What are You Trying to Hide, Mr Obama?

0 0
Read Time:9 Minute, 15 Second

MH17 shot down: Obama blames rebels, hits out at Russia

So far, Putin’s appeal for safe passage for investigators has been wilfully ignored by the Kiev regime, which has if anything stepped up its violence in the region since the air crash. And Western leaders are giving full cover to the Kiev regime by perversely laying the blame on Russia and the self-defense militias in Donetsk, accusing both of obstructing recovery and a crash probe. 

To paraphrase Obama: «What is the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors trying to hide?»

 

Western leaders and their media would have us believe that Russian-backed terrorists and bandits not only shot down a civilian airliner killing all 298 onboard – but that they have added to their depravity by defiling the dead, kicking around body parts and robbing corpses.

On top of all that, so the official Western narrative goes, the separatist militias have been callously blocking an international rescue and investigation team, by denying access to the crash site, near the town of Grabovo, in rural fields some 40 kilometres from the Russian border with eastern Ukraine.

US Secretary of State John Kerry told American television networks on Sunday of alleged abhorrent behaviour by the local self-defence militia who took charge of the crash site in the territory under their control. «Drunken separatists have been piling bodies into trucks and removing them from the site. What’s happening is really grotesque, and it is contrary to everything President Putin and Russia said they would do».

The ghoulish theme was picked up the next day by US President Obama who told media that the conduct of the militia was «an insult to those who have lost loved ones and has no place in the international community of nations».

Obama accused the separatists of attempting to cover up the evidence of the crash. «What exactly are they trying to hide?» he asked.

British premier David Cameron and his Australian counterpart Tony Abbott echoed the same line, accusing the Ukrainian separatists of shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 last Thursday and spending the last few days hampering recovery of bodies and forensic material. Cameron blamed Russia for aiding and abetting the rebels in eastern Ukraine. «The world also wants to see a real change in the stance Russia has taken over the crisis in Ukraine,» said Cameron without any substantiation.

Australian premier Abbott

While the Australian premier piled on the pejorative rhetoric, referring to the crash site: «It’s more like a garden clean-up than a forensic investigation. This is completely unacceptable».

Abbott added for good measure that the rebels at the crash site was like putting «criminals in charge of a crime scene» – again without any substantiation.

The problem with this lurid narrative, which is being pushed like a tidal wave in the Western media, is that it is actually running reality in reverse.

The «good guys», so to speak, are in fact the various self-defence militia in eastern Ukraine, the communities they are trying to protect, and the Russian government, which has been trying to bring some civilised diplomatic order to the bloody chaos in the region.

That chaos is not just the latest disaster of the downing of the Amsterdam to Malaysia Boeing 777. For the past four months, the eastern region of Ukraine has been living in a nightmare imposed by the Western-installed junta in the central capital, Kiev. All ethnic Russian communities in the east are, in the publicly declared words of the Kiev regime, «sub-humans» to be hunted down in «anti-terror operations».

Since the weekend, the two main cities in the east, Donetsk and Lugansk, have been shelled constantly by Ukrainian regular army forces and neo-Nazi paramilitary groups under the direction of the Western-sponsored coup leaders in Kiev, headed up by self-styled Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

Days following the airliner crash – which is believed to have been shot down with a surface-to-air missile, although it could have been hit by a fighter jet – over 20 people have been killed in Donetsk and Lugansk from artillery fire and air strikes carried out by the pro-Kiev forces. Over the past two months more than 250 people have been killed in Lugansk alone, according to monitors from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Most the dead are civilians killed by indiscriminate shelling from pro-Kiev military.

Only a couple of days before the airliner came down, a Kiev warplane hit a residential block in the town of Snezhnoye, some 20 kilometres from the crash site. That attack resulted in 11 dead, all them civilians.

Mortars have been fired in residential areas and pedestrian centres. In the deadliest attack in Lugansk over the weekend, eight civilians were killed when mortars hit the city centre on Friday. Their bodies were torn apart, strewn on the street, as graphic video footage testifies.

The self-defence militia set up in the eastern region are opposed to the Western-installed regime in Kiev. They have every right to resist the illegal self-imposed authority, which they see as willing to sign the country up to NATO, the IMF and Western economic pillaging.

The militia have the support of the vast majority of the people, who voted for autonomy from Kiev in referenda organised in early May, giving rise to the self-declared Peoples’ Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

Now these people are fighting for their lives, as the Kiev regime steps up the its so-called anti-terror operations. At the start of this week, the Kiev forces were bombarding central areas of Donetsk and Lugansk cities. Residents – those that have not already fled in their tens of thousands for refuge across the border in Russia – have been forced into air raid shelters out of fear from the constant shelling by Kiev troops and warplanes. Some of these shelters have not been used since the Second World War when people used them back then to evade Nazi bombing carried out along with the ancestors of the Kiev regime who collaborated with the Third Reich.

It is obscene that these people are being vilified now by Western governments and their media. The reality is that these people are not only fighting for their lives, they also have spared their time and meagre resources to help secure the crash site of the downed airliner and to retrieve the bodies of the victims – all in the middle of a war zone that has been imposed on them by a ruthless Western-backed Kiev regime.

Despite Obama’s baseless disparagement of the self-defence militia as being «an insult to the international community», on the same day that he made that announcement the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was praising the local authorities for having made arrangements to retrieve the bodies and to hand over the vitally important black box recorders from the doomed airliner. The latter data could reveal what caused the passenger plane to explode in mid-air and crash.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s announcement that his government had reached an agreement with pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, for the transfer of the bodies and so-called black boxes from Flight 17 to Malaysian representatives there, apparently achieved what pressure from far more powerful nations had failed to accomplish.

Significantly, the Malaysian premier did not make the arrangements through the Kiev regime. He dealt directly with the Donetsk People’s Republic leader Alexander Borodai. The Malaysians disclosed publicly that 282 of the bodies recovered so far were to be transported in refrigerated train carriages to Donetsk and thence to the city of Kharkiv before being flown on to Amsterdam. The flight recorder black boxes were also to be handed over in Donetsk by militia members to an official Malaysian investigative team…

In the latest onslaught by Kiev forces in Donetsk it seems more than a coincidence that they have attacked the central train station in that city – from where the airline crash corpses were to be transported. Some rail tracks were reportedly damaged by shelling, thus putting transport of the human remains in jeopardy.

The Washington Post reported early Monday: «Michael Bociurkiw, an OSCE spokesman, said it remained unclear when the rail cars containing the bodies would move and where they would go. He said renewed fighting in Donetsk on Monday had possibly damaged the tracks, adding a complication.

«We were told by rebels it has caused some damage to the railway system,» said the OSCE spokesman. «That is a crucial development in the sense that with the airport inoperable, and if the train station is inoperable, that will cut off Donetsk even further».

The OSCE team confirmed to media on Saturday – less than 48 hours after the airliner was downed – that they had gained full access to the crash site, facilitated by the local self-defence militia, even though Kiev forces were conducting intimidating flyovers with warplanes.

Meanwhile, Dutch investigators who oversaw the eventual placement of the 282 corpses into a train at the town of Torez, near the crash site, for transport on to Donetsk, spoke admirably of the local rescue teams that the self-defence militia and community had organized.

Reuters reported: «Peter van Vliet, whose team went through the wagons dressed in surgical masks and rubber gloves, said he was impressed by the work the recovery crews had done, given the heat and the scale of the crash site». Vliet told Reuters: «I think they did a hell of a job in a hell of a place».

And so the Dutch investigators should be in admiration. The people of Donetsk are trying to rescue victims in conditions of extreme duress imposed by Kiev’s terrorist operations.

All the while, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been calling for a ceasefire from the Kiev forces so that a full and safe international investigation can take place into what happened Flight MH17. On Monday, Putin called for the disaster not to be politicised by narrow self interests.

So far, Putin’s appeal for safe passage for investigators has been wilfully ignored by the Kiev regime, which has if anything stepped up its violence in the region since the air crash.

And Western leaders are giving full cover to the Kiev regime by perversely laying the blame on Russia and the self-defence militias in Donetsk, accusing both of obstructing recovery and a crash probe.

To paraphrase Obama: «What is the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors trying to hide?»

As for Australia’s premier Abbott, what seems to be getting up his nose is the fact that the Western-backed criminals in Kiev are not in charge of the crime scene.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Downed Airliner: Fake Audio Tape Shows US-Backed Hit to Frame Russia

0 0
Read Time:8 Minute, 22 Second

West Blaming Putin for MH17 tragedy.

Within hours of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crashing into a wheat field in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine last Thursday, Western governments and media have gradually stoked a frenzy of accusations that Moscow had a hand in the disaster.

In a devastating twist to emerge over the weekend it now seems that the Malaysian civilian airliner downed over Ukraine was most probably brought down as a result of sabotage by the US-backed Kiev regime.

The purpose of this audacious act of mass murder – in which 298 lives were lost – was carried out with the intention of framing the Russian government. Washington, the chief sponsor of the Kiev regime, must have known about the plot, if not being fully complicit in it.

The key to this dramatic twist is the identification of incriminating audio tapes over the weekend as fake – tapes that were created initially to implicate Moscow, as part of a massive black operation involving the destruction of the civilian airliner and all those onboard.

Within hours of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crashing into a wheat field in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine last Thursday, Western governments and media have gradually stoked a frenzy of accusations that Moscow had a hand in the disaster.

Nationals from more than 12 countries were onboard the doomed Boeing 777, most of them Dutch, Malaysian, Australian, as well as American, Canadian, British and several other European states.

Western fingers of blame began pointing at Russia the day following the crash when US President Barack Obama announced that unnamed American intelligence sources said that the suspected surface-to-air missile believed to have taken the jet down was fired from territory held by anti-Kiev self-defence militias. Or as Obama put it: «Russian-backed separatists».

The American president did not accuse Moscow outright then but he implied Russian involvement in the incident with the reasoning that Russia (allegedly) provided «technical assistance» in the firing of the sophisticated missile system, known as a Buk SA-11.

The missile system can fire warheads up to an altitude of 70,000 feet – well within range of civilian long-haul jumbo jets – with the armed projectile soaring at three times the speed of sound. The system is Soviet-era make, and is also used by the Ukrainian state forces.

Over the weekend the accusations against Russia from Western governments and media have steadily grown to a crescendo. In his usual round of Sunday television programmes, US Secretary of State John Kerry went as far as claiming that American intelligence was now certain that Russia had supplied the missile system to the militia in eastern Ukraine…

Kerry told CNN: «It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia in the hands of separatists».

Kerry added: «We know with confidence that the Ukrainians [that is, the Western-backed Kiev regime forces] did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time. So it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.» Kerry’s claim is contradicted by Russian intelligence, as we shall see.

The American press were also chiming in with the same story. The Wall Street Journal reported: «US officials believe the anti-aircraft systems were moved back across the border into Russia…»

The Sunday edition of the Washington Post headlined: «Russia supplied missile launchers to separatists, US official says».

So what began as a circumspect implication on Friday from President Obama soon snowballed into a full-blown grave accusation against Russia within 48 hours.

Meanwhile, Washington’s closest European ally, Britain, was also turning up the pressure on Russia over the downed airliner.

In an unusual Sunday Times article, British Prime Minister David Cameron laid the blame on Moscow for unleashing instability in Ukraine and called for tougher sanctions in response. Cameron said: «Tougher EU [European Union] sanctions against Russia will be needed if Moscow does not change its approach to the downing of the Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine.»

Subordinate ministers went even further in their accusations. Britain’s new Defence Minister Michael Fallon told media that Russia was «sponsoring terrorism» in Ukraine, on the back of the stricken airliner incident.

However, it is clear from a closer reading of the media reports carried in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the British press that the alleged case for implicating Russia relies on a mixture of anonymous assertions by unidentified «US intelligence officials, fragments of unverified phone intercepts, and unverified video and photographs. The latter images purport to show a Buk launcher and its missiles being driven across the Ukrainian border into Russia. It is impossible to verify if the alleged location and time is accurate.

The second aspect of the «evidence» – anonymous, unspecified US intelligence – has no credibility whatsoever given the numerous times that such a formula has been invoked previously; and subsequently has been shown to be baseless or, worse, concocted, as in the Iraqi «weapons of mass destruction» that sparked off the US-led Gulf War in 2003, or in the allegations of chemical weapons allegedly used by the Syrian army last August against civilians, which also turned out to be false.

That leaves us with the third element – the alleged communication intercepts. Since the fatal crash of Flight MH17, the Western media have given prominence to audio files that purportedly relate to conversations between members of the anti-Kiev militia, in which individuals appear to acknowledge that militia units mistakenly hit a civilian airliner, thinking that it was a warplane belonging to the Kiev military forces.

The intercepts were supposed to be the central damning evidence of culpability against the pro-Russian militia, and by extension, Russia itself. The files, posted on the internet by the Kiev secret services, were referred to in all the major Western news media outlets as being «a smoking gun».

The Western media frenzy over the weekend based on all of the above «evidence» produced headlines such as: ‘Putin’s rebels blew up plane’ in Britain’s Daily Express; ‘Ukraine claims ‘compelling evidence’ of Russian involvement’ in the British Guardian; and ‘US sees evidence of Russian link to jet’s downing’ in the New York Times.

This political and media stampede to impugn Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular is telling in itself of a premeditated black operation.

But then came this devastating twist. Russian audio recording experts revealed over the weekend that the intercepts invoked by Kiev and its Western supporters turn out to be fake.

Reputed digital sound analyst Nikolai Popov and his expert team examined the files made public by the Kiev intelligence services, and they found that the files had been doctored from separate and unrelated conversations.

On first hearing, the alleged conversations tend to implicate the self-defence militia in firing a missile at the passenger plane. But on closer examination, the digital fingerprints show that the files were fabricated, taken from separate recordings and spliced together to give the impression of integral conversations.

«This audio recording is not an integral file and is made up of several fragments,» Popov told Russian news agency Itar-Tass.

Moreover – and this is crucial – the sound analysis of digital data shows that the tapes were engineered the day before Flight MH17 was seemingly hit by a missile and blown out of the sky.

This latest discovery makes for some incontrovertible and deeply unsettling conclusions: firstly, parties were involved in deliberately forging the files with the purpose of framing others – the self-defence militia and Moscow; secondly, and more disturbingly, the people who faked the files must have known that the airliner was going to be hit with a missile, or some other catastrophic external force, in order to bring it down with all the horrific loss of life entailed.

In all the maelstrom of Western innuendo against Russia over the doomed airliner, the obvious anomaly is that neither the Moscow nor the anti-Kiev rebels would have anything to remotely gain by carrying out such a dastardly act.

Furthermore, the eastern Ukraine self-defence militia have categorically denied possessing such weaponry and the skill to operate these radar-controlled systems.

But here is more potentially damning information on who the culprits are. Russia’s ministry of defence says that it has radar data showing that an anti-aircraft Buk missile launcher was operated by the Kiev forces in the vicinity of the doomed airliner and that these Kiev forces had the plane in their radar target sites. A digital recording could easily verify that claim.

In addition, there are several other troubling questions that the Kiev regime has so far refused to answer: why was Flight MH17 instructed by Kiev Air Traffic Control to fly on this unusual more northerly route on that fateful day, through a dangerous conflict zone? Also, why were the pilots of MH-17 instructed to fly at the lower altitude of 33,000 feet instead of 35,000 feet?

Taken all this into account, the finger of suspicion now points not at Moscow, but rather at the Kiev regime and its military forces.

More damningly, given the close dependence of the Kiev junta on American government sponsorship for its military operations, the ongoing deep involvement of the CIA in bringing this regime to power in the first place with the illegal coup back in February; and given the concerted way that Washington has sought to exploit the airliner disaster for geopolitical gains – all that strongly points to a deeply criminal collusion. A criminal collusion that involves the deliberate shooting down of a civilian flight and the killing of nearly 300 people.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Germany rejects calls to strip Russia of 2018 World Cup

0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 58 Second
Fifa chairman Sepp Blatter (L) with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Brazil

The German government has rejected calls from allies of Chancellor Angela Merkel to stop Russia hosting the 2018 football World Cup over Ukraine.

Leading MP Michael Fuchs and others have been calling for Russia to be stripped of the championship over the crash of a passenger jet in Ukraine.

Western nations have accused Russia of arming rebels who allegedly shot down the Malaysia Airlines airliner.

All 298 people on board died when it crashed in rebel-held territory.

Russia denies involvement in the attack.

Mr Fuchs argued that stopping Russia hosting the Cup would have a "stronger impact than sanctions".

New EU sanctions against Russia may be announced on Thursday.

Mrs Merkel called for "substantial EU economic sanctions to be imposed against Russia as quickly as possible".

'Too early'

Russia is Germany's biggest trade partner in Europe, and German trade associations have said that new EU sanctions could hurt Germany.

Speaking to German business newspaper Handelblatt Online, Mr Fuchs said that Fifa, football's world governing body, should consider whether it was "appropriate" for Moscow to host the tournament if it could not guarantee air safety.

Flight MH17 was shot down over rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine

He added that economic sanctions would be difficult to implement because of Russia's long borders, which he argued were too porous to block imports.

The interior minister for the state of Hessen, Peter Beuth, agreed with Mr Fuchs, saying the World Cup in Russia would be "unimaginable" if President Vladimir Putin did not fully cooperate with the investigation.

The Dutch football association said it was "too early" to review Russia's right to host the tournament, and that the MH17 investigation should take precedence.

"The association believes it is more appropriate to conduct a discussion over a future World Cup in Russia once the investigation into the disaster has been completed," it said.

EU foreign ministers discussed on Tuesday widening sanctions against Russia.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said a new sanctions list naming individuals and groups would be published by Thursday.

Mr Putin denounced the threat of more sanctions, saying the conflict in Ukraine was the responsibility of his Ukrainian counterpart, Petro

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

France’s Jews Flee As Rioters Burn Paris Shops, Attack Synagogue

0 0
Read Time:3 Minute, 18 Second

France's politicians and community leaders have criticised the "intolerable" violence against Paris' Jewish community, after a pro-Palestinian rally led to the vandalizing and looting of Jewish businesses and the burning of cars.

It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city's Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of "Gas the Jews" and "Kill the Jews", as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as "little Jerusalem".

Manuel Valls, France's prime minister said: “What happened in Sarcelles is intolerable. An attack on a synagogue and on a kosher shop is simply anti-Semitism. Nothing in France can justify this violence.”

More…

Emotional Al Jazeera Journalist Walks Off Camera During Gaza Report

Israel Just Turned Its Social Media Guns On Westminster

Religious leaders gathered for an interfaith service on Monday to call for calm, and Haim Korsia, the chief rabbi of France, and Hassen Chalghoumi, the imam of Drancy shook hands on the steps of the synagogue.

Francois Pupponi, the mayor of Sarcelles, told BFMTV that the violent attacks were carried out by a "horde of savages."

"When you head for the synagogue, when you burn a corner shop because it is Jewish-owned, you are committing an anti-Semitic act," interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve told reporters at a press conference at the local synagogue.

Eighteen people were arrested for attacks on shops, including a kosher supermarket, a Jewish-owned chemist and a funeral home. Rioters, who carried batons and threw petrol bombs according to eyewitnesses, were yards from the synagogue when they were driven back by riot police who used tear gas.

“They were shouting: ‘Death to Jews,’ and ‘Slit Jews’ throats’,” David, a Jewish sound engineer told The Times. “It took us back to 1938.”

“We called our town 'Little Jerusalem' because we felt at home here,” Laetitia, a longtime Sarcelles resident, told France 24. “We were safe, there were never any problems. And I just wasn't expecting anything like this. We are very shocked, really very shocked."

Roger Cuikerman, head of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France told Radio France International: "They are not screaming, 'Death to the Israelis' on the streets of Paris. They are screaming, "Death to the Jews." The community was not just scared, but "anguished."

The government had banned a demonstration planned in Paris for Saturday, but posters were seen around the area which said “Come equipped with hammers, fire extinguishers and batons" and promised a "raid on the Jewish district”.

France has around half a million Jews, the biggest population in Europe, and around five million Muslims.

The Society for the Protection of the Jewish Community's figures suggest that anti-Jewish violence is seven times higher than in the 1990s, and 40% of racist violence is against Jews, despite them making up just 1% of the population.

In March 2012, a shooting spree by Mohammed Merah in the south of France left three French soldiers, three Jewish schoolchildren and a rabbi dead. The gunman claimed a connection to al Qaeda.

More than a thousand Jews have made aliyah (the term used when Jews immigrate to Israel) in the past 10 days, according to the Israeli government.

"I came because of anti-Semitism,” said teary-eyed Veronique Rivka Buzaglo, one of 430 immigrants who arrived from France the day before. "You see it in the eyes of people. I see it in everything," she told HuffPost.

Buzaglo says nothing would have stopped her from becoming an Israeli citizen this week – not even the rocket sirens frequently blaring in the south of the country, where she plans to live.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Hillary Clinton for president in 2016? Beats me, says Bill

0 0
Read Time:2 Minute, 25 Second

Even Bill Clinton claims he doesn’t know whether his wife Hillary is running for president in 2016.

The former president insisted to CNN on Monday that his spouse hasn’t asked him for his advice but that she “really does need some time to think through this.” Speaking from Vietnam, he is in Southeast Asia this week as part of a global health initiative via his family’s Clinton Foundation. 

The role Bill Clinton would play in Hillary’s campaign

“We’ve reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn’t run for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique contribution you can make and you can outline that,” said Bill Clinton.

The former first lady is currently on a book tour for her memoir “Hard Choices,” which was released in June. The  publicity campaign is being seen as part of a months-long rollout leading up to a decision on whether or not she’ll run for president. She has previously said that she’ll decide by the end of the year.

 
Bill Clinton said “whatever she does is fine” and that seeking the Democratic nomination is “a decision only she can make.” He did note, however, that he thought his wife would make a “really good” commander-in-chief and that she’s the “ablest public servant I have ever worked with.”
“[Hillary] really does need some time to think through this.”

The 42nd American president also weighed in on his wife’s seemingly tone-deaf comments on her family’s wealth, including that that her family was “dead broke” upon leaving the White House, and that she and Bill Clinton aren’t “truly well off” compared to the richest Americans. The right has jumped on the remarks to paint her as out of touch with ordinary people. Hillary Clinton, whose family is worth tens of millions, has since conceded that the comments were inartful.” 

“Most people would think that being $16 million in debt would qualify as being dead broke,” Bill Clinton said. That number, according to CNN, was actually higher than the $2.28 million to $10.6 million figure cited on their federal financial records.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing to make money,” he added . “I think it’s bad if you live in a system that’s rigged against the poor and the middle class. That’s a very different thing and the purpose of politics is to create a system of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities.”

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Sarah Palin Claims That God Wants President Obama To Be Impeached

0 0
Read Time:2 Minute, 35 Second

Since John Boehner doesn’t want to impeach Obama, Sarah Palin is appealing to a higher power by claiming that God wants President Obama to be impeached.

Palin tried to revive her case for impeachment at the Western Conservative Summit, “I’m hearing some argue for ‘cautious inaction.’ They’re terming it. They’re saying ‘Well Obama’s policies expose his failures anyway, so why rock the boat.’ But that argument, it misses the point. Folks he is radically changing the balance of power. It’s setting a wicked dangerous precedent. With his pen and his phone, hes abrogating his presidential authority. Making himself a ruler not a President.”

This is why, according to Sarah Palin, God wants Obama impeached, “This president’s forgotten man is we the people, and we the people know that our best days are still ahead because we know that God shed his grace. He’s given us our freedom to do what’s right. God doesn’t drive parked cars. I think he expects us to get up and take action in order to defend these freedoms that are God given. I think it’s an affront to God to let this go on because he gave us these freedoms. We’re not going to let someone, a person, a party take them from us. We’re not going to dethrone God and substitute him with someone who wants to play God.”

That is some serious crazy that was unleashed by Palin. Now, Barack Obama is trying to play God by carrying out his constitutional duties as president, and since a Democrat in the White House who is trying to do his job is the same thing as playing God, President Obama must be impeached.

 

See, it makes perfect sense. Only it doesn’t make any sense at all. It seems that God is always telling Republicans to do stupid things. God told Michele Bachmann to run for president. God told Republicans that invading Iraq was a great idea, and now God is telling Sarah Palin that Obama must be impeached. When public opinion is against them, Republicans always have God to fall back on. At least, their highly partisan version of God.

The God that Sarah Palin is talking about isn’t the God of any true person of faith. I think Sarah Palin has confused the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments. Contrary to what Republicans like to believe, our political rights came from the writings of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke.

The argument that God wants Obama impeached is a serious dose of crazy that should be offensive to the millions of people of faith who support this president. Sarah Palin has gone completely off the rails. Her Obama hate is so strong that thinks God hates the president too.

The Secret Service better keep an eye on Sarah Palin, because she sounds more and more like a terrorist

{youtube}4LC6D7KsEvk{/youtube}

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Vladimir Putin Should Be Tried As A War Criminal

0 0
Read Time:2 Minute, 0 Second

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Iran warned of ‘last chance’ in nuclear talks after deadline missed

0 0
Read Time:4 Minute, 19 Second

VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran faced Western pressure on Saturday to make concessions over its atomic activities after it and six world powers failed to meet a July 20 deadline for a deal to end the decade-old dispute but agreed to keep talking.

The countries agreed to extend the high-stakes negotiations by four months, and let Iran access another $2.8 billion of its cash frozen abroad during that period, though most sanctions on the Islamic Republic stayed in place.

Germany – one of the major powers trying to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear program – warned that the extended talks might be the last chance for a long time to reach a peaceful solution.

Echoing the views of other envoys, a Western diplomat said there had been some progress during nearly three weeks of marathon discussions in Vienna's 19th century Coburg palace and that gaps in positions were not "unbridgeable".

But, the senior diplomat added: "We cannot accept that Iran stays at current levels of enrichment."

The six powers want Iran to significantly scale back its uranium enrichment program to make sure it cannot produce nuclear bombs. Iran says the program is entirely peaceful and wants sanctions that have severely damaged its oil-dependent economy to be lifted as soon as possible.

After years of rising tension between Iran and the West and fears of a new Middle East war, last year's election of a pragmatist, Hassan Rouhani, as Iran's president led to a thaw in ties that resulted in the current nuclear negotiations.

The announcement to give diplomacy until Nov. 24 came in the early hours of Saturday, a day before the July 20 deadline that Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China had earlier set for an agreement.

"These few months until November could be the last and best chance for a long time to end the nuclear argument peacefully," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.

"Iran must show it is willing to dispel all doubts about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program," he said.

Under the terms of the extension of the negotiations, Iran will be able to access during this time a relatively small portion of an estimated more than $100 billion held abroad, in return for limits to its nuclear program.

It prolongs – with some adjustments – an interim deal hammered out in Geneva last year, under which Iran halted its most controversial nuclear work in exchange for some easing of sanctions. The six-month deal – which allowed Iran to receive $4.2 billion – was designed to create time and space for the negotiation of a permanent agreement.

U.S. officials stressed that most sanctions against Iran would remain in place for now.

"Iran will not get any more money during these four months than it did during the last six months, and the vast majority of its frozen oil revenues will remain inaccessible … We will continue to vigorously enforce the sanctions that remain in place," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

IRAN'S "FEET TO THE FIRE"

It remains uncertain whether four more months of talks will yield a final deal, since major underlying differences remain after six rounds of meetings since February.

"We are definitely convinced it's doable, it's a question of political will," the senior Western diplomat said. "I think they (Iran) really want to get this done."

In exchange for the $2.8 billion, Kerry said, Iran agreed to take several steps, including to keep neutralizing its most sensitive uranium stocks – uranium that has been enriched to a level of 20 percent purity – by converting it to fuel for a research reactor in Tehran used to make medical isotopes.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Reuters in Cairo that major disagreements remained though some had been resolved.

"If we had thought there was no potential for a deal we would have stopped immediately," he said.

Some members of the U.S. Congress are eager to impose new and tougher sanctions on Iran. U.S. officials said on Saturday they would continue to oppose new sanctions as long as the negotiations were underway but would drop their opposition if the talks collapsed. "We understand Congress' desire to hold Iran's feet to the fire," one of them said.

Iran says it would be willing to delay development of an industrial-scale uranium enrichment program for up to seven years and to keep the 19,000 centrifuges it has installed so far for this purpose, but Washington says this is still too many.

Enriched uranium can be used to make fuel for nuclear power plants, Iran's stated aim, but can also provide material for bombs if refined further, which the West fears may be the country's ultimate aim.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton – who leads the talks for the powers – and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a joint statement that the talks would resume in the coming weeks.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Benjamin Netanyahu Stops Pretending To Support A Sovereign Palestinian State

0 0
Read Time:5 Minute, 4 Second

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, he told reporters last week in remarks that largely have been overlooked.

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," he said July 11 at a press conference. But if Israel doesn't relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are residents but not full citizens.

"That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” summed up Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, whom Ha'aretz described as a Netanyahu supporter.

“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to, there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels," Netanyahu explained. "At present we have a problem with the territory called Gaza." Giving the West Bank back to Palestinians would "create another 20 Gazas," he said.

As Horovitz writes in the Times of Israel, "[Netanyahu] made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank."

None of this should be terribly surprising, as Netanyahu had long opposed a two-state solution before his recent engagement with the Obama administration on the issue. Of course, while he was supposedly negotiating a two-state solution in good faith, his administration doubled settlements in the West Bank and created a far-right-wing governing coalition largely opposed to a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu's statements come as this far-right coalition has begun to fracture in light of the current military operations in Gaza. The leaders of rival right-wing parties now critical of Netanyahu also have their own notions, none of them positive, for the future of a Palestinian state.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose far-right Yisrael Beiteinu Party split up with Netanyahu's Likud Party over the Gaza operation, called for Israel to send ground troops to annex Gaza and place it back under occupation.

"Israel must go all the way," Lieberman said in a press conference on Tuesday. In a radio interview with Army Radio, he stated plainly, "We need to decide whether we are going with an alternative that entails fully conquering the Gaza Strip." The Israeli occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 when the government of Ariel Sharon unilaterally pulled out. Israel still controls Gaza's airspace and borders, and imposes import and travel restrictions.

Lieberman has been joined by Economic Minister Naftali Bennett, head of the settler-dominated Jewish Home Party, in criticizing the Netanyahu government for its "restraint" in punishing Gaza. Bennett said in a July 5 press release that "restraint in the face of rockets on women and children is not power." In later statements he called for the Iron Dome, Israel's defensive missile and rocket interception system that is funded by the United States, to be turned into "an Iron Fist — a weapon of offense."

Lieberman and Bennett were the only two members of Netanyahu's security council to vote against a recent ceasefire agreement that ultimately did not materialize.

The public statements outlining Netanyahu's opposition to a two-state solution come as these rivals present a clear challenge to his political position, and at a time when Israel is moving further to the right.

Both Lieberman and Bennett already held positions on a two-state solution that were further to the right of anything Netanyahu said this week.

Lieberman ostensibly supports the creation of a Palestinian state, but his plan would involve a territorial swap that would exchange Israeli areas occupied by Arabs for all the West Bank territories occupied by Israeli settlers, Lieberman among them. This would entail stripping Israeli Arab citizens of their citizenship as they are transferred into a Palestinian state, and is widely opposed by Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Bennett, on the other hand, believes in a single state with the annexation of all Israeli settler territories into Israel and "separate rules" for Palestinians living in the West Bank. He recently said the two-state process had reached a "dead end" and that the "Palestinian problem" should be thought of like a "piece of shrapnel" lodged in one's rear end.

These political challenges to Netanyahu's policy in Gaza have not only come from his coalition partners, but also from inside his own Likud Party. On Tuesday, Netanyahu fired Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon for publicly blasting the administration over its "restraint." Danon, the recently elected head of the Likud Central Committee, has previously stated his opposition to a two-state solution, claiming, "There is place only for one state on the land of Israel."

These critics are part of a rising right-wing political bloc whose radicalism has essentially made Netanyahu, despite his opposition to a two-state solution, a political centrist in Israel.

The permanent security occupation of the West Bank that Netanyahu's remarks suggest essentially would be just a more formal continuation of the current occupation policy. And this is exactly the situation feared by officials like Secretary of State John Kerry, in which Israel is a unitary "apartheid state with second-class citizens." Or as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated, the collapse of the two-state solution would precipitate "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

Whether you think Netanyahu's position is "bleak and depressing" or "savvy and pragmatic," Horovitz argues, "Nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that he didn’t tell us what he really thinks."

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Clinton doc dump: Abortion, Osama bin Laden, Sonia Sotomayor

0 0
Read Time:12 Minute, 20 Second

More previously secret files from President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office went public Friday, offering new insight on when he turned to first lady Hillary Clinton for advice, the pitfalls the president’s advisers saw in some of his Supreme Court nominees and how a news story prompted the president to express doubts about deadly bombings the CIA had pinned on Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The roughly 1,000 pages of records comprise the sixth batch of files which archivists at the Clinton Library had withheld as sensitive communications between Clinton and his top advisers.

Under federal law such files are supposed to be made public 12 years after a president leaves office. However, the Clinton-related files languished for more than a year past that point until POLITICO reported in February that 33,000 pages of records were in limbo. Days later, the National Archives released the first batch of files.

All in all, approximately 26,000 pages of “previously-restricted records” have now been released. President Barack Obama’s White House has also repeatedly extended the deadline to complete the review of the documents for possible assertions of executive privilege by Obama or Clinton. At least five such extensions have been granted this year, with the last reported one running through this Sunday.

Here’s POLITICO’s look at the juiciest details in the latest Clinton document dump:

Querying Hillary on abortion

While the newest batch of memos contain few mentions of Hillary Clinton, they do indicate that on one of the most controversial social issues — abortion — her views were important to her husband.

On a 1993 policy memo discussing options for the so-called Hyde Amendment — which prohibited federal funding for abortion in most instances — President Clinton balked when advisers asked him to decide whether to lay down a clear position in public in advance of likely negotiations with Congress on the issue.

“What does Hillary think,” the president wrote next to the space for a decision. The memo does not reflect the-then first lady’s views on the point, but says the overall policy direction on abortion was developed by a group that included her deputy chief of staff, Melanne Verveer.

The memo says that group decided abortion-related issues should be relegated to the back-burner for a while, at least publicly.

“There is a broad consensus that while we should deal with choice issues in a principled and consistent manner, we must make every effort to lower their public profile for the remained of this year,” Domestic Policy Adviser Bill Galston wrote.

Galston said the advisers wanted to keep the focus on Clinton’s economic plan (containing a controversial tax hike) and to downplay cultural issues in general.

“It is essential to regain our balance on cultural matters,” Galston wrote. “During your campaign, you reassured the American people that you identified with mainstream/heartland values, but the first four months of the administration have sown some doubts on that score. There may be worse to come.

“We face the possibility of a summer in which the political dialogue is largely framed by issues such as gays in the military; political correctness on campus, quotas, and reproductive services contained within a health care proposal….We should not go out of our way to emphasize issues that reinforce the impression that we are somehow outside the cultural mainstream,” he added.

Clinton raised doubt on bin Laden’s role in embassy bombings

After reading an April 1999 New York Times article portraying as shaky the evidence that bin Laden was involved in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania a year earlier, Clinton was so startled that he scribbled a note to his national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

“Sandy…If this article is right, the CIA sure overstated its case to me — what are the facts? — BC,” Clinton wrote.

The note certainly gained the attention of Clinton’s top advisers. “Dick/Dan/Steve — I need serious memo in response, by early next week,” someone — apparently Berger — wrote, forwarding the concerns on to Clinton aides Richard Clarke, Dan Benjamin and Steven Simon.

It’s somewhat surprising that the chief executive may have harbored doubt in bin Laden’s connection to the embassy bombings since he was indicted in November 1998 by a federal grand jury on more than 200 counts of murder stemming from the embassy attacks.

How the Clinton aides responded to the president’s question about the Times story that was a summary of a PBS Frontline documentary is — for now — unknown. Cataloging information released by the Clinton Library shows several memos produced about two weeks later. They all remain classified on national security grounds, according to the National Archives.

Clinton aides discussed Sotomayor’s SCOTUS chances

When Clinton nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 1997, Republicans dragged their feet — in part out of fears that job could be a precursor to nominating her to the Supreme Court, where she’d make history as the first Latina. That is, of course, just what happened when President Barack Obama nominated her in 2009.

But the newly released files show that Clinton White House aides were already strategizing about a possible Supreme Court nomination when her appeals court nomination was pending.

“A number of her other writings could be controversial if she were nominated to the Supreme Court,” an unsigned, undated memo in the Clinton files concludes. “Her fierce independence, and her non-nonsense style are admirable, but her nomination to the Supreme Court may prompt a vicious attack by Senate Republicans.”

The papers also contain a lot of back and forth between Sotomayor and White House lawyers while her 2nd Circuit nomination was pending. In one note about updating her financial statement for the Senate, she wrote: “I expect no appreciable changes in the near future (unless I ‘hit’ the lottery) but doing the math each time is burdensome (when you do not like math).”

Sotomayor actually did go on to win the lottery, or more accurately, a jackpot. A financial disclosure filed at the time of her Supreme Court nomination by Obama disclosed she won $8,283 in November 2008. A White House aide said she netted the sum while gambling at a Florida casino with her mother.

Frank warnings on Ginsburg

A top aide to Clinton predicted a rough ride for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1993, warning that the future justice’s demeanor was often “laconic” and that she was fighting the advice of White House handlers.

In a memo entitled, “Judge Ginsburg: Performance Pitfalls,” White House lawyer Ron Klain warned communications director David Gergen that the confirmation process posed a series of dangers.

The lead item complained about Ginsburg’s tendency to present a full-throated defense of American Civil Liberties Union positions — something perhaps less than shocking since she spent much of her career as a women’s rights lawyer for the civil liberties group.

“Judge Ginsburg has a strong tendency to defend the ACLU position” on issues like the death penalty, legalizing prostitution, decriminalizing marijuana and decriminalizing the distribution of pornography to minors,” Klain wrote. “She has an instinct for defending some rather extreme liberal views on these questions.”

Klain also predicted trouble because of Ginsburg’s attitude towards the Senate. “Her hostility to the process…is evident,” he wrote. “The Judge has trouble addressing larger issues and speaking to core values….Her failure to make eye contact, her halting speech, her ‘laconic’ nature….is not helpful.”

However, Klain also warned Gergen to “be cautious” in trying to raise the issues with Ginsburg. “Ginsburg views the White House’s interest and her interests as being at odds with each other,” the White House lawyer wrote, with the White House seeking to present her as a moderate and her interest in maintaining dignity and independence.

At her Senate hearings, Ginsburg indeed brushed off many of the senators queries, but she fielded others and ultimately won confirmation, 96-3.

Sinking Lani Guinier

One of the most searing episodes for liberals early in Clinton’s presidency was his decision to abandon his nomination of legal scholar Lani Guinier to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. A memo released Friday may well be the dagger that felled Guinier’s nomination after her writings on issues like affirmative action became the subject of public controversy.

The harsh, four-page memo to Clinton from Domestic Policy Adviser Bill Galston — a key player in the decidedly moderate Democratic Leadership Council before coming to the White House—is brutal towards Guinier. Galston pulls no punches, declaring that “The perspective she would bring to the Justice Department would ill serve the interests of our country and your administration.”

Galston said Guinier’s view that the civil rights laws require measures that give proportional representation to minorities and in some cases a veto over majority action were at odds with the history of those laws. “Prof. Guinier’s theory of the Voting Rights Act flows from a startling worldview that would be rejected by most of her fellow citizens as well as most members of your party and administration,” he wrote, calling Guinier’s views “far outside the mainstream and very hard to defend.”

Galston predicted that if Clinton pushed forward with the nomination, much of his agenda could be derailed. “You have the opportunity to refurbish your credentials as a different kind of Democrat who governs from the progressive center of our country,” the adviser wrote. “This is the wrong fight at the wrong time.”

The documents released Friday also include a series of heavily-marked up drafts of Clinton’s remarks withdrawing his support for Guinier, while trying to prevent a backlash from civil rights advocates and African Americans.

Two big vetoes that almost didn’t happen

The new batch of records dramatize how close Clinton came to signing two big pieces of legislation: a measure that would have made it a felony in virtually all instances for government officials to leak classified information and a hotly-disputed bill to rein in class-action lawsuits.

In both cases, the files show that Clinton advisers prepared and repeatedly revised statements that would have explained the president’s decisions to sign the measures — something he never did.

Some drafts of the proposed statements on the anti-leak provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act sent to Clinton in 2000 would have urged prosecutors to apply the provision sparingly and to rely primarily on the employee disciplinary system rather than criminal prosecution. The language appears to have been so thoroughly and repeatedly revised that one wonder if the aides convinced themselves in the process that the legislation was unwise.

John Podesta, then chief of staff to Clinton and now a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, has taken credit for convincing Clinton to veto the measure despite urging from across the intelligence community that he sign it. Podesta argued that the legislation could allow former aides to be prosecuted by a successor administration for political reasons.

The proposed presidential signing statements for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act appear to have resulted in similar, if not greater, contention. They apparently circulated not only to Clinton’s advisers but to a couple of outside law firms, including Covington & Burling, according to fax data lines on the documents.

Clinton was to say he had “mixed feelings” about the bill and to boast that his proposed budget would give the Securities and Exchange Commission resources to protect investors who could otherwise have sued in court. Next to that assertion someone wrote,”Bullshit….the budget remains flat.”

After interventions by class-action lawyers, many of whom were large donors to Democratic Party causes, Clinton vetoed the bill on December 19, 1995. The next day the House overrode the president’s veto and the Senate followed suit two days later, making the measure one of only two vetoes overridden by Congress during Clinton’s presidency.

Judges and money

The documents also show Clinton’s official advisers sometimes gave the president information on campaign contributions by potential judicial nominees. It’s not clear whether the information was supposed to paint the nominee in a favorable light or as a warning to the president about possible criticism or, perhaps, both.

In a memo recommending the nomination of Texas lawyer Jorge Rangel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, top White House officials wrote: “In the campaign finance area, it is our information that Rangel and his wife have given $10,000 to the DNC, $2,000 to your campaign, and $1,500 to the August birthday celebration.”

Clinton nominated Rangel to the 5th Circuit in July 1997. He never received a hearing and asked that his nomination be withdrawn at the end of 1998.

More jokes Clinton never delivered

As with past Clinton Library releases, many of the documents include draft after draft of Clinton speeches, especially for major events. Most of the revisions address arcane policy points, while others reflect differences in taste. Changes to the humorous speeches the president delivered to large Washington dinners show what jokes were considered fair game and which were over the line.

The latest batch of documents discloses this joke cut from a Clinton speech to the Alfalfa Club in January 1997:

“I remember talking to Dick Morris on the phone one night. He kept saying, ‘Move a little to the right, move a little to the right.’ I thought he was talking to me.”

Morris resigned as an adviser to Clinton in August 1996, after reports that the political strategist used the services of a prostitute at a luxury Washington hotel. The speech was to take place just as Morris’ book describing his work for Clinton hit the streets. Less than a year later, Clinton would find himself mired in a sex scandal of his own which eventually led to his impeachment.

David Nather, Alex Isenstadt and Jennifer Epstein contributed.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %