Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/#ixzz4Mn5n8Yht
13 comments:
So, that gives us a patriotic reason to only use US oil.
Right?
PS Even better, Podesta says the Beast hates everyday Americans and her commo director hates Catholics.
Duh - to both revelations.
Hillary and Muslims: stronger together.
And yet she still took their money. Does that mean she's basically an ISIS collaborator?
"Duh - to both revelations."
The revelation is that the former Secretary of State put in writing and without equivocation that the Saudi and Qatari governments were financing ISIS. The US line has been that individuals outside of government control were engaged in these actions but without government approval or involvement.
It seems to me that this is the biggest revelation out of all of the document releases we've seen in the last few years. Why? If the State Department backs up this claim then we are essentially at war with Saudi Arabia. Proof of direct governmental financial support for the terrorist group ISIS means that we will have to apply severe economic sanctions and cut them off from the international economic community at least to the extent that we have cut off North Korea and (previously) Iran. That would include an embargo on their oil exports, a freeze on the tremendous investments they have in the US and a discontinuation of the military support we provide them through arms sales and intelligence sharing. State will also have to answer as to why they had this knowledge and withheld it from the American public. An acknowledgement by State would change the world.
So they'll deny. But they have to respond. It will be interesting to follow the discussion if the conservative press can pull itself out of its anti-trump hysteria long enough to bring the matter into the public's consciousness.
If it never gets reported in the US media, do they have to respond?
Rabel, I'm just thoroughly unsurprised that the Saudis are financing ISIS. This is the usual Sunni v. Shia shit blown up even further by US cooperation with/kow towing to Iran.
Only if it's in the London Daily Mail, along with the National Enquirer, our new newspaper of record.
Am, it may be "Duh" to many, but, to a great many more, the Democrats are still the party that cares for the "little people".
Break that stereotype and the Demos are in big trouble.
Meth, of course she is. You can wield the clippers when we shave her head.
Trump's National Enquirer buddy needs to dig around on Jeffrey Epstein's child molester island. See what's just below the surface there. That's what the US public cares about.
So, that gives us a patriotic reason to only use US oil.
Patriotic reason? What is this, the late 18th Century? Nah dude, this is the 21st Century, and the thing to do is to have your media make itself the puppet of the government, and for your legislators to give law writing over to the top magistrate, and for that magistrate to give reign over your land to a third party globalist government not elected by anyone.
US oil will be banned or heavily taxed for the harm it is doing to the environment.
BTW, anyone else notice that the biggest news anybody is discussing is the sexual escapades of both Presidential candidates, while Russia is doing its best impression of 1950's brinkmanship. It's like real world wide issues aren't worth the media's time to report. Well, unless it is a hurricane that can be blamed on global warming.
Sure, Hillary gets money from the Saudi, but the Bush family is butt buddies with the sheiks.
Shame on their stupid matriarch. She's one driving this whole thing. Her poor widdle phenotype didn't get the nomination.
Post a Comment