Those of us who cruise the web have seen dozens of articles like this, but of course not from any outlets of the Six Multi's who control 85% of the media we consume:

Beginning in May of 2001, Tenet and Black launched an initiative called “the Blue Sky paper” and pitched it to Bush’s national security team. The CIA called for a joint CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat by “getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

According to Tenet, the Bush administration said they wanted to back-burner the plan.

“And the word back,” claims Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,’” meaning they didn’t want a paper trail.

According to Black, Bush’s national security team was living in the past.

link:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ex-cia- ... lpability/

Couple that with the R's approaches to just about anything such as climate change, refugees, abortion, tax breaks and so on.

Were Dems to remind everyone of the R's horrible track record, we'd get the House and Senate back and keep the White House for the next decades.

However, the Democrats and the Republicans suck from the same teat, so we'll not see this information from the Big Six.

CDFingers

So, the Bush administration was far more incompetent than we previously thought, with regards to ignoring 9/11 threats. It makes my blood boil, but in terms of helping the Dems winning, I'm not sure it will do much aside from getting liberals blood boiling. I think most voters who aren't D's will just shrug and say "that was a long time ago, plus we know Bush sucks". Republicans -- except probably Jeb -- will just distance themselves and say that they aren't like Bush, or continue on saying it was Clinton's fault.

Though it's far too early to say for sure, I still think Hillary has a pretty good chance of winning the presidency. Unless there's some miracle -- Hillary having some major scandal, or some sane R candidate getting into the fray -- my opinion is that she will be our next president (for better or for worse).

As for congress, the R's will have control of at least the house for a few more cycles, senate seems a lot more volatile for this next race, but my guess is they'll still control it as well. However, demographics are slowly catching up with the Rs, and it's only a matter of time (within the next 12 years probably) before the Rs will have a seriously difficult time being in the majority. There will probably be massive gerrymandering tricks to try to delay this judgment day, but it's coming. If the Rs had half a brain, they would do their best to moderate their stances on immigration and race.

I'm with you that both parties are in the bag for Wall street and the rich, just the Rs do a more blatant job of kicking the poors.

Just because citizens can read and hear that stuff doesn't mean they assimilate it. That's how these nuts get in and stay in.

Simmer down wrote:Just because citizens can read and hear that stuff doesn't mean they assimilate it. That's how these nuts get in and stay in.

The right to vote is one thing, and I don't think there has ever been greater access to information than now, but often that gets trumped by the right to stay in the dark.

Bacchus wrote:

Simmer down wrote:Just because citizens can read and hear that stuff doesn't mean they assimilate it. That's how these nuts get in and stay in.

The right to vote is one thing, and I don't think there has ever been greater access to information than now, but often that gets Trumped by the right to stay in the dark.

FIFY

TrueTexan wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Simmer down wrote:Just because citizens can read and hear that stuff doesn't mean they assimilate it. That's how these nuts get in and stay in.

The right to vote is one thing, and I don't think there has ever been greater access to information than now, but often that gets Trumped by the right to stay in the dark.

FIFY

Nice. I didn't even consider that. Freudian slip?

Here's an interesting thread over at DU, which contains, among other things,

What happen to Iran’s democracy? The U.S. overthrew it in 1953, with the help of the U.K. Why? For oil.

In Operation Ajax, the CIA, working with its British equivalent MI6, carried out a coup, overthrowing the elected government of Iran and reinstalling the monarchy. The shah would remain a faithful Western ally until 1979, when the monarchy was abolished in the Iranian Revolution.

--snip--

These are just a small sample of the great many regime changes the U.S. government has been involved in. More recent examples, which were supported by Hillary Clinton, as Sanders implied, include the U.S. government’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. In these cases, the U.S. was overthrowing dictators, not democratically elected leaders — but, as Sanders pointed out, the results of these regime changes have been nothing short of catastrophic.

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... id=7357446

The title of the thread is "Why they hate us." It should read, "Why they hate corporatism."

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:Here's an interesting thread over at DU, which contains, among other things,

What happen to Iran’s democracy? The U.S. overthrew it in 1953, with the help of the U.K. Why? For oil.

In Operation Ajax, the CIA, working with its British equivalent MI6, carried out a coup, overthrowing the elected government of Iran and reinstalling the monarchy. The shah would remain a faithful Western ally until 1979, when the monarchy was abolished in the Iranian Revolution.

--snip--

These are just a small sample of the great many regime changes the U.S. government has been involved in. More recent examples, which were supported by Hillary Clinton, as Sanders implied, include the U.S. government’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. In these cases, the U.S. was overthrowing dictators, not democratically elected leaders — but, as Sanders pointed out, the results of these regime changes have been nothing short of catastrophic.

