The Enemy of My Enemies

[PoliticalChic]

This ancient proverb can and should be a political Litmus Test.

It's a more erudite version of 'birds of a feather flock together.'



1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an ancient proverb which suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy. ... The proverb is sometimes phrased as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or "my enemy's enemy is my friend."
The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Wikipedia
The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Wikipedia

2. How thoroughly 'used' must one feel when they finally understand that they've signed on to support Bolsheviks, Nazis.....and Islamofascists.
If you vote Democrat.....that's exactly what you've thrown your support to.




3. "EXCLUSIVE: US left wing groups travelled to Germany for the G20 Summit last July to meet with Al qaeda and ISIS leaders and plot the destruction of President Trump, secret FBI investigation reveals"
ISIS connection to US anarchists revealed in Ed Klein book | Daily Mail Online


4. "A secret FBI investigation of the violent 'resistance' movement on college campuses against President Trump has led to an alarming discovery—the collusion between American anarchists and foreign terrorists in the Islamic State and Al qaeda, according to a confidential 'Informational Report' by FBI field offices.
'There is clearly overwhelming evidence that there are growing ties between U.S. radicals and the Islamic State, as well as several [ISIS] offshoots and splinter groups,' stated the FBI field report, which was delivered to Acting Director Andrew McCabe on July 11, 2017, ..."
Ibid.


5. "During his investigation of Hillary's emails. former FBI Director James Comey set up a hotline with Mireille Ballestrazzi, the head of INTERPOL...Thanks to Ballestrazzi and INTERPOL'S worldwide resources, Comey collected intelligence on the interconnections between Middle Eastern jihadis, European radicals, and the American anarchists who were part of the anti-Trump 'resistance' movement."
Edward Klein, "All Out War," p. 213





6. If you claim to be an American, and subscribe to the beliefs and values memorialized in our founding documents.....

...well....Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Islamofascists should be your enemies.

and....

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"......that would describe Donald J. Trump's administration.

It describes you. Your enemy is the truth, and the enemy of the truth is mendacity.

Soooo.....why were you unable to find any lies to refute?

All of your threads begin with a false premise (ain't [blank] awful) and you cherry pick sources (most of them obscure) which defend or support the awfulness of all Democrats, progressives, liberals - in fact anyone who does not support your agenda, i.e. callous conservatism.

You post damn lies, lies by omission, half-truths, spread rumors and memes, and all are lies of commission; you respond to rebuttals and criticism with logical fallacies and mostly favor calling others morons, stupid or dumb.

You're rude, selfish, narcissistic and a bore.

Ooooo......I challenged this moron to put his Dinaro where he puts his dinner......

....and he slithered off!

Just one more Liberal half-head who can't back up his claims.



So, Cry Hatcher......as it is written in the Book of Daniel...

"MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN" ....

....you have been weighed, and found wanting....

....so I had to destroy you.



And it was a pleasure.

LOL, funny that I'm not destroyed and hilarious that you need to respond to me as 'Cry Hatcher", a play on words which any average Second Grader would be too embarrassed to write.

You need another lesson????

No prob, Cry Hatcher


Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

You must be pretty stupid, huh?


Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.



1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



2." BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, andtook it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay.And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though."
CNN.com - Transcripts



3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



4. And this:
"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




Now....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama



Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It describes you. Your enemy is the truth, and the enemy of the truth is mendacity.

Soooo.....why were you unable to find any lies to refute?

All of your threads begin with a false premise (ain't [blank] awful) and you cherry pick sources (most of them obscure) which defend or support the awfulness of all Democrats, progressives, liberals - in fact anyone who does not support your agenda, i.e. callous conservatism.

You post damn lies, lies by omission, half-truths, spread rumors and memes, and all are lies of commission; you respond to rebuttals and criticism with logical fallacies and mostly favor calling others morons, stupid or dumb.

You're rude, selfish, narcissistic and a bore.

Ooooo......I challenged this moron to put his Dinaro where he puts his dinner......

....and he slithered off!

Just one more Liberal half-head who can't back up his claims.



