Update 1: He was conciliatory and then she slammed him. That sets him free to hit back. He should let her have it... and the audience is with him.
Update 2: Oh, I am too tired. Up since 3. Will watch the rest tomorrow.
Update 3, the next morning: I've got the transcript now, so I wanted to show you want I was talking about at Update 1. The moderator, Wolf Blitzer, asked Sanders about his statements about Clinton lacking the "qualifications" to be President. His answer felt conciliatory to me:
SANDERS: Well, I've known Secretary Clinton, how long, 25 years? We worked together in the Senate. And I said that in response to the kind of attacks we were getting from the Clinton, uh, campaign. "Washington Post" headline says "Clinton Campaign says Sanders is Unqualified" and that's what the surrogates were saying. Does Secretary Clinton have the experience and the intelligence to be a president? Of course she does. But I do question... her judgment. I question a judgment which voted for the war in Iraq... the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement which cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. And I question her judgment about running super PACs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from Wall Street. I don't believe that that is... the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need.Clinton's response felt to me like a failure to accept the conciliation:
CLINTON: Well, it is true that now that the spotlight is pretty bright here in New York, some things have been said and Senator Sanders did call me unqualified. I've been called a lot of things in my life. That was a first. And then he did say that... he had to question my judgment. Well, the people of New York voted for me twice to be their senator from New York and... and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of State for the United States. So, look, we have disagreements on policy. There's no doubt about it. But if you go and read, which I hope all of you will before Tuesday, Senator Sanders' long interview with the "New York Daily News," talk about judgment and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core issue, breaking up the banks. When asked, he could not explain how... that would be done and...when asked... about a number of foreign policy issues, he could not answer about Afghanistan, about Israel, about counterterrorism, except to say if he'd had some paper in front of him, maybe he could. I think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander-in-chief.In print, the difference in tone feels completely insubstantial. They disagree on policy and they ramp that disagreement up into questioning "judgment," which feels somewhat more like an attack on character or competence.
Update 4: I'm going to do a new post on the discussion of race and crime.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Not watching -- it's opposite "Death in Paradise" and my wife insists.... Will follow it on the intertubes.
Other chimpanzees flee other zoos...
Yes of course, because one of those two will be the next President.
No I'm not watching. What is there to see? A Communist debating a criminal trying to out Communist a Communist?
I cannot decide which of these two I would prefer as dog catcher.
Can somebody suggest a communist dog catching book?
I cannot decide which of these two I would prefer as dog catcher.
Bernie - at least I believe he would be kind to the dogs.
"...and the audience is with him."
But he's with her.
There is NHL playoff hockey and live baseball. I'll catch up in the morning.
Yes of course, because one of those two will be the next President.
That is possibly the saddest thing I have ever read.
WNBA draft!! Staring off into space..ANYTHING but the communist and the crook.
Eddie,
Just think how sad you'll be on November 8th.
I love how Clinton says she voted for the crime bill and it had problems but she wants to tell white people that there is systemic racism. If there is systemic racism it's because laws are passed thst are racist.but she is saying there were good points to the bill but any of the downsides were essentially unforeseen consequences which are regrettable.
But if she says the laws were not in fact designed to be racist how is there systemic racism? Outcomes which affect one group more than another may be unfortunate by they are not racist, unless they are written that way. Both candidates who supported the crime bill are saying the laws were not racist.
So then there is no systemic racism. Who are the people that Clinton is saying are racist? Is it the law? Is it the juries? Is it the cops? Is it the judges?
It's leveling a charge that has no basis in fact, and her own support of the crime bill undermines her argument. Unless she wants to cop to the fact that the crime bill did in fact pass laws that were designed to impact black people in a racist fashion.
Are there people who think a $15 Federal minimum wage is not insane? There can't be.
Yeah I'm watching, and this is even worse than the GOP debates. Why is Hillary wearing a trenchcoat?
I had another thought... Before the primaries are over, just before the last chips fall... Trump should put out a public statement and name Bernie as his VP pick. If that wouldn't completely big-bang destroy and unify in the same instant this country, nothing will.
I'm watching. And Holy Crap- Bernie Sanders is just flat-out nuts.
Those are two mean and ugly old people. They both remind me of the USSR's ancient Communist Party leaders that kept dying themselves as they tried to run a cold war to expand the dying husk of Stalin's Evil Empire.
The Democrats have not got a chance without young attractive candidates.
maybee wrote:
"Are there people who think a $15 Federal minimum wage is not insane? There can't be."
It's worse than that. Sanders was asked first about companies like Verizon and GE outsourced all these jobs. Sanders was then told that experts have said that these jobs will be hard to bring back. So he was asked what would you do to bring back jobs.
