That's fine with me. If we're doing a bunch of secret things that our citizens aren't allowed to know about, then how can we actually function as a democratic republic?

"Vote for me. I won't actually tell you what I'm really going to do, but trust me it'll be for the best."

Operational security so that enemies don't know the exact position and disposition of our forces is necessary. If we don't really know what our leaders are doing and why they're doing it then that is not ok with me. If we're afraid of Julian Assange revealing something embarrassing then maybe we're doing too many embarrassing things.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Ken Hohhof" <>
Sent: 10/17/2016 9:24:07 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

Interesting.  How long will that last, 15 minutes?

I’m not sure why you like Assange so much, he is very anti-US and several of his Wikileaks cofounders have parted company due to his runaway ego.

Vox leans left so you probably dismiss anything they say, but they specialize in in-depth coverage and display their facts and sources so you can discount their bias and form your own conclusions. Here’s an excerpt from a recent article on why Assange is targeting Clinton:

“WikiLeaks’ overriding ideology, at least publicly, is one of “radical transparency”: a deep belief that modern politics is undemocratic, with the important decisions made behind closed doors by elites and bureaucrats, and that the public deserves to know what’s actually going on.

But there’s always been another consistent element of the group’s thinking: suspicion of the United States and its role in global politics. This stems from the thinking of its founder and leader, Assange — which helps explain why the group seems to despise Clinton.

The organization’s 2015 book The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire contains the most in-depth catalog of Assange’s thoughts on the United States. They’re not positive: Assange sees the United States as a malign empire, one that has spent the decades since World War II unjustly interfering in other countries and killing their citizens. He sees the work of WikiLeaks, particularly publishing classified US documents, as a way to expose the inner workings of imperialism.

“Only by approaching this corpus holistically — over and above the documentation of each individual abuse, each localized atrocity — does the true human cost of empire heave into view,” Assange writes.

WikiLeaks’ operations, in keeping with this philosophy, have heavily targeted the US. “It has been pretty hard to make the case that WikiLeaks is a neutral transmission system,” journalist Joshua Keating wrote in 2012. “Nearly all its major operations have targeted the US government or American corporations.”

It makes sense that someone with Assange’s views would hate Clinton. She’s widely seen, with some justification, as someone who’s pretty comfortable with using American military power. She has been consistently in the interventionist wing of the Democratic Party on such issues as the Iraq War, the Libya intervention, and arming the Syrian rebels.

When the UK’s ITV asked Assange whether he’d prefer Trump as president, this was a core part of his answer. In fact, he implied that Clinton’s record made her even more dangerous than Trump.

“Trump is a completely unpredictable phenomenon. You can’t predict what he would do in office,” Assange said. “Hillary was overriding the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi. ... She has a long history of being a liberal war hawk, and we presume that she’s going to proceed.”

Assange clearly sees Clinton as a representative of the worst parts of the American empire. Moreover, he thinks that she, personally, would use the power of the US government to go after his organization.

“Hillary Clinton is receiving constant updates about my personal situation; she has pushed for the prosecution of WikiLeaks,” he told ITV. “We do see her as more of a problem for freedom of the press generally.”

In Assange’s telling, Clinton is an authoritarian imperialist who directly threatens the well-being of his organization and maybe even his person. No wonder Assange seems to think she’s worse than Trump

From: Af [] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

Wikieleaks is now saying that Assange has been cut off from Internet by some State Power right when he was about to release the John Kerry emails.


From: Af [] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

Russia is doing some saber rattling for sure. It is concerning. Putin seems to be trying to take advantage of the lame duck period somehow, who knows what he is up to. N. Korea also, saying they are willing to launch a nuclear first strike. You’d think there would be more coverage of the Russian threats, but all people care about is the election reality show.

Putin is pissed that Obama called him a regional power. Trump is pissed that Obama made fun of him at the press dinner. Isn’t it nice to have world leaders who use the powers of state to pursue their personal grudges.

Meanwhile in Julian Assange news:

From: Af [] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

I will look up the speech

How do you feel about the implied "bracing for war" Russia seems to be doing?

The right (I do live in Alabama) seems to believe they are bracing for war if Trump does not get elected.

I have not heard what the left thinks since all they can talk about is the Billy Bush trump tapes or women....

In fact I don't believe the media is covering anything....Not even us firing on Yemen (I did not read that article on the internet I assume we bombed A terrorist camp or something)

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ken Hohhof" <>
To: <>
Subject: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 12:29 AM

Also, it seems this explains the nuclear deal Kerry negotiated with Iran, basically trying to do what wasn’t done with Iraq. (Idiot Trump doesn’t seem to realize Clinton isn’t still Sec. of State, but then he lives in a fact free zone.) After years of sanctions, you have to get some payoff as a result of those sanctions, apparently the deal was the best our negotiating team could get. Not trying to argue yes or no on that, just if you look back to the Iraq vote and Kerry’s speech, you can understand why he took the approach he did with Iran.

He has certainly worked his butt off on the diplomacy side even at the risk of failure. Very different approach from Clinton, I think, who seemed to be more of a delegator. Unfortunately his efforts on the Israel/Palestine issue were a total failure, and Putin and Lavrov totally played him for a fool on Syria. Well, and Obama too, remember he was going to do the big “reset” with Russia. And Hillary was the Russia hawk in the Obama administration. Makes me totally shake my head at Trump wanting to “get along” with Russia. Why is no one saying that sounds like weak Obama who tried to be Putin’s buddy and was made to look like a fool. And no wonder Putin wants Trump to win, since Hillary is hawkish on Russia. What a bizzaro world we live in, where the Republican candidate has a bromance with Putin, and it’s the Democratic candidate who wants to be tough on Russia?

From: Af [] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

Then listen to the whole speech.

From: Af [] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

I remember very clearly the media covering how Saddam would not allow inspectors in and how he was very uncooperative.

In my opinion it is saddam's fault. Had he cooperated maybe we would not have gone to war....

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ken Hohhof" <>
To: <>
Subject: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 12:03 AM

I remember that very clearly. It was a war authorization vote. The President told Congress he needed the authorization to strengthen his hand when he went to the UN and allies and sought new sanctions to force Iraq to submit to inspection and disarm, to show that the nation was behind him, and that it was not a vote to go to war except as a last resort. He basically framed it as a vote of confidence in him, that he needed that vote to show the world he was serious and the nation spoke with one voice, it made it very difficult for Congress not to vote yes. Of course he didn’t follow through with his promises and quickly went to war without exhausting all other avenues.

I clearly remember listening to Sen. John Kerry’s speech on the floor of the senate before the vote, laying this all out. And I remember having a sick feeling that exactly what he said the President promised not to do and warned him not to do, was nonetheless going to happen. Whatever you think of John Kerry, this is a riveting speech. I found a video of it online. It’s 50 minutes long, if you can’t spend that much time, skip to around 33:00.

From: Af [] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?

I remind you....congress had to vote on that.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Jaime Solorza" <>
To: "Animal Farm" <>
Subject: [AFMUG] OT does it really matter?
Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2016 10:50 PM

Well Bush decision to invade Iraq did affect my family.. My son who proudly served in Iraq came back injured physically and mentally. He is still under medical care ... We should have gone after Taliban in Afghanistan and wiped them out along with poppie fields. Hussein was a dictator I know but our reason to invade was based on weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist. We messed up the status quo, left and gave ISIS an opening... If you study history of region it has shown no outside nation has ever been able to conquer area for very long.. These folks have been at war since forever and we got caught up in it. When you travel on plane you are affected... Large public events are different now because threat of terrorism exists. So we are all affected some way. The times, they are a changin

On Oct 16, 2016 9:21 PM, "Bruce Robertson" <> wrote:

Exactly right. Who is president has some effect, but not game changing. Most people in the country are middle of the road, and the progress of the country reflects that. The pendulum swings back and forth, but always reverts to the mean.

On 10/16/16 8:17 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Congress makes and changes law. Supreme Court makes a few important decisions. Regulators are who really run the country.

Does it really matter who the president is?

What did Obama do? Encouraged the ACA. Dropped the ball in Syria. But how did he affect me, my degree of wealth, my amount of spare time?

Ditto Bush. They affect foreign policy. They have the ability to really mess up other people’s lives in other countries, but do they really have much effect on me?

Granted, altering the make up of the Supreme Court changes things like can I choose to marry a dude or do I have to sell wedding cakes to gays. But that really does not touch me. My granddaughter having to cope with dudes in the bathroom at school hits a bit closer to home, but I trust congress will eventually settle on something a bit more common sense.

I guess I am trying to convince myself that a president really doesn’t do much here at home. Congress does. The court does. Bureaucracies do.

Now, if the president could get a whole truckload of cheese delivered to the Whitehouse and give it out to anyone that drops in for a visit, then we are talking about a real impact...


Reply via email to