So, Cry Hatcher......as it is written in the Book of Daniel...

"MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN" ....

....you have been weighed, and found wanting....

....so I had to destroy you.



And it was a pleasure.

LOL, funny that I'm not destroyed and hilarious that you need to respond to me as 'Cry Hatcher", a play on words which any average Second Grader would be too embarrassed to write.

You need another lesson????

No prob, Cry Hatcher


Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

You must be pretty stupid, huh?


Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.



1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



2." BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, andtook it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay.And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though."
CNN.com - Transcripts



3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



4. And this:
"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




Now....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama



Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.

Yawn

 

[Political Junky]

View attachment 159685

Being mocked by a racist knownothing like yourself is a badge of honor. Having the top leaders in the world mock this dunce of a president is heartwarming.

So....Putin wasn't behind the Trump campaign???

Hillary was his choice?

Excellent.

Still spouting lies. It’s your MO. Everyone of our intelligence agencies have agreed Putin helped Trump win. Every one..

Trump sides with Putin over intelligence agencies on Russian meddling

President Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he believes Vladimir Putin's denials about election meddling, and doesn't want to press further because he thinks the U.S. and Russia can work together on issues that include North Korea, Syria and Ukraine.

Why it matters: American intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, FBI and the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) are unified in their opinion that Russia actively worked to meddle in the election.
>
Huge surprise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....why were you unable to find any lies to refute?

All of your threads begin with a false premise (ain't [blank] awful) and you cherry pick sources (most of them obscure) which defend or support the awfulness of all Democrats, progressives, liberals - in fact anyone who does not support your agenda, i.e. callous conservatism.

You post damn lies, lies by omission, half-truths, spread rumors and memes, and all are lies of commission; you respond to rebuttals and criticism with logical fallacies and mostly favor calling others morons, stupid or dumb.

You're rude, selfish, narcissistic and a bore.

Ooooo......I challenged this moron to put his Dinaro where he puts his dinner......

....and he slithered off!

Just one more Liberal half-head who can't back up his claims.



So, Cry Hatcher......as it is written in the Book of Daniel...

"MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN" ....

....you have been weighed, and found wanting....

....so I had to destroy you.



And it was a pleasure.

LOL, funny that I'm not destroyed and hilarious that you need to respond to me as 'Cry Hatcher", a play on words which any average Second Grader would be too embarrassed to write.

You need another lesson????

No prob, Cry Hatcher


Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

You must be pretty stupid, huh?


Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.



1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



2." BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, andtook it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay.And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though."
CNN.com - Transcripts



3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



4. And this:
"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




Now....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama



Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.

Yawn

No prob, Cry Hatcher


Soooo.......still no 'lies' you can refute?

You must be pretty stupid, huh?


Let's go through this proof that Obama was all for ISIS.....

Now....focus like a laser, you dunce.....and see if you can find any 'lies.'

You can try to talk you way around the truth...but I can prove what I said:
Obama was given three years, by Bush, to get an agreement. General Barbero: ".... and we did not try hard enough..."
Obama stated that he wanted no agreement and wouldn't leave any troops.
When it became evident that he was leaving Iraq for ISIS.....he suddenly agreed that he didn't need any agreement...and sent troops back: "...this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry..."
Obama arranged for the field to be left open for ISIS.



1. Bush made sure that the community organizer had until 2012 to work out an agreement:
"In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government thatset the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. "
Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com



2." BLITZER: -- Agreement that would have left a residual force, 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. troops, but you couldn't get immunity from Nuri al Maliki's government. Take us behind the scenes, clarify, who's right, John McCain or Jay Carney, in this debate.

BARBERO: Well, in the summer of 2010, prepared a briefing, I was responsible for Iraqi security forces, andtook it to all the Iraqi leaders, Maliki, the other Shia leaders, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and said here is going to be the status of your security forces, what they cannot do, what they will be able to do, when we're schedule to leave. And to a man they said, well, general, you must stay.And my response was, you must make it easy for us. So I think Maliki did not make it easy for us and we did not try hard enough. So it's a -- both views. I think it could have been done though."
CNN.com - Transcripts



3. "Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean."
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard



4. And this:
"This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.




Now....don't ever let me catch you lying about Obama's culpability again!


1. Bush left Iraq with an agreement that allowed US troops to remain until 2012.

2. The windbag, Obama took charge in 2009

3. Obama declined to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement that would have left troops, and he actually removed same before he had to.

4. Political landscapes, like nature, abhor a vacuum.

5. Therefore, through Obama's efforts, ISIS had free reign.

QED Isis: In Iraq Because Of Obama



Don't forget.....if you can't refute what I posted.....then you're the liar.



It appears I've proven my point again:

Me....a princess...

You....a loser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 159685

Being mocked by a racist knownothing like yourself is a badge of honor. Having the top leaders in the world mock this dunce of a president is heartwarming.

So....Putin wasn't behind the Trump campaign???

Hillary was his choice?

Excellent.

Still spouting lies. It’s your MO. Everyone of our intelligence agencies have agreed Putin helped Trump win. Every one..

Trump sides with Putin over intelligence agencies on Russian meddling

President Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he believes Vladimir Putin's denials about election meddling, and doesn't want to press further because he thinks the U.S. and Russia can work together on issues that include North Korea, Syria and Ukraine.

Why it matters: American intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, FBI and the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) are unified in their opinion that Russia actively worked to meddle in the election.
>
Huge surprise.

1. The Deep State....i.e., the Obamunists....have been revealed as liars who are nothing but anti-Trump supporters.
Dolts....you...continue to not and mutter "Duh....yup....dat's it!!!"

2.\We were initially told that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had independently confirmed that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and our 2016 presidential election.

But wait! We now learn that only three agencies have confirmed this intelligence finding (CIA, NSA, FBI).

Further, only one agency actually conducted the majority of the research that netted that conclusion: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The main intelligence gathering was conducted by the CIA. In other words, the FBI and the NSA simply said "we agree" that the CIA's work is credible. The three agencies did not independently make this same conclusion. The CIA coerced the FBI and NSA into compliance.


3. This summary from the Leftwing Slate:
”.... if the evidence that they’ve used to level major accusations at a foreign government comes not from agencies of the U.S. government or direct law enforcement investigations, but rather from private sector firms like CrowdStrike, then the “high confidence” of the government counts for very little. “
The FBI Relied on a Private Firm’s Investigation of the DNC Hack—Which Makes the Agency Harder to Trust

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Continuing on the theme that Hussein Obama did almost everything he could to assure Islamofascist victory over Western Civilization....
..removed troops that would bar their path,
...gave $ billions to Iran,
....while ignoring that North Korea was Iran's nuke laboratory,
...lied to the America public about Islam, claiming Islam fits our culture like hand in glove...

..and:

"The FBI is really playing catchup ball, because the Obama administration refused to give the Bureau the resource it needed to effectively infiltrate and surveil the radical groups on college campuses"..."Any talk of a connection between radical Islam- a phrase the Obama people wouldn't even use- and American extremists was pretty much laughed off. Loretta Lynch would have blown a gasket if she heard that the FBI was surveilling so-called college political organizations.


All that changed under the Trump administration. Everyone's aware that the resistance movement, with its effort to get rid of Trump by any means necessary, has created fertile soil for ISIS...."
Edward Klein, "All Out War," p. 214


Sooo.....if the anti-Trump 'Resistance' movement has ISIS as its ally.....

....shouldn't all Americans be on the opposite side?

Did Hussein Obama know that Iran had been paying 20-30% of North Korea's GDP as their nuclear lab, for years?


Then, why wasn't it recognized in the Nuclear Treaty that pretends that Iran can't build nukes????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

I always smh that a woman can support a serial sex offender and a misogynist pig who has spent his whole life demeaning women..

Donald Trump's shocking past comments about women - CNN Video

Watch this dumb bitch call Trump’s own words on video “ fake news.”
Lmao

You mean this?
Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time - Breitbart


And watch your language....you're not talking to your family.

NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...


"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?" Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?