Not a Duke fan but this is great!

[Unregistered]

Remember when President Obama*pledged*to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State?

Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in Iraq, fell completely to militants of the Islamic State on Sunday. This represented, in the words of the*New York Times, “the biggest victory so far this year for the Islamic State, which has declared a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast areas of Syria and Iraq that it controls.”

But that victory by ISIS shouldn’t obscure the fact that, according to the*Wall Street Journal, “Islamic State leaders in Syria have sent money, trainers and fighters to Libya in increasing numbers, raising new concerns for the U.S. that the militant group is gaining traction in its attempts to broaden its reach and expand its influence.*In recent months, U.S. military officials said, Islamic State has solidified its foothold in Libya as it searches for ways to capitalize on rising popularity among extremist groups around the world.”

And those gains in Libya, in turn, shouldn’t obscure the fact that last week,*as the Associated Press points out, “The Islamic State group … seized more territory in Syria’s central province of Homs amid clashes with government forces that left dozens dead and wounded on both sides.”

The Islamic State’s gains in Libya, in turn, shouldn’t conceal the fact*that*“Militants in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Nigeria’s fearsome Boko Haram – all once linked to al Qaeda – have … pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...wellian-world/

I doubt that any successful military strategy in the history of warfare was ever described as “degrade and ultimately destroy”. He was telling us right from the start he intended to do nothing of substance.
STEVEN BRAITMAN

[Unregistered]

I doubt that any successful military strategy in the history of warfare was ever described as “degrade and ultimately destroy”. He was telling us right from the start he intended to do nothing of substance.
STEVEN BRAITMAN

Sure, if you read between the lines. Sort of like all the other promises he's made just to get elected.

[Unregistered]

Sure, if you read between the lines. Sort of like all the other promises he's made just to get elected.

I'd say he's over-delivering on his promise to make more Americans dependent upon government for their survival. If we can get enough people into the category of "no longer seeking work" then we can approach the fabled 0% unemployment rate. Alas, if BHO could only serve a third term....

[Unregistered]

Liberal logic: She hasn't accomplished anything in 25 years of politics, but she knows how to get things done....lying and cheating aside.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oes-it-matter/

[Unregistered]

Liberal logic: She hasn't accomplished anything in 25 years of politics, but she knows how to get things done....lying and cheating aside.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oes-it-matter/

Just love these sweeping statements. Regardless of your stripes, you're talking about incredibly accomplished persons who have achieved at levels almost everyone here cannot possibly fathom. Given your bar, who HAS accomplished something???

[Unregistered]

Just love these sweeping statements. Regardless of your stripes, you're talking about incredibly accomplished persons who have achieved at levels almost everyone here cannot possibly fathom. Given your bar, who HAS accomplished something???

What has she accomplished? That didn't come as a result of being Bill Clinton's wife? Let's see if you can do better than the Iowa Democrats. Let's start with her accomplishments as Secretary of State.

[Unregistered]

Just love these sweeping statements. Regardless of your stripes, you're talking about incredibly accomplished persons who have achieved at levels almost everyone here cannot possibly fathom. Given your bar, who HAS accomplished something???

She is the most famous first lady in history. Famous for her philandering husband and her decision to "stand by him" despite her so called feminist leanings. Stained Blue Dress be damned.

She owes her entire career to Bill. Sad but true. She was a forgettable Senator. A disaster as Secretary of State. And she is arguably the worst presidential candidate since Mike Dukakis.

[Unregistered]

She is the most famous first lady in history. Famous for her philandering husband and her decision to "stand by him" despite her so called feminist leanings. Stained Blue Dress be damned.

She owes her entire career to Bill. Sad but true. She was a forgettable Senator. A disaster as Secretary of State. And she is arguably the worst presidential candidate since Mike Dukakis.

That means, she is almost perfect for the country, Hope you enjoy another 8 years of
Democratic Presidential Rule ------The top 15% wealthiest people were given more wealth, and you are worried about who is President. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHa

[Unregistered]

From the Washington Post

"(Bill Clinton) had changed the boundaries of the ethically acceptable — in the character we expect from a president and in the behavior of powerful men toward young women in their employ. In the end, Clinton stood; standards fell."

"While a majority of Americans do not judge (Hillary Clinton) to be “honest and trustworthy,” she is essentially unchallenged for the nomination of her party and leads in all the head-to-heads with Republicans. Who needs a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness anyway? Foreign money is a matter that should be left between a politician and her donors. What Clinton does in the privacy of her server room is her own business."

"If Clinton succeeds, it would expand the boundaries of the permissible. It would again define deviancy down. Americans would have rewarded, or at least ignored, defiant secrecy and the destruction of documents. Future presidential candidates and campaign advisers would take note. Americans would have rewarded a skate along the ethical boundaries of money and influence. Future donors would see a green light, no matter what candidate Clinton says about campaign finance reform."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9e9_story.html

[Unregistered]

From the Washington Post

"(Bill Clinton) had changed the boundaries of the ethically acceptable — in the character we expect from a president and in the behavior of powerful men toward young women in their employ. In the end, Clinton stood; standards fell."

"While a majority of Americans do not judge (Hillary Clinton) to be “honest and trustworthy,” she is essentially unchallenged for the nomination of her party and leads in all the head-to-heads with Republicans. Who needs a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness anyway? Foreign money is a matter that should be left between a politician and her donors. What Clinton does in the privacy of her server room is her own business."

"If Clinton succeeds, it would expand the boundaries of the permissible. It would again define deviancy down. Americans would have rewarded, or at least ignored, defiant secrecy and the destruction of documents. Future presidential candidates and campaign advisers would take note. Americans would have rewarded a skate along the ethical boundaries of money and influence. Future donors would see a green light, no matter what candidate Clinton says about campaign finance reform."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9e9_story.html

Is there any chance she was involved with closing down any bridge lanes anywhere? If she did, she's toast. Let me re-phrase that: If she did, and she changed her affiliation to republican, she's toast.

Somebody check Sandy Berger's pants!

[Unregistered]

That means, she is almost perfect for the country, Hope you enjoy another 8 years of
Democratic Presidential Rule ------The top 15% wealthiest people were given more wealth, and you are worried about who is President. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHa

As long as both parties are committed to growing the size of government it doesn't matter who wins. With one you get gay marriage and abortion on demand. With the other you get mass surveillance and guns.

[Unregistered]

So much for one of your big heroes......shortest campaign in history?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...alert-politics

[Unregistered]

Et tu, Dana Milbank?

Clinton and her husband have only themselves to blame for making themselves vulnerable to guilt-by-association attacks. They have managed to make Hillary Clinton conspicuously out of tune with the mood of the 2016 electorate: At a time of rising populist backlash against Wall Street, inequality and wealth-purchased privilege, there is no Democrat more closely tied to the rich and the powerful than Clinton. At a time when Democrats need to draw contrasts with Republicans by sticking up for the little guy, Clinton’s solicitation of — and favors for — the powerful make her an inauthentic messenger.

As The Post has documented, the Clintons’ charitable efforts have been closely tied to the considerable fortune they amassed for themselves.*Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million*in speaking fees by entities that were major donors to the foundation. The foundation has also been good for the balance sheets of Clinton friends such as Sidney Blumenthal, who received about$10,000 a month from the foundation*while providing his thoughts on Libya to then-Secretary Clinton.

The Clintons’ defenders will say none of this is illegal, and that may be so. The problem is appearance. Clinton can talk all she wants about income inequality and reducing the influence of money in politics, but her recent experience makes her seem insincere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...f5c_story.html

[Unregistered]

So much for one of your big heroes......shortest campaign in history?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...alert-politics

Whether Carson stays or goes, at least Republicans are being given a choice.

[Unregistered]

GIVEN CHINA HACK, WAS IT SMART FOR HILLARY TO USE PRIVATE SERVER?

If you want to know what's in Clinton's deleted emails, just ask the Chinese.

Or the Russians.