Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
63. When the Washington Psst (CIA) and the Atlantic (Pentagon, Joint Chiefs) weigh in...
Sun May 29, 2016, 04:35 AM
May 2016

...you gotta figure something significant is occurring behind the scenes. I happened to read an article by U.S. military brass (or ex-brass, as they do things) in The Atlantic back in 2006, and they were going on about how impossible it was to use nukes on Iran. As you may recall, Cheney-Rumsfeld's big plan that year was nuking Iran. It was all the talk. But then Rumsfeld resigned late in that year and all talk of nuking Iran suddenly went away.

When I saw the article about the OIG report in The Atlantic, all my tinfoil hat tentacles began vibrating and receiving messages. Hillary. Is. In. Big. Trouble.

And the Psst outrage tells us that the intelligence community's hair is on fire.

I know it's like reading entrails--but these publications do NOT print straightforward news and opinion. They only reveal the intestines of the animal they have sacrificed, and it's up to us to figure out what the omens are.

After reading up on Hillary's private server--here at DU and elsewhere after Paul Thompson got shunned--it seems to me--just a feeling, you understand--that our intelligence agencies and our generals DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS PERSON as commander-in-chief. Hillary's trustworthy ratings are in the toilet among us ordinary people. I suspect that that's where they are among these powers-that-be as well.

Someone here theorized (some weeks ago--can't recall who it was) that our spy agencies were monitoring her email server throughout its existence, and that this might mean that these dark players now have lots and lots of blackmail material with which to control President Hillary. I thought that was an interesting theory but probably too Byzantine--re a definite plan to let her get elected but then "handle" her. But the part about the spy agencies monitoring that server makes sense. According to a lot of techies, almost anybody could have been hacking that unprotected, wide open server. Why not our own spies as well?

What this may mean in the current, visible situation--the damning OIG report and the pending FBI report--I don't know and can't guess. What it says to me is that the chorus of disapproval in the Corrupt Media has been seconded by significant insider entrenched powers in the government.

We CAN guess, though, that there is probably a political shit-storm occurring behind the scenes--among all parties with an interest in the investigation, and all parties that are actors in the investigation, including many agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, HS, DoJ, OIG, Pentagon, etc.), John Kerry and others at State, Obama and the White House, many important political players (like Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Warren, et al) and probably big corporate players who have invested so heavily in Hillary, and expect TPP and other juicy rewards, and maybe some foreign entities--both in countries that could be implicated in illegal Hillary-brokered deals (the Saudis, for instance) and in our western and other allies who may be wondering what the hell is going on in our country.

Surely most of the potentially interested parties don't want Mr. Big Mouth Unpredictable as U.S. commander-in-chief! Could some of these interested parties and/or actors want Bernie Sanders as the safest president in these circumstances? He's certainly the one to demolish Trump, according to all polls on this matter since January. And he's not said he would dismantle the CIA or anything like that. (Harry Truman said that--did you know?) (Um, so did JFK, alas.) He really is NOT a radical at all. Just a nicer, more grandfatherly version of FDR. (Bernie wouldn't welcome anybody's hatred, even "organized money"'s.)

I don't know. Perhaps I'm spinning too far. But I do feel the rumble. And there are a whole lot of things that Clinton did--with regard to the server, in relation to the server and by use of the server--that would seem to be very offensive to major sectors of the government, in varied ways and for varied reasons. One I haven't mentioned is her use of Robert Kagan as an adviser. This is Mr. Chief Neo-Con of Bush-Cheney & Rumsfeld. The CIA wouldn't likely want to see that crowd back in the White House!


It's going to get worse - they smell blood in the water FreakinDJ May 2016 #1
Please, Sanders supporters have been smelling blood in the water for months and he still lost. Trust Buster May 2016 #4
These arnt sanders supporters Jesus Malverde May 2016 #7
You need to differentiale between media nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #41
I think the Democratic voters knew who they were voting for and why. They were not dictated Trust Buster May 2016 #43
Actually no, they didi not nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #44
I disagree. Even Sanders himself claimed in the first debate that he's tired hearing about Trust Buster May 2016 #46
This is *not* about Sanders nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #47
I've read extensively about how the Republican machine tried to tie the Clinton's to scandal Trust Buster May 2016 #49
Alas Counselor that points to motive nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #50
You can talk as cute as you wish. But, that won't change the underlying fact that the voters Trust Buster May 2016 #51
Voters are not part of this *legal equation* nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #52
Thank you for your juris prudence, I just don't agree with your analysis. But, we'll see. Trust Buster May 2016 #53
It is not jurisprudence nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #55
somebody will be looking for a pardon before it is all said and done reddread May 2016 #24
She's our nominee. Some have feigned outrage at the IG report as they will with the FBI report. Trust Buster May 2016 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #6
I know that Sanders supporters are pushing this "voters don't matter" meme. That's because your Trust Buster May 2016 #9
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #10
You sound both hysterical and desperate. Please don't embarrass yourself further. Trust Buster May 2016 #12
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #14
Calm down. You might burst a blood vessel. LOL Trust Buster May 2016 #15
If I question whether Hillary jeopardized national security XemaSab May 2016 #16
????? I didn't even respond to a post of yours. I think you are mistaken. Trust Buster May 2016 #18
Nope. tazkcmo May 2016 #20
She's not my nominee Baobab May 2016 #35
Reading your post is like reading 840high May 2016 #61
I agree... RazBerryBeret May 2016 #3
thing is, it's always been tougher for the Clintons bigtree May 2016 #5
Yea, we got the non-story about Emailgate plus her win in the Trump-Sanders "debate" Tarc May 2016 #8
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #11
Get it right! tazkcmo May 2016 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #19
Is this really your idea of a good week? Jesus Malverde May 2016 #22
Here is how the guardian sums up the week. Jesus Malverde May 2016 #25
Spin Cycle Out of Control pmorlan1 May 2016 #28
I think the part of the week that was good for Hillary. Jesus Malverde May 2016 #29
Thanks 840high May 2016 #62
I think it was the clarity of the IG report that she evaded media oversight karynnj May 2016 #13
The media is craven. They fear going after either party establishment. BillZBubb May 2016 #17
DEVASTATING became the trending word unc70 May 2016 #23
Yeah I head that a lot...nt Jesus Malverde May 2016 #26
Ironically, even the freepers are better informed about these important things... grasswire May 2016 #33
That is for the same reason DU'ers were better infomred nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #59
probably so nt grasswire May 2016 #60
Yeah, the media LOVES the Clintons. Ha! Where have you been for the last 20+ years?!? Metric System May 2016 #27
living in their Paradise. they know who their friends are reddread May 2016 #31
Amazing isn't it. JoePhilly May 2016 #67
They're on her side until she looks like she's going down. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow May 2016 #32
Oh I got a theory... somethgn happened at the watering holes nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #34
Not sure I understand your comment?...nt Jesus Malverde May 2016 #37
All reporters have sources nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #38
Completely agree unc70 May 2016 #39
Force is a function of mass and acceleration. Alex4Martinez May 2016 #54
That is certainly one way to describe it nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #57
She campaigned being strong on national security, what a joke! This is not going away! B Calm May 2016 #36
Not as tough as next week will be for Bernie Demsrule86 May 2016 #40
And in November you can say hi to President Trump nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #42
She will beat him if anyone can Demsrule86 May 2016 #45
Ok nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #48
I think that this an attempt to get "this" out before the convention CentralMass May 2016 #56
From having seen scandals in the past nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #58
When the Washington Psst (CIA) and the Atlantic (Pentagon, Joint Chiefs) weigh in... Peace Patriot May 2016 #63
I think your on to something. Jesus Malverde May 2016 #64
Sorry Demsrule86 May 2016 #65
"...they have attacked her for years." The FBI? The OIG? John Kerry... Peace Patriot May 2016 #68
Hmm Reid's comment the other day nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #66
.....! Soon more... KoKo May 2016 #69
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»There is no doubt it's be...»Reply #63