andythinkpad
Member
LOL Wikileak is pivoting? No way.
Well, it is significant because previously this was just speculation. Contrary to the headline, Hillary didn't say she thought Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS. She said, "We need ... to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Isis] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."Wait...this is a revelation?
Well, it is significant because previously this was just speculation. Contrary to the headline, Hillary didn't say she thought Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS. She said, "We need ... to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Isis] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."
Hillary, with the intelligence and information she was privy to until 2013 (and probably afterward), said Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS and other radical Sunni groups (probably referring to Al-Qaeda's offshoot Al-Nusra), which means it is almost definitively true. This has major implications. Qatar and Saudi Arabia fund a wide variety of media outlets, thinktanks, lobbying groups, and reporters in the West. Paid liars like Charles Lister (https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister) and the entire staff of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are being paid by the same people who bankrolled ISIS. ISIS has carried out attacks in the West, which means Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding terrorist attacks in Europe, the United States, and Canada.
This, hopefully Hillary will be different to Obama in this matter.
Wikileaks reveals that Clinton can draw correct conclusions from basic international intelligence.
Didn't the Obama admin or someone else already say this, like years ago? I'm pretty sure Qatar was like the largest financier of ISIS.
What's noteworthy in there? It just reads like a bunch of underlings trying to put together a press release that she'll approve.How patronizing. There is some noteworthy stuff in there that (surprise, surprise) hasn't been talked about over at PoliGAF, like the email chain on HRC's position on DOMA and gay marriage.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631
Let me be clear - just because I think HRC shouldn't get a pass on this doesn't mean I want to MAGA.
This is shit that needs to be talked about and should not be swept back under the carpet. As a queer man, this is incredibly disheartening to read.
The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as much as we can there.
Parenthetical and emphasis mine.I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. [that there was a threat of constitutional amendment] Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.
In private emails that are not intended for the public but were hacked to undermine the leadership and safety of our country. If the intention is to produce evidence of criminal activity related to HRC then all they're doing is showing how mundane and expected her communications are.October Surprise:
Hillary uses logic to deduce something.
The angle is that she took donations from them so she took money from people she thinks are funding terrorists.
I think it's stupid but that's what I'm seeing out there in the nets.
Who cares where the money comes from?
When it goes to a charity that actually has a great track record for using their money properly, there's really no reason to care where the money comes from.
The Wikileaks leaks made me like Clinton more.