ISIS Says U.S. is Being Run By an "Idiot"

ISIS has released an official 37 minute audio statement in Arabic by spokesman Abi al-Hassan al-Muhajer. It is ISIS's first reference to Donald Trump since he acquired a desk in the Oval Office.
He said the United States is "being run by an idiot".

"America you have drowned and there is no savior, and you have become prey for the soldiers of the caliphate in every part of the earth, you are bankrupt and the signs of your demise are evident to every eye." "... There is no more evidence than the fact that you are being run by an idiot who does not know what Syria or Iraq or Islam is," he said in a recording released on Tuesday on messaging network Telegram.

Al-Muhajir called for more attacks on the U.S., Russia and Europe. The name of the statement translates to "Patience, the promise of Go-d is truth". (Others have it as "So be patient. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth")

The statement was released through the al-Furqan Foundation, which publishes many of ISIS's most important audio & video releases.

< Russian Train Blast Caused by Home-made bomb | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tangerine Littlefingers (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    proving ISIS isn't wrong about everything, blames Obama for the Syrian chemical weapons attack, even though he previously urged Obama not to attack the Assad regime after the earlier chemical attacks.

    Not only is the man deeply committed to mean spirited stupidity, but for the life of him, he can't keep his mouth shut about it.

    RE, "Being run by an idiot": (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    According to a notice to be published in the Federal Register today, President Trump has removed chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council's Principals Committee, effective April 4, and added Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, as regular attendees of NSC meetings.

    The Federal Register is the daily legal newspaper of the federal government, which is published every business day by the National Archives and Records Administration. It is here where all required legal notices from the executive branch will first appear publicly. The notice cited above regarding the NSC reorganization is presently pending formal publication, but has been issued.

    The NSC shakeup largely restores a traditional structure to the White House national security system, and significantly reduces the authority of White House homeland security advisor Tom Bossert to run high-level national security meetings without the prior concurrence and approval of Gen. H.R. McMaster, the White House national secirty advisor.

    Hopefully, these moves are indicative of a robust assertion of authority over the National Security Council by Gen. McMaster in the wake of the Devin Nunes fiasco, in which Bannon's brash young protégé Ezra Cohen-Watnick appeared to have circumvented the NSC chain of command to deliver select raw intelligence reports to the House Intelligence Committee chairman.

    One is left to wonder if Gen. McMaster didn't perhaps threaten to resign his post if Trump didn't accede to his demands. In any event, if the national security advisor is indeed seizing the NSC's reins himself and marginalizing the influence of Bannon and the crackpots in this realm, that an adult in the room is finally standing up and taking charge may be the most welcome news which we've had in a while.


    (Sigh!) Meanwhile, over in ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    ... the Oval Office itself, ISIS's most useful idiot has once again doubled down on stupid and effectively compounded his earlier unforced errors by suggesting to the New York Times that Susan Rice, former President Obama's national security advisor, may have committed a crime by reportedly requesting the identities of his transition staffers who were swept up by U.S. intelligence agencies in foreign surveillance be unmasked.

    All part of (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    the diversion.  Look over here, not at the Russian scandal.

    ISIS and AQAP must be positively giddy ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    ... with the fact that Trump is president. Look for another scintillating few rounds of whack-a-mole to be played in the Middle East.

    Meanwhile, for all of Trump's baseless insinuations about Barack Obama and Ms. Rice, the Russia scandal isn't going away, either. Rather, it's further evolving in the wake of its latest revelation, which involves Erik Prince (of Blackwater / Xe paramilitary fame) and his excellent adventure in the Seychelles with a Russian oligarch who's reportedly part of President Vladimir Putin's inner circle.

    Did these people learn nothing from Iran-Contra? Hell, do they even know what the Iran-Contra scandal was?

    I have a distinct feeling that a bombshell is about to drop here.


    The US is being headed by an idiot, but (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 11:25:14 PM EST
    so is ISIS. If ISIS is excited by Trump, they are stupid. The Trump generals are going to kick their asses.

    As I thought, Trump is coming after Susan Rice. Possible criminal violations, he says. She is going to be the center of attention for awhile. She better hope she covered her tracks well and didn't leave any footprints.

    Prince, the former Blackwater guy, is the brother of Betsy DeVos.


    are you daft? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by mm on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 04:41:33 AM EST
    Trump is coming after Susan Rice. Possible criminal violations, he says. She is going to be the center of attention for awhile. She better hope she covered her tracks well and didn't leave any footprints.

    The President of the United States accused Susan Rice, former NSA, a woman who has served our country with grace, honor, pride, dignity and competence, of committing a crime. No crime specified, no evidence offered.  In my opinion, this is already an impeachable offense.  This is a bully who has gotten away with this crap for far too long.  He needs a swift kick in the posterior.  In my opinion, this and everything else he is doing to disrupt and deflect from the Russian investigation is bordering on obstruction of justice.

    Of course she didn't "cover her tracks".  There is a transparent paper trail for every action she took.  There is one person who can declassify it and make it public, and that would be the President.  Wonder why he hasn't done it.


