Watch: Former Host Hears What ‘The View’ Hosts Said About Fiorina, Issues Challenge They Can’t Ignore

Some of the co-hosts of ABC’s The View are under fire this week for a brutal – and superficial – review of GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s performance during Wednesday’s debate.

“She kicked off her thing saying, ‘You know, people tell me that I didn’t smile enough during the last debate,’” Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. “She looked demented. I mean, she did not – her mouth did not downturn one time.”

Joy Behar chimed in with her suggestion that Fiorina’s face resembled a Halloween mask.

Fox & Friends co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who previously hosted The View, was among numerous women who took offense to the crass characterization of the candidate’s appearance.

Hasselbeck called such behavior “faux feminism,” going on to explain that its practitioners “support all women only if they agree exactly with what we say, only if their politics align with mine and only if they support every single thing that I’ve laid out so far.”

Co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade added that Collins would likely never say anything remotely as offensive about Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.

Hasselbeck then issued Collins a direct challenge to “actually have Mrs. Fiorina on the program and say that to her face or apologize, one or the other.”

She told Collins that people need to “see who you really are.”

What do you think about the attacks on Fiorina’s looks? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Watch: Hillary Gets Blindsided By Last Question She Ever Wanted To Hear From Crowd. Her Response…

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was surprised to find those attending her rally in Littleton, N.H., weren’t all supporters. She was taken aback when one New Hampshire man attending asked about her and former President Bill Clinton’s scandals that date back more than 20 years.

“Um, you said earlier that you wanted to end corruption, but how can you do that after the Whitewater scandals, Benghazi and the deleted emails,” the man said from the back of the room while groans emanated from the audience.

Clinton slowly stood up and gave an answer.

“Well, I wish you’d go back and read the history of the 1990s, because clearly, uh, there, there were unfortunately a lot of partisans who uh, thought that the best way to work uh, with my husband’s administration was through attacks of all kinds – all of which washed out,” she said, adding that she has held office herself.

“I was elected to the Senate in New York in 2000, and uh, New York is a pretty tough place to run for office from,” she mused.

She had one more word for the questioner before she sat down.

“And I advise you to go back and read my 11 hours of testimony,” Clinton said, referring to her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22.

The audience loved her answer and gave her a round of applause and cheers for it, even though Clinton didn’t address specific facts from the cases mentioned.

The real estate scandal, known as Whitewater, goes back to 1978 when Bill Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General. He and his wife became partners with James and Susan McDougal in the purchase of acreage named the Whitewater Development Corporation. It failed.

Mrs. Clinton had worked at Rose Law Firm since 1983. In 1985, she became a senior lawyer in the law firm’s account with McDougal and the bank that now employed him, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan. One of the questions brought up in the 1990s was whether her involvement with McDougal and the bank constituted a conflict of interest since she had partnered with him in the failed Whitewater real estate deal.

In 1986, long after the Whitewater ventured failed, another McDougal real estate deal landed on the radar of federal regulators. The investigation led to his resignation from Madison Guaranty and the bank’s demise.

Special prosecutor Robert B. Fisk lead the multiple investigations that began to involve the Clintons during President Clinton’s first term. The allegation was that Clinton, as Arkansas’ governor, pressured businessman David Hale to authorize an illegal $300,000 federally-backed loan to Susan McDougal.

Fiske took out grand jury subpoenas for the president and Mrs. Clinton to produce documents regarding Madison Guaranty. The Clintons said the records were missing, but eventually turned them over. The case against the Clintons fell apart when Hale was convicted. Prosecutors determined there wasn’t enough evidence to charge the Clintons, and they were cleared. Others they associated with were convicted, and the Whitewater investigation eventually folded into President Clinton’s sex scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. Clinton faced an impeachment trial, but wasn’t removed from office.

Mrs. Clinton’s recent email scandal involved items contained and sent on her personal server while she served as Secretary of State. Newly discovered emails resulted in a deeper probe into the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi that left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, dead.

The emails were presented during the Oct. 22 hearing where Mrs. Clinton testified. Clinton said in those emails sent to the Egyptian prime minister and to her family on Sept. 11, the night of the attack, that she knew the assault on the embassy was a terrorist attack.

Yet, in days and weeks to come, Clinton and others from the State Department, along with President Barack Obama, publicly said the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest stemming from an American anti-Muslim video. Those on the House committee pointed out the presidential election was 52 weeks away.

Clinton’s Super PAC, “Ready for Hillary,” was launched in 2013.

Is Instability The Goal Of U.S. Mideast Policy?

Donald Trump’s indictment of the Bush II administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks presents an opportunity for more of a bird’s eye view of American foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that has killed many hundreds of thousands, maimed countless more, and laid waste to entire societies.

As Peter Beinart reminds us, when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he and his closest national-security staff showed little interest in al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, despite alarms set off by the CIA and National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke. Al-Qaeda of course had attacked U.S. government assets in the decade before Bush became president. (Also see this.)

“But both Clarke and [CIA boss George] Tenet grew deeply frustrated by the way top Bush officials responded,” Beinart writes. “Clarke recounts that when he briefed [national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice about al-Qaeda, ‘her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.’”

