Bernardo, the leader of the Sharks, may have proposed a rumble, but his allies, Chino and Peppe, were the largest endorsers of the policy. Add Indio at the time to boot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Story)
And this somehow means something? Really?
Uh oh. Someone either hasn't paid attention to what was revealed in the Wikileaks or is just ignoring them. In them HRC admits that she knows the No Fly Zone, despite all her public assertions that it was intended for humanitarian purposes, would result in MORE deaths of Syrians. Get that? She admitted it.
Thank you. This is what we should be debating. Do we achieve peace with Russia by demonizing them and upping the ante or doe we achieve it by cooperating and finding common cause? But too many Clintonistas just attack us among the Peace Community for being against increased military aggression as not worthy of a real debate about how to have peace, but only as "Putin apologist," "useful idiots," "Assad sympathizers," or something worse who aren't worthy of being debated but only attacked and ridiculed...
Trump is wrong to continue the Obama policy on Yemen. I, as a member, I guess, of the 'nihilist Left" didn't favor Trump. I opposed both of them. I just was convinced that Clinton was a worse threat to peace. I was sure she'd up the aggression against Russia and Iran and Syria. I wasn't as sure about Trump. The Clintonistas are doing their best to convince him he needs to be against Russia or they'll impeach him.
But me? When Clinton got the nomination my political (nihilistic?) mantra became, "Any way you look at it you loose."
"Just because I'm not crazy doesn't mean I'm not evil."
Also it is completely unethical to diagnose a politician from the distance. It's an elite form of ad hominem attack. Instead we should oppose his policies and on about 98% of them I do. But just attacking the man simply sets the battle lines firmer of hate going both ways.