HRC to Israel: Got Your Back After All

President Obama’s Iran Deal keeps Hillary Clinton in knots, especially considering that she helped pull the strings she’d now like to unravel. Speaking on Monday to the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which fiercely opposes the agreement, believing it actually empowers Iran, the former Secretary of State briefly mentioned her support for it, but mostly went out of her way to saber rattle, seemingly questioning the effectiveness of the accord she backed, even threatening force against Iran.

Hillary-Clinton-AIPAC“Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.”

“We face whether we will have the strength and commitment to confront the adversaries that threaten us, especially Iran. For many years, we’ve all been rightly focused on the existential danger of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. After all, this remains an extremist regime that threatens to annihilate Israel. That’s why I led the diplomacy to impose crippling sanctions and force Iran to the negotiating table, and why I ultimately supported the agreement that has put a lid on its nuclear program.”

“We must maintain the legal and diplomatic architecture to turn all the sanctions back on if need. If I’m elected the leaders of Iran will have no doubt that if we see any indication that they are violating their commitment not to seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons, the United States will act to stop it, and that we will do so with force if necessary.”

“Iranian provocations, like the recent ballistic missile tests, are also unacceptable and should be answered firmly and quickly including with more sanctions.” Transcript and Video

  • Slate’s Michele Goldberg: “Speech Was a Symphony of Craven, Delusional Pandering”
  • Jerusalem Post: “Clinton shows AIPAC supporters she knows what troubles them about Obama”
  • VOX World: “Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC speech: hard-line pro-Israel rhetoric, status quo Obama policies”
Share

Let’s Hear It For Punctiliousness

It is not often the word punctilious appears in our news pages. Leave it up to the New York Times to find a way, in this article on Obama court nominee Merrick Garland:

“He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.”

Further, this is a good read on Garland’s record, which — as Times reporter Adam Liptak notes — has led to a “rare distinction in a polarized era. He has sat on a prominent appeals court for almost two decades, participated in thousands of cases, and yet earned praise from across the political spectrum.” Read More

Webster’s: “Punctilious: marked by or concerned about precise accordance with the details of codes or conventions”

It is because of his “fidelity” to precedent, keeping his personal views out of the mix, that we really don’t know what Garland would do once free of that mission on the Supreme Court, where justices set precedent.

Share

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred,

comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”

― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

By Blue Bronc, a Trail Mix Contributor

Yesterday was one of those days, March 19, which places a thumb on the scales of good and evil.  This day was one of those days which makes me sick to my stomach, probably one of the days equal to all the idiotic days of idiotic actions by power mad and idiotic presidents combined.  It was the day the Village Idiot (VI) Bush II invaded Iraq.

Oh, we all watched or read about his excuses to engage in a war against a country which had been made into a backwater by his father.  We know the lies he spread to enter a country which was nothing more than an account in the budget of the U.S. Air Force.  And, we know four thousand four hundred ninety-one United States military were killed for the VI and his criminals.

missionaccomplished

The war was for a guy trying to show how smart and tough he was.  It was a war that the leftovers from the Vietnam War waged to show how they were right about Vietnam and Tricky Dick was wrong to negotiate a treaty to get our ass out of the beautiful country left wasted.  It was a war for all the wrong reasons.

Think of Vietnam.  The buildup to it was complex and the results were in a very different time.  World War II had literally just ended.  The Korean War was just at a truce and a line barely in place.  And the Soviet Union was doing its best to rattle America.  Add in Red China trying to extend its influence.  A lot was going on in the world and in particular South East Asia.

Vietnam_War-701x461

Forward a few decades and we have the unelected president trying to show how he was tougher and smarter than daddy.  His syncopates were more than willing to join in under his big umbrella.  Need a reason to invade.  Why not combine the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001 with something.

Unfortunately the only something to add in would be lies.  So, why not use lies?   We the citizens of the United States of America were lied to.  The rest of the world was lied to in the United Nations Assembly.  The VI got his war.

rumsfeld-jpg

Fast forward button pressed to the current Republican Party.  A party more often screaming and yelling and threatening to use American might to *smaunch those they dislike than to negotiate a calm.  They think that the U.S. military is to be used anytime they suspect a terrorist cell is around, even it is not.

Now that you are in 2016 (**jesus alou this is a long time from my beginning) and the Republican Party is now a party of idiots, with several of the idiots who were with Nixon and the VI playing a supporting role,

usa-election_trump1

I can only guess at what would happen if the orange hair bully was elected president.  Sure a few in the military would resign or retire rather than do his bidding.  The majority would follow orders.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, the Baltics, India, Palestine, and many more regions would be in danger.  He probably would not bother with Africa, his supporters do not care about black people.  I am very willing to believe he would be attacking the world on his own, no other nation would lift a finger, other than to protest.

You want to know why this election is so important?  That alone should scare people to vote Democratic.  Domestically he has promised to make this the white supremacist homeland.  Anyone except white, male and in the missionary position would be punished.  Scared yet?

*Smaunch is from 1960’s Mad Magazine

**Jesus Alou is from 1970’s to avoid yelling “Jesus Christ” as an expletive, it is pronounced using Spanish language “Haysus Alou”

Share