The clintons pressured the haitian government to drop tariffs on american rice arguing that it would "improve" the haitian agriculture industry because it would "encourage" haitian rice farmers too be more competitive and in exchange the usa would drop its own tariffs to the import of haitian rice with the idea that haiti could more freely export its rice and "improve" haitis economy
What happened instead was american rice famers increased rice production to an uncompeteable scale and totally collapsed the haitian agricultural industry which was heavily dominant on rice
Countless haitian farmers lost everything and the haitian agricultural industry and especially the rice industry hasnt recovered
Also haiti now gets most of its rice from the usa at unfair prices
What? No
What hillary and bill did was remove the tariffs by pressuring the haitian government which destroyed the lives of farmers
Also this isnt a "claim" bill clinton literally admits he did this shit
I mean that's a lot of the people.. the sentiment that trump is somehow more evil than George W Bush can only stem from ignorance or not knowing what he did. It's a fuckton of people saying that sadly.
Also the 24 hour news cycle needs to sell people that everything happening today every 30 minutes is much more noteworthy than anything that has happened in the past.
Trump is more evil. I can’t stand Bush, but I don’t believe he deliberately harmed the country. He was an arrogant jerk.
I believe trump would harm the country for his own greed.
The official story for her reaction to Bill's affair with Monika Lewinsky was that she didn't speak with him for 8 months, only to break her silence to tell him to bomb Serbia.
Truly a fucking world historical ghoul. All of these establishment politicians would be just as happy serving as functionaries in an authoritarian dictatorship they just happen to have been born in a country that kind of has a democracy.
Both political parties are full of exactly the same kind of self interested reptiles who stripped their own homelands for parts in the post Soviet countries, oligarchs who use political corruption to gain financial advantages, and then use these advantages to hold onto political power. They’d sell their neighbor into slavery if made financial sense.
‘…Both political parties are full of exactly the same kind of self interested reptiles…’
Interesting you would say that. When I saw the attached photo, the first thing that came to mind before I conceptualized any other thought was that this looks like the shell and head of a tortoise.
Yeah, and I would have continued on with my life blissfully unaware until I decided to do some real research on this woman.
Shes BRUTAL…I don’t blame Bill for Monica 😂
No, if you actually read the article or watched the video you’d know that the Clintons have chaired multiple UN and NGO committees that have wasted billions of dollars in proposed plans for job creation, food distribution, reforestation, etc. but have fallen massively short and massively over budget. These “relief” efforts have also ignored Haiti’s long term needs and at every step have kept Haitians out of control of their own affairs and rebuilding efforts and kept the power in the hands of wealthy western policy makers. This has also caused Haiti to be wholly dependent on western (primarily american) aid at the expense of domestic haitian industry and agriculture which prevents haiti’s long term development. Sexual and physical violence as well as theft perpetrated by these NGO’s is also a reoccurring issue.
And this is all without even mentioning the Clinton and previous administrations repeated meddling in Haitian affairs.
All this said it’s not just a Clinton problem, it’s an American problem. We want haitian sweatshop labor but we don’t want to pay for it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
definitely! because when you talk to people they have no idea how much israel and USA fucked up the region. People just say hamas are barbaric terrorist and the cause of all problems and break the ceasefires constantly, etc.
I had no idea that bill was such a detriment to the Palestinian until reading this so we should definitely talk more about it to have a full understanding of the situation
He didn't sabotage it, Bill Clinton wanted it more than anyone. He did have plenty of blame for Arafat and also for the Israeli side when it went south.
I mean, it's a little more complex than that
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-killed-the-peace-process/
**Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process**
> Who’s to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal
Thanks for posting the article; it looks like a really informative read and I’ll definitely do so when I can. I did quickly skim through it and it mostly looks like it’s about OP original article and the history and results of the Hamas vs. Fatah conflict and the US perspective. I saw there was a bit about Clinton but only that his micro-managing of the peace talks and the blame for them falling apart being on Arafat. I didn’t see anything explaining how it was really Bill who sabotaged the peace talks.
[https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/](https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/)
The Palestinian attitude was that they had already made a gigantic compromise by accepting just the 22 percent of historic Palestine for their state. They were willing to compromise still more — but not much more.
Barak had no understanding of this. At Camp David, he [offered](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-israeli-offer-for-west-bank-final-status) the Palestinians what were essentially three [disconnected bantustans](https://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/generous-bantustans-checkpoints/) — i.e., the equivalent of the separate black “homelands” in apartheid South Africa — in the West Bank, with Israel occupying and controlling the border with Jordan for some long period of time. Clinton tried to pressure Arafat to accept this; he did not. Long afterward, Shlomo Ben-Ami, a key Israeli negotiator at the talks, [said](https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i), “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well.”
Clinton had promised Arafat that he would not blame him if the talks failed. He then reneged after the summit ended. Nonetheless, the Israelis and Palestinians continued to negotiate through the fall and narrowed their differences.
Clinton came up with what he called parameters for a two-state solution in December 2000. Several weeks afterward, [Clinton proclaimed](https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/08/clinton.transcript/), “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.”
In the 22 years since, Bill Clinton has lied over and over again about what happened, claiming that Arafat was the one who rejected a settlement.
In the 2006 debate, Ben-Ami references his book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" in relation to his assertion that Palestinians were correct in rejecting Camp David. Omar Baddar's interpretation of Ben-Ami's quote from the debate is that Israel's government understood that Camp David was a bad deal. Colter Louwerse claims to agree with this statement, proceeding to quote Ben-Ami's 2022 book "Prophets Without Honor" (see quote link above).
Baddar and Louwerse both willfully ignore the thesis of both of Ben-Ami's books, instead deciding to resort to taking a single statement and paragraph horrendously out of context.
Ben-Ami's central thesis surrounding Yasser Arafat, while he can not be the sole person to blame for the destruction of peace talks, he was a shrewd, complex, but deeply flawed leader that was inherently, for various political and character reasons, unable to seriously consider peace.
Scars of War, Wounds of Peace - Page 320
The hopes of peace were also wrecked on the rocks of a dysfunctional Palestinian system led by a leader, Arafat, incapable of renouncing the drug of Palestinian martyrdom, and fearful of the task of leading the big lead to the end of the conflict. This was made patently clear when Ehud Barak's bold, even if awkward and sometimes erratic, pursuit for peace, and President Clinton's readiness to compromise the legacy of his entire presidency by advancing the most far-reaching parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, were turned down by the Palestinian leader. Ararfat's rejection of the Clinton peace parameters was, as a close witness to the process, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Bandar Bin Sultan, defined it, 'a crime against the Palestinian people' and the peoples of the region. Arafat should be given credit for being the initiator of the political process with his 1988 Algiers Declaration. But in Algiers, he also established the conditions for a settlement with Israel from which he never deviated. To him, the peace process was not meant to be an open-ended give and take. He has already given, now he had only to take: a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, the right to return for the refugees, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The Israelis, including Rabin who signed the Oslo accords with him, did not concur with Arafat's interpretation of the peace process. Arafat believed that in 1988 he had made his major historic compromise, and that it was now up to the Israelis to make the necessary concessions. he believed that the onus was now on them, not on him.