And he said he would raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour.
That was his solution to get companies to hire people in this country and to bring back those jobs.
Isn't the whole reason why they left this country was because of the cost of doing business? So why would raising the cost of labor be an incentive to bring back jobs?
It's weird because I used to watch Democratic debates and think "That is a great ideal but I don't think they can do it". And now I watch this one and I think these two people have terrible and impossible ideas.
Against fracking.
$15 minimum wage
want to sue gun manufacturers for gun deaths
a lot of emphasis on systemic racism (to what end?)
jr- wow that is bizarre. As if the companies went overseas because they simply couldn't get people to work here for the low wages they were paying.
'campy said...
"...and the audience is with him."
But he's with her.'
That's it. Perhaps Trump could beat Clinton but the Republican "e's" are determined to beat Trump. Then the "e's" will get Cruz. Then Sanders will back down before Clinton. Then the Hildebeast, the trillion dollar tax increase, the Ferguson effect, the crash of Obamacare, the attacks from the jihadists Obama is letting in, and then the consequences. It's like watching a video of a disaster and then a video replay - frame by frame. The Republican leader in Colorado explaining how, this, that, the other happened and so they canceled the election and he's quite surprised at how upset people are. Out of touch? Just a little. But oh so sure he knows how they should chose; how they would if they knew anything; how they will with his help. It's like real fake facts; he's arranged a real fake election - it has everything but voters.
The two most annoying voices in the universe.
What a sad little spectacle. Granny McFelonface vs. Ebenezer McScrotumface.
@jr565: You've nailed the disconnect -- Bernie thinks that increasing the cost of doing business will bring back jobs. He's actually that stupid. The dingbat has never held a meaningful private sector job in his entire life, yet he thinks he can sprinkle around some socialist pixie dust and erase the immutable law of supply and demand.
Sanders thinks we're not treating the Palestinians with "respect." No follow up question of what the proper respect would look like. Just curious., does he think we should be arming the Palestinians so they can be more competitive in fighting Israel?
Clinton correctly states that the Palestinians turned down a great offer under Bill Clinton, and that Israel left Gaza (in 2005) and the Palestinians chose to be lead by Hamas, a terrorist group funded by Iran. Sanders doesn't seem to have a grasp of the reality of Hamas and its goals.
Clinton wins on this issue. Sanders out of touch with reality.
This talk about systemic racism is not going in the direction people think. It's actually going toward saying that blacks have been so damaged by the stress systemic racism causes that they need to be segregated - as the special snowflakes keep saying. And they need to be treated with drugs in a special regime oriented toward understanding and countering how systemic racism has damaged black bodies and black genes - a regime whites wouldn't understand because they don't suffer from the problems. Stop talking about law, whitey. Check your privilege. Segregation is justice, racial justice at last; it's a benefit won by special snowflakes for the shell-shocked victims of white privilege. That's where "systemic racism" is really going.
emujin said... [hush][hide comment]
I'm watching. And Holy Crap- Bernie Sanders is just flat-out nuts.T
That is why I am watching. Loving Bernie's excitingly repetitious. right-hand emphatic gestures. More fun than I expected as they attack each other.
Of course this is stupid, it's worse than watching Miss America contestants tell us what they want for the world. And it's not that much worse than the GOP making fun of small hands, ugly wives, and other elementary school insults. Sheesh. I stand by my previous post, let's elect a Donald/Bernie ticket and see how that goes. It may be OK, it may be GREAT, or it may be so bad that we completely screw our heads on right for 2020.
I'm wondering if Clinton can be charged with elder abuse?
I am thirty minutes into it, and enjoying it immensely. This is hilarious ! Shouting, cross talking, voices raised, person attacks. Fingers pointing,, crowd cheering and booing,arms waving.Great.
Oh, and the content is also humorous.
The Japanese chimp was more fun.
At least the chimp knows the value of freedom.
I think both should lose.
Fabi said..
@jr565: You've nailed the disconnect -- Bernie thinks that increasing the cost of doing business will bring back jobs.
--
Well..maybe he's talking about "public works" jobs...multiplier effect and all: 5 bil x 0 etc
Blogger JHapp said...
At least the chimp knows the value of freedom.
--
And when chimps fling feces, no one is taken in
Ouch! That request to release the transcripts of Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs had to be one of the biggest dodges ever seen by a politician on a debate.And sanders suggestion the the would release all of his speeches behind closed doors to monied interests was a perfect comeback. He agrees to release all of them beciase he doesn't have any to release.
