Trump calls Obama, Clinton Islamic State 'co-founders,' draws rebuke

By Ginger Gibson and Steve Holland | WASHINGTON/MIAMI BEACH, FLA.

Republican Donald Trump called President Barack Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton the "co-founders" of Islamic State, ratcheting up his assertion that they are responsible for the rise of the militant group and sparking renewed criticism of his leadership ability.

Clinton's White House campaign on Thursday called the remarks a "false claim," in Clinton's latest response to a series of attacks by Trump in which he has sought to portray America as less safe, blaming Democrats and depicting himself as the only one who can restore security.

Democrats, in turn, have used Trump's often hyperbolic statements ahead of the Nov. 8 election to argue that he is unfit to be president and lacks the temperament to be trusted with matters of national security.

"This is another example of Donald Trump trash-talking the United States," Clinton senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement.

"What's remarkable about Trump's comments is that once again he's echoing the talking points of Putin and our adversaries to attack American leaders and American interests, while failing to offer any serious plans to confront terrorism or make this country more secure," Sullivan said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

For Republicans uncertain about whether Trump has the discipline to maintain focus for his campaign, the latest comments were concerning. Many see the New York real estate mogul as spending too much time fighting within his own party and have called on him to refocus his campaign message on Clinton.

"ISIS is a solid GOP message to show contrast with Hillary Clinton and the failures of the Obama-Clinton administration," said Alice Stewart, a Republican strategist who remains undecided about the nominee, using acronyms for Islamic State and the Republican Party.

Even so, she added, "Trump should have simply said that the Obama administration's decision to pull all troops out of Iraq, with no stay-behind agreement, created a vacuum and allowed ISIS to metastasize. It's absurd for him to say that Obama and Clinton are founders of ISIS - and he can't blame the media for this."

A group of about 70 Republicans, including five former members of Congress, called on the Republican National Committee to stop helping Trump in the wake of his recent remarks and instead focus on getting members of Congress re-elected.

"Trump’s divisive and dangerous actions are not only a threat to our other candidates, but to our party and the nation," the letter stated.

In response, Trump said he would stop raising money for the Republican Party if it ends its help for his campaign.

"If they want to do that they can save me a lot of time and a lot of energy," he told Fox News. "I'm the one raising the money for them."

Some Republicans see a small silver lining in Trump talking more about Clinton.

"It is helpful – at least to the rest of the ticket – that he is focusing a little more on Clinton than on other Republicans, whether defeated primary opponents or other elected officials who are on the ballot, for a change," said former New Hampshire Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen, who is not supporting Trump.

"But tomorrow, or later today, he could blame (Republican Senator) Jeff Flake for A-Rod’s retirement," Cullen said, referring to Yankees player Alex Rodriguez's decision to leave professional baseball. "I have zero confidence in Trump’s ability to stay on one message or to drive one message for any length of time longer than about 10 seconds."

CRITICISM OF IRAQ WAR

Trump has previously criticized Clinton for supporting the Iraq War in 2003 while she was a U.S. senator. Trump frequently says, to contrast himself with Clinton, that he opposed the war - but in interviews before the invasion he did voice support.

Now, Trump is arguing that in trying to end the war and withdrawing U.S. troops in 2011, Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and Obama created Islamic State.

Republicans frequently trace the birth of Islamic State to the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw the last U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.

But many analysts argue its roots lie in the decision of George W. Bush’s Republican administration to invade Iraq in 2003 without a plan to fill the vacuum created by Saddam Hussein’s ouster. It was Bush’s administration, not Obama’s, that negotiated the 2009 agreement that called for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

Clinton posted on Twitter that Trump's comments are disqualifying.

"Anyone willing to sink so low, so often should never be allowed to serve as our commander-in-chief," she wrote.

The White House declined to comment on Trump's claim.

Appearing in Miami Beach, Florida, on Thursday morning, Trump repeated his attack for the third time, saying the U.S. government "has unleashed ISIS."

"In fact, I think we’ll give Hillary Clinton ... most valuable player," Trump said. "ISIS will hand her the most valuable player award. Her only competition is President Barack Obama."

Trump first made the assertion in a speech on Wednesday night in Florida, saying, "I call them co-founders" of Islamic State.

In an interview on Thursday morning, Trump defended the remarks.

"Is there something wrong with saying that?" Trump told CNBC. "Why - are people complaining that I said he was the founder of ISIS? All I do is tell the truth, I'm a truth teller."

Trump was also asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt if he "meant that (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

"No," Trump responded. "I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do."

The Democratic National Committee lambasted Trump's remarks. "Donald Trump should apologize for his outrageous, unhinged and patently false suggestions on the founding of ISIS," the DNC said in a statement. "This is yet another out of control statement by a candidate who is unraveling before our very eyes."

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Trump on CNN, saying his remarks were “legitimate political commentary.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN10M146

So what the holy fuck is the Donald up to?

We know without doubt that Obama as prez IS responsible for the creation of ISIS, though mostly likely through some chain of flunkies, fixers and 'allies'. This is so far from the official narrative that the official media completely flipped out, 'this is beyond the pall!' His SoS Clinton is chief flunky.

First question is 'Does Trump even understand what he's doing?' Imperial policy, deep state, does he understand this stuff? Did he see a post on Twitter and thought that 'sounded good'? I think it safe to discount any honest or honorable intent, he got neither. So, a rogue idiot?

Regardless of motivation it seems to me that bringing this up and the predictable response has the effect inoculating the administration and by extension Clinton against that accusation, making it ridiculous before it gets any traction among the greater public. Caused after a year of headchopping videos that just might cause an outrage.

Which brings us back to the age old question: Is Trump a loudmouth rich asshole off the chain or is he a loudmouth rich asshole on Hilary's chain? I honestly don't know but given his pronouncements the later seems more possible by the day.

So what the holy fuck is the Donald up to?

You know, anyone who actually looks into this mess, will readily see the US imperial government's prints all over ISIS, Al Qaeda, et.al. The question (as you say) is why is Trump saying this stuff out loud. Ron Paul has almost (but not quite) said this very thing - but he is a Libertarian loony. Ron's pea-brained, dipshit of a son hasn't even gone this far.

Trump appears to be intentionally wrecking the Republican Party. Thanks to him, the Democrats might win majorities in both houses this year. Clinton with majorities in both houses? Good gods!

This will be a huge year in politics! Great TV! Cataclysms of biblical proportions! And no one will give a damn in two or three weeks - business as usual. The thing that is serious is that Clinton, a known blood-lusting war-monger, will have full control of the imperial machine. And with majorities in congress, she may damn well be unstoppable. What won't she do?

Tangled web: Trump’s campaign chief worked in Ukraine for Clinton associates
August 17, 2016 | 6:55 pm
https://www.rt.com/usa/356309-trump-manager-clinton-ukraine/

Published time: 17 Aug, 2016 19:41

https://img.rt.com/files/2016.08/original/57b4afacc46188971b8b4602.jpg
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign chair and convention manager Paul Manafort (L) and American lobbyist Tony Podesta (R). ©

While Donald Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort worked for Ukraine’s former government, he funnelled some $2.2 million in cash to two Washington lobbying firms, including the Clinton-connected Podesta Group, new revelations show.

Ukraine’s current government, which goes back to the US-backed February 2014 coup that overthrew President Viktor Yanukovich, has claimed that Manafort had pocketed more than $12 million as a lobbyist and consultant for the “pro-Russian regime.”

Between 2012 and 2014, Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates steered at least $1.13 million in lobbying fees to the Podesta Group Inc. and another $1.07 million to Mercury LLC, AP reported on Thursday.

The money came from the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a nonprofit “governed by a board that initially included parliament members” from the ruling Party of Regions, according to AP.

The founder and chairman of the Podesta Group is Tony Podesta – brother of John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff and current campaign chairman for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Mercury is headed by Vin Weber, a former congressman and adviser to 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

US lobbying records show that the Podesta Group was paid to lobby Congress, the White House National Security Council, the State Department and other federal agencies, between June 2012 and April 2014. Mercury was paid to lobby the US Congress against demands to free Yulia Tymoshenko, one of Yanukovich’s political opponents who was imprisoned for corruption.

Several “current and former employees of the Podesta Group” spoke to AP about the work Manafort and Gates did with the Ukrainian nonprofit. While Manafort himself did not comment for the story, Gates said he spoke with him before answering AP’s questions.

Gates told the news service that the business relationship was lawful, and that there was no attempt to dodge the reporting requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). He was backed up by Podesta Group’s CEO Kimberley Fritts, who said that the two lobbying firms had agreed that the legal disclosure to the US Justice Department was not necessary.

“If counsel had determined FARA was the way to go, we would have gladly registered under FARA,” Fritts told AP, adding that the Ukrainian nonprofit provided a signed statement affirming its independence from the government.

Under FARA, American lobbyists must report to the Justice Department if they are employed by foreign governments, and provide detailed disclosures. Violating the act is a felony and carries penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

“I was never given any reason to believe Rick [Gates] was a Party of Regions consultant,” said John Ward Anderson, a current Podesta employee, in a statement provided by the firm. “My assumption was that he was working for the Centre, as we were.”

The Centre’s current director, Ina Kirsch, told AP that her group had never worked with Manafort or Gates, and had hired the Washington lobbying firms on its own, though she confirmed having two meetings with Manafort.

Mercury’s Weber told AP that he had discussed the Ukraine project in a conference call with Manafort and Tony Podesta.

The Podesta Group has been among the leading fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to the Washington Post. They have also worked for the governments of Albania, Georgia, “Kosovo,” Moldova, the Maldives, and Somalia, among others. In September last year, Podesta took a $140,000 monthly retainer from Saudi Arabia for “public relations services.”

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/tangled-web-trumps-campaign-chief-worked-in-ukraine-for-clinton-associates/

Methinks something is rotten in Amerika. Yeah, it's always been rotten, but the sheer arrogance of power and chutzpah are off the scale. We are entering a new phase, they will no longer hide their corruption nor violence but will revel in their inhumanity, a vampire holiday. There will be no need for Politics of the Deed this time, the monsters no longer need excuses.

Methinks something is rotten in Amerika. Yeah, it's always been rotten, but the sheer arrogance of power and chutzpah are off the scale. We are entering a new phase, they will no longer hide their corruption nor violence but will revel in their inhumanity, a vampire holiday. There will be no need for Politics of the Deed this time, the monsters no longer need excuses.

And still folks will ask, "What will fascism look like in America?" What, indeed.

Wall Street Hates Trump, too


What does it mean when The Wall Street Journal, the popular mouthpiece for the right wing of the US ruling class, joins The New York Times (its left-wing counterpart) in vicious attacks on the Republican Presidential nominee?

WSJ staff writer Andy Pasztor’s Trump story was featured on the Friday, September 2 edition front page and continued by occupying the entire page facing the paper’s opinion section. Provocatively headlined Donald Trump and the Mob, the article sought to tie Trump, the developer, to Mafia linked contractors, with a sidebar recounting Trump’s employment of the sleazy, corrupt lawyer, Roy Cohn.

It is hardly unusual for developers associated with both parties to engage questionable contractors, a category of employment notorious for insider connections, corrupt deals, and, yes, unsavory characters. Thus, the WSJ piece stands out because it highlights behavior that usually gets a pass by the paper, especially for Republicans. The thin charges, largely based solely on association, stand out for their failure to make Trump seem any different from innumerable businessmen/politicians who slither through election cycles with barely a whisper from the mainstream media.

As for the employment of the late Roy Cohn-- a truly despicable creature-- it never bothered the conscience of the WSJ when he worked for Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, or a host of equally heralded right-wing politicians. So, why the outrage now with Trump?

Is there any doubt that when The Wall Street Journal coalesces with The New York Times and The Washington Post to demonize a candidate, the resulting united front speaks to more than a mere coincidence of opinion? Does even the most jaded observer think that unanimity among representatives of all factions of US elites-- the most powerful forces in US affairs-- does not signal a wholesale rejection of Trump? A repudiation of any charge that he currently represents ruling class interests?

Supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign refuse to address this fact. They refuse to acknowledge that she, rather than Trump, enjoys the broad and deep support of nearly the entire class composed of the most rich and powerful. They refuse to confront the meaning of a campaign that paradoxically aligns the mouthpieces and moneybags of US elites solidly behind the Democratic Party candidate. Marxists would call it a “contradiction” and search for its meanings. “Left-wing” apologists for the Clinton candidacy simply ignore it.

The peculiar choices offered voters are lost in the clamor of personal attack, the clash of shallow issues, and the orgy of fund-raising. Barring any new, dramatic, and sleazy revelations, debate stumbles, or blunders, Hillary Clinton will likely win the election in November. After the celebration of Trump’s defeat, liberals and organized labor will wake up to the reality that they have not moved their agenda one step. At best, they will avoid losing what they believe Trump threatens. That may satisfy many. But for those hoping to change the US for the better, this awakening should be sobering. Apart from permanent war, growing inequality, deteriorating living standards, intensifying racism, what will this election bring the next generation? What can reformers build upon?

Even more alarming, this election stands as the low point of an unrelenting process, a process of both a diminishing of the differences between the two parties and a continual rightward drift of the political center. Since late in the Carter administration, the Democratic Party leadership has sought to occupy the political space only minimally to the left of the Republicans. Recognizing this, corporate Republicans have steered their agenda rightward, seeing an opportunity to dismantle any and all remnants of the New Deal and the War on Poverty. If this election cycle does deviate in any way from this trend, it is in the promise to continue the process primarily through the agenda of Clinton rather than the vague and shifting positions of Trump. That is, of course, the basis for ruling class support for Clinton.

We have witnessed this process take us through a cast of worsening, ever more outrageous characters: a petty Cold-War demagogue, a self-righteous moralist, a theatrical con artist, a dishonest backslapper, a crusading alcoholic, and the two integrity and candor challenged candidates belched up in this election cycle.

Those who will celebrate the Clinton victory (like those who were ecstatic over Obama’s victory) will bear responsibility for the continued course of this process, the process of the corruption and trivialization of two-party politics.

The electoral fear-mongering grows thin, as the lesser-of-two-evils stance enables more and more evil. Scapegoating those who are trying to find a way out of the two-party trap remains the sport of those too cynical or lazy to look at options, too complacent to recognize the futility of trying to drag a corporate-owned Democratic Party toward popular change. Decades of self-righteous prattle warning of ultra-right dangers has not slowed the rightward drift of US politics one iota, whether Democrats win or not.

Surely if Marxists have anything to contribute to understanding bourgeois politics, it is to pull the curtain back and expose how it functions. What we see is not a pretty sight.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2016/09/wall-street-hates-trump-too.html