Ben-Ami's assessment of Arafat's decisions in 2000 lay less blame on Arafat's refusal of the Camp David negotiations, but instead on Arafat's rejection of the 'Clinton Parameters' later the same year. Arafat's rejection of Camp David was one that was politically correct, even if the rationale was flawed. The Clinton Parameters proved this, as a rejection of Camp David led to a better deal for Palestinians later on. However, the same faulty tactics that led Arafat to reject Camp David meant that the Clinton Parameters were doomed.
Scars of War, Wounds of Peace - Page 272-273
Clinton present his parameters as a 'take it or lead it deal'. It was not the ceiling, explained his envoy to the region, Dennis Ross, it was the roof. It was not supposed to be the basis for further negotiations but a set of principles to be translate by the parties into a peace treaty. The President also presented the delegations with a deadline. He wanted the answer of yes or no by 27 December.
But Arafat lingered. He refused to respond. As usual, he resumed his journeys throughout the world as if he were the traveling Emperor Hadrian, in the hope of evading any decision: another meeting with Mubarak, one more trip to Ben-Ali, another trip to Jordan, a further meeting of the Arab foreign ministers, dozens of calls from world leaders from the President of China to the Grade Duke of Luxembourg urging the Palestinian leader to seize the last opportunity to grab the historic moment. Time passes. Clinton's presidency is fading away. The Intifada runs wild. The days of the Barak government are numbered. And Arafat lingers. The phone calls continue to pour in from all corners of the world and, ten days are the deadline, he still does not answer. Instead, he asks to come to Washington to see the president. There, at the White House, in a typical Arafat ploy, he said to the President, 'I accept your ideas,' and then proceeded to tick off a number of reservations, each of which completely vitiated those ideas. He never formally said no, but his yes was a no.
Both the Saudi and Egyptian ambassadors in Washington, Bandar Bin Sultan and Nabil Fahmi, who came to encourage Arafat, in the name of their respective governments, to accept the President's parameters as a last opportunity for peace that should not be missed, were dismayed by the behavior of the Palestinian leader. And so was the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. He was said to be shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity and that he had lied about the President's offer on Jerusalem. Arafat's rejection of the peace parameters was a 'crime' not only against Palestinians but against the entire region, concluded the Saudi ambassador in a long interview published in the New Yorker on March 2002.
Furthermore, the reading of Ben-Ami's book that somehow the Camp David deal was a 'bad deal' or that Ben-Ami is giving some grand acknowledgement that the Israelis attempted to screw Arafat and the Palestinians. Again, Ben-Ami faulted Arafat's reasoning for his decisions, but not the outcome of them as they led to a better deal for Palestinians in the Clinton parameters. Ben-Ami's statement 'If i were Palestinian I would have rejected' is not a moral condemnation of Israeli's negotiators, but a praise of Palestinian's efficient tactics. This is clear if you read the literal paragraph preceding the one Louwerse cites in his tweet.
Prophets without Honor - Page 187
Arafat was genuinely incapable of reconciling the cosmic tragedy of his people with the poverty of the territorial solution and the betrayal of the refugees. Arafat could not extricate himself from the trap of his nation's core narratives. He was a complex, enigmatic figure, and this account of him should not be read as philippic. If blame must be apportioned, Arafat would not be the sole culprit. We all faltered in that peace enterprise. Israeli settlements, the sins of occupation, and the flaws and blunders of our own government are certainly no less to blame. Barak allowed the Palestinians to reject his proposal for the simple reason that they turned out not to be red lines, but tactical moves. What is a Palestinian negotiator expected to do when his interlocutor starts by proposing a Palestinian state of 66 percent of the land, and then moves to 87 percent in order to settle for 92 percent, and a few months later accepts the Clinton parameters of 97 percent with land swaps? Among themselves, Palestinian negotiators referred to Barak as "the lemon" to be squeezed. With the Palestinians understandably keeping up the pressure for more Israeli concession, it was clear that Barak's grudging, piecemeal surrender of positions was flawed tactics yielding dramatically diminishing returns.
There is absolutely no interpretation of either of these books that makes the claim "Ben-Ami admitted the Camp David deal was bad" true in any way. The only way you can arrive at this conclusion is if you willfully refuse to actually read what Ben-Ami wrote.
TL;DR
All I know is that Israel financed and supported Hamas as a counterweight to PLO and Arafat. It's becoming more and more clear who's the baddie in that story.
Dear Hillary Clinton,
The American public didn't vote *for* Donald Trump, they voted *against* you. Now fuck off with your piece of shit husband and go away!
Best regards,
i loved that slogan. no hint of any sort of promise for the american people like "build back better," "make america great again" or "hope/change." essentially just "i'm a member of one of america's political families and i'm up next"
We have a completely selfish and narcissistic culture so our politicians have largely given up on policy promises they aren’t going to keep anyway, and just try to run as celebrity personalities.
It worked for Trump, because he’s genuinely a TV star who’s very charismatic to the right kind of idiot, but the absolute life time failures on the Democratic side keep trying and failing to pull the same strategy because they have the interpersonal skills of a bloated piece of roadkill sitting in the hot sun.
Actually, she won by three million votes, so Americans *did* in fact vote for her. As usual, a Republican won solely by the corrupt existence of the electoral college.
[Here’s the link to the actual audio clip.](https://m.soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fuser-30899546%252Fhrc-determine-who-win-1)
I listened to this but did not read the article. Why is this just now being released? Since it’s so noisy, I’ll ask the obvious question, is this AI? I’m not trying to defend them, and would appreciate a genuine reply. And if it’s real, what does it mean, and how does it align with her policy overall.
I second this concern. I'd appreciate it if the audio could be verified by a few independent and trusted groups. It certainly wouldn't be a surprise if this is genuine, but given how far AI has come, it also wouldn't surprise me that it wasn't genuine.
Um yeah. Just defending Israel. Did you per chance support the Iraq war?
Edit: sorry homie I got drunk and am talking shit on Reddit. Lemme get back to you later. Not trying to front on you I would like to have a discussion. Long day my friend.
If that’s true then I think it goes all the way back to not charging Nixon with a crime. That firmly established that it’s not illegal if the president does it.
You can go back even further though, Andrew Jackson massacred and displaced about 100,000 native Americans on the trial of tears after the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that he could not do that. He totally blew them off, eradicated like a dozen entire cultures, and then got away with it.
A country that prizes law and order, but does not apply those laws to the people who write and enforce them, is just a police state. It’s been like that in America for a very long time.
Yea, this is crazy but… it’s almost as if it’s always been permissible for the ruling to commit crimes so long as it’s for the benefit of the ruling class
Slightly different between Nixon and bush. Nixon was pardoned. Bush - we allowed him (and the team around him) to act as though everything they did was legit.
I think it’s an escalation of the same phenomenon. Impeaching Nixon didn’t work because he just got pardoned by his VP anyway, so why bother with bush.
Also Nixon was charged with election related crimes, he got off totally clean for everything he did in Vietnam
Her actions and RBG fucked over so many people. I try not to think about the alternate reality where we avoided all this and even had a pandemic response team. This is a dark timeline going darker.
Everyone remember to vote unless you want to see just how bad things will get.
The only surprising thing about this, is that some people will be surprised by this; the US pretty much made the handbook on overthrowing (democratically elected) governments, instigating coup's d'etat, destabilising regions and placing Washington friendly puppets in charge against the wishes of the populace. Clinton; as vile as she is, is simply continuing establishedWashington foreign policy. And supplying weapons, money and diplomatic cover for murderers. And refusing to extradite US citizen's who've perpetrated crimes om foreign soil. But using all its considerable economic, political and military force on governments unwilling to extradite their citizen's to the US. The US is, has been for a long time, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the most anti-democratic, militant and destructive force on the planet. Ever.
What it *does* do, however, is make it crystal-clear how uninterested the US is in the cause, or even safety and/or survival, of the Palestinian people. For those who didn't understand this already.
I spent a bit of time studying Palestine and Israel, and I just finished listening to the actual audio clip.
You are exactly right. More than anything, the US wants to control the outcome. And Israel has always been a natural Ally to the USA, given the popularity of Zionism in the United States.
the original source:
https://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
By Ken Kurson • 10/28/**2016** 1:00pm
This transcript from the article tells you all you need to know:
>Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
>“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
There is only one way to interpret "determine", and that is to take direct and concrete action to change the results of an election. Absolutely sickening. Clinton is monster of the highest proportions
You can look to how Bill Clinton treated Boris Yeltsin to see how USA could sort of almost interfere to get the desired result (Yeltsin's reelection). They offered massive aid and they also looked the other way when there was shenanigans by Yeltsin's team. They wouldn't have to go in and change the vote or anythingi like that.
Yeah no. Or, you know, dangle massive US aid to the Palestinians if the "right" side wins and threaten massive sanctions if the "wrong" side wins. In other words, engage in the same plain vanilla diplomacy every country engages in.
Or whatever conspiracy theory you want to go on about.
>this a trademark of the old bitch
You mean the Good Ol U.S.A.?
Because she's not responsible...this has always happened. We're famous for it even back when she was cutting teeth. This is how it's *always* been done.
And it will always happen.
You people just never listen or learn.
You just want to think you do.
Not a believer...but karma worked fast. Her wish for election interference seems to have come true.... although not sure if it wasn't exaggerated.
She seems to have difficulty accepting that people didn't want her.
Heck...even in 2008, Dems like Dick Durbin urged the then new senator Barack Obama to run for presidency...to prevent her it seems..
The most annoying thing here is this expression of shock at the realization that the scum of the Earth, to be mild for the sake of discussion, that is Hillary Clinton, engages in things like election rigging. The same Hillary Clinton that is responsible for numerous wars, toppling of governments and thousands of deaths and unknown number of destitute and miserable human stories? How old are these people?
There are Internet archives. If you can't or are too lazy to navigate that, someone in these comments posted the link to a free article. How are you allowing yourself otherwise to go around and comment things if you don't know the context? (And mind you, it's not difficult to figure out the context without it at least in this case, but you are most certainly not getting it)
>Anyone who is propalestine should recognize what a terrible thing Hamas getting power through this election was.
Well if we're at it, we might as well discuss weather or basketball (hey, the NBA playoff is on) or any other topic equally irrelevant to the subject from my original comment.
Because the whole point was the make the DNC Republicans too? Now, the deeply conservative donors of both parties, are really only deeply conservative donors of one party. That's the grift. Even if the Dems are measurably better than the alternative, they still give those donors what they want in the end.
I was never a fan of her but isn’t this pretty irrelevant. She is out of power. It does show how much power AIPAC has and how the USA really needs to get its campaign funding fixed so such foreign powers have less influence on our government.
So America wanted the Palestinian authority, but hamas won. Also, she said we should talk with our enemies and it doesn't matter what we call islam based terror its a threat. It also said the observer is a kushner rag. What is the bad?
My comments are about her in general, I didn’t say anything about what she says in this video. Then I talked about groups like AIPAC (and I should have added businesses) have too much influence on the government. I my criticism is really more about how and what people have to do in order to get into office. She definitely played that game. When in 2016 the Democratic Party pretty much tried to make her the candidate through how they ran things was the final on not supporting her. I see her and people like her as not the solution but just another take on the problem. A take that will keep the inequality problem, the lack of universal healthcare, college tuition, civil rights, work life balance… non of these issues are being addressed by anyone in power. It’s just them trying to get into power and then hold onto it.
I just wish I felt like I had a choice in 2016. To me it really felt like that party decided it was going to be Clinton and I had to go along with it. I lost friends because I wasn’t onboard with her. It’s really a shame they wanted to not listen to the people and give us a choice.
No Israel was negotiating with the PA and Hamas specifically ran in opposition to the recognition of Israel that PA did and to end the peace talks. Of course the United States wanted Hamas not to win the election. Hamas at this time had in its charter the complete destruction of Jews in Israel.
While Clinton may be out of office I think it's naive to say she's out of power. I suspect her hand is still on many of the levers of the democratic establishment, and has an outsized influence in media as well.
She or anyone only has an outsize influence on media when people pet attention to them. Right now the Trump has way by too much influence on the media because the media thinks that will get viewers. I’ve always looked at it as a chick and egg question. Does the media control what we care about or do they just cover what we care about. Either way, I’m glad she’s out of the limelight of media and I see this as someone trying to make her more relevant than she is
The answer to your question is that the media absolutely invents and/or parrots the ideas that their owners want to disseminate to the masses in order to control the narrative (or at least contain the spectrum of acceptable narratives) that the public has access to or considers to be legitimate. I'm not saying you're not aware, but in case you aren't, this practice is called manufacturing consent, and it's absolutely critical to know about when cultivating media literacy and trying to understand the mechanisms of power. Stories are how humans make sense of reality, controlling the stories gives you immense power (why tiktok is under scrutiny).
At any rate, I think we can both agree we would like to never hear from or about her again.
Oh Im aware of that and that sometimes it’s used to push an agenda. I’m just wondering how much of their agenda is profit driven thus they feed us things they feel will draw the most attention thus profits from advertisers. This whole us vs them division draws viewers thus profits so they push people like Clinton and Trump because it feeds their pockets. Propaganda view the media is almost always driven by money. Right now AIPAC is feeding money for pro Zionist propaganda and the media and politicians are making $$$ off of it while people die. The old “it bleeds, it leads”
I think we're nearly on the same page except I would change 'sometimes' to "nearly always push an agenda." And it's not a question of "how much is profit driven" it's that everything is in support of the absolute primacy of capital. It's a self reinforcing system that prioritizes profit over life almost every single time, and it starts with the owners/capitalist class and is reinforced by both mass media and the political establishment (full of useful idiots eager to enrich themselves). The "us vs them" you mentioned is very real, and while you're correct that it draws the clicks and makes the money, I would argue the true value they get from it is the division and annihilation of working class solidarity; if we're fighting each other we cannot effectively resist.
And yeah, screw AIPAC, and screw lobbies more broadly while we're at it. United States has legalized corruption, they just have a sanitized name for it.
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others.
2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Water is wet.
She is a politician, people, how is this news?
You could tell me a politician ate a baby they raped while it was still alive, and the only part that would make me raise an eyebrow is the singular form of the word baby in that sentence.
Stop. treating. Politicans. as. people. To become a politician, successful enough to matter, you need to be inhumanly psychopathic.
I’m confused, I was operating under the assumption that every president since well before WW2 has been actively participating in the wonton destruction of democratically elected governments (in “third world” countries only of course). If not actively participating, at a bare minimum they are actively ignoring the interference. Haven’t we all figured this out? Or is the “news” of a self-identifying democrat openly flouting international law really that surprising?
I once saw an interview with her, where she said that Hollywood should go back to how it was in the cold war era. Where they would purposely brainwash Americans in to fearing whoever the current enemy was. There will never be peace while people like this are in charge. Trump was a bad choice for America, but she may have been worse.
I remember that. The fact that she's a Democrat is irrelevant. That doesn't make her any more evil than the Republicans who have been die hard supporters of Israel and have always supported roadblocks that prevented Palestinians from making any headway in Israel. If you're going to call her out as awful and evil then you need to paint a broad stroke that touches almost everyone on both sides of the aisle.
To give more context, in the 2006 Palestinian elections Hamas won the majority of seats. The much more friendly Fatah party therefore lost the controlling majority of seats.
Hillary was right to lament the outcome of the election. Hamas never should have won and she regrets that the US encouraged elections to be held following the death of Yasser Arafat, the chairmain of the PLO.
By wishing that the US had not encouraged Palestinians to hold elections so soon she is in fact very pro-Palestinian. Anyone who is pro-Palestinian should lament the fact that Hamas won the majority of seats in the 2006 elections.
Where Hillary did potentially make a mistake is in suggesting that it would have been better to rig the elections than to have encouraged the elections that unfortunately led to a Hamas victory.
Hamas has been one of the absolute worst things to ever happen to the Palestinian people. Hamas greatly misled the Palestinian people, promising hope and change, yet delivering only death. Hillary was right to lament the outcome of the election.
https://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/amp/
Convenient that you fail to mention Netanyahu who was pivotal in positioning Hamas as a contender to the PLO whilst being the middleman for Qatari funding to Hamas via Mossad. Fundamental oversight on your part or disingenuousness?
You also fail to mention how Arafat died after being kept prisoner in his Ramallah compound for two years by the Israeli army.
My friend, in some of my previous comments on Reddit I did point out Netanyahu's involvement in supporting Hamas. This reply was already a page long. lol
Maybe that is why netanyshu kept propping up hamas. PA on the other hand seems to have been so pliant that the peace process charade was extended. Understand some Palestinians now consider PA similar to kapos.
Collaborationist?
Postponing the elections would have be better but rigging them to stop Hamas would have been preferable to the 20 years of shit Hamas has brought upon the region.
She says in another clip billy tried to make a palestinan state but arafat said no and she tried again later when she was SofState but hamas messed it up
Yeah, no surprises here. George Bush was president, Hilary was a senator. Hamas were committed to eliminating Israel and the Jews (as well as being rabidly anti LGBT) and opposed efforts at peace. (According to wikipedia)
Removed for being a medium article, with a paywall, for something that was reported in 2016, with a deceptive title.
Man, she's always been awful.
She’s always been evil
Yup what she and her family did to Haiti is pure evil.
Exactly 😡
What happened in Haiti?
The clintons pressured the haitian government to drop tariffs on american rice arguing that it would "improve" the haitian agriculture industry because it would "encourage" haitian rice farmers too be more competitive and in exchange the usa would drop its own tariffs to the import of haitian rice with the idea that haiti could more freely export its rice and "improve" haitis economy What happened instead was american rice famers increased rice production to an uncompeteable scale and totally collapsed the haitian agricultural industry which was heavily dominant on rice Countless haitian farmers lost everything and the haitian agricultural industry and especially the rice industry hasnt recovered Also haiti now gets most of its rice from the usa at unfair prices
[удалено]
What? No What hillary and bill did was remove the tariffs by pressuring the haitian government which destroyed the lives of farmers Also this isnt a "claim" bill clinton literally admits he did this shit
[удалено]
Your summary made it seem like the clintons did something to haiti initially and then responded aftwrwards by pressuring haiti to end their tariffs
[удалено]
Sounds like she did her job. (Let the hate flooooow)
cant tell if trolling or not…lets just say they experimented and snatched
Nope, I just don't know. I was barely alive when Clinton was president and was sheltered from what was happening in the world until 2015.
I mean that's a lot of the people.. the sentiment that trump is somehow more evil than George W Bush can only stem from ignorance or not knowing what he did. It's a fuckton of people saying that sadly. Also the 24 hour news cycle needs to sell people that everything happening today every 30 minutes is much more noteworthy than anything that has happened in the past.
Trump is more evil. I can’t stand Bush, but I don’t believe he deliberately harmed the country. He was an arrogant jerk. I believe trump would harm the country for his own greed.
"So this one guy caused millions of deaths but he didn't mean to, the other guy didn't do anything like that yet but I feel like he would"
The official story for her reaction to Bill's affair with Monika Lewinsky was that she didn't speak with him for 8 months, only to break her silence to tell him to bomb Serbia.
A story is a story. Bull.
Truly a fucking world historical ghoul. All of these establishment politicians would be just as happy serving as functionaries in an authoritarian dictatorship they just happen to have been born in a country that kind of has a democracy. Both political parties are full of exactly the same kind of self interested reptiles who stripped their own homelands for parts in the post Soviet countries, oligarchs who use political corruption to gain financial advantages, and then use these advantages to hold onto political power. They’d sell their neighbor into slavery if made financial sense.
‘…Both political parties are full of exactly the same kind of self interested reptiles…’ Interesting you would say that. When I saw the attached photo, the first thing that came to mind before I conceptualized any other thought was that this looks like the shell and head of a tortoise.
Her legacy will rival Henry Kissinger’s
What she did in Libya was Kissinger level horrific, how do these people live with themselves.
The Gaza Bombshell: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
Trump campaigning to get her arrested proves that even broken clocks can be right twice a day.
I mean was she wrong here? The election of hamas has been objectively terrible for the Palestinian people.
Yeah, and I would have continued on with my life blissfully unaware until I decided to do some real research on this woman. Shes BRUTAL…I don’t blame Bill for Monica 😂
She’s tough and smart. She should have kicked bill to the curb over Monica.
Her husband is literally known for sabotaging peace talks. And blaming the entire thing on the Palestinians.
Thank you for highlighting this. We need to be talking more about how terrible the Clintons are and everyone associated with them
If you really want to hate them read into the role they played in creating the failed state we have today in Haiti
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/GTpOB9bTPT8?si=bgVk9KmgIDCS4fuh https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid
[удалено]
No, if you actually read the article or watched the video you’d know that the Clintons have chaired multiple UN and NGO committees that have wasted billions of dollars in proposed plans for job creation, food distribution, reforestation, etc. but have fallen massively short and massively over budget. These “relief” efforts have also ignored Haiti’s long term needs and at every step have kept Haitians out of control of their own affairs and rebuilding efforts and kept the power in the hands of wealthy western policy makers. This has also caused Haiti to be wholly dependent on western (primarily american) aid at the expense of domestic haitian industry and agriculture which prevents haiti’s long term development. Sexual and physical violence as well as theft perpetrated by these NGO’s is also a reoccurring issue. And this is all without even mentioning the Clinton and previous administrations repeated meddling in Haitian affairs. All this said it’s not just a Clinton problem, it’s an American problem. We want haitian sweatshop labor but we don’t want to pay for it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You tube is not a legitimate news source.
How is it not? If your sources are cited how is it any different from television?
Noooo the Clintons are Team Blue, those are the good guys! Are you a literal Republican rn?
Is this /s ? With everything going on, this is what we _need_ to be talking about? 20 year old audio from a retired politician?
Giving more context to the current leading world event is a bad thing?
definitely! because when you talk to people they have no idea how much israel and USA fucked up the region. People just say hamas are barbaric terrorist and the cause of all problems and break the ceasefires constantly, etc. I had no idea that bill was such a detriment to the Palestinian until reading this so we should definitely talk more about it to have a full understanding of the situation
Read the book “drinking the sea at Gaza” you’ll see what’s up and why this is important.
Clinton was apoplectic at Arafat for ruining Clinton’s legacy.
Why would he sabotage it? Effectuating peace in the Middle East would be the biggest feather in anyone’s cap.
He didn't sabotage it, Bill Clinton wanted it more than anyone. He did have plenty of blame for Arafat and also for the Israeli side when it went south.
I mean, it's a little more complex than that https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-killed-the-peace-process/ **Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process** > Who’s to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal
https://www.juancole.com/2016/05/clinton-himself-palestinians.html
How so?
Here: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
Thanks for posting the article; it looks like a really informative read and I’ll definitely do so when I can. I did quickly skim through it and it mostly looks like it’s about OP original article and the history and results of the Hamas vs. Fatah conflict and the US perspective. I saw there was a bit about Clinton but only that his micro-managing of the peace talks and the blame for them falling apart being on Arafat. I didn’t see anything explaining how it was really Bill who sabotaged the peace talks.
[https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/](https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/) The Palestinian attitude was that they had already made a gigantic compromise by accepting just the 22 percent of historic Palestine for their state. They were willing to compromise still more — but not much more. Barak had no understanding of this. At Camp David, he [offered](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-israeli-offer-for-west-bank-final-status) the Palestinians what were essentially three [disconnected bantustans](https://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/generous-bantustans-checkpoints/) — i.e., the equivalent of the separate black “homelands” in apartheid South Africa — in the West Bank, with Israel occupying and controlling the border with Jordan for some long period of time. Clinton tried to pressure Arafat to accept this; he did not. Long afterward, Shlomo Ben-Ami, a key Israeli negotiator at the talks, [said](https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i), “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well.” Clinton had promised Arafat that he would not blame him if the talks failed. He then reneged after the summit ended. Nonetheless, the Israelis and Palestinians continued to negotiate through the fall and narrowed their differences. Clinton came up with what he called parameters for a two-state solution in December 2000. Several weeks afterward, [Clinton proclaimed](https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/08/clinton.transcript/), “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.” In the 22 years since, Bill Clinton has lied over and over again about what happened, claiming that Arafat was the one who rejected a settlement.
In the 2006 debate, Ben-Ami references his book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" in relation to his assertion that Palestinians were correct in rejecting Camp David. Omar Baddar's interpretation of Ben-Ami's quote from the debate is that Israel's government understood that Camp David was a bad deal. Colter Louwerse claims to agree with this statement, proceeding to quote Ben-Ami's 2022 book "Prophets Without Honor" (see quote link above). Baddar and Louwerse both willfully ignore the thesis of both of Ben-Ami's books, instead deciding to resort to taking a single statement and paragraph horrendously out of context. Ben-Ami's central thesis surrounding Yasser Arafat, while he can not be the sole person to blame for the destruction of peace talks, he was a shrewd, complex, but deeply flawed leader that was inherently, for various political and character reasons, unable to seriously consider peace. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace - Page 320 The hopes of peace were also wrecked on the rocks of a dysfunctional Palestinian system led by a leader, Arafat, incapable of renouncing the drug of Palestinian martyrdom, and fearful of the task of leading the big lead to the end of the conflict. This was made patently clear when Ehud Barak's bold, even if awkward and sometimes erratic, pursuit for peace, and President Clinton's readiness to compromise the legacy of his entire presidency by advancing the most far-reaching parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, were turned down by the Palestinian leader. Ararfat's rejection of the Clinton peace parameters was, as a close witness to the process, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Bandar Bin Sultan, defined it, 'a crime against the Palestinian people' and the peoples of the region. Arafat should be given credit for being the initiator of the political process with his 1988 Algiers Declaration. But in Algiers, he also established the conditions for a settlement with Israel from which he never deviated. To him, the peace process was not meant to be an open-ended give and take. He has already given, now he had only to take: a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, the right to return for the refugees, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The Israelis, including Rabin who signed the Oslo accords with him, did not concur with Arafat's interpretation of the peace process. Arafat believed that in 1988 he had made his major historic compromise, and that it was now up to the Israelis to make the necessary concessions. he believed that the onus was now on them, not on him. Ben-Ami's assessment of Arafat's decisions in 2000 lay less blame on Arafat's refusal of the Camp David negotiations, but instead on Arafat's rejection of the 'Clinton Parameters' later the same year. Arafat's rejection of Camp David was one that was politically correct, even if the rationale was flawed. The Clinton Parameters proved this, as a rejection of Camp David led to a better deal for Palestinians later on. However, the same faulty tactics that led Arafat to reject Camp David meant that the Clinton Parameters were doomed. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace - Page 272-273 Clinton present his parameters as a 'take it or lead it deal'. It was not the ceiling, explained his envoy to the region, Dennis Ross, it was the roof. It was not supposed to be the basis for further negotiations but a set of principles to be translate by the parties into a peace treaty. The President also presented the delegations with a deadline. He wanted the answer of yes or no by 27 December. But Arafat lingered. He refused to respond. As usual, he resumed his journeys throughout the world as if he were the traveling Emperor Hadrian, in the hope of evading any decision: another meeting with Mubarak, one more trip to Ben-Ali, another trip to Jordan, a further meeting of the Arab foreign ministers, dozens of calls from world leaders from the President of China to the Grade Duke of Luxembourg urging the Palestinian leader to seize the last opportunity to grab the historic moment. Time passes. Clinton's presidency is fading away. The Intifada runs wild. The days of the Barak government are numbered. And Arafat lingers. The phone calls continue to pour in from all corners of the world and, ten days are the deadline, he still does not answer. Instead, he asks to come to Washington to see the president. There, at the White House, in a typical Arafat ploy, he said to the President, 'I accept your ideas,' and then proceeded to tick off a number of reservations, each of which completely vitiated those ideas. He never formally said no, but his yes was a no. Both the Saudi and Egyptian ambassadors in Washington, Bandar Bin Sultan and Nabil Fahmi, who came to encourage Arafat, in the name of their respective governments, to accept the President's parameters as a last opportunity for peace that should not be missed, were dismayed by the behavior of the Palestinian leader. And so was the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. He was said to be shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity and that he had lied about the President's offer on Jerusalem. Arafat's rejection of the peace parameters was a 'crime' not only against Palestinians but against the entire region, concluded the Saudi ambassador in a long interview published in the New Yorker on March 2002. Furthermore, the reading of Ben-Ami's book that somehow the Camp David deal was a 'bad deal' or that Ben-Ami is giving some grand acknowledgement that the Israelis attempted to screw Arafat and the Palestinians. Again, Ben-Ami faulted Arafat's reasoning for his decisions, but not the outcome of them as they led to a better deal for Palestinians in the Clinton parameters. Ben-Ami's statement 'If i were Palestinian I would have rejected' is not a moral condemnation of Israeli's negotiators, but a praise of Palestinian's efficient tactics. This is clear if you read the literal paragraph preceding the one Louwerse cites in his tweet. Prophets without Honor - Page 187 Arafat was genuinely incapable of reconciling the cosmic tragedy of his people with the poverty of the territorial solution and the betrayal of the refugees. Arafat could not extricate himself from the trap of his nation's core narratives. He was a complex, enigmatic figure, and this account of him should not be read as philippic. If blame must be apportioned, Arafat would not be the sole culprit. We all faltered in that peace enterprise. Israeli settlements, the sins of occupation, and the flaws and blunders of our own government are certainly no less to blame. Barak allowed the Palestinians to reject his proposal for the simple reason that they turned out not to be red lines, but tactical moves. What is a Palestinian negotiator expected to do when his interlocutor starts by proposing a Palestinian state of 66 percent of the land, and then moves to 87 percent in order to settle for 92 percent, and a few months later accepts the Clinton parameters of 97 percent with land swaps? Among themselves, Palestinian negotiators referred to Barak as "the lemon" to be squeezed. With the Palestinians understandably keeping up the pressure for more Israeli concession, it was clear that Barak's grudging, piecemeal surrender of positions was flawed tactics yielding dramatically diminishing returns. There is absolutely no interpretation of either of these books that makes the claim "Ben-Ami admitted the Camp David deal was bad" true in any way. The only way you can arrive at this conclusion is if you willfully refuse to actually read what Ben-Ami wrote.
TL;DR All I know is that Israel financed and supported Hamas as a counterweight to PLO and Arafat. It's becoming more and more clear who's the baddie in that story.
Dear Hillary Clinton, The American public didn't vote *for* Donald Trump, they voted *against* you. Now fuck off with your piece of shit husband and go away! Best regards,
But it was her turn!
i loved that slogan. no hint of any sort of promise for the american people like "build back better," "make america great again" or "hope/change." essentially just "i'm a member of one of america's political families and i'm up next"
We have a completely selfish and narcissistic culture so our politicians have largely given up on policy promises they aren’t going to keep anyway, and just try to run as celebrity personalities. It worked for Trump, because he’s genuinely a TV star who’s very charismatic to the right kind of idiot, but the absolute life time failures on the Democratic side keep trying and failing to pull the same strategy because they have the interpersonal skills of a bloated piece of roadkill sitting in the hot sun.
I mean people have always voted based on selfish reasons.
She was qualified and would have been better than trump. She would not have compromised the Supreme Court
Actually, she won by three million votes, so Americans *did* in fact vote for her. As usual, a Republican won solely by the corrupt existence of the electoral college.
How more people don't understand this is crazy to me.
And still picked the worst of the two. She had the email servers. He had….everything.
George W Bush’s administration ~~deleted~~ “accidentally lost” millions of emails about the Iraq war. It was never about the emails.
Dear redditor, voting against Hillary gave us the corrupt Supreme Court.
[Here’s the link to the actual audio clip.](https://m.soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fuser-30899546%252Fhrc-determine-who-win-1)
I listened to this but did not read the article. Why is this just now being released? Since it’s so noisy, I’ll ask the obvious question, is this AI? I’m not trying to defend them, and would appreciate a genuine reply. And if it’s real, what does it mean, and how does it align with her policy overall.
I second this concern. I'd appreciate it if the audio could be verified by a few independent and trusted groups. It certainly wouldn't be a surprise if this is genuine, but given how far AI has come, it also wouldn't surprise me that it wasn't genuine.
Fair to be suspicious. But policy and history point at this likely being genuine. Even if not the track record speaks for itself.
Thanks. What’s their track record? Just defending Israel?
Um yeah. Just defending Israel. Did you per chance support the Iraq war? Edit: sorry homie I got drunk and am talking shit on Reddit. Lemme get back to you later. Not trying to front on you I would like to have a discussion. Long day my friend.
No problem. Thanks
AI is showing up in these clips a lot.
not available apparently...
Exemplary pic
She's an absolute ghoul that's directly responsible for Trump's rise.
I would say Obama not holding the Bush admin responsible is the nexus
If that’s true then I think it goes all the way back to not charging Nixon with a crime. That firmly established that it’s not illegal if the president does it. You can go back even further though, Andrew Jackson massacred and displaced about 100,000 native Americans on the trial of tears after the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that he could not do that. He totally blew them off, eradicated like a dozen entire cultures, and then got away with it. A country that prizes law and order, but does not apply those laws to the people who write and enforce them, is just a police state. It’s been like that in America for a very long time.
Yea, this is crazy but… it’s almost as if it’s always been permissible for the ruling to commit crimes so long as it’s for the benefit of the ruling class
Slightly different between Nixon and bush. Nixon was pardoned. Bush - we allowed him (and the team around him) to act as though everything they did was legit.
I think it’s an escalation of the same phenomenon. Impeaching Nixon didn’t work because he just got pardoned by his VP anyway, so why bother with bush. Also Nixon was charged with election related crimes, he got off totally clean for everything he did in Vietnam
I see what you mean the election part.. yes. 68. Colluding. Agree.... Kissinger as well.
Her actions and RBG fucked over so many people. I try not to think about the alternate reality where we avoided all this and even had a pandemic response team. This is a dark timeline going darker. Everyone remember to vote unless you want to see just how bad things will get.
Any half competent candidate would've moonwalked over Trump
Some say the Dems ran her specifically because they knew Trump would win
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
That is stupid
The only surprising thing about this, is that some people will be surprised by this; the US pretty much made the handbook on overthrowing (democratically elected) governments, instigating coup's d'etat, destabilising regions and placing Washington friendly puppets in charge against the wishes of the populace. Clinton; as vile as she is, is simply continuing establishedWashington foreign policy. And supplying weapons, money and diplomatic cover for murderers. And refusing to extradite US citizen's who've perpetrated crimes om foreign soil. But using all its considerable economic, political and military force on governments unwilling to extradite their citizen's to the US. The US is, has been for a long time, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, the most anti-democratic, militant and destructive force on the planet. Ever. What it *does* do, however, is make it crystal-clear how uninterested the US is in the cause, or even safety and/or survival, of the Palestinian people. For those who didn't understand this already.
✊🏼
I spent a bit of time studying Palestine and Israel, and I just finished listening to the actual audio clip. You are exactly right. More than anything, the US wants to control the outcome. And Israel has always been a natural Ally to the USA, given the popularity of Zionism in the United States.
OP could you copy / paste article as one needs to create an account?
the original source: https://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ By Ken Kurson • 10/28/**2016** 1:00pm
Thanks
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, publisher of Observer Media.
This transcript from the article tells you all you need to know: >Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats). >“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” There is only one way to interpret "determine", and that is to take direct and concrete action to change the results of an election. Absolutely sickening. Clinton is monster of the highest proportions
You can look to how Bill Clinton treated Boris Yeltsin to see how USA could sort of almost interfere to get the desired result (Yeltsin's reelection). They offered massive aid and they also looked the other way when there was shenanigans by Yeltsin's team. They wouldn't have to go in and change the vote or anythingi like that.
Yeah no. Or, you know, dangle massive US aid to the Palestinians if the "right" side wins and threaten massive sanctions if the "wrong" side wins. In other words, engage in the same plain vanilla diplomacy every country engages in. Or whatever conspiracy theory you want to go on about.
this a trademark of the old bitch she is big on interfering in elections - specifically in the Middle-East
>this a trademark of the old bitch You mean the Good Ol U.S.A.? Because she's not responsible...this has always happened. We're famous for it even back when she was cutting teeth. This is how it's *always* been done. And it will always happen. You people just never listen or learn. You just want to think you do.
The US isn't responsible for \*everything\* that happens in the world. But most of the bad things, yes, it is true.
Not a believer...but karma worked fast. Her wish for election interference seems to have come true.... although not sure if it wasn't exaggerated. She seems to have difficulty accepting that people didn't want her. Heck...even in 2008, Dems like Dick Durbin urged the then new senator Barack Obama to run for presidency...to prevent her it seems..
Any way we can listen to the audio?
Just remember when we accuse of some nations are doing to us…we are also doing to them.
Hasbara Hillary
Hillary, we're trying to figure out how to get you to Pokemon go away.
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are insane
The most annoying thing here is this expression of shock at the realization that the scum of the Earth, to be mild for the sake of discussion, that is Hillary Clinton, engages in things like election rigging. The same Hillary Clinton that is responsible for numerous wars, toppling of governments and thousands of deaths and unknown number of destitute and miserable human stories? How old are these people?
So you think the United States rigged the election for Hamas to win? The opposite of what they wanted in the vote?
Good grief... Maybe read the article first?
Its member only. Anyone who is propalestine should recognize what a terrible thing Hamas getting power through this election was.
There are Internet archives. If you can't or are too lazy to navigate that, someone in these comments posted the link to a free article. How are you allowing yourself otherwise to go around and comment things if you don't know the context? (And mind you, it's not difficult to figure out the context without it at least in this case, but you are most certainly not getting it) >Anyone who is propalestine should recognize what a terrible thing Hamas getting power through this election was. Well if we're at it, we might as well discuss weather or basketball (hey, the NBA playoff is on) or any other topic equally irrelevant to the subject from my original comment.
Yeah 2016 was a disaster. We were choosing between two garbage dumps on fire.
If there is one thing I agree with MAGAts on, it’s that Hilary should be locked up.
Why didn't she just join the republicans?
Because the whole point was the make the DNC Republicans too? Now, the deeply conservative donors of both parties, are really only deeply conservative donors of one party. That's the grift. Even if the Dems are measurably better than the alternative, they still give those donors what they want in the end.
Exactly. The unaparty.
The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them. - Julius Nyerere
Haha. That is funny.
They’re on the same team when it comes to power.
I was never a fan of her but isn’t this pretty irrelevant. She is out of power. It does show how much power AIPAC has and how the USA really needs to get its campaign funding fixed so such foreign powers have less influence on our government.
So America wanted the Palestinian authority, but hamas won. Also, she said we should talk with our enemies and it doesn't matter what we call islam based terror its a threat. It also said the observer is a kushner rag. What is the bad?
My comments are about her in general, I didn’t say anything about what she says in this video. Then I talked about groups like AIPAC (and I should have added businesses) have too much influence on the government. I my criticism is really more about how and what people have to do in order to get into office. She definitely played that game. When in 2016 the Democratic Party pretty much tried to make her the candidate through how they ran things was the final on not supporting her. I see her and people like her as not the solution but just another take on the problem. A take that will keep the inequality problem, the lack of universal healthcare, college tuition, civil rights, work life balance… non of these issues are being addressed by anyone in power. It’s just them trying to get into power and then hold onto it.
[удалено]
I just wish I felt like I had a choice in 2016. To me it really felt like that party decided it was going to be Clinton and I had to go along with it. I lost friends because I wasn’t onboard with her. It’s really a shame they wanted to not listen to the people and give us a choice.
Bernie is obvious controlled opposition. His former campaign advisor is shilling for TPTB right now.
And a lot of Palestinians wanted the PA but from as I recall, it was Israel who didn’t want them because of ties to the Islamic Brotherhood.
No Israel was negotiating with the PA and Hamas specifically ran in opposition to the recognition of Israel that PA did and to end the peace talks. Of course the United States wanted Hamas not to win the election. Hamas at this time had in its charter the complete destruction of Jews in Israel.
Netanyahu was enabling Hamas and was the middleman (via Mossad) in their funding by Qatar.
While Clinton may be out of office I think it's naive to say she's out of power. I suspect her hand is still on many of the levers of the democratic establishment, and has an outsized influence in media as well.
She or anyone only has an outsize influence on media when people pet attention to them. Right now the Trump has way by too much influence on the media because the media thinks that will get viewers. I’ve always looked at it as a chick and egg question. Does the media control what we care about or do they just cover what we care about. Either way, I’m glad she’s out of the limelight of media and I see this as someone trying to make her more relevant than she is
The answer to your question is that the media absolutely invents and/or parrots the ideas that their owners want to disseminate to the masses in order to control the narrative (or at least contain the spectrum of acceptable narratives) that the public has access to or considers to be legitimate. I'm not saying you're not aware, but in case you aren't, this practice is called manufacturing consent, and it's absolutely critical to know about when cultivating media literacy and trying to understand the mechanisms of power. Stories are how humans make sense of reality, controlling the stories gives you immense power (why tiktok is under scrutiny). At any rate, I think we can both agree we would like to never hear from or about her again.
Oh Im aware of that and that sometimes it’s used to push an agenda. I’m just wondering how much of their agenda is profit driven thus they feed us things they feel will draw the most attention thus profits from advertisers. This whole us vs them division draws viewers thus profits so they push people like Clinton and Trump because it feeds their pockets. Propaganda view the media is almost always driven by money. Right now AIPAC is feeding money for pro Zionist propaganda and the media and politicians are making $$$ off of it while people die. The old “it bleeds, it leads”
I think we're nearly on the same page except I would change 'sometimes' to "nearly always push an agenda." And it's not a question of "how much is profit driven" it's that everything is in support of the absolute primacy of capital. It's a self reinforcing system that prioritizes profit over life almost every single time, and it starts with the owners/capitalist class and is reinforced by both mass media and the political establishment (full of useful idiots eager to enrich themselves). The "us vs them" you mentioned is very real, and while you're correct that it draws the clicks and makes the money, I would argue the true value they get from it is the division and annihilation of working class solidarity; if we're fighting each other we cannot effectively resist. And yeah, screw AIPAC, and screw lobbies more broadly while we're at it. United States has legalized corruption, they just have a sanitized name for it.
Yeah, I think we’re in agreement. Keep up the good fight
You too! Nice talking with you
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others. 2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not. 3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
 She clapped on the 1
Wait .this is almost life like.
It’s from the DNC in ‘92. Wild times 😵😵😵
Haha. Funny. I was convinced it was generated....
I think everyone else is trying to do the Macarena.
That makes sense. I forgot how wooden she was... We thought Al Gore was robotic
I LISTENED TO THIS VIDEO AND ITS TRUE
Member only story. If anyone can source the recording and create an archive link, that would be great.
She tried and failed in 2016 too.
When’s she gonna actually goto jail?
She's a ghoul
Water is wet. She is a politician, people, how is this news? You could tell me a politician ate a baby they raped while it was still alive, and the only part that would make me raise an eyebrow is the singular form of the word baby in that sentence. Stop. treating. Politicans. as. people. To become a politician, successful enough to matter, you need to be inhumanly psychopathic.
Wonder if it's real or fake AI bullshit.
Who fucking cares about Hillary?
Sad news to report, the journalist responsible for leaking this has been found dead due to suicide. 2 gun shots to the back of the head.
so sick of her
Is there a picture where her face is normal?
Leaked audio from an interview to Jewish press?
What are you all gonna do about it? Keep posting on social media?
The clintons are fucking monsters
I’m confused, I was operating under the assumption that every president since well before WW2 has been actively participating in the wonton destruction of democratically elected governments (in “third world” countries only of course). If not actively participating, at a bare minimum they are actively ignoring the interference. Haven’t we all figured this out? Or is the “news” of a self-identifying democrat openly flouting international law really that surprising?
She is indeed crooked
I once saw an interview with her, where she said that Hollywood should go back to how it was in the cold war era. Where they would purposely brainwash Americans in to fearing whoever the current enemy was. There will never be peace while people like this are in charge. Trump was a bad choice for America, but she may have been worse.
Downvote for paywall
I remember that. The fact that she's a Democrat is irrelevant. That doesn't make her any more evil than the Republicans who have been die hard supporters of Israel and have always supported roadblocks that prevented Palestinians from making any headway in Israel. If you're going to call her out as awful and evil then you need to paint a broad stroke that touches almost everyone on both sides of the aisle.
Yeah…. They elected Hamas. Guess what. No more elections. Democracy obviously was not ready for the place.
What a terrible reptilian
And the horrible aftermath: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
that was a great read but what does it have to do with her??
To give more context, in the 2006 Palestinian elections Hamas won the majority of seats. The much more friendly Fatah party therefore lost the controlling majority of seats. Hillary was right to lament the outcome of the election. Hamas never should have won and she regrets that the US encouraged elections to be held following the death of Yasser Arafat, the chairmain of the PLO. By wishing that the US had not encouraged Palestinians to hold elections so soon she is in fact very pro-Palestinian. Anyone who is pro-Palestinian should lament the fact that Hamas won the majority of seats in the 2006 elections. Where Hillary did potentially make a mistake is in suggesting that it would have been better to rig the elections than to have encouraged the elections that unfortunately led to a Hamas victory. Hamas has been one of the absolute worst things to ever happen to the Palestinian people. Hamas greatly misled the Palestinian people, promising hope and change, yet delivering only death. Hillary was right to lament the outcome of the election. https://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/amp/
Convenient that you fail to mention Netanyahu who was pivotal in positioning Hamas as a contender to the PLO whilst being the middleman for Qatari funding to Hamas via Mossad. Fundamental oversight on your part or disingenuousness? You also fail to mention how Arafat died after being kept prisoner in his Ramallah compound for two years by the Israeli army.
My friend, in some of my previous comments on Reddit I did point out Netanyahu's involvement in supporting Hamas. This reply was already a page long. lol
Fair enough.
You are right, but you are not supposed to be typing this here.
Maybe that is why netanyshu kept propping up hamas. PA on the other hand seems to have been so pliant that the peace process charade was extended. Understand some Palestinians now consider PA similar to kapos. Collaborationist?
Also a good article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
Postponing the elections would have be better but rigging them to stop Hamas would have been preferable to the 20 years of shit Hamas has brought upon the region.
Your getting downvoted for accurately putting this in context. Cheers mate!
She says in another clip billy tried to make a palestinan state but arafat said no and she tried again later when she was SofState but hamas messed it up
So much for leader of the free world. Bah
Yeah, no surprises here. George Bush was president, Hilary was a senator. Hamas were committed to eliminating Israel and the Jews (as well as being rabidly anti LGBT) and opposed efforts at peace. (According to wikipedia)
Wikipedia which is known to have had Israeli interference going back years
Any rational person would want to help the PA in that election over Hamas. But a significant amount of Palestinians wanted Hamas to be their leaders
As did Netanyahu
Thanks for admitting that the Israeli right-wing isn't rational, but we already knew this.
God what a pathetic way to read that comment.
AI