Repeated attempts to get Bush’s attention were frustrated despite accelerating indications that “Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US.” Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
But Bush and his top national-security aides were interested in other things. What things? Ballistic-missile defense, which Bush had promised in his campaign, and Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Let’s remember that the overthrow of Saddam, euphemistically dubbed “regime change,” was a U.S. goal at least since 1990. In 1991, Bush’s father, President George H. W. Bush, sent forces to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but he didn’t go in for the kill and send the military to Baghdad to topple Saddam’s government. Instead, Bush imposed a trade embargo on the Iraqi people, subjecting them to unspeakable hardship, a policy maintained by his successor, Bill Clinton. The deaths of half a million children — the result, among other things, of U.S. destruction of the sanitation and water infrastructure — constituted the price for regime change that Clinton’s UN ambassador, Madeleine Albright, infamously and coldly found “worth it.” (Clinton rewarded Albright by naming her secretary of state — something an enterprising reporter might want to ask Hillary Clinton about.) Bill Clinton also conducted regular bombing raids on Iraq in the name of maintaining no-fly zones. When will Clinton get his share of the responsibility for 9/11? (Another question for Hillary Clinton.)
So the Bush II administration had Iraq on its collective mind in the first eight months of its tenure not withstanding repeated warnings from its terrorism specialists that al-Qaeda was the likely immediate threat.
Beinart writes:

When that April [cabinet-level] meeting [demanded by Clarke] finally occurred, according to Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.” Clarke responded that, “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” To which Wolfowitz replied, “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

As soon as the 9/11 attacks occurred, the Bush administration’s eyes were on Iraq, and the intelligence agencies were ordered to get the proof. Detainees were even tortured to force them to implicate Saddam Hussein, and false stories about contact between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime were floated.

Can we make any sense of this fixation on Iraq? I think we can.

It begins to make sense when we realize that American neoconservatives, who include Wolfowitz and a host of people in the Bush Pentagon and State Department, have for years acted as a brain trust for the right-wing of Israel’s ruling elite (Likud). In that capacity, they issued papers, under the auspices of the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, expressing favor toward policies to destabilize the secular regimes in Iraq and Syria, as well as the governments in Lebanon (home of Hezbollah) and, ultimately, Iran — the Shia Crescent. (Hence the general demonization of Iran and the touting of the nonexistent nuclear threat.) These proposed policies would embody a change in strategy for Israel, from seeking a “comprehensive peace” with its neighbors to managing a balance of power. Those signing on to these papers, which were issued in the mid-1990s just as Benjamin Netanyahu was about to become Israel’s prime minister, were aware that, at least in the short run, radical Sunnis would profit from the destabilization and fill the vacuums created in Iraq and Syria. (The papers are here and here. The author is David Wurmser, who later worked in the Bush II administration for both Vice President Dick Cheney and John Bolton in the State Department. The “study group leader” who oversaw the preparation of the papers was Richard Pearle, a leading neoconservative intellectual.)
As the first of these papers stated, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” The paper envisioned, bizarrely, King Hussein of Jordan extending his rule over Iraq, a move that the neocon brain trust expected to unite Iraq’s Sunnis and Shi’ites and cut Iran out of the picture. Note how well that worked out.
The second paper, in speaking of Syria but with Iraq in mind, stated, “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.” (Emphasis added.) Observe the hubris in assuming that chaos can be limited, that is, managed. (For more on these papers, see Dan Sanchez’s writings here and here.)
If this is not enough to make sense of an otherwise seemingly senseless U.S. policy in the Middle East, we may also mention an earlier paper, written in the early 1980s by Oded Yinon, a journalist who had been in Israel’s foreign ministry. This paper saw the Arab world as a “house of cards” ripe for “dissolution” by Israel and the United States:

Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue [sic] areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today….

Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

Inter-Arab confrontation promoted by the United States and Israel — let’s recall here Israel’s medical care for al-Qaeda fighters — would suit expansionist Israelis who have no wish to deal justly with the Palestinians and the Occupied Territories The more dangerous the Middle East appears, the more Israeli leaders can count on the United States not to push for a fair settlement with the Palestinians. The American people, moreover, are likely to be more lenient toward Israel’s brutality if chaos prevails in the neighboring states. Chaos would also undercut Hezbollah, which repelled Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon, and Hamas, which refuses to disappear despite savage Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

The success of radical Islamists in the wake of the destabilization of Iraq, Libya (home of Benghazi, a source of arms thanks to the CIA), and Syria came as no surprise to people in the know. Indeed, a 2012 Defense Information Agency report, widely circulated through the upper echelons of the U.S. government, noted that U.S. policies to “isolate the Syrian regime” — such as funneling arms indiscriminately to rebels — were enabling the emergence of a “Salafist principality” (i.e. an Islamic state), a development (the report said) that would be viewed favorably by the West and its regional allies. Since that time, U.S. policy in Syria, and Yemen (i.e., the backing of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war and starvation blockade), have worked to the advantage of al-Qaeda affiliates. Not coincidentally, in both cases the targets are interests that get support (in widely varying degrees) from Iran. This helps us understand why the Obama administration condemns Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing airstrikes against Islamists seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As a recent Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, put it, “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” (Emphasis added.) Hence the suggestions, most notably from retired general and former CIA chief David Patraeus, that the U.S. government side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria — its “moderate” elements of course — against the Islamic State. (Nusra also opposes the Assad government.)