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... id=7357446

The title of the thread is "Why they hate us." It should read, "Why they hate corporatism."

CDFingers

Let's not forget El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Vietnam, and others. Great Britain and France had true empires, they directly controlled the other countries. We didn't conquer and directly control other countries except Hawaii and American Natives. We did take territory from other countries by way of war. We force change to governments and force countries to have "US Friendly" governments. We force a shadow empire run by military power and corporations. It has been going on since the end of the 1800s. We have had the United Fruit wars of the 1920s and 1930s. After WWII we caused changes in governments by CIA and military "Support" faster than we changed Presidents. It has accelerated since St Ronnie and the Bushes. We can put the blame on that group of Neocons with their New American Century idea that we will rule the world. Their may have been dictatorships in Iraq, Lybia and Syria, but just because
We didn't like them we destabilize the whole area and spread terrorist activities and horror to other part of the world.

Colorado, which gave its nine electoral votes to Obama last time round, shows a stunningly right wing trend in the latest Quinnipac poll. Trump beats Clinton by 11, Cruz beats her by 13, Carson by 14 and Rubio by 16. Sanders is a tossup with Trump but loses to the other front runners. The media isn't talking about this, but if voters are being this easily deluded, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

In Florida, Clinton trails Trump and Carson by 9 points and Rubio by 7 in another poll in a state the Dems took in 2012 with 29 electoral votes

Unless things change dems are going to lose it all.

I think it's odd they think the voters are "easily deluded". I think not voting for Hillary Clinton is a coherant position to take that doesn't require tricks and deception. Her records speaks for itself.

Don't the people in her own party consistently give her the lowest trustworthiness ranking. On top of it, she's calling for an executive branch repeal of a constitutional right.

This is the same thing the right has done for years. Take big money and run on a loosing issue, i.e. not be able to figure out what is important to the majority of voters. In this election the Republican may actually be the lesser of 2 evils.

What's the Matter with Polling?
Early polling is often unreliable, so why do we love It?
Polls Are Stupid

Just stop listening to the media talk about polls. It's utterly pointless.

Not all Polls are useless. The people who say so are usually the people trailing in them. The more polls aggregated together, the better. And of course, they are more accurate the further in as the candidates narrow down and supporters shift to new groupings.

I'll follow Nate Silver's opinion on polls.

I honestly don't know if Clinton could beat Donald Trump. He's a blovating idjit most of the time, but he comes across as telling the truth. Which could be Clinton's biggest downfall. Do you want a straight shooter you don't like, or someone who's always telling lies and trying to stab you in the back? I think Clinton can beat Carson.

Unfortunately, it very likely that Clinton would spend a significant amount of time in office trying to punish people in the party who backed Obama's 2008 campaign over hers.

inomaha wrote:Not all Polls are useless. The people who say so are usually the people trailing in them. The more polls aggregated together, the better. And of course, they are more accurate the further in as the candidates narrow down and supporters shift to new groupings.

I'll follow Nate Silver's opinion on polls.

I honestly don't know if Clinton could beat Donald Trump. He's a blovating idjit most of the time, but he comes across as telling the truth. Which could be Clinton's biggest downfall. Do you want a straight shooter you don't like, or someone who's always telling lies and trying to stab you in the back? I think Clinton can beat Carson.

Unfortunately, it very likely that Clinton would spend a significant amount of time in office trying to punish people in the party who backed Obama's 2008 campaign over hers.

She definitely comes across as a vindictive individual.

Auditing of the Clinton Foundation begins.

One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. He added that the CGEP has also received money from corrupt officials in South Africa during the regime of Jacob Zuma and from senior officials in Equatorial Guinea, one of the most brutal and crooked dictatorships in the world. “Equatorial Guinea doesn’t give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because it’s too embarrassing,” he said. “They give the money anonymously in Canada and that buys them political protection in the United States. The Clinton Foundation is a professionally structured money-laundering operation.”

link:

http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

Ruh-roh.

When your money is dirty

It needs to get clean

Clinton's laundry is open

Day, night and between

Bernie Shave

I don't know whether I should make the Harper's article its own thread. Seems important. We'll see if other outlets pick it up. If they don't, we'll know the Multi's are behind it. I welcome out corporate overlords. I shall take their pictures with my special camera.

CDFingers

You know what you are doing Mr Fingers, you're feeding into the "vast right wing conspiracy". :sarcasm: Ok I used the sarcasm emoticon.