Zing.
Free form idiots.
Incoherent liars.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but was Hillary's email brought up? If not, disgraceful.
Blogger Alex said...
The Japanese chimp was more fun.
Alex. Chimps are more fun in almost any context. If you can work a monkey reference into your debate you're sure to have a crowd pleaser. The democrats could really draw in the voters if Chatter the Chimp had his own podium. In his little tuxedo, of course. Lend a bit of much needed class to the undertaking.
I think the relative lack of comments appropriately speaks volumes.
Morning RINO on MSNBC this morning.
Mark Halperin (paraphasing): Bernie's a great campaigner, but a poor debater. He could have bagged her several times last night, but could/would not. Trump will.
As I've been saying, for months --- Bernie. Does. Not. Want. To. Win.
He's there to lose to her. Nothing more. He was only supposed to provide the semblance of competition for her. That he is actually providing competition should petrify her supporters, but we see people bemoan how amazing a candidate she is without looking at just how unbelievably terrible a candidate she is.
damikesc gets it. Bernie's playing the Bill Bradley role to Hillary's Algore.
""They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel," the first lady said at the time."
who is "they" in that sentence? Just black gangs? Or kids in general. If she was saying that only black youths are super predators then it could be racist. But if she's just describing a new form of criminal, kids won't don't really have empathy it's not racist.
I hate defending Clinton, but that whole charge is ridiculous.
My pet peeve at these debates is the ability to not directly answer the question or criticism lobbed at you. Sanders criticizes Clinton's judgment, so instead of defending her judgment (e.g., "I voted for the Iraq War based on the information I had at the time, and it was a mistake. I apologize but believe I've learned from it. Learning from our mistakes helps improve our judgment over time, and I've had to make a lot of hard calls over my career. Maybe Bernie here has gotten every call right in his time, maybe not--but I have had the good judgment to [list examples, even if BS].") she instead talks about how Obama must have thought she had good judgment by making her Sec o' State and New Yorkers must have liked her judgment by making her Senator (hard as that is in a blue state with no primary competition). That doesn't address her judgment, and there is no Clinton critic who could be mollified by that answer. Who does she think she's fooling? Her own supporters would have been fine if she just made fart noises.
The other example of this that was inane was her response about releasing the Goldman transcripts. Bash asked "if there's nothing bad in them, why not release them so you can clear the air?" Excellent question, and Clinton's inane response: "I'll release them once the GOP releases tax records and Bernie releases his tax returns". Irrelevant! Clinton was NOT asked "don't you have an obligation to release these" to which "why me and no one else" might be a reasonable if evasive response--no, the question was "wouldn't you help yourself by unilaterally releasing them to prove nothing is untoward, as otherwise people will assume the worst".
Clinton's non-answer essentially says "please dear god let me get through this election without having to release those transcripts." How can we help but assume there's something bad in them?
But the moderators really need to crack down on BS non-answers. Keep saying "please answer my question" until they do. Even if it takes ten tries. Otherwise these are just scripted performances of "how well can you work your stock phrases into everything" and useless to viewers.
Hillary keeps saying she would never privatize Social Security.
Her husband suggested the idea himself in the 1990s.
Bernie Madoff could also offer an endless list of people who trusted his judgement. Hillary is getting senile.
Can't wait to hear Amanda explain for us that when Hillary thanked Juanita Broaddrick for shutting up about how Bill raped her (Juanita, that is) that she was embracing Broaddrick's power as a woman to lean forward in liberal politics.
Shannon said...4/15/16, 8:32 AM
Sanders criticizes Clinton's judgment, so instead of defending her judgment... she instead talks about how Obama must have thought she had good judgment by making her Sec o' State and New Yorkers must have liked her judgment by making her Senator (hard as that is in a blue state with no primary competition). That doesn't address her judgment, and there is no Clinton critic who could be mollified by that answer. Who does she think she's fooling?
She's not trying to fool anybody. She's trying to stump Bernie Sanders. What's he going to say? The judgment of the great president Barack Obama - who took the opposite position on the Iraq War in Chicago in 2002 - is also no good? Or that she was elected only because of basically a political machine and she was a Democrat in a Democratic state? Or that people had a reason for voting for her even if theydidn't think her judgment was good?
By the way, this is what you call "proving a negative." The Clintons are experrt at that. She "proves" a negative - that her judgement is not bad, by saying that, in order to say her judgement was bad, you'd have to criticize Barack Obama, or the people of New York, (and Bernie doesn't want to go there)
Well, if he was more asture he could argue that none of this proves that her judgment is sound.