This is not to say that the neoconservative-Likud alliance is the only force driving U.S. policy. It is well known that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states (which are no threat to Israel) wish to throttle Iran, perhaps fearful that a U.S.-Iran detente could be in the offing. Regime change in Syria would suit the Saudis’ anti-Iran, anti-Shi’ite agenda, which is another reason why arms, money, and fighters have flowed so freely to the Sunni rebels in Syria. (If bona fide moderates there be among the rebels, their chief role has been as arms conduits to the jihadis.) The U.S. government, it hardly needs saying, does not wish to alienate its Arab allies, as long as their interests do not conflict with Israel’s.

Thus, we need not puzzle over a lethal and self-defeating U.S. policy that appears more aimed at Iran and its allies rather than at the radical jihadi network that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government should not be intervening in the Middle East at all, but working with Israel and corrupt Arab states in order to create an instability that serves Islamist interests is simply crazy.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Watch: Trump Just Trolled Bill Clinton In The Best Possible Way In Only 14 Seconds

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump knows how to brand himself. Even former President Bill Clinton thinks so.

Trump, the Republican front-runner, used a series of statements that Clinton publicly made over the years and compiled them into one glorious Instagram mashup where the former president appears to endorse the billionaire real estate tycoon.

Bill Clinton wants to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on

Of course, the only problem with that is Clinton’s wife, Hillary, is the Democratic front-runner for the 2016 presidential campaign.

The 14-second video, posted on Instagram Oct. 20, begins with the question: “An Endorsement from Bill Clinton?” It then showcases Clinton clips from a CNN interview where he explains Trump’s appeal to average people, saying that Trump has “a lot of pizzazz and zip.” The video then folds the mashup into an interview on the Trump phenomena on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

“He’s a master brander,” Clinton says in the mash-up. “And he’s the most interesting character out there … And there is a, a macho appeal to saying I’m just sick of nothing happening, I make things happen, vote for me.”

There are also included in the mash-up 2012 clips where Clinton was interviewed about Trump. In those, the former president says “And I like him” and commended the businessman because Trump “had been uncommonly nice to Hillary and me.”

Trump’s montage of Clinton quotes is interspersed with him on the campaign trail. The video ends with the screen message “Thank you Bill!!”

The video is undoubtedly causing a stir among those in the Clinton circle because the former president has been largely critical of Trump’s campaign, stating “You can’t – and you shouldn’t be able to insult your way to the White House.”

Clinton’s spokesman repeated an earlier Clinton quote regarding Trump when reporters asked about the latest web advertisement.

“The thing about branding is you can be fact-free.”

The video is making the rounds in cyberspace. It has 11.2 million likes and almost 2,000 comments. Trump initiated the first comment by stating “Bill Clinton wants to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain.”

Here’s The One GOP Candidate Bill Clinton Said He’s Scared Of, And Wants ‘Destroyed’

Marco Rubio scares former president Bill Clinton, according to one author.

Author Ed Klein, who has written about the Kennedy’s, the Clinton’s and President Barack Obama, reported some inside information during an interview on Fox and Friends. He said that someone who attended a dinner with Bill Clinton, reported that Clinton believes Marco Rubio is his wife’s biggest threat in her ambition to seek the Oval Office.

There are two main attributes Rubio possesses that could prevent a win for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, Klein said. Rubio is young and Latino. Those are two demographic groups that typically vote Democrat.

“He represents generational change. He also has a real appeal to the Latino vote,” Klein said of Rubio. “If he can siphon off that vote from Hillary, he could be a real formidable challenger.”

The former president feels Rubio will pose such a problem to Hillary Clinton’s campaign that he reportedly told friends that the Clinton campaign needs to “destroy” Rubio before his campaign gains traction, according to Klein.

That strategy could have been in play when liberal groups, such as the American Bridge group, attacked Rubio’s statements about the first Democratic primary debate. Rubio said the debate was over “who was going to give away the most free stuff” and suggested that $10 an hour for a job wasn’t enough to live on. The discussion of hourly wages came up in the debate over questions regarding the minimum wage.

Rubio, who is in fact opposed to raising the minimum wage, went further to explain that this country needs a way to retrain workers with modern skills in order to get better paying jobs. However, critics hung onto Rubio’s words about the hourly wage not being enough to live on and ran with it.

“Marco Rubio admits working families aren’t paid nearly enough, but he has repeatedly stood in the way of giving families a raise,” said Jessica Mackler, American Bridge president.

Rubio remains undaunted. He is seeking out major donors who had supported Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in his bid for the presidency. Walker dropped out in late summer and Rubio may seek to attain those fundraisers. He met with more than a dozen of them, including financial services executive, Oct. 14 in New York.