My open letter to SNOPES regarding their OPINION about Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off the hook

Recently I’ve become annoyed with people citing Snopes opinion that Hillary Clinton laughing about getting a child rapist she knew was guilty off the hook as “mostly false”

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/#!

The author Kim LaCapria, somebody who is googling or making phone calls like the rest of us, deemed this “mostly false” and went out of the way to deceive people that Clinton didn’t laugh about getting the person she knew was guilty off the hook. Or the fact that Clinton needlessly attacked the victim subjecting her to unneeded psychological examination and suggest that the victim sought out older men and sought out this predator. Hillary Clinton suggests that Donald Trump never apologizes but did she apologize to Kathy Shelton who was left barren and traumitized from this incident? This sequence of events ruined that persons life, unlike Trump the Clintons have real victims.

Well here it is.

This is such an abuse of the position of “fact checker” that it’s no wonder everyone with reading comprehension no longer takes this site seriously. Let’s look at the claim you presented

“Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.”

Was that not laughter while she was discussing this case where she did successfully defend a child rapist?

There is clearly laughter while she is discussing the tape where the did successfully defended an accused child rapist. She successfully defended him because a pleabargin that got him a year versus 30+ years. Pretty successful to me.

Instantly you are lying when you claim this as mostly false.

There was laughter more than 2 times which is what Trumped mentioned, where’s the snopes on that?

Your claim to suggest that she was not trying to attack the victim in this case is absolutely despicable in my opinion and is purely defending her for no reason. Hillary is the one who filed the affidavit. She signed it. She’s the one who subjected the victim to additional abuse and accused her of seeking out her abuser. That would be one thing but she clearly knew the guy was guilty. There are a lot of legal experts that would say that her attacking of the victim of the case while knowing the defendant was guilty is going above and beyond of their legal duty.

The Truth About Clinton’s Handling of Kathy Shelton Rape Case

You act like she didn’t go out of her way to get him off. She brought a pair of underwear that a 12 year old was raped in on her trip to New York? WTF

As for if Hillary could’ve gotten out of the case in the tape she called it a “favor” so I’m going to go with that use Occam’s razor on her fall back that she was just begging to get out of it. I say I’m using Occam’s razor because she has a proven track record of telling the public different things than she’s found to believe. It’s more likely she’s covering up after the fact for her casually mentioning that the case was a ‘favor’ on audio tape. She was even using her fake southern accent while bragging about her legal strategy yea it was such a “fascinating” case!

I don’t know what’s sadder how you can rate this “mostly false” even though she did laugh about the case and knew he was guilty or that people can justify that a person with less moral fabric than Saul Goodman would make decent president. That perfectly nice people can logically loop around the fact that she attacked this 12 year old victim and believe her rhetoric about women and children is mind boggling, but not as mind boggling as this article claiming this as “mostly false”. Yes it’s an ARTICLE and you’re on a power trip about being any kind of “fact checker”

I sincerely hope you at least change the status of this to “half true” or something since more people are becoming aware of this topic in the recent days it’s going to look like you’re going out of your way to defend child rape enabler Hillary Clinton’s actions in attacking a 12 year old victim and her laughing about basically freeing the child rapist she knew was guilty. That is to people who read past “mostly false” and aren’t in Borg group think about Hillary Clinton.

PS you might have somewhat disproved a little bit of that meme but you went above in beyond to defend terrible actions that may hint at the true character of Hillary Clinton.

 


 

that concludes it.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Sanders Doesn’t Stand A Chance

The chaotic 2016 Primary Process can roughly be summarized by the rise of political outsiders “shaking things up.” Something I always like to see, but on the side of the Democratic Party the outsider is actually floundering.

I mean this polling is one thing, and granted Sanders does have the edge over Clinton in New Hampshire. But the thing about New Hampshire is that it is the only state where there seems to be any kind of real political contest going on during this Democratic Primary season. Having some knowledge of the Clinton political apparatus I would reason that they are not exactly going to give up on it.

Believe it or not the Democratic Party seems to really want Hillary Clinton as their nominee and there’s nothing you can do about it. Click here to get a look at who the very core of the Democratic Party is endorsing thus far. That’s a lot of scrolling so thankfully somebody else put this into visual form.

This is the biggest indicator of why Bernie Sanders WILL NOT be the nominee. Endorsements played a plenty heavy role in the turn out previous elections. Sorry guys but Killer Mike’s endorsement is exactly gonna win this for Bernie.

This is why I don’t think that even a “solid” debate performance by Sanders can change things now. I told myself this wouldn’t be about bashing Sanders or Clinton(there’s plenty) but here’s my take.

On one side you have Republicans who scour the Earth trying to find ANYTHING they can find to attack her with and on the other you have heaps of Democrats who go through mental gymnastics to convince themselves that she would be an honest and competent leader of America. On both sides you’re dealing with masses of people who may very well not even be able to find America on the map.

The only thing that can stop Hillary Clinton now is a SEVERE fuck up.

Even then the economic establishment will not EVER let Bernie Sanders become president unless they knew they could control him, which they probably could to be honest. If not that then they will do everything in their powers to get rid of him as a threat on their hold of power. They can’t shoot him but the propaganda machine would probably make it so half the people at these rallies think that he’s a “EVIL WHITE RACIST/SEXIST OLD MAN!” or something like that. It seems like some of his supporters already do… hmmm maybe Sanders knows that if he attacks Hillary Clinton too hard that’s what will happen.

It appears that there is a HEAVY bias in the democratic party for Hillary Clinton. Even among her primary opponents. Sanders had plenty of chances to take  perfectly legitimate attacks on her, but stopped short. Even things like the E-Mail scandal, instead of going on any sort of offensive Sanders practically apologized for Hillary Clinton. Criticism during a primary election doesn’t make you a Republican shill!

If Sanders were any smart he would study the 2008 campaign a bit more closely and how even though Clinton and Obama had quite a brawl nobody emerged from it thinking Barack Obama hated women. Sanders is basically a more authentic Barack Obama, it could work.

 

 

Crushing The 1991 Iraq Uprisings

“But there’s another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside, and to comply with the United Nations resolutions, and then rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Our differences are with Iraq’s brutal dictator. “

President George H.W. Bush spoke these words at Raytheon on February 15 1991. In the the months before the end of the Gulf War and weeks afterwards that message and messages like it were broadcast by the American operated Voice of Free Iraq along with leaflets aimed to delegitimize Saddam Hussein. At the end of the war Saddam Hussein’s power was deteriorating as seen by the desertion of soldiers.  The people of Iraq listened, and in March 1991 just after the war ended there was a mass uprising against Saddam Hussein in both the Kurdish north and Shia south. The time seemed to be right. The two groups had been brutally tormented by Saddam Hussein for decades and made up most of the population. With the Allied forces still occupying part of southern Iraq and possessing arms that belonged to the Iraqi military that could also be given to the Shia and Kurdish forces it seemed like Saddam Hussein’s downfall was imminent.

But things worked out another way. This apex moment was destined to fail since it would turn out that the allied forces would not quite ‘help out’ the way that the Iraqis thought. Instead America and Allied forces allowed the use of helicopters by Saddam, withheld weapons and allegedly even aided Saddam Hussein in crushing of the rebellion. The motives are not quite clear, but the brutality of Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the uprising showed his true nature.

From The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training

It appears a popular uprising was not quite what the United States was wanting. They much more preferred a coup from within the Baathist party that would help assure they could still do business in Iraq much they way they had with Saddam Hussein until his invasion of Kuwait.

The uprisings of 1991 are said to have started after somebody fired an artillery shell at a poster of Saddam. This caused an infitada in the south of Iraq where Shia rebels were able to capture entire towns with their limited weaponry. Likewise in the North of the country the rebels were able to virtually secure an area separate from the regime. This simultaneous rebellion was one of the biggest and perhaps only chance for the Iraqi people to topple Saddam Hussein.

Things seemed to be going quite smoothly until it was decided that Saddam Hussein could use helicopters that he could use to indiscriminately attack rebel areas.

One day after their ouster, security forces began shelling the city and attacking suspected rebel concentrations from helicopter gunships.  The shrine of Hussein, which served as a rebel base, and the nearby shrine of Abbas, were heavily damaged by artillery fire and by rockets fired from helicopters between March 7 and 11, as were adjacent buildings.  Further damage was sustained when Iraqi troops burst into the shrines and fired at the rebels and civilian sympathizers who were inside.”

From Human Rights Watch

The rebels did not stand a chance against the helicopters due to not having many large arms. The proximity of this aerial attack in relation to the Allied controlled area meant that American troops literally witnessed the destruction of the rebellion.

The US certainly did have plenty of arms taken during the war, yet it did not even want to give these to the anti-Saddam forces. There even rumors that some of these weapons were taken and delivered to the Mujahideen Afghanistan.

It is unclear why the United States did not help the Iraqis topple Saddam. Sure Iran may have been able to assert some influence on the southern rebels, but even Saudi Arabia did not have a problem with this because they believed the Arab Shias of Iraq would still distance themselves from the Persians, according to Chas Freeman ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time.

Saddam was a friend to the United States and the West dating back to the coup that put the Baathist Party in power. The United States found him a useful wedge against Iran and everybody found him a great customer for Weapons. Support for Saddam was so great in America that he was made an honorary citizen of Detroit and given a key to the city. This support continued during the 1980s, America even helped Saddam acquire chemical and biological weapons and observed him use him during some of his greatest crimes against humanity.

When examining the United State’s past with Saddam Hussein it makes it seem as if the threats of

  1. Iranian influence
  2. Potential instability

were worse than Saddam Hussein being in power at the time. It personally makes me wonder if Saddam wasn’t SO brutal in his reprisal on the uprisings would he have become the United State’s friend again?

But just how far did the United States go in tilting this quasi-civil war in Saddam’s favor?

There are some allegations that the United States actively aided Saddam Hussein in his crushing of the uprisings. In Barry Lando’s book Web of Deceit he documents accounts that the United States destroyed weapon caches that the rebels were trying to get a hold of and that American helicopters stopped the rebels from marching to Baghdad. Additionally there are testimonies that the United States helped supply the Republican Guard and allowed Saddam to pass through the Allied checkpoints.

The quashing of the uprisings led to mass reprisals afterwards. The scope of which were only realized after Saddam’s removal by the US invasion. Saddam even resorted to using chemical weapons to set an example.

The aiding of Saddam in this incident did not stop the United States from wanting him removed from power. I guess they didn’t want that coup to be successful so the CIA could get in on the action. But perhaps the saddest thing of all is the brutal sanctioning of the Iraqi people throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s. The isolation put upon Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousands of children that could not get adequate nutrition and medicine. Funny since the explanation for imposing the sanctions basically amounted to “well Saddam’s a bad guy.” Questioned about if the lives 500,000 children under the age of five being dead due to the sanctions, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied that they the price was worth it.

These sanctions were mostly in vain since the golden opportunity for the Iraqi people ouster Saddam had already occurred. The decision to not just back this uprising after the war has likely cost both Iraq and the United States dearly.