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

shraby

(21,946 posts)
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 02:46 PM Apr 2016

Hillary wouldn't be a bad choice if she didn't have tons of negative baggage and I could believe

what comes out of her mouth.
All on du knew in the run up to the Iraq war about the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which layed out in no uncertain terms what the signators aimed to do. Take over the middle east starting with Afghanistan and Iraq then expanding to Syria, Iran, etc.

Some of the people who signed this document were:
richard cheney
ieb bush
abrams
wolfowitz (sp?)
rumsfeld
(I refuse to capitalize anything republican - they haven't earned it.)

If we knew and yelled about it, why didn't Hillary and others? It was a big glaring red light pointing to their modus operandi and the lies to make it happen.

Bernie is my choice and if he loses only then will I consider Clinton and only because the Supreme Court is so important in the whole scheme of things. We MUST keep it out of republican hands.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary wouldn't be a bad choice if she didn't have tons of negative baggage and I could believe (Original Post) shraby Apr 2016 OP
Agreed - Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #1

Avalon Sparks

(2,565 posts)
1. Agreed -
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:20 PM
Apr 2016

Not to mention the Repubs will come out in droves to vote against her.

The thought of Two Clintons in the President's seat makes their little heads explode!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary wouldn't be a bad...