    Reminder: Impeachable Offense (none / 0) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:11:05 AM EST
    "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

    The "investigation" (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    has been going on now for what...9 months? And all we know is that Clapper said that nothing has yet been found regarding the claims of collusion.

    In case you have forgot, babies take 9 months.

    How long does the FBI need?

    This has become totally political. And ISIS is wrong.

    America is not being run by idiots.

    We're the idiots for putting up with such nonsense.


    The first part of your last sentence (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    is the most honest, accurate statement you've made here in months. Maybe years.

    LOL, jondee. Less is indeed More. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    Carrying (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 05:43:04 AM EST
    tRumps water again I see, of course Rice will be the center of attention because fools like you will follow any shiny object he throws out, like clockwork.

    Once again you posit a crime without even coming close to naming it you and the rest of the screaming monkeys totally misunderstand the whole concept of unmasking in this case.

    You and the rest of the screaming monkeys take as evidence the assertions of a serial lying idiot. tRump has proven again and again and again that he can tell outrageous lies and you and the rest of the screaming monkeys ignore the fact that he has been proven wrong again and again.


    Green26: "She better hope she covered her tracks well and didn't leave any footprints."

    First of all, as national security advisor, Susan Rice did not possess the unilateral authority to unmask anybody of her own accord, or to order that it be done. That's entirely at the discretion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and she had to specifically request it in writing and include the reason(s) for it. In that regard, intelligence officials have repeatedly noted that it was well within Ms. Rice's authority to make such a request of the Director of National Intelligence.

    Further, the identification of a heretofore unknown "U.S. person" via an unmasking can only be requested by the national security advisor for either one of two reasons: (1) the intelligence can only be properly understood in full context if the identity of the American in question is revealed and known; or (2) there is probable cause to believe that criminal conduct is involved.

    Finally, it is further important to note that if Ms. Rice did indeed request of the DNI that the identity of any Americans swept up in the course of a foreign surveillance operation be unmasked -- -- it's far more likely than not that she did so because she did not know who those persons were.

    Ms. Rice has not even acknowledged publicly that she requested any unmaskings, because that information is still classified. She's only asserted that she did not leak classified information to anyone.

    The GOP's baseless contention that Ms. Rice improperly unmasked members of the Trump transition team for political purposes runs aground on those aforementioned points.

    As a former national security advisor, Ms. Rice is still bound by federal law to neither disclose nor acknowledge the existence of classified information. This fact squares entirely with her denial two weeks ago when questioned by PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff about House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes' own cryptic disclosure that members of Trump's transition teams may have been inadvertently swept up in a foreign surveillance operation.

    Ms. Rice literally cannot acknowledge anything in this matter, so long as that information remains classified and thus off-limits to the general public. She is legally prohibited from acknowledging even its existence. President Trump himself, of course, can resolve all this by ordering the declassification of those files, if they indeed exist.



    I followed Susan Rice on Twitter (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by mm on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    throughout the primary and general election campaign.  There was not one single time she wrote anything with even a hint of political content or partisanship.  It is infuriating to see this intelligent woman being dragged through the mud once again in a transparent effort to distract, divert and undermine the legitimacy of the investigation into Russian/Trump collusion.

    She admitted it in TV (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    That's entirely at the discretion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and she had to specifically request it in writing and include the reason(s) for it.

    What she denied was leaking.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    she actually admitted to doing her job, we know that's a crime in  your eyes.

    oops (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    "There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to, name not provided, just a U.S. person, and sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of that report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that U.S. official was," she said, without going into specifics



    The problem is that the Trump campaign people were not "U.S. officials."


    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    wrong as usual, some of his campaign and transition staff were U.S. officials, Sessions and Nunes just to name two.

    They don't need to be officials (none / 0) (#25)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    ... in order for their identity to be unmasked, and she did NOT admit to leaking any information.  She specifically denied it.

    You guys are making one tinfoil claim after another.  You must be really worried about the Russia investigation.  :)


    She said what she said. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:29:17 AM EST
    Did she lie again? Probably.

    Get back to us when you actually have an original thought that isn't merely a regurgitation of what you first heard on AM squawk radio and / or Fox News.

    Why don't you try and explain why she (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    did what we know she did.

    Spy on US citizens, some, perhaps all,  of whom  were political opponents. engaged in a national election.

    Instead you just squaw denials and insults.

    I mean, given that the NSA is spying on every conversation by all non-US government types, the volume generated would have been huge.

    What was the filter?


    Well, just going by some of the posts (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    on your blog, she could be part of the insidious, far-reaching, Obama-led, secret marxist-muslim plan to weaken and ultimately destroy America..

    Or, maybe, giving her the benefit of a doubt, she was just doing her job, a big part of which is keeping tabs on people who have had numerous covert contacts with parties in countries the U.S has an adversarial relationship with.

    You need to be careful about projecting your Nixonian dirty trickster mentality onto every other person on the planet.


    Marcy (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 07:26:11 AM EST
    Wheeler has a good read on the subject here
    That's entirely to be expected. After all, as officials from countries around the world discussed changes in U.S. policy the incoming administration might make, they would refer to "Donald Trump" and other officials expected to join his administration by name. Additionally, multiple Trump associates, including his short-lived National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and even Trump's son Donald Jr., engaged in conversations with foreign officials about policy. Some of these conversations--such as with the head of a sanctioned Russian bank who had been trained by the FSB, the successor to the KGB--were really sketchy. It is not surprising that their names were collected in intercepts targeting the officials in question.

    It's as if the entire right wing decided to stage a Benghazi reunion to distract from the Russian allegations clouding Trump's administration.

    The names of all these figures would have been hidden--"masked"--in any finished intelligence reports. But if someone reading the reports as part of her job felt she needed to learn the identity of the person in question to fully understand it, she would ask the agency that collected the information to share the name. The agency would ultimately decide whether the request derived from a legitimate foreign intelligence need or not. As David Kris, former head of the National Security Division at the Justice Department, has explained, in some cases intercepts count as foreign intelligence information because of the American involved, as was probably true of Flynn's discussions of U.S. sanctions against Russia with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

    Not that I expect you to comprehend

    That's the wingnut fairy tale (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    Lather, rinse, repeat.  Try anything lie to distract from the fact that your Cheetoh has an approval rating in the toilet and is being investigated.

    Not gonna work.


    Donald, it is legit for Rice (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    to have asked for the unmasking if it was done for legit. intel reasons. You can't know what she asked for and why, because that's not public. The commentators seem to believe that intel requests can be fairly broad. But you would have to see the context to make an assessment of whether the reason was intel or not. If the intel summary was discussing what a non-Russian was saying about what Trump people were doing or saying, how does intel require that the name of the Trump people be known? Nunes has said this did not relate to Russian investigation.

    Why does an NS advisor in the White House need to know that? Aren't the FBI and other agencies investigating? Rice wasn't in an investigative position, to my knowledge.

    As others have pointed out, Rice has acknowledged requesting unmasking.

    This action by Rice was very suspicious to me. If Trump's NS advisor had done this to the people of his Dem political opponent, I would have the same concern--and maybe more because of what I think of Trump.


    Where did I ever say I knew the specifics? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Green26: "You can't know what she asked for and why, because that's not public. The commentators seem to believe that intel requests can be fairly broad. But you would have to see the context to make an assessment of whether the reason was intel or not."

    All you've done here is repeat the same points points I've already made. Did you even read what I actually wrote above, before hastening to respond?

    Yes, Ms. Rice acknowledged those unmasking requests generally. So what? She has repeatedly declined to confirm any single matter specifically, because that would acknowledge the existence of something that's otherwise classified.

    Further, the only reason we even know about the possible unmasking of Trump transition team members is because the Trump White House itself leaked it two weeks ago to Chair Nunes, who then discussed it publicly if obliquely over the course of two press conferences the next day.

    Your stated suspicions about Susan Rice are at once selective, unfounded and nonsensical. Given that the allegations involve classified material, you yourself have no way of knowing what she did, if anything, and you are in no position to either suggest wrongdoing on her part or question her motives, without also offering evidence to support your contentions.

    As for Nunes' claims that the information he received was not related to his committee's Russia probe, since it's now been established that he clearly dissembled and misled everyone about the Trump White House being his source of that particular information, anything he further says about this matter is problematic and ought to be taken with several grains of salt, a slice of lime and a shot of tequila.

    And FYI, Nunes stepped aside today as head of the House Russia inquiry, after several outside groups filed formal complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding his recent conduct.

    Further, why aren't you showing any similar concern for the now-documented actions of Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, the NSC staffers who apparently circumvented that office's chain of command -- and in Cohen-Watnick's case, actually defied the White House Counsel's instructions to back off and stand down -- in order to leak classified information about these alleged unmaskings to Nunes?

    I'm not going to discuss this any further with you, because you're clearing operating once again in the realm of the concern troll. Having already stated my own position on this matter clearly, I won't waste any more of my time.



    The"Trump generals" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    He got new generals?  Or are we talking about the same Obama generals that were already kicking their @sses?

    "Cover her tracks"???  There's nothing to "cover".  Trump simply made another ridiculous, embarrassing, baseless accusation in order to distract his gullible supporters/defenders and divert attention from the fact that the FBI is investigating him.  They (like him), have no facts, no evidence, and no clue about the law.  It's not only predictable ... it was a virtual certainty he'd do the same thing he started running for office.


    Are you just sore because it turned out (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    to true that Trump started pointing the criminal finger at Rice. I said that might occur, you doubted it multiple times, and it turned out you were wrong.

    It appears that Trump and his "generals" have picked up the pace in going after ISIS. More troops, more drones, more places. We will see if Trump changes his actions in Syria, as a result of the recent gas attack.

    There are various things to investigate. Russian influence on election. Trump people connections to Russians with regard to the election. Whether the unmasking was legitimate or had political aspects. Some of the leaking. All 4 should be throughly investigated. Seems simple to me.

    You are not in position to say that what Rice did was legit. At this point, I'm not saying it wasn't. But it's going to get investigated, I would think. Don't know how you can just blindly support her, when the facts are not publicly known.


    I had (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    no doubt that tRump would make some baseless outrageous claim, it's what he does. I had no doubt that you would blindly jump onto the bandwagon and demand investigations of this latest nothingburger, it's what you do.

    Name the crime or STFU.


    I am not accusing Rice of any criminal (none / 0) (#35)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    violations. At this point, I am not speculating about that either. There isn't enough pubic information available, and this isn't my area of expertise. The intel category seems fairly broad and likely protective.

    Here are some cites, tho, for you to peruse, and a link. The author is a former defense attorney.

    U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (section 18). This has the intel unmasking language.

    18 USC 1001.    

    18 USC 798

    50 USC 1809



    Maybe (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    you don't directly accuse of her a crime but you are crowing when tRump does, you find her actions "suspicious" when by all accounts of knowledgeable sources her use of unmasking to be fairly routine.

    Haven't seen anyone who is familiar (none / 0) (#38)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    with what Rice did in this situation say what she did was "routine".

    Just general comments, and a lot of spin.


    Here (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    for one
    Requesting that is a routine thing for national security advisers to do, according to former senior officials, including Keith Alexander, who directed the National Security Agency.
    Rice didn't and couldn't "order" the unmasking of any American, current and former officials say. The agencies that hold the raw surveillance transcripts -- usually the NSA or the FBI -- make that decision. It's a process subject to rules and reviewed by lawyers, and it has to be justified by an intelligence purpose.

    Yes, this is a good example of someone (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    saying something general. It is common for requests for unmasking, and others have to approve the unmasking. Great, but what were the specifics of what Rice did.

    I will wait to see what comes out in the investigations. As I have said, neither any of you nor I know what the requests were, how they were written, and what the subject of the conversation, intel were, and what, if anything, was done with the unmasked information. Nor do any of us know who leaked the Flynn info, which seems to be illegal. Rice has said she didn't do it. I believe her.

    Nunes, and now Schiff, along with several people at the White House, know more of the specifics. Nunes was concerned. Assume the White House guys were concerned. Schiff didn't say anything substantively after he looked at the materials, is what I read.

    I continue to think it's suspicious that a White House senior advisor, whom I assume doesn't do intel or criminal investigations, apparently gathered so much information on a presidential candidate and then president elect, and his people, during the transition period. Maybe we will find out this occurs all the time. Maybe Trump's people will do this during future presidential elections and transitions. It's "routine" after all.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    are hopeless, I provide proof of my assertions and you blow it off as too "general" or something, then you immediately jump back into your baseless speculation after admitting that no one knows the specifics. How do you know how much information was gathered and why?

    You provided zero "proof". (none / 0) (#61)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:23:16 AM EST
    Absolutely zero. Most of your posts deserve to be blown off. Give us some substance, at least occasionally.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 07:46:30 AM EST
    would be best served by blowing off my posts, because you sure can't answer them in an intellectually honest and logically coherent way.

    I am not surprised that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    ...someone in the active administration gathered info about people who had brushed up against an investigation of foreign interference in our presidential election.

    I am concerned that so many people involved in the campaign - including some who also held public office at the time - and so many people who were part of the incoming-President's transition team happened to take part in communications that were subject to an investigation into foreign interference in our presidential election.

    I find it weird that so many of the people who wail about the integrity/sanctity/purity of our elections (which must be maintained via biased, um, strict voter-ID requirements) are now not-so-concerned about these investigations into foreign interference in our presidential election.

    As we learned from Benghazi, some such things may require 20 Congressional hearings.

    But those are just some of my concerns, and I do not intend to troll this forum with them.


    Then (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 07:12:33 AM EST
    Haven't seen anyone who is familiar with what Rice did in this situation say what she did was "routine".

    I would suggest, and recommend -- just adding to the other proofs that has already been presented -- listening to "Pod Save America", April 6th, where Ben Rhodes, who surely must have been "familiar with what Rice did", explains how it is exactly that, routine:

    They are criminalizing the way in which the US Government has approached these issue under multiple administrations for many years. Why is Susan Rice the only person who they are interested in as it relates to a fairly routine[!] intelligence procedure? I think that suggests that the interest here is not some new found desire to change the way in which the entire US intelligence operates on this. They are trying to smear Susan Rice to justify a tweet that was wrong and that has been completely unsubstantiated and for which they have no evidence.

    Thanks, Nemi (none / 0) (#66)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    Had not seen that. Several comments.

    I see that routine has now been walked back to "fairly" routine.

    Yes, I suppose Rhodes could have information on what was done by Rice. Who knows, maybe he was even behind some of it. From Rhodes' selling of the Iran deal, I am not sure I would necessarily trust what he says. Also, if he was specifically involved, he may have incentive to soft pedal what Rice did.

    Again, thanks.

    We shall see.


    Here's an article discussing Rhodes, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 03:08:16 PM EST
    from the far right view. I found this looking for Rhodes articles after seeing Nemi's post. Have no clue about the author or the website, but assume it's right wing.

    "How long before Ben Rhodes gets swept up in Susan Rice unmasking scandal?"  Link.

    "Gin up false narrative of Russian collusion.

    Unmask Trump people who spoke with Russians.

    Disseminate info across bureaucracy.

    Await leaks."

    Rhodes is a spin guy. I take what he says with a grain of salt. However, the views in that article are that author's, not mine. Just thought some of you may want to see what the right side thinks of Rhodes.


    Interesting choice of words.. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    you use..

    Rhodes is a "spin guy", whereas the your right-wing source isn't spinning anything, they just have "views".

    And of course, you're not spinning anything yourself by granting authority to right-wing sources, you're just presenting alternative points of view..

    It's only the other side that spins things.


    Are you going to tell us that Rhodes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    hasn't been a spin guy in much of what he did for Obama? Or just take the Iran deal.

    I don't know if the right sider is spinning or not, but if it makes you feel better, we can stipulate that he is spinning. And, he isn't my source. I just found and linked an article he wrote. I guess you can go back to preaching to the choir, if thats your preference.


    just curious, Green (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mm on Mon Apr 10, 2017 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    Would you consider John McLaughlin a "spin guy"?

    (my emphasis)

    Well, Lawrence, what I would say based on Susan`s remarks today and it
    certainly accords with my experience in government on this issue is that
    she was merely doing her job.

    What happens there is that she`s delivered each morning a series of reports, occasionally they referred to foreigners contacting Americans
    about something.

    And she has the option of asking the FBI or the National Security Agency to
    - if it can be justified to let her know who those people are and often to protect them.

    Sometimes you want to go to an American and say, you should know who you`ve been in contact with, do that quietly.

    At least not spread around the government, but essentially, this is - and
    it`s something that isn`t done casually. The people who make decisions
    about as they say unmasking someone have a very high bar for doing that.

    So, I think she was basically just doing her job as she should have been doing it.

    But what I can tell you is that in this case she was simply doing her job
    and it would have been, frankly,irresponsible to not take a look at some
    of these communications in part to - remember this, too.
    We only have one president at a time. And during this period of time, the
    Obama administration was still in charge and in an unusual transition, the
    Trump administration to be, was actually conducting foreign policy.
    Recall the phone call that Trump made to the leader of Taiwan basically breaking with the one China policy that had been followed for years, and
    now that`s been repaired of course.

    But they were essentially moving into making foreign policy which typically
    doesn`t happen in the transition.
    So for that reason alone, someone in the
    White House might want to know, is there something going on here that
    affects our conduct of American foreign policy.

    But to return to my basic point, she was just doing her job here. Is what
    any national security advise
    r would have done in the same circumstance.


    I don't know much about McGlaughlin (none / 0) (#75)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 08:34:27 AM EST
    and certainly not a enough to say that he is a spin guy like Rhodes clearly is and has been. McGlaughlin may not be like that.

    However, some of what McGlaughlin said can't possibly by based on direct knowledge of what Rice knew or did in this situation. He can't possibly know, as I assume he hasn't seen the specifics. So, he seemed to answer questions generally, based on his experience, but not specifically based on what Rice did.

    Some examples. His quotes, followed by my comments in brackets.

    "Well, Lawrence, what I would say based on Susan`s remarks today and it certainly accords with my experience in government on this issue is that she was merely doing her job."

    [This opinion is based on Rice's remarks and his experience. Okay, I'm fine with that, but note that it's based on what she said, not on what he learned by reviewing the specifics of what she saw and what she requested.]

    "Sometimes you want to go to an American and say, you should know who you`ve been in contact with, do that quietly."

    [Okay, I suppose this could be true. If it's true that she requested unmasking dozens times, do you think she/they ever went to the Trump associate to tell them to be careful who they are talking to? I don't.]

    "So, I think she was basically just doing her job as she should have been doing it."

    [Note that he "thinks". Great, but that says to me that he doesn't know, because he doesn't have the facts and specifics. Nunes has seen the specifics, and he's very concerned and suspicious. Both of them have partisanship, but at least Nunes has seen the specifics. Not saying Nunes is right, but I'd like to have this investigated, if only to make sure that Trump's people don't do this in the future if there is the potential for abuse.]

    "But what I can tell you is that in this case she was simply doing her job and it would have been, frankly, irresponsible to not take a look at some of these communications in part to - remember this, too."

    [He can't possibly know this. This is spin.]

    [In my view, Rice doesn't have a great track record for honesty or for being right. In my view, she blatantly lied about Benghazi. I didn't like what she said about Bergdahl. He did not serve with honor and distinction. He is either a traitor or he violated rules and put a lot of people at risk. She made some incorrect statements on Syrian chemical weapons in January. She was dishonest about her knowledge of the unmasking 2 weeks before this controversy came out.]


    ok (none / 0) (#76)
    by mm on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    you can't form an opinion of whether a former Director and Deputy Director of the CIA, working for both the Bush and Clinton administrations is a "spin guy" or not, but you have no trouble at all smearing Susan Rice.  Got it.

    In my view, she blatantly lied about Benghazi.

    What was her blatant lie?  You do know there have been about 8 investigations into Benghazi and they have all concluded that there was never any attempt by the Obama administration to mislead or to play politics with that tragedy, something the GOP congress cannot say.

    Based on the evidence obtained by the Select Committee, including documents, briefings, and transcribed interviews, the Democratic Members make the following findings relating to the public statements of Administration officials regarding the attacks in Benghazi:

    *    The Select Committee has obtained no credible evidence that any Administration official made intentionally misleading statements about the attacks in Benghazi.

    *    Statements made by Secretary Clinton in the week following the attacks were consistent with the information she had at the time and were intended to prevent further violence throughout the region.

    *    Statements made by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows about the Benghazi attacks were based on talking points prepared by the Intelligence Community.

    *    Republicans simply disregard the established fact that the Intelligence Community's assessments changed repeatedly, and the Administration's public statements changed with them.

    Sorry, but I don't agree on Rice/Benghazi (none / 0) (#77)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    There are various pieces of evidence supporting that Rice took talking points from the White House, and not the proper sources, and there are a serious of emails showing how the CIA assessment got changed with coaching from the White House and known points were omitted or changed. There is also an email chain released in Feb. 2017 in one of the Judicial Watch lawsuits. Note that the Congressional Committees didn't have or cite this email, as it apparently wasn't provided to them.

    Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State) says, in a conference call on Sept. 12 (Wed), that the terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate was not "under cover of protest," but was, in fact, "a direct breaching attack."

    He also says and responds to questions as follows, according to a summary in the recently released email chain:

    "*    Rob Carter - was this an attack under the cover of a protest?
    *    No, this was a direct breaching attack.
    *    Do we have any ideas of who launched? Leads?
    *    Some claims from someone who has never made threat before, but everyone is looking at this closely.
    *    Do we believe coordinated w/Cairo?
    *    Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint."

    There is no mention of the video on the call.

    The conf call on Sept 12 (Wed.) had 17 or so people on the call. The call started at 6:30pm, and Julie Bulgrin of the State Dept. sent email email shortly after the call to about 10 people with a long summary of the call. Her email was sent the next day (Thurs) to over 10 other people. Rice spoke on tv on Sunday.

    Here's a link to the email chain.

    Hopefully, the link works. I'm having trouble with pdf's and links to links. The whole summary is very interesting.

    In addition, see the reaction of multiple State Dept. employees in this link. They are indicating that Rice was wrong and not being honest in her tv appearances.

    Rice said this on tv on Sunday, Sept. 16:

    "Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--sparked by this hateful video ... We do not--we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

    Link to Judicial Watch release/article on 2/14/17.

    A link to article on email chain showing coaching of Rice and changes in talking points.


    that's nice (none / 0) (#78)
    by mm on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    I asked you to name a specific "lie". Your word.

    As expected you came up with squat.

    And you link to Judicial Watch on top of it.

    And on top of all that you found a email chain that you claim the congressional committee never had.  I say we need another couple of congressional investigations, let's just make it an even dozen.


    Rice lied about Benghazi (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    The State Dept had considerable information the day after the attack, indicating that the attack was a terrorist attack and had zero to do with the video. Scores of people were on the conference call and subsequent emailing of the long summary of the call. The Under Secretary of State was clear in what he said about the attack. The call occurred on a Wed., several days before Rice went on the Sun. talk shows.

    The email chain and summary were released to the public on 2/14/17. It is strong proof that Rice lied. Link to email chain. My second try.

    Multiple State Dept people had previously testified that they believed she had lied.

    Rice also lied to PBS last month about the unmasking. This was the question and her quote.

    "Woodruff: "We've been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,  Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?"

    Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today."


    you want to see some first rate dissembling? (none / 0) (#79)
    by mm on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 07:23:04 PM EST
    Here's part of what the evil lying Susan Rice said to the great and pure Bob Schieffer, who would never play politics.

    SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     RICE: We do not. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine


    Here is how the great and pure Bob Schieffer then paraphrased what Susan Rice had just said mere minutes ago to his next guest, the great and straight talking Senator John McCain.

    SCHIEFFER: And joining us now for his take on all this, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain.

    Senator, you've got to help me out here. The president of Libya says that this was something that had been in the works for two months, this attack. He blames it on al Qaeda. Susan Rice says that the State Department thinks it is some sort of a spontaneous event. What do you make of it?

     MCCAIN: Most people don't bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration. That was an act of terror. And for anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is really ignoring the facts.

    Now, how long it was planned and who was involved, but there was no doubt there were extremists, and there's no doubt they were using heavy weapons and they used pretty good tactics--indirect fire, direct fire, and obviously they were successful.


     SCHIEFFER: Why do you think-- Is there something more going on here than a difference of opinion when the administration spokesman today says that she believes, and the administration believes, this was just a spontaneous act?

     MCCAIN: How spontaneous is a demonstration when people bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons and have a very tactically successful military operation?

    Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler neatly summarizes the problem here.

    In that passage, you see the instant reinvention of what Susan Rice actually said. Let's run through the highlighted statements:

     First, Schieffer made it sound like Rice denied that al Qaeda was involved. Plainly, that isn't what she said.

     He also introduced the confusion which would endlessly surround the term "spontaneous:"

     "Susan Rice says that the State Department thinks the attack was some sort of a spontaneous event," Schieffer said. What she'd actually said was substantially different. She'd actually said the State Department had no evidence supporting the claim that the attack had been preplanned for months.

     For some reason which went unexplained, Schieffer seemed to think that al-Magariaf, a Libyan pol, just had to be right on that point, while Rice just had to be wrong. He conveyed this unfounded, baseless notion right from the start of his exchange with McCain.

     Schieffer's performance was utterly hapless. McCain took the ball and ran. He immediately started making it sound like Rice had claimed that a bunch of spontaneous protesters had staged the killing attacks.

     Plainly, that isn't what she'd said. But Scheiffer and McCain kept topping each other as they invented a silly story which Rice was said to have told.

     At one point, McCain hotly insisted that extremists using heavy weapons had staged the attack. That, of course, is precisely what Rice had just said.

    This is what Rice said on TV that Sunday (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    I posted this previously too. She said the assessment at present is:

    "what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--sparked by this hateful video"

    This is a lie. Full quote below.

    "Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--sparked by this hateful video ... We do not--we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

    "Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--sparked by this hateful video ... We do not--we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."


    Here is an email that Rice was sent (none / 0) (#82)
    by Green26 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 08:30:27 PM EST
    on Sept. 12. Sent by a spokesperson Nuland saying what Nuland, the State Dept spokesperson had said on a prior call, i.e that the attack was "complex", as opposed to spontaneous. From what I read, Nuland was thought to be on the call later in the week briefing Rice for the Sunday (Sept. 16) talk shows, along with Obama advisor Plouffe, and Ben Rhodes and Nuland.

    "The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the
    consulate had been well planned.  The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

    "Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack."

    In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred "spontaneously" in response to the "hateful video." On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS's "Face the Nation:"

    But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy-sparked by this hateful video."



    baloney (none / 0) (#83)
    by mm on Tue Apr 11, 2017 at 08:30:36 PM EST
    You left out her strong disclaimer that the investigation was just beginning.

    RICE: Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI that has begun.

    SCHIEFFER: But they are not there yet.

    RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

    But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact

    Pretty sleazy to leave that part out.

    Text of CIA talking points given to Rice:

    The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

     This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

     The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

    Let's switch to Meet the Press, the same day.

    RICE (9/16/12): Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present.

     First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo--almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

    What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

    Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear--we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

    Moving on to CNN,

    RICE (9/16/12): Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

    But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

     We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to--or to the consulate rather--to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then, as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that, as you know, in the wake of the revolution in Libya, are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

    Even to this day, there is no clear definitive answer to exactly what transpired.  Here is General Petraeus testifying to the House Select Committee in March 2015.

    I'm still not absolutely certain what absolutely took place, whether it was a mix of people that are demonstrating with attackers in there, whether this is an organized demonstration to launch an attack, whether--because you'll recall, there's a lot of SIGINT [signals intelligence] that we uncovered that very clearly seemed to indicate that there was a protest and it grew out of  . ... And there is a video of what took place.  And they are just basically milling around out there.  So if this is an attack, you know, maybe they rehearsed it to look like a protest, but maybe it was actually a mix.  And so, again, I'm still not completely set in my own mind of what--and to be candid with you, I am not sure that the amount of scrutiny spent on this has been in the least bit worth it.

    Sorry, what you posted is total BS and spin (none / 0) (#84)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 12, 2017 at 12:21:05 AM EST
    The White House, and likely others, came up with the talking points they wanted, and ignored the info they had been provided. They went with the spin of people like Rhodes.

    You are so far off base, and out of touch with reality. Pretty funny.

    The State Dept, and presumably Hillary too, knew what had occurred in Benghazi. The video was a total excuse and scam. No one in the know at all thought the video had anything to do with Benghazi.

    The State Dept didn't fully cooperate with the Congressional investigations. That's why emails are still being produced. Wonder what else is out there.

    Come back to earth sometime. Stop ignoring the emails to Rice and others. Stop ignoring what Under Secretary Kennedy said, 4 days before Rice want on Sunday talk shows.


    watch your tone (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 12, 2017 at 12:41:42 AM EST
    it's insulting. Your comments are your opinion, and no more accurate than anyone elses.

