Mediaboss Marketing

The Clinton emails scandal marked a turning point in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections - and mere weeks before the 2020 polls, US President Donald Trump has brought them back into the news.

Trump has called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to publicly release emails Hillary Clinton had on a private server while working for the Barack Obama administration - tens of thousands of which had already been leaked in 2016.

While observers in the US are chalking up the renewed discussion of Clinton's emails to Trump's re-election campaign, curiously, the topic has attracted a lot of attention in the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton emails: Why the Saudi-led disinformation network is recycling old news

Between 2009 and 2013, Clinton served as secretary of state during a crucial period in the history of the Arab region, including the early years of the so-called Arab Spring, when a wave of revolutions and popular uprisings spread across several countries.

With her tenure coinciding with such a momentous era of Arab political history, there has been plenty of conjecture in Arab media - perhaps revealing as much about those writing the news as the correspondence being discussed.

The Egyptian Institute for Political and Strategic Studies (EIPSS), a research organisation operating from Turkey, has launched a project to analyse the Clinton emails.

"Revealing these confidential correspondences that have dealt with this era is of great importance," read areport published on Wednesday, "regardless of the evaluation of these emails and the political position behind it."

The institute said one document revealed that former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted in February 2011, had "sought to promote a Western conspiratorial plan to control Egypt, just as Chinese propaganda used to justify any popular uprising that takes place in the country".

The institute has called on researchers and experts to join the study, which will be published on the institute's website, in order to achieve a deeper understanding of this phase of Egypt's modern history - and to understand US policy regarding the events that took place at the time.

In a matter of hours on Sunday, Saudi and Emirati social media accounts circulated tens of thousands of tweets misleadingly reporting that new Clinton emails had been leaked, Arabic website Noonpost reported - despite the news being five years old.

But why such a flurry of coverage, the website asks.

"It is clear that this systematic campaign aims to distract the world from the crises that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are currently facing, and achieve an imaginary victory by using misleading information to cover up the political and economic failure of the policies of [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad] Bin Salman and [Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammad] Bin Zayed," Noonpost wrote.

The news outlet noted bin Zayed had been "facing a massive wave of criticism due to the normalisation agreement his country signed with Tel Aviv in Washington on 15 September", adding that MBS, as the Saudi crown prince is known, had also been dealing with dissent, including the creation of a new opposition party earlier this month calling for democracy in the Gulf kingdom.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi-owned news website Al-Ainpublished a column alleging that that "Clinton's emails have revealed the political abuses and moral degradation of political elites in some countries in the region, coupled with a lack of awareness and naivety on the part of US elite, which has dragged the Arab region into an endless chain of chaos and division".

The article added: "Those who read Clinton's emails will be surprised by the wise and courageous role that countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have played in preserving the integrity of Arab states, as both countries have embarked in recent years on the path of eliminating plans aimed at sowing chaos in the region.

"The information leaked through Hillary Clinton's emails could force the next US administration to reprioritise its strategic relations in the Arab region by giving greater influence to the moderate Arab coalition led by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi," the columnist went on to write.

Meanwhile, Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq took aim at the Trump administration for bringing the Clinton emails back to the fore, pointing out how the news has been a boon for Doha's rivals, namely Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

"As soon as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged to publish the emails of the former secretary of state and presidential candidate... the Emirati media machine has been working to launch misinformation campaigns against Qatar," the publication wrote.

"The UAE tried, through its suspicious media, to transmit messages against Qatar and Al Jazeera to Arab and Gulf public opinion, hinting that both parties have a connection to an alliance between the Democrats in the US and the Muslim Brotherhood," al-Sharq added.

Why has this issue come back to the fore now, some news outlets have wondered. UK-based Alkhaleej Online spoke with Khaled al-Jaber, director of the MENA Center for Research in Washington DC.

"These emails, which Trump and his administration are betting on, are just a storm in a teacup and will not prove to be a real boon in the coming elections," Jaber predicted.

"Trump has become unable to attract undecided voters, especially since his Democratic rival does not have major scandals to be unveiled, so he ordered the disclosure of these emails as a tactic to win the elections," he added.

Jaber stressed that the emails concerned Hillary Clinton alone and not current Democratic candidate Joe Biden or his entourage, and "do not reveal any major scandals within the Democratic Party", adding that, while these materials are of great interest to people in the Middle East, they are unlikely to sway a significant portion of the American electorate.

*Arabic press review is a digest of reports that are not independently verified as accurate by Middle East Eye.

Read the original:
Arabic press review: What is Arab media saying about the Clinton emails? - Middle East Eye

Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is calling for the Pentagon tobuy morenew B-21 Raider Long Range Bombers as part of a broader argument that the Air Force is in need of massive, fast-paced modernization.

We should welcome the arrival of the B-21 Raider, a long-range bomberunder developmentthat is designed to thwart advanced air defenses, Clinton wrote in aForeign Affairs essay.

Clinton is by no means alone. In fact, many senior Air Force leaders have been hoping to increase the number of acquired B-21s above the currently projected 100 planes planned.

An essay in Air Force Magazine, as cited byMilitary.com, quotes Global Strike Commander Timothy Ray calling for more than 200 bombers.

Weve said publicly that we think we need 220 bombers overall75 B-52s and the rest B-21s, longterm, Ray told Air Force Magazine earlier this year.

Clinton also makes theargumentthat the Pentagon should acquire fewer tactical fighter jets in favor of adding more bombers. However, many in the Air Force would also like to see both.

The U.S. Air Force will have to focus less on short-range tactical fighter planes and more on long-range capabilities, Clinton writes. By extension, Clinton says the U.S. should acquire fewer F-35s.

Upon examination, while many are in agreement that more B-21s are needed, Clintons reasoning seems somewhat flawed. B-21s, and especially stealth fighter jets such as the F-35, are needed for both longer range and closer-in short-range attacks.

Interestingly, despite the necessary and much-discussed technical emphasis now placed upondeveloping long-range, precision-guided Stand-Off weapons, Stand-In operations for Direct Attack are still very much in need, given the set of specific advantages they provide, according to a recent study released by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

The report, called Long-Range Strike: Resetting the Balance of Stand-in and Stand-off Forces, makes a specific and decided point of stating that a carefully calibrated mixof both approaches is what a fast-evolving modern Air Force needs. The study points to a series of significant variables with which to make this point, such as size, shape, scope and timing of attacks.

For instance, long range attacks can lack the needed immediacy or short-response time necessary for combat operations, and larger numbers of closer-in attack platforms are vital to increasing dwell time over targets. Needless to say, a larger number of bombers can also carry a larger number of bombs. More bombs might also be important when it comes to attacking heavily defended areas with many countermeasures expected to thwart, disable or intercept attacking weapons. Hitting penetrating targets, also, can be a tactical advantage somewhat specific toStand-in weapons attacksconducted by stealthy, penetrating aircraft, the study explains.

B-2s can deliver 5,000-pound direct attack bunker buster weapons and even the 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator on hardened targets, the study states.

Essentially, there will remain a clear and pressing need for attacking forces to retain an ability topenetrate heavily fortifiedand defended areas from both closer-in and longer ranges to successfully optimize offensive operations. This fundamental concept is why attack plans often follow a certain logical sequence,typically startingwith stand-off weapons to soften air defenses, to be followed by stealth bombers intended to achieve air supremacy to open a crucial air corridor through which less stealthy, fast-maneuvering fighters can attack. There may becircumstanceswherein close-in attack tactics are needed to assess shifting targets or track fast-changing combat circumstances.

Air-to-air engagements, especially when it comes to the prospect of any kind of great-power war, would doubtless be necessary as well, a circumstance underscoring the importance of having larger numbers of fighter jets such as the F-35in the force.

Kris Osborn is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the ArmyAcquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters

See more here:
Hillary Clinton Wants Lots of B-21 Stealth Bombers - The National Interest

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) In an article by Hillary Clinton that was published Monday (Oct. 12) in Foreign Affairs, the former secretary of state argued that the U.S. is gravely unprepared for a range of 21st-century threats.

In her article entitled A National Security Reckoning: How Washington Should Think About Power, Clinton stated that the U.S. has been unable to bolster its national security and has failed to consider an approach that encompasses a wide range of threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, insurgencies, cyberattacks, viruses, carbon emissions, online propaganda, and shifting supply chains.

She argued that the U.S. must modernize its defense capabilities by moving away from costly legacy weapons systems built for a world that no longer exists. She also said the nation should focus more on domestic renewal, which involves supporting domestic innovation and bolstering strategically important industries and supply chains.

These dual strategies, she wrote, are mutually reinforcing. Modernizing the military would free up billions of dollars that could be invested at home in advanced manufacturing and R&D, she said.

This move, Clinton remarked, would help the U.S. compete with its rivals and prepare for non-traditional threats such as climate change and future pandemics. Furthermore, she said that it will assuage some of the economic woes caused by budget cuts at the Pentagon, adding that integrating foreign and domestic policy in this way will be an effective strategy for America to regain its foothold in an uncertain world.

The Pentagon is at risk of being caught unprepared for the very different demands of competing with China, Clinton warned.

She noted that powerful players in the Pentagon, Congress, and the private sector have built careers doing things the same way. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, she wrote.

Clinton stressed that the Pentagon must adapt to a strategic landscape vastly different from the one it faced during the Cold War or the War on Terror. She also noted that new technologies such as artificial intelligence have rendered many old systems obsolete and created opportunities that no country has yet mastered but many are seeking.

Clinton stated that while the American military has been fighting costly wars in the Middle East, China has been investing in cost-effective anti-access/area-denial weapons, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, which pose a threat to U.S. aircraft carriers.

She suggested that a renewed commitment to diplomacy would strengthen the U.S. military position. Additionally, Clinton warned that the U.S. should not be lulled into a false sense of security by its continuing firepower advantage or the fact that its defense budget remains orders of magnitude larger than Beijings.

She said that Chinas advances have become a new type of asymmetric threat, which means that Americas air and sea superiority in the Indo-Pacific region is no longer ensured.

Deep savings over the next decade can and should be found by retiring legacy weapons systems, Clinton wrote. She stated that the U.S. should significantly reduce its reliance on aging intercontinental ballistic missiles, pursue a newer and fewer approach to modernization, and revive the arms control diplomacy that the Trump administration scrapped.

In terms of domestic renewal, Clinton recommended that the country pursue a plan similar to the one proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden to invest US$700 billion in innovation and manufacturing and impose stronger Buy American provisions. This, she believes, will help boost domestic production in key sectors, such as the steel, robotics, and biotechnology industries, which in turn will assist in reshoring sensitive supply chains and expanding strategic stockpiles of essential goods.

Massive new investments in advanced manufacturing and R&D will be costly, Clinton acknowledged, but she stressed that they are necessary for the nation's long-term economic and security interests. She added that military modernization and domestic renewal must be simultaneous in order to bring advanced manufacturing and R&D to the places most affected by defense cuts.

Clinton concluded by saying that if done properly, the U.S. can minimize the economic damage and maximize its ability to compete with China and prepare for future challenges.

Read more:
Hillary Clinton addresses current threats to US in Foreign Affairs article - Taiwan News

Friday's Late Show with Stephen Colbert featured the castof The West Wing,and this clipincludesRichard Schiff's revelation that Hillary Clinton used to write fan mail to the show including one specifically to criticize him.

Schiff said he got a letter in his trailer weeks after an episode where Toby Ziegler solved Social Security which said "thank you so much for tackling this very difficult issue. Here are ten reasons why your plan won't work... Signed, Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Sorkin immediately asked "Did you write back and tell her I didn't write that episode, I had left the show already?"Sorkin's concern about his status in the eyes of Hillary Clinton makes us wonder if that Sports Night storyline where Dan Rydell embarrasses himself in front of her didn't come from some kind of personal experience.

Here are more clips from this episode also featuring Martin Sheen, Allison Janney, and Bradley Whitford,including Colbert comparing President Bartlet to his polar opposite Donald Trump, discussing Sterling K. Brown stepping into the role of the late John Spencer, Janney recounting her audition story, andthe cast naming their favorite episodes.

The HBO Max event A West Wing Special to Benefit When We All Votepremieres on October 15. Sorkin insists it's a benefit,not "a reunion show."

People are discussing The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in our forums. Join the conversation.

Andy Hunsaker has a head full of sitcom gags and nerd-genre lore, and can be followed @AndyHunsakerif you're into that sort of thing.

View post:
Richard Schiff Reveals Hillary Clinton Wrote Fan Mail to The West Wing - PRIMETIMER

The role of first lady of the United States is one of the most visible public positions in the world. From the moment votes are counted, and often during campaigning in the preceding months, the spouse of a newly elected president is thrust into the spotlight, where she remains for the duration of his term.

Throughout history, we've witnessed the breadth and depth of scrutiny withstood by the women who have so far held the position. From her mannerisms, to her physical attributes, to the way she chooses to dress, the first lady is thoroughly examined by the public, the media and those surrounding her on the political stage. And this is even before people begin assessing the work she is expected to carry out as an unpaid, unofficial public servant.

Many a first lady has felt the warm glow of public adoration, only to have it quickly flicker out when it is decided that she does not fit the image created for her.

Image, in this case, isn't just about clothing and looks, but also a more nuanced notion of the impression she's thought to give off. It's an air around her that is made of both physical and personal traits. And a number of first ladies have fallen victim to aspects of their image that have been both celebrated and weaponized, depending on the onlooking crowd.

As a black woman, too, I knew I'd be criticized if I was perceived as being showy and high end, and I'd be criticized also if I was too casual.

Michelle Obama

When Americans elected their first Black president in 2008, the country's first Black first lady Michelle Obama was, to many adoring fans, a symbol of hope, opportunity and change. Girls and women around the world looked up to this smart, determined woman from Chicago's South Side who now lived in America's most famous house.

Michelle Obama poses for her official portrait in the Blue Room of the White House in February 2009. Credit: Joyce N. Boghosian/The White House/Getty Images

But her critics had a different take on her conviction and strength of character, and they were not afraid to make their often racist and sexist ideas known. On the campaign trail she was labeled "angry," and her love and loyalty for America was questioned.

During the first few months of the Obama presidency her preference for sleeveless looks also drew extraordinary criticism. It was a phenomenon recalled by Robin Givhan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion editor and critic-at-large for the Washington Post, during an interview for "First Ladies."

"People zeroed in on her arms because they were not the arms of a fragile damsel who was White," she said in the episode about Obama. "Non-White Americans have for years looked at a White first lady and were still able to say that she represented them. But I think it becomes a much more challenging thing for some White Americans to look at a Black first lady and see themselves in her. Instead, they simply saw her as an alien."

Jackie Kennedy on inauguration day in 1961. Credit: Leonard McCombe/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

And as journalist Evan Thomas notes during an interview for the CNN series, she "was the perfect prize of the WASP establishment."

"She also knew that the Kennedy family was using her," Thomas added. "She once said, 'the family treats me like, like a thing. Like an asset. Like Rhode Island.'"

The designer behind Jackie Kennedy's iconic pillbox hat Credit: CNN Films/Halston

Complex legacies

If history had played out differently, Jackie Kennedy's legacy might have been reduced to the story of a pretty object with a flair for interior design (she dedicated much of her time in the White House to renovating the official residence). Tragically, however, she had the opportunity to show the world what she was made of on the day of her husband's assassination. Hours after President Kennedy was shot beside her, she made a powerful decision: to face the public again in the same blood-stained pink dress she had worn during the attack, famously telling her staff, "I want them to see what they've done to Jack."

President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie on November 22, 1963, just after their arrival at the airport for the fateful drive through Dallas. Credit: Art Rickerby/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

It was a catastrophic moment in American history. And it was also a devastating example of the power of clothing: A dress can send a message.

In Michelle Obama's memoir "Becoming," the former first lady reveals the lengths she went to when styling herself for public appearances, finding it impossible not to look across the room at her husband: "I sighed sometimes, watching Barack pull the same dark suit out of his closet and head off to work without even needing a comb," she wrote. "His biggest fashion consideration for a public moment was whether to have his suit jacket on or off. Tie or no tie?"

She also discussed the particular challenges she faced as an African American. "As a black woman, too, I knew I'd be criticized if I was perceived as being showy and high end, and I'd be criticized also if I was too casual. So I mixed it up. I'd match a high-end Michael Kors skirt with a T-shirt from Gap. I wore something from Target one day and Diane von Furstenberg the next."

She knew society wouldn't bend for her. So, in a move that was at once inspiring and saddening, she bent to fit society.

"For me, my choices were simply a way to use my curious relationship with the public gaze to boost a diverse set of up-and-comers," she wrote.

As a woman running for President, I liked the visual cue that I was different from the men but also familiar.

Hillary Clinton

Like Jