democrats and Republicans are in opposition is ludicrous. The belief that a true left / right paradigm still exists in global politics is as antiquated as a grandfather clock in a coffin.
The Anglo-American aristocracy, big businesses and banks have long been pulling the strings behind the curtain in the theatre of politics and underlings such as the Clintons and the Bushes know what they have to do to satisfy their desire for political control.
Recently Hillary has also been spotted partying at Fox News, with Murdoch and his cronies, and buddying up with the very same Republicans who vociferously tried to get her husband impeached for having sex with another woman.
Whilst her husband has been hanging around with the Bushes, Hillary has also been living it up with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, John McCain and Rick Santorum. There is clearly a bipartisan move underway to shift public perception.
Hillary Clinton supports every Bush policy with as much if not more zeal.
She supported the war and recently again stated that American troops should be kept in Iraq as more sons, daughters, mothers and fathers return in body bags hidden from the media.
"Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery," wrote Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin. "She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day."
We can make a strong case that Bush and his cadre have set some precedents, but the Democratic opposition offers little hope. Bush spies on Americans with no regard for the Bill of Rights or even the meager statutory restraints imposed on him, and all the Democrats do is whine that they werent in on the snooping, and that next time they want to be informed. Of course, they have an interest in keeping the police state healthy and strong. The idea that Hillary Clinton would be more sensitive to civil liberties if she were at the empires helm is too absurd for words.
Republican Senators cited Hillary Clinton as the reason for opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to abuse the security measure if she becomes president - unless additional safeguards are built in.
We have continually exposed how Clinton and the Bushes personally profited from massive drug smuggling operations through Mena, whilst Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Alex Jones has interviewed multiple former CIA officers who were UNLOADING the cocaine. Bush Snr, met ELEVEN times with the Clintons in the year before Clinton announced his run for President. Teenagers Don Henry and Kevin Ives were murdered for accidentally witnessing a CIA cocaine smuggling operation in Mena. Bill Clinton aided in the cover up, as well as the money laundering. The Clinton-Bush relationship is a long and fruitful one.
The Clintons and the Bushes have been known to vacation together in more recent times. Earlier this year on CBS, Clinton revealed that he looks upon the Bushes as a surrogate family, and how Barbara Bush refers to him as "her son". Is this really a picture of two distinct and opposed political ideologies pitted against one another?
Last year George W invited both Clintons as guests of honor and praised them to the hilt as he unveiled portraits of the two to be hung in the White House. Bush described him as having "...a great compassion for people in need... a man of enthusiasm and warmth". This after Bush's 2000 campaign was built around Clinton having no honor or dignity whilst in the White House.
Festivities continued in November 2004 when the entire Bush family journeyed to Little Rock for the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library. The praise from both President Bushes for Bill Clinton was sick bag overwhelming. "The William J. Clinton Presidential Library is a gift to the future by a man who always believed in the future and today we thank him for loving and serving America." Bush 43 was quoted.
After this Bush Snr and former President Bill Clinton joined forces for Tsunami Relief. They appeared at last year's Super Bowl and seemed to be having a blast together. They declared their friendship; we learn they talk on the phone often, play golf together and are just plain pals.'
The Washington Times revealed that the current President even takes foreign policy advice from Clinton, along with his father, and lets them sit in on CIA briefings.
They again teamed up last year to form a non partisan Katrina relief fund. Why is it that these two get to privately oversee the funds and relief efforts for major global disasters now? Perhaps one reason is that it allows them to personally and directly profit. It was reveled in March this year that Barbara Bush gave relief money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from her son Neil's company.
The tag team serves to create the impression that the two hands together can lift more stones, whilst backstage, behind the scenes both hands are scratching the proverbial behind of the New World Order.
These two families are desperate attention loving power mad elitists and want to retain control of their respective political parties. They are using each other to soften' their disapproval in the opposite party. We have two simultaneous dynasties - the Bushes and the Clintons. The Bushes are the hand of the Republican arm and the Clintons the hand of the Democratic arm. The body is of course controlled by one mind that outranks them all, the corporate fascist elite.
Just as the two major parties - with isolated examples of winning third party candidates - control who can win elections, these two family dynasties control who can be nominated inside their respected parties.
There has not been an occupant in the White House outside of the Bush or Clinton families since 1988. This will seemingly continue through to 2012 and beyond. How can this be in a constitutional republic?
Police State policies such as the Patriot Act, put in place by Bush have set the stage for the next Clinton who will be able to exploit them to extremes far beyond the Republicans would ever dream of being able to. Under another Clinton a horrific event like that at Waco under William J could become an everyday occurrence.
The policies stay the same, the faces alternate. The elite system of control has worked this way for centuries, when it's time for a change one dynasty takes a backseat and the other moves forward.
Actually I was refering to the Clinton's and the over 50 murders they are linked to in one way or another. Hell they are linked to more murders then the Mob's Murder Inc.
But if you want to go into the Clinton's and Bush's being friends that's fine. They are and theres nothing wrong with that. You need to realize that all of these guys might not have the same views but they are all friends. They will have knock down drag our fights at work but as soon as works over they all go out together. That's the game of politics and there's nothing wrong with it and I actually think that there is a benefit to it. I watched an interview with Bill Clinton on Leno recently and he talked openly about his close friendship with Senator McCain and other Republican's.
If you believe that crap.
Then there's the fact he did more for the Civil Rights movement in the US than any other President. The only reason he isn't remembered as one of the best Presidents we ever had is because his dumbass decisions in Vietnam overshadow his domestic record.
You're naive. A bomb never took an inch of ground. Boots on it do. We don't have the boots on the ground to do it.
Dude, we don't even have the number of personnel we need to completely secure Iraq, much less a country that unlike Iraq, WILL fight us.
Don't let your "we're the best" cheerleading cloud your reality. Taking military action against Iran will start WWIII in earnest.
They've also had the bejeezus investigated out of them and those allegations were found to be baseless... which makes continuing to repeat them dishonest.
The reason that the investigations were stopped was that the FBI were investigating the different deaths but were stopped by the head of the Justice Department who just happened to be a very close friend of the Clinton's and someone he appointed.
Actually several agents have said recently that a couple of the deaths like the one of Hillary's long time lover and law partner and White House counsel were in no way a suicide and they had evidence of homicide and wanted to investigate it as such but had orders from higher up not to, that they were suicides and that is the end of it.
Do I think that the Clinton's were behind all of the over 50 deaths? No, but I do think that a few of them they were.
That's actually true... Daddy Bush has been known to call Bill Clinton "son" and if you ask the republican senators on the quiet what they think of Hillary Clinton, they will tell you they respect her and have good relationships with her.
Just how it is.
If you believe that crap.
Then there's the fact he did more for the Civil Rights movement in the US than any other President. The only reason he isn't remembered as one of the best Presidents we ever had is because his dumbass decisions in Vietnam overshadow his domestic record.
I do think that if it's done right it wouldn't start World War III as NO COUNTRY PERIOD wants Iran to gain Nuclear Weapons. I think if it is done wrong it could definantly turn into World War III but like I said before that will happen in the near future, the question is just when.
Actually I was refering to the Clinton's and the over 50 murders they are linked to in one way or another. Hell they are linked to more murders then the Mob's Murder Inc.
But if you want to go into the Clinton's and Bush's being friends that's fine. They are and theres nothing wrong with that. You need to realize that all of these guys might not have the same views but they are all friends. They will have knock down drag our fights at work but as soon as works over they all go out together. That's the game of politics and there's nothing wrong with it and I actually think that there is a benefit to it. I watched an interview with Bill Clinton on Leno recently and he talked openly about his close friendship with Senator McCain and other Republican's.
He also foisted Medicare and the modern welfare state upon us. He's still a shitty president without Vietnam.
We stood down the Soviets without blinking. They had vastly more nukes--and the ability to actually deliver them--than Iran ever will. Iran just isn't going to hand them over to terrorists. Not to mention the fact that muslim Pakistan has nukes as well as North Korea, and we aren't panicking.
* It would be a lot of effort down the drain;
* They want nukes to achieve parity with Israel and keep the US from invading;
* There is no guarantee what happens once they hand over nukes; if it actually went off in a US city or if it would be intercepted at the US border...that would be their ass, basically. Politicians cling to power and tend to not do things that are guaranteed to remove them from power.
* The nukes could fall into the wrong hands, and go off inside Iran;
The real drive behind the push for war is the Israel lobby. And the reason they want war is because they don't want to give up their nuclear monopoly. Notice how arab armies haven't attempted a serious assault in a few decades. That's because Israel has nukes, and they are probably pointed at Mecca and Medina.
I do believe that he had a role in the JFK Assassination as did the CIA, Hoffa, Hoover and New Orleans Mob Boss Marchello. Trust me an imbecile like Oswald could never have done it, he was set up plain and simple.
Pakistan is considered an ally even though they screw us every chance they get. Iran is way to unstable and they harbor terrorists and enemies of the United States. Not to mention violate the Geniva Convenction on an hourly basis. The Iranian Government is also very power hungry. If they get a Nuclear Weapon no country will be safe and they will also use it to control the Middle East.
Either way if they get a nuke we will have to put our head between our legs and kiss out asses goodbye.
Actually, it doesn't matter how smart Oswald was. He was a Marine sniper and he was very good at his job. Remember, he attempted to snipe a Marine Major General (then a national hero for his service in WWII) a few weeks earlier but had his shot blocked by unexpectedly strong glass windows. Oswald was the classic punk who was seeking to shoot his way to infamy. His failure to shoot the general yielded the opportunity to shoot the president, and he took it. Plain and simple.
You're naive. A bomb never took an inch of ground. Boots on it do. We don't have the boots on the ground to do it.
Dude, we don't even have the number of personnel we need to completely secure Iraq, much less a country that unlike Iraq, WILL fight us.
Don't let your "we're the best" cheerleading cloud your reality. Taking military action against Iran will start WWIII in earnest.
Which terrorists are they harboring? And are they related to the terrorists who gave us 9/11? Or would that be the Saudis?
Also, how would they control Iraq, if their armed forces are weaker than ours? They couldn't do it in the 80's, when they fought Iraq. The arab sunnis in Iraq and Saudi Arabia would not take kindly to an attempt by Persian shiite Iran to dominate the region, not that Iran has shown any evidence of trying to take over the middle east.
Iran is one of the places Bin Laden is suspected to be if not on the Pakistani Border. Like I said before Iran has long harbored Terrorists and enemies of America, funding and getting arms and troops to fight against us in Iraq, and they keep violating the Geniva Convenction.
They would control the whole Middle East if they got a Nuclear Weapon because they are so unstable.
you really need to go beyond fox sound bites for your world view
the CIA created and funded bin laden .they have not caught bin laden because they don't want to and the last thing they would want is a trial.
America funds and arms terrorist of the middle east to create the unstablity you speak of and Iran not in a war , so how can they be violating the geneva convention ? and in Iraq it is America that is violating the geneva convention
but anyway who cares about the details.....