Of course all this got started because of some attempts to say that Bernie Sanders was unqualified - not actually spoken by Hillary Clinton herself, and Bernie has some problem tying it to her, so he keeps on citing a Washington Post headline.
And then Bernie Sanders decided to fire back using the same word. But it doesn't make too much sense, so he took it back, and tried to say he really meant her judgement is bad - "bad," that is, because it is different from the Democratic Party platform now or something...there's no attempt to argue the point. It's just taken for granted between them that the Iraq war was a bad mistake.
So Sanders said he meant her judgment was bad. But he did not want to retract the word unqualified, so he used it in a different way, like Humpty Dumpty. And really wanted to drop the whole subject anyway.
But Hillary doesn't want to let him take it back because it works to her advantage since it sounds absurd (which was probably verified in a focus group) so she has a line saying she's been called many things, but not unqualified.
She ignores his explanation that it refers to her judgment.
She gets away with that because it is probably not the way anyone would normally use that word. "Disqualified" may be a better word for that idea.
"We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. There's going to be international conflict."
And he wants to fight the war with carbon tax..our warrior.
"I question a judgment which voted for the war in Iraq... the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country"
Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton);
Answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?".
On the law and the facts, the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was correct - see explanation. Senator Clinton's vote to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" (Public Law 107-243) was justified - in Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441), the Saddam regime was evidentially in material breach across the board of the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441), including and especially the (WMD) disarmament, terrorism, and humanitarian Gulf War ceasefire mandates.
Casus belli was established with the UNMOVIC finding of "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues" in the UNSCR 1441 inspections that confirmed the UN Security Council's decision that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687" (UNSCR 1441), which was subsequently corroborated by the Iraq Survey Group assessment that "ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs" and "the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities."
In terms of judgement, President Bush was dutiful and responsible with his decision for OIF and Senator Clinton was dutiful and responsible with her vote for the 2002 AUMF. Unfortunately, her judgement has since gone askew with her nakedly politically motivated effort to recant her Iraq vote in order to gain the Democratic nomination for President. The responsible route for Mrs. Clinton would be to set the record straight on the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement and the why of the Iraq intervention. It would be better for Clinton to simply tell the truth that she was right to vote for the 2002 AUMF and explain that Sanders was wrong.
Cartoon or comic book version of the debate - 6 panels
http://nibcomics.tumblr.com/post/142853900916/brooklyn-we-debate-hard-accurate-debate-recap
"the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country"
Does that mean that Bernie Sanders doesn't think any more that the Vietnam War was a big mistake?
Or ios it that the blundering part had little to do with foreign policy?
Also: What about the rejection of the League of Nations?
I don't question her judgment on Iraq so much, why did she keep making the same mistake though in Syria and Libya? Google "light grenade" and Mom and Dad Save the World.
"We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods"
Both droughts AND floods? (I can see floods because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone up by about 5% since - I guess the rfefeernce date is soemthing like 1860, but why droughts, then?)
And are ALL weather changes ALWAYS bad EVERYWHERE??
And do we even know enough to know what to do to affect them? What are we supposed to do, guess? Hope? Yes, it's hope. And why is the only proposal, attempts to restore the status quo ante, which the proponents admit actually won't amount to much of a difference?
You think you need to cool the atmosphere? Or to take out some of the added carbon dioxide? There's ideas in SuperFreakonomics.
http://freakonomics.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
Spew sulfer dioxide over the Arctic. Fertilize the Pacific Ocean with iron. And, by teh way, prevent hurricanes by coating the ocean wth plastic. They are temporary and reversible if they turn out to be wrong.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/06/another-look-at-an-unorthodox-hurricane-prevention-idea/
Now someone can object that that is geo-engineering. But what others propose is also geo-engineering, except that it's geo-engineering that's guaranteed not to work!
There is another objection: Treaties have probably taken these options off the table. Well, they need to be put back on.
And of course, there is the option of leaving the climate alone, whereever nature and advanced industrial civilization takes it, and trying to adapt, which is much cheaper and less disruptive.
One of the interesting points in the debate was where Bernie Sanders took the more conservative, or less regulatory, position. Hillary Clinton, however, was not at a loss for words:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/
BASH: But Senator, you didn't answer the specific question which is not just about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves?
SANDERS: Because I'm not sure that the government should say is you are too big to fail. You've got to be a certain size. And, then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. I don't know that it's appropriate that the Department of Treasury to be making those decisions. What we need is to make sure that they are safe.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Dana, you know -- I love being in Brooklyn.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
CLINTON: Dana, let me add here that there are two ways to at this under Dodd-Frank, which is after all the law we passed under President Obama, and I'm proud that Barney Frank, one of the authors, has endorsed me because what I have said continuously is, yes, sometimes the government may have to order certain actions. Sometime the government can permit the institution themselves to take those actions. That has to be the judgement of the regulators.
