Lindsey Graham and replies to Clinton

If Hillary Clinton did not want a military dictatorship in the United $tates, there were a lot of things that could have been done differently. What was Gordon England, a reporter? Who was watching and had Obama by the gonads the whole time of this rape rumor stuff, the PTA? It was the CIA and NSA of course.

What Clinton is saying amounts to denying that the president has to be involved with conflicts inside the military. That’s fantasy land. It’s not just conflicts inside the U.$. military but the foreign affairs implications.

Democrats could have nominated Kucinich or Gravel and they blew it. Now for the Democrats to feel they had a chance at governing we need Jesse Jackson, Holder or Wilder.

Look, reality is that Senator Lindsey Graham is correct about what could bring the presidency down. Now we have Obama retreating:

“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.”


That’s according to Josh Gerstein February 15.

The reason for that is that Graham threatened to bring down the presidency over Gitmo and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Nice going Avakian.

Avakianites should just admit they are wrong. We are not here to stoke up intra-imperialist contradictions. Even with the racism question stripped out, there are going to be intra-imperialist contradictions.

Notes:
1. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32998.html#ixzz0fj4paJzA

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: