Sunday, October 30, 2016

Today's Links

Today's Quote: “Information from a wide range of sources... makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [Al Qaeda’s] Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. …At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar.” Gareth Porter explains that the US supports al Qaida


“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc...We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were with Al Qaeda...Oren said. Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren,

"Even many months after the Bush administration itself acknowledged that Iraq had neither WMDs nor ties to Al-Qaeda, Clinton declared in a speech at George Washington University that her support for the authorization was still “the right vote” and one that “I stand by.” Similarly, in an interview on Larry King Live in April 2004, when asked about her vote despite the absence of WMDs or al-Qaeda ties, she acknowledged, “I don’t regret giving the president authority.”...

If Clinton were elected president despite having voted to give President Bush the authority, based on false pretenses, to launch a war of aggression — in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and common sense — what would stop her from demanding that Congress give her the same authority? Stephen Zunes



1--Putin imposes Russian no-fly zone in Syria


I don’t believe that the USN or the USAF will risk flying into Russian controlled airspace or, if it does, this will be a short-lived experiment. I believe that the Russian presence in Syria will make any attack on Syria a “missile only” attack. Unless the Americans take down the Russian air defenses, which they could only if they want to start WWIII, US aircraft will have to stay outside the Syrian skies. And that means that the Russians have basically created their own no-fly zone over Syria and a US no-fly zone is now impossible to achieve

2--Eric Margolis: What is ISIS?


Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience.

These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.

In fact, today’s Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, ‘bashi-bazouks,” a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.
...ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used against Syria’s government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.
ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage they have inflicted on the Arab world.

3--Whither Mosul? Cockburn


The current multi-pronged offensive aimed at taking Mosul is producing a similar situation as different countries, parties and communities vie to fill the vacuum they expect to be created by the fall of Isis, just as in 2003 the vacuum was the result of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The different segments of the anti-Isis forces potentially involved in seizing Mosul – the Iraqi army, Kurds, Shia and Sunni paramilitaries, Turks – may be temporary allies, but they are also rivals. They all have their own very different and conflicting agendas. Presiding over this ramshackle and disputatious alliance is the US, which is orchestrating the Mosul offensive and without whose air power and Special Forces there would be no attack


4--"You're not going anywhere: Iraqi forces block ISIL’s escape route to Syria


5--The militants’ attempt to break the Aleppo siege can be described as failed. The government forces have an upper hand in the ongoing trench warfare in non-populated areas of western Aleppo due to the advantage in air power and artillery


6--The Kurds will fight our wars for us, says US General  -- “The US commander of the campaign against Islamic State says the only group capable and ready for such a battle is the Syrian Democratic Forces, made up largely of Kurdish fighters.” Uh, huh


ith the battle for the Iraqi city of Mosul barely begun, the US and its allies say they need to move within weeks on the other remaining Islamic State stronghold, Raqqa in Syria. The trouble is that no one can agree on who should do the actual fighting.

Did you catch that “who should do the actual fighting” line? Washington, of course, is not asking any real question, only using its media echo-chambers to make it seem as though there is an actual, genuine debate over the issue.

It only takes a few lines for Bloomberg to sell its little piece of propaganda: “The US commander of the campaign against Islamic State says the only group capable and ready for such a battle is the Syrian Democratic Forces, made up largely of Kurdish fighters.”...

Empowering the Kurds at this moment in both Syria and Iraq’s history equates to a de facto Balkanization of the Levant. Beyond that, such a move represents a direct attack against Turkey’s territorial integrity. Something tells me Ankara will have a problem with that..

The Kurds were always Washington’s wild card should radicals... sorry – moderates, fail to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad. Incidentally, the Kurds could also carry enough of a blow to Ankara that one pesky Turkish President Recep Erdogan could be deposed. It’s not like the US tried to stage a coup, right?
America’s sudden Kurdish epiphany is really not – rather, it is a last ditch attempt to manifest and project a very US-driven political reality onto the Middle East at a time when resistance has become a palpable geopolitical movement.
Neither Syria nor Iraq need the United States to fight Islamic radicalism. I would personally argue that both nations were reborn in their resistance against this abominable form of theo-fascist imperialism which is Wahhabi-extremism.
And so, what is a desperate neocon to do but to further fan unrest?
Svetlana Kalmykova, a columnist for Sputnik news, put it beautifully when she wrote: “The United States is trying to secure a firmer footing in Syria at a time when Al-Nusra Front and similar organizations are under threat of being destroyed. They are desperately fighting against the advancing Syrian Arab Army in Aleppo."
So next time you hear a US official mention Raqqa, Mosul, and Kurds in the same sentence, hear it as: imperial desperation.


7--‘Saudi Arabia one of top repressive countries’: What’s behind US special ties with Riyadh?


Saudi Arabia has become by far the number one purchaser of US weapons, with $115 billion deals under the Obama administration alone. Congress has just rubber-stamped every single one, says author and activist Medea Benjamin. ..

Saudi Arabia carried out 158 executions, 63 for non-violent drug crimes last year, often through public beheadings. Early this year, it executed 47 men for terrorism-related offenses, including the prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. It practices gender apartheid against women, who are not allowed to drive, are banned from most jobs, and are controlled by male guardians. It prohibits freedom of expression, including freedom of religion. Homosexuals can be put to death....

One of the most repressive countries in the world, where there is no freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, no political parties, no unions allowed, where dissent  is treated as treason. You can be beheaded for insulting Islam, for insulting the King, for spreading atheism, for being convicted of being a homosexual, for sorcery. There is discrimination against entire groups of people like women who are not only forced to fully cover in public, it is the only country where women aren't allowed to drive. A guardianship system where women have to have a male legal guardian from the day they're born to the day they die. It is the most sex-segregated society in the world. Immigrant population, which is huge – of a 30 million population, 10 million are migrant workers, many of whom are coming from some of the poorest countries in the world and are treated like indentured servants

8--Human Rights Council Elections Bring UN Into Disrepute


9--Washington plans to use Kurds to secure parts of E Syria


The United States said that Kurds are now the only force capable of launching an offensive on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the de-facto capital of the Daesh caliphate. At the same time, the involvement of Kurdish forces in the operation could also indicate Washington’s support for the federalization of Syria.
The Pentagon’s reliance on Kurds to liberate Raqqa may indicate that the US is actually ready to support the federalization of Syria, said Alexander Babakov, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the upper house of the Russian parliament.

"It would be hard to imagine that American plans on Raqqa are aimed only to bring peace to Syria. It cannot be ruled out by using Kurds to liberate the city from Daesh the US wants to support the federalization of Syria, including establishing an autonomous Kurdish region," Babakov told the Russian newspaper Izvestia. Earlier, Stephen Townsend, commander of US forces in Iraq and Syria, said that the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) would be the backbone of the Raqqa offensive

The Americans have been trying for a long time to persuade Turkey to work with Kurdish forces in the operation to liberate Raqqa. However, it's impossible. Turkey won't agree to that, given that Ankara regularly calls the Syrian Kurdish PYD 'an offshoot of the PKK,'" political analyst Serhat Erkmen, director of the Center of Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM) at Istanbul-based 21st Century Turkey Institute, told Sputnik Turkiye.

Co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) Salih Muslim stressed that the liberations of Raqqa was the priority goal for Kurds.

In an exclusive interview with Sputnik Turkiye in May, Muslim emphasized that the city was not only Daesh's political capital, but also a critically important military and logistical center for the terrorists. "This is a constant threat to all of Rojava [a Kurdish region in northern Syria]. Therefore, the decisive liberation of Raqqa from the jihadists is vitally important for the Rojava. The goal of this operation is to eliminate the threat emanating from the area. The operation had been planned for long time," he said. By placing bets on the Kurds in this war, Washington has several goals at the same time, Syrian political analyst Taleb Zayfa told Izvestia. "First of all, the US is mounting pressure on Turkey, thus trying to prevent further rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow. At the same time, Washington understands that sooner or later the Syrian Army will liberate Aleppo. So, the US and its allies want to take control over a different region in Syria. The US wants to have leverage on Damascus and Moscow over a Kurdish autonomy which would also include Raqqa," the expert suggested
Recently, Turkey announced it would expand its military operation in northern Syria to take control over Al-Bab and Manbij.

Moscow said it would not oppose Ankara’s counterterrorism efforts in Syria but stressed that Syrian’s territorial integrity should be observed, according to Izvestia. However, the move has faced fierce opposition from the Syrian government as well as Syrian Kurds


Grudgingly, The New York Times, deep inside Saturday’s newspaper, acknowledged at least part of the troubling reality, that the U.S. government has, in effect, allied itself with Al Qaeda terrorists.....

Occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda’s importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the A9 article in Saturday’s New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:

“The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. … The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers.” (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of “robust aid” from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.)

The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda’s new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.
The Times article also includes a quote from Genevieve Casagrande, a Syria research analyst from the Institute for the Study of War, a neoconservative “think tank” that has supported more aggressive U.S. military involvement in Syria and the Middle East.

“The unfortunate truth, however, is that these U.S.-backed groups remain somewhat dependent upon the Al Qaeda linked groups for organization and firepower in these operations,” Casagrande said.

The other unfortunate truth is that the U.S.-supplied rebels have served, either directly or indirectly, as conduits to funnel U.S. military equipment and ordnance to Al Qaeda.
One might think that the editors of The New York Times – if they were operating with old-fashioned news judgment rather than with propagandistic blinders on – would have recast the article to highlight the tacit U.S. alliance with Al Qaeda and put that at the top of the front page.

Still, the admissions are significant, confirming what we have reported at Consortiumnews.com for many months, including Gareth Porter’s article last February saying: “Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [Al Qaeda’s] Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. …

“At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar.”

What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda’s affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted “moderates” are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported:

“The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies.”

The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that “the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting.”

Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo “offensive have been vetted by the C.I.A. and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …

“In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels’ weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges.”

11--Hillary justifies Iraq War invoking all the lies created by neocons to support invasion and regime change -- 1 minute "shocking" video

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including al Qaida members. it is clear however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which as we know all too well, effects American security. This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that could lead to war, should be hard. But I cast it with conviction."

12--"Iraq doesn’t exist anymore" Nir Rosen

Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. That’s the most important thing to remember. There is no Iraq. There is no Iraqi government and none of the underlying causes for the violence have been addressed, such as the mutually exclusive aspirations of the rival factions and communities in Iraq.....The smartest Iraqis-the best educated, the professionals, the middle and upper classes-have all left or been killed. So the society is destroyed. So there is no hope for a non-sectarian Iraq now....

There are no good options for Iraq; no solutions. The best we can hope for is that the conflict won’t spread. ...

there was a incident, in Falluja in April 2003, where US troops fired on a peaceful demonstration and killed over a dozen unarmed civilians. This, more than anything else, radicalized the people and turned them against the Americans.
In the spring of 2004, four (Blackwater) American security contractors were killed in Falluja. Their bodies were burned and dismembered by an angry crowd. It was an insult to America’s pride. In retaliation, the military launched a massive attack which destroyed much of the city and killed hundreds of civilians. The US justified the siege by saying that it was an attack on foreign fighters that (they claimed) were hiding out in terrorist strongholds. In truth, the townspeople were just fighting to defend their homes, their city, their country and their religion against a foreign occupier....

In late 2004, the Americans completely destroyed Falluja forcing tens of thousands of Sunnis to seek refuge in western Baghdad. This is when the sectarian clashes between the Sunnis and Shiites actually began. The hostilities between the two groups escalated into civil war. Falluja has now become a symbol throughout the Muslim world of the growing resistance to American oppression....

To many people it seems like the US is at war with Muslims. This is just radicalizing more people and eroding America’s power and influence in the world. But, then, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

13--“There is no solution. We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this.”
Nir Rosen; interview with Amy Goodman, “Democracy Now”

Sidney Blumenthal offered these sobering observations in his article, “Washington’s Political Cleansing”:
“Bush’s surge, is a military plan that cannot produce its stated political outcome and will instead further unleash the forces he claims will be controlled. His offensive to subdue the Sunni insurgents is already accelerating the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad by the Shia militias, which, rather than being contained, are further empowered.”...

Dahr Jamail has drawn the same conclusion in his latest article, “Southern Tribes are joining the Armed Resistance”:
“A political analyst in Baghdad told IPS that he believes occupation forces have been working in tandem with death squads. We have been observing American and British occupation forces supporting those death squads all over Iraq, but we are still hoping for reconciliation.'

Nir Rosen makes this point out in a recent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:
“For Sunnis to ever imagine that the Ba’athists could be restored to power, or that the Americans really matter in Iraq anymore is naïve in the extreme The Shias own Iraq now. Sunnis can never get it back. There’s nothing Americans can do about this.”
Rosen’s dark-forecast for Iraq is even grimmer than Blumenthal’s or Jamail’s. He says:
“What you’re going to see in Iraq I think, in Baghdad especially, is a virtual genocide of the Sunnis. And the Americans are not going to be able to stop it.You’ll find a day when there are no Sunnis left in Baghdad.”