But, there's another element to this. I believe strongly that executives of any of these organizations should be financially penalized if there is a settlement.
(APPLAUSE)
There, she got in a more extreme position.
Then there was where she said that Obama also had taken money from Wall Street. The audience booed. She elaborated taht they were both innocent.
tim in vermont said...4/15/16, 11:20 AM
Bernie Madoff could also offer an endless list of people who trusted his judgement. Hillary is getting senile.
This is not senility. This is outmaneuvering Bernie Sanders.
These are people whom Bernie Sanders cannot say have bad judgment, and it's even a big step to say that they weren't exercising any judgment about the judgment of Hillary Clinton when they put her in a position to exercise responsibility.
Bernie Sanders cannot say that Barack Obama has bad judgment, nor can he tell a New York audience that the voters of New York collectively have bad judgment. Nor does he want to.
By the way, Hillary Clinton has a third trump card: Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders cannot say that voting for the 1994 crime bill was an exercise in bad judgment, because he voted for it himself!! So he explains it had good things in and bad things in it, and Hillary says the same, only she says the bad things nobody realized.
Hillary's Clinton's response to the question about releasing the texts of the speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs was that she'll do it when everybody releases their secret speeches (if really, really, pressed, she'll say "everybody" is also the Republicans) She ignores Bernie Sanders saying he doesn't have any speeches to banks to release, and goes on to say that Bernie Sanders hasn't released many of his income tax returns, while she has released them going back 20 or 30 years or so.
Not that you are allowed to draw an invidious conclusions from anything on them, or in her campaign finance reports. Only she or her allies are allowed to do that. Bernie Sanders knows that I suppose.
So we have:
Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs = Bernie Sanders' old tax returns.
National Review's Morning Jolt points out:
you can apply the same “hey, if Obama picked me, I must know what I’m doing” argument to former HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, VA secretary Eric Shinseki, short-lived Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, [and] all of those wealthy donor ambassadors who knew nothing about the countries where they would represent the U.S . . .
Of course Hagel was short-lived.
Hillary invokes Obama:
SANDERS: I led the opposition to that war. Secretary Clinton voted for that. Well, let's talk about judgment. Let's talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed.
Where does the money come from?
Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she's going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big money interests?
I don't think so.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, let me...
SANDERS: We have...
CLINTON: -- let me just say...
SANDERS: -- (INAUDIBLE)...
CLINTON: -- let me -- let me say...
BLITZER: Madam Secretary, let him finish.
CLINTON: OK.
SANDERS: Thirdly, we have got to understand that in America, we should be thinking big, not small.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you.
SANDERS: We need to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people. So I...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: -- my (INAUDIBLE).
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
Secretary?
CLINTON: Well, make -- make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me, it's an attack on President Obama. President Obama...
(BOOS)
CLINTON: You know, let me tell you why. You may not like the answer, but I'll tell you why. President Obama had a super PAC when he ran. President Obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. And President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: -- on Wall Street in many a year.
CLINTON: ....They should have to pay up through compensation or bonuses because we have to go after not just the big giant institution, we have got to go after the people who are making the decisions in the institutions.
BASH: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
CLINTON: Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him, and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya.
She means no other countries.
Later:
SANDERS: If you listen, you know -- two points. Number one, yes, 100-0 in the Senate voted for democracy in Libya and I would vote for that again. But that is very different from getting actively involved to overthrow and bring about regime change without fully understanding what the consequence of that regime change would be.
Second of all, I know you keep referring to Barack Obama all night here, but you in Syria, you in Syria talked about a no-fly zone, which the president certainly does not support, nor do I support because, A, it will cost an enormous sum of money, second of all, it runs the risk of getting us sucked into perpetual warfare in that region.
Thirdly, when we talk about Syria right now, no debate, like Gadhafi, like Saddam Hussein, Assad is another brutal murdering dictator, but right now our fight is to destroy ISIS first, and to get rid of Assad second.
CLINTON: Well, I think Senator Sanders has just reinforced my point. Yes, when I was secretary of state I did urge, along with the Department of Defense and the CIA that we seek out, vet, and train, and arm Syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against Assad.
The president said no. Now, that's how it works. People who work for the president make recommendations and then the president makes the decision. So I think it's only fair to look at where we are in Syria today.
And, yes, I do still support a no-fly zone because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe.
===============================
It is just double talk.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा