Van Jones Defended Al Qaeda, Attacked Clinton »

Posted By RTHTGakaRoland 2 months, 3 weeks ago in Political News

“This is using dead Third World bodies to cover up his own unzipped pants,” declared Van Jones, director of Bay Area PoliceWatch, an organization that until now has focused on alleged misconduct by law enforcement officers. Jones spoke at a demonstration at Powell and Market streets in San Francisco that drew 400 people, according to police estimates.

The theme that Clinton took military action to distract public attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair was highlighted in a protester’s sign in Palo Alto that read, “Don’t let a wartime incursion be Clinton’s diversion.” …

There was scant mention in any of the demonstrations about the events that precipitated Clinton’s action: the terrorist bombs that exploded at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7 that killed 251 Africans and 12 Americans…

Read Full Story at sweetness-light.com »

190 Views Share Story 7 Comments Report

Submitted By:
RTHTGakaRoland

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law ...

Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:

RSS Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 7 (view all)
- Display
  • 33%
    RTHTGakaRoland2 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    It is OK Democrats. You can admit your mistake. You do not even have to admit the whole mistake or the General Election mistake. Just admit that you should have nominated a Clinton again over obama, any Clinton. Even Roger the idiot brother if he is still around would have been less of mistake, and brought less freakish and dangerous associates along into the WH.

    As SofS Hillary is in the line of succession, maybe if all of you Ds banded together and worked really hard you could force enough of the Obama regime to resign. We on the Right might even help. We are not huge Clinton fans, but they are savvy and known to be both legally (I know that 0 is most likely technically eligible, but it is fun to make you gnash your teeth) and culturally American.

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    loading loading ...
    • 57%
      Striker1012 months, 3 weeks ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      Well put, RTHT, but let's face it. Any of about half the citizens in this country would have been preferable to the empty suit now claiming that seat.

      And MrO has had plenty of time to show a real BC, which pretty well proves he dare not show it, because it would end his agenda.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
      Reply

      1 Reply

      loading loading ...
    • 57%
      icono12 months, 3 weeks ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      How does that old saying go,'... be careful of what you ask for you just might get it'....

      This is the guy the 0 Man and Co. wanted because of his 'progressive' attitude and work in the community.

      Who ever thought that slamming the Clinton's would ever be considered progressive work in the community.

      In reality, that kind of BS about Bill and the Hill is very tired and retro.

      But then again, Van is a self professed Communist, which by the lefties, is also 'tired' and retro.

      But didn't The 0 Messiah say that the best way to understand him, The 0 Messiah, and his greatness, was to look at the people he, The 0ne, surrounds himself with.

      So since Van Jones, 0bama's Green Jobs Czar, is a retro Commie that uses tired vilifications of an American President to make himself look progressive, does that make the Great One a tired old retro progressive Commie himself?

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
      Reply
      loading loading ...
      • 75%
        CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago

        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

        Hi guys!
        Van Jones seems to be a quick-mouthed nut;
        a genius for organizing,
        but always saying things he has to apologize for later.

        I am puzzled by your facination with him.
        You can't mind him criticizing Clinton.

        And if he is a commie, well according to you
        all of us Obama supporters are commies.
        Also facists, which is confusing
        - but sense is not the precious metal we
        extract from the raw ore of your words anyway.

        Is it the Glen Beck boycott thing?
        Who cares about that?
        If I could, I would choose Beck as the next
        head of the RNC when Limbaugh resigns.

        Van Jones is a nut.
        Most of Obama's people are serious and sober and rather
        dull. Keep him, or toss him?

        I'd keep him.

        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
        Reply
        loading loading ...
        • 50%
          Mutainia2 months, 3 weeks ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          Whew! Thank God this knucklehead is stepping down!

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
          Reply
          loading loading ...
          • 67%
            CaptainLucid2 months, 3 weeks ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            Could someone smarter than the author of this article please explain what the F they are talking about and what crap they are just making up? One thing that is no where to be found is any support for al quaida outside the headline. No one is saying al quaida is a good group any where in the article. If you want to question Clinton's military strategy of launching missiles that is a separate debate. By the way it was the republicans who were ripping Clinton for launching missiles at al quaida until they got new talking points and ripped him for not attacking al quaida at all. Make no sense? Neither do republicans.

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
            Reply
            loading loading ...
            View All 7 Comments

            Add a Comment

            Sign In With Your Propeller Account

            Forgot your password?

            Please keep your comments relevant to this story.

            To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.