    Jeralyn, I am just being direct and honest (none / 0) (#86)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 12, 2017 at 01:17:31 AM EST
    in my responses. Sometimes to a bunch of posters that jump at me frequently, and often for little or no reason. Disagree with you that any of my posts, especially in this thread, are insulting. They are not.

    Some of my posts are my opinion, and some are very accurate and based on knowledge and fact. Few on this site have experience in business, business law, and taxes.

    Hey, I am happy to depart your site anytime. I think I bring some thought-provoking discussion to the site. I do research. I have considerable experience in business law and business. I believe in civil liberties, civil rights, and criminal procedure. I don't respond to most of the snipping at me.

    I have appreciated that you have provided some support at various times. However, If this site wants to focus more on preaching to the choir, that's fine with me. Happy to move on.


    you know what (none / 0) (#87)
    by mm on Wed Apr 12, 2017 at 06:08:35 AM EST
    We're never going to agree on this.  You accused Susan Rice of lying.  Then you post part of what she said and leave out her qualifications and totally misrepresent the substance of what she said.  She never claimed protestors of the video were the ones who did the attack.  The only people lying were persons like John McCain and Trey Gowdy who totally misrepresented what she said.  She talked about possible al Qaeda involvement and heavily armed extremists.  

    I posted the exact CIA talking points she was given.  You dismiss them and claim they were written by the White House.  You absurdly insist that before the FBI even had feet on the ground, everything was already known about the unfortunate tragic event in Benghazi.  That's really something, I don't know why the FBI even bothered to go there.


    Funny (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    You cite an impossible standard ("someone familiar with what Rice did in this situation" - which you know is classified), then call everything else "spin", while offering a fairy tale piece by Gregg Jarret.  But it's nice an actual (former) attorney was at least able to provide statutes do match his fantasies.

    Waiting for some of you to address (none / 0) (#47)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    the statutes. At least two of you kept calling for statutes. I found some, Would like to hear your comments on the statute.

    Do you believe it's "routine" for the White House intel advisor to request and gather this type of information on an opposition presidential candidate and his people, during the election and then after the opposition candidate won? I don't. Seems like rules and laws should prevent that. That doesn't mean the FBI and other investigative bodies can't do whatever investigations they think are appropriate.


    You (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    misconstrue the whole process, she absolutely did not request any such thing, it would be highly illegal and no agency would sign on. She was delivered reports/transcripts on foreign targets by the originating agency because that agency thought the information would be important to her in doing her job, the names are masked by law, mostly as a sop to privacy, but with the full expectations that the recipient has a high probability of wanting to know the name if it is anyway germane to the points in the briefing.

    It is routine for Rice to receive such briefings and ask for unmasking, just as it is routine across the IC.

    What is not routine is tRump associates constantly  appearing in these reports again and again, it's no wonder that they appeared on Rice's desk as they most certainly appeared in multiple agencies across the government.


    WTF????!!!!! (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    Do you object to diplomacy? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective


    In case you have missed it we are on a track to be in armed conflict with Iran and Russia. A little talking might save a lot of lives.


    Personally (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    I am opposed to cowboy diplomacy by unauthorized private citizens.

    The Worst That Trump & Co Could Have Done? (none / 0) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    Is it to encourage the Russians to hack Hillary and/or the DNC and offet in return, juicy deals under Trump?  I am still looking for a credible "collusion" scenario that could have occurred.  

    Patience is a virtue, RickyJim. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    It would be a wise move for you to show some. It took congressional and DOJ investigators over two years to piece together what happened in the Watergate scandal, which finally led to President Nixon's resignation from office under direct threat of impeachment and removal. Given the ever-increasing breadth and scope of the current allegations and investigations regarding Russian interference and the Trump campaign's alleged collusion, this may well take a while to sort out, too.

    Bannon is off (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    the NSC, but never fear, Sec of Energy, Rick Perry has been added (although he must wear his glasses at all meetings, says a wag).  This new appointment will crowd Perry's agenda so it may be that he will not have time to meddle in student government elections at Texas A & M, where he complained that the election of a gay student was unfair.

    Well . . . (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 05, 2017 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    they ARE correct.

    whoever hijacks this thread (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    to a discussion about a particular commenter's views on the universe will be banned. And Jim's and Green's replies will be deleted.

    This is not an open thread and it's not about Jim or Green. Ignore them or refute their arguments, but skip the personal attacks.

    I take exception to (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    that ISIS statement.  The US is being run by idiots.

    Yeah! But in all fairness, ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    ... who knew that governating and leadershipping could be much more harder work than, let's say, wheeling and dealing and scheming and scamming?



    As it stands now (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2017 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    All ISIS has to do is play a waiting game while the current idiocracy gives Trump, opioids, and unregulated Free Markets "a chance to work."

    The useful idiot (none / 0) (#56)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    just launched Cruise missiles against Syria. I guess that now makes the US an ally of ISIS. I knew Cheeto was going to get us into a war. I was just expecting Iran or North Korea first. I guess they'll be next.