rigorousintuition.ca

there are CIA hit squads but no Clinton Bush hit squads and no Clinton Bush Crime family.

would you be willing to say the same?

Elihu » Fri Aug 05, 2016 8:25 am wrote:

there are CIA hit squads but no Clinton Bush hit squads and no Clinton Bush Crime family.

would you be willing to say the same?

No, Bush hit squads existed but end with Poppy Bush.

That said I believe the direct link has been lost with the aging and decline of Poppy Bush.

George Herbert Walker Bush (Poppy) and Prescott Bush date back to even pre-CIA with the Dulles brothers and other deep state manipulations.

The spawn of GHWB do not have the gravitas.

Clintons would prefer people talking about "body count" as to talking about Mena just like Bushies would prefer talk about phantom WTC planes as opposed to WTC 7. Corporate speaker fees are a symptom of living in a corporatocracy. Con-die Rice gets 150K per. Trump gets >$200K per. It's not like any of them say.... oh I can't talk to them. No. It's how much do they pay and what do they want me to talk about. Their speaking agency gives them outlines and briefs and if they are any good at what they do they personalize it location wise. Recently involved with a former Superbowl MVP who was paid 28K to give speech. He adjusted for conservative crowd and incorporated local details he quickly absorbed before his event. BTW was not talking to corporation.

I don't think attacking any former political figure for speaking to any specific group is effective. Better to mention how post political careers are heavily rewarded for doing very little - kind of like being as productive as a Kardashian. Sure, there is talent to giving a speech and most pols have it by the time they have gone into cash-in mode. It is a crazy business. Why would anyone pay Chelsea Clinton $75K? Same reason they'd pay similar for Gingrich. Looks good on an invitation.

No sense in attacking just one person or just one party. They all do it. And, BTW, every president in my lifetime has been at the top of a kill chain that has slaughtered innocents "Legally-well sort of legally" my entire life. Defending/attacking Clinto/Trump won't make a shit bit of difference. Trump cannot function as a president, only as a pitch man. Clinton isn't controlled by the PNAC Wall St Elite, that it what she is. Nobody gets there without being that. Thinking that one is measurably worse or better in terms of foreign policy is just a matter of guessing which one will leave behind the higher pile. Of bodies. Domestically all about so called culture wars which will be kept going no matter what SCOTUS looks like. Wall St doesn't give a fuck who you fuck or how. But they like the diversion of the fight over it. Same with race.

Capitalism does not have anything in it that requires human valuation other than as defined by mass role of consumuer. The economy is successful only if it grows. It could give 30,000,000 people cancer in a 20 year people and capitalism wouldn't give a shit. Oh wait, it's already done that. But we're lucking. We live in the last best place of the last best system. Don't we? And as such we get to choose between the least frightening creature to continue leading The Great Parade onward, ever onward, with great fanfare right over the cliff into a gorge of flaming shit.

Elihu » Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:25 am wrote:

there are CIA hit squads but no Clinton Bush hit squads and no Clinton Bush Crime family.

would you be willing to say the same?

The historical reasons for the distinction are obvious. Papa Bush assumed control of the CIA at the moment of its greatest crisis, did his all to protect it, and then became de facto chairman of the networks ousted under Carter and Stansfield Turner. These had run covert wars for decades going all the way back to the foundation of the institutions of postwar empire. The briefly ousted group set up as their own CIA out of power (see Trento's work, not bad), backed Bush in the 1980 election, and rode Reagan's saddle into power for their new golden age of war, profit and mayhem during the Casey and Iran-Contra years. The young Governor Clinton made his way into this belatedly as a satrap, under whose jurisdiction part of the cocaine flow helping to finance operations was protected. He and Bush then engaged in the kayfabe of 1992, after which Clinton's first and most important move as president was to completely ignore pursuit of the endless criminal enterprises of the Bush-Reagan years (a wise bit of self-protection and assertion of reliability that would be repeated by Obama in 2009). The Bush network retained independence and coherence as an autonomous entity capable of operations, pulling off the 2000 electoral coup and going wild in the subsequent Junior Bush years (thus also giving rise to our little RI culture). The newer and smaller Clinton network ensconced itself far more obviously in the open Democratic Party and the visible neoliberal power elite, to which they are very well-suited as technocrats. They were repeatedly disciplined (either in reality or as a show, who knows) through the construction of relatively minor or fabricated scandals about real estate or sex, or talking about sex, while far greater crimes were conducted under all of these administrations. No such disciplining in reverse can be seen with their Republican counterparts, who have always had media and criminal carte blanche on the bullshit as well as the big crimes. Thus, though we can only see the visible parts, and may differ as to what we see, to me the preponderance of the visible says that until recently the "Bush" side would have been much more in command of the kind of reserves and protection that allow independent "hit squads" than the "Clinton" side, who were newcomers, in formation, and seemingly more suited as policy sellers than as wetworks specialists. In the meantime the old Bush-CIA-neocon configuration is on its way out through generational dissolution and recombination, while a more independent "Clinton" parapolitical network seems to have formed, mainly in the time after the "hamstrung" Clinton presidency.

Illustrations of possible metaphoric value in deciphering the above:




Who's not buddy-buddy?



ALSO: What The Consul said just above, more or less.

.

No, Bush hit squads existed but end with Poppy Bush.

That said I believe the direct link has been lost with the aging and decline of Poppy Bush.

George Herbert Walker Bush (Poppy) and Prescott Bush date back to even pre-CIA with the Dulles brothers and other deep state manipulations.

The spawn of GHWB do not have the gravitas.

Thus, though we can only see the visible parts, and may differ as to what we see, to me the preponderance of the visible says that until recently the "Bush" side would have been much more in command of the kind of reserves and protection that allow independent "hit squads" than the "Clinton" side, who were newcomers, in formation, and seemingly more suited as policy sellers than as wetworks specialists. In the meantime the old Bush-CIA-neocon configuration is on its way out through generational dissolution and recombination, while a more independent "Clinton" parapolitical network seems to have formed, mainly in the time after the "hamstrung" Clinton presidency.

the choice is clear!

the lesser of two criminals. which one is that again?

Dems & Repubs: Good Cop/Bad Cop routine
3rd Party Candidates: Hippy Cop (rarely happens and not for long)
Trump: Insane Cop (Mark Furman/Rampart/Bad Lieutenant level)

I love that picture of Carter with the other presidents and have from the moment I found it myself awhile back. He was the last good as in good president. I just love the distance he keeps and/or the distance they keep from him.

Former head of CIA Mike Morell endorses Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is seriously annoying.

Are you really going to inflict a sub-par Oprah Winfrey on us for the next however long, as opposed to a severely methed-up Maury Povich? How did it get down to this choice in the first place, ffs? The international community has rights too, you know.

If America is in a mood to fuck shit up and damn the consequences, couldn't you just resurrect Boris Yeltsin or something? At least he was being himself, to an extent.



This is not an endorsement of Bernie - his speech at Liberty College gave me sleep paralysis. I conked out about ten minutes into it, with headphones on, and when i awoke on the couch I could neither move nor speak while the angry grandpa from an eighties movie said "the bankers" in varying tones (very slightly varying tones) for the next four hours and a half.

Fuck's sake. Sort it out, will ya?

America's recent behaviour makes me feel a lot less guilty about sending Russell Brand, James Corden, Richard Quest, Milo Yionapolous and Piers Morgan over to undermine your decadent Western mediocracy.

EDIT: I agree that Carter was the last good man to be President. Not necessarily the last good President though.

seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:33 pm wrote:Former head of CIA Mike Morell endorses Hillary Clinton

Michael Hayden head of CIA (2006 to 2009), Director of NSA (2005 to 2006) and current principal in the Chertoff Group on Hillary Clinton compared to Trump:

Former CIA chief Hayden: Clinton better prepared than ‘incoherent’ Trump

Donald Trump is a national security threat, George W. Bush’s spymaster tells Glenn Thrush in an exclusive interview for POLITICO’s ‘Off Message’ podcast.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/o ... z4GWBmLcAi
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

cut


>>Hayden is by no means a Clinton supporter (though, interestingly, he wouldn’t explicitly rule out voting for her up the line). And his praise for her is tempered by disapproval of her handling of her homebrew email server (he doesn’t buy her argument that she was following in Colin Powell’s footsteps) and Benghazi (he thinks her actions before and after the attacks — but not during them — were indefensible).

Moreover, the retired four-star Air Force general remains fiercely loyal to a national spy-and-surveillance apparatus he tamed over four decades as an affable but steely insider. True, in his new book, "Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror," he calls for greater transparency and an end to what he sees as reflexive over-classification. But he’s not exactly Frank Church. Hayden is a loyal Republican, a skeptic when it comes to the Obama administration’s softer-touch terror policy, a defender of enhanced interrogations (in principle) — and a caustic critic of James Risen, Jane Mayer, Glenn Greenwald and anybody else who spills secrets without explicit government say-so.<<

cut

Looks rather obvious that Hillary Clinton it the POTUS choice of the spook agencies.

yea and the NSA has all her emails

I've seen tumors that Assange is going to drop the bomb on Hillary in the next 48 hrs or so. (August 6 - 8, 2016)

Fingers crossed as they say. Hope it's a doozy.

Nordic » Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:59 am wrote:I've seen rumors that Assange is going to drop the bomb on Hillary in the next 48 hrs or so. (August 6 - 8, 2016)

Fingers crossed as they say. Hope it's a doozy.

This may be the first part of the release...

RT - Going Underground

Julian Assange special: Do Wikileaks have the email that will put Hillary Clinton in Prison? (E376)
Published time: 6 Aug, 2016

Afshin Rattansi goes underground with Julian Assange. We talk to the founder of Wikileaks about how the recent DNC leaks have no connection to Russia. Plus what are Hillary Clinton's connections to Islamic State, Saudi Arabia and Russia?

Enough is enough with this dirty rotten election. I think we should boot them both out and start over.

conniption » Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:23 am wrote: Enough is enough with this dirty rotten election. I think we should boot them both out and start over.

Whole heartedly agree. If wishes could come true ...

Everyday I want something ugly and corrupt to be revealed about Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The choice is between greed head opportunists of all types out of control or deep state establishment that serves wealth out of control.

Six weeks of debate from a spectrum of candidates then a straight primary vote to select final (not Trump nor Clinton) candidates for the Fall final POTUS.

My emotions are that I actively dislike supporters of Trump and supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The outlook is not good.

The Consul » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:38 pm wrote:Clintons would prefer people talking about "body count" as to talking about Mena just like Bushies would prefer talk about phantom WTC planes as opposed to WTC 7. Corporate speaker fees are a symptom of living in a corporatocracy. Con-die Rice gets 150K per. Trump gets >$200K per. It's not like any of them say.... oh I can't talk to them. No. It's how much do they pay and what do they want me to talk about. Their speaking agency gives them outlines and briefs and if they are any good at what they do they personalize it location wise. Recently involved with a former Superbowl MVP who was paid 28K to give speech. He adjusted for conservative crowd and incorporated local details he quickly absorbed before his event. BTW was not talking to corporation.

I don't think attacking any former political figure for speaking to any specific group is effective. Better to mention how post political careers are heavily rewarded for doing very little - kind of like being as productive as a Kardashian. Sure, there is talent to giving a speech and most pols have it by the time they have gone into cash-in mode. It is a crazy business. Why would anyone pay Chelsea Clinton $75K? Same reason they'd pay similar for Gingrich. Looks good on an invitation.

No sense in attacking just one person or just one party. They all do it. And, BTW, every president in my lifetime has been at the top of a kill chain that has slaughtered innocents "Legally-well sort of legally" my entire life. Defending/attacking Clinto/Trump won't make a shit bit of difference. Trump cannot function as a president, only as a pitch man. Clinton isn't controlled by the PNAC Wall St Elite, that it what she is. Nobody gets there without being that. Thinking that one is measurably worse or better in terms of foreign policy is just a matter of guessing which one will leave behind the higher pile. Of bodies. Domestically all about so called culture wars which will be kept going no matter what SCOTUS looks like. Wall St doesn't give a fuck who you fuck or how. But they like the diversion of the fight over it. Same with race.

Capitalism does not have anything in it that requires human valuation other than as defined by mass role of consumuer. The economy is successful only if it grows. It could give 30,000,000 people cancer in a 20 year people and capitalism wouldn't give a shit. Oh wait, it's already done that. But we're lucking. We live in the last best place of the last best system. Don't we? And as such we get to choose between the least frightening creature to continue leading The Great Parade onward, ever onward, with great fanfare right over the cliff into a gorge of flaming shit.

I just thought this was a great post; and it sums up a lot of why I've been unengaged this election cycle. In years past I've been an oo-rah politics guy, but I just can't any longer.

At this point in the election, it's perfectly clear that Trump is a buffoon and a disaster, and that Hillary Clinton will be a perfect president to continue the legacy of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama > Clinton. Of course this means death and destruction towards many people around the world, even if it means continued "prosperity" the the capitalist system at home.