Nir Rosen said it best:
“There is no solution. We’ve destroyed Iraq and we’ve destroyed the region, and Americans need to know this. This isn’t Rwanda where we can just sit back and watch the Hutus and Tutsies kill each other, and be like wow, this is terrible should we do something?’ We destroyed Iraq. There was no civil war in Iraq until we got there. And there was no civil war until we took certain steps to pit Sunnis against Shias. And now, it is just too late. But, we need to know that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq today. I don’t think Americans are aware of this. We’ve managed to make Saddam Hussein look good even to Shias at this point. And what we’ve managed to do is not only destabilize Iraq, but Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. This is going to spread for decades, the region won’t recover from this, I think, for decades. And Americans are responsible.”

CLINTON: Look, I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. And I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake. I also believe that it is imperative that we learn from the mistakes, like after- action reports are supposed to do, and so we must learn what led us down that path so that it never happens again. I think I'm in the best possible position to be able to understand that and prevent it.

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote 2004

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."
"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."..

No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade

---The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Vote to Invade Iraq

unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country. “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”...

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, stood among the right-wing minority of Democrats in Washington.
The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the war authorization. Had they closed ranks and voted in opposition, the Bush administration would have been unable to launch the tragic invasion — at least not legally. Instead, Clinton and other pro-war Democrats chose to cross the aisle to side with the Republicans...

But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.
It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”...

Nor was pressure likely coming from Clinton’s own constituents. Only a minority of Democrats nationwide supported the invasion, and given that New York Democrats are more liberal than the national average, opposition was possibly even stronger in the state she purported to represent. Additionally, a majority of Americans polled said they would oppose going to war if Saddam allowed for “full and complete” weapons inspectors, which he in fact did....

She thought Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and was supporting Al-Qaeda.”
This is excuse is problematic on a number levels.
Before the vote, UN inspectors, independent strategic analysts, and reputable arms control journals all challenged the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq had somehow rebuilt its chemical and biological weapons programs, had a nuclear weapons program, or was supporting al-Qaeda terrorists.

Virtually all of Iraq’s known stockpiles of chemical and biological agents had been accounted for, and the shelf life of the small amount of materiel that hadn’t been accounted for had long since expired. (Some discarded canisters from the 1980s were eventually found, but these weren’t operational.) There was no evidence that Iraq had any delivery systems for such weapons either, or could build them without being detected. In addition, a strict embargo against imports of any additional materials needed for the manufacture of WMDs — which had been in effect since 1990 — made any claims that Iraq had offensive capability transparently false to anyone who cared to investigate the matter at that time.
Most of the alleged intelligence data made available to Congress prior to the war authorization vote has since been declassified. Most strategic analysts have found it transparently weak, based primarily on hearsay by Iraqi exiles of dubious credibility and conjecture by ideologically driven Bush administration officials....

Similarly, a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled by the mid-1990s, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. So it’s doubtful Clinton actually had reason to believe her own claims that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, there was no credible evidence whatsoever that the secular Baathist Iraqi regime had any ties to the hardline Islamist group al-Qaeda, yet Clinton distinguished herself as the only Senate Democrat to make such a claim. Indeed, a definitive report by the Department of Defense noted that not only did no such link exist, but that none could have even been reasonably suggested based on the evidence available at that time.

Moreover, even if Iraq really did have “weapons of mass destruction,” the war would have still been illegal, unnecessary, and catastrophic.
Roughly 30 countries (including the United States) have chemical, biological, or nuclear programs with weapons potential. The mere possession of these programs is not legitimate grounds for invasion, unless one is authorized by the United Nations Security Council — which the invasion of Iraq, pointedly, was not. If Clinton really thought Iraq’s alleged possession of those weapons justified her support for invading the country, then she was effectively saying the United States somehow has the right to invade dozens of other countries as well....

But here’s the kicker: Clinton stood by the war even after these claims were definitively debunked.
Even many months after the Bush administration itself acknowledged that Iraq had neither WMDs nor ties to Al-Qaeda, Clinton declared in a speech at George Washington University that her support for the authorization was still “the right vote” and one that “I stand by.” Similarly, in an interview on Larry King Live in April 2004, when asked about her vote despite the absence of WMDs or al-Qaeda ties, she acknowledged, “I don’t regret giving the president authority.”
No Excuses...

If Clinton were elected president despite having voted to give President Bush the authority, based on false pretenses, to launch a war of aggression — in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and common sense — what would stop her from demanding that Congress give her the same authority?

http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/






1 comment:

  1. There's shocking news in the sports betting industry.

    It has been said that every bettor must watch this,

    Watch this now or stop betting on sports...

    Sports Cash System - Advanced Sports Betting Software.

    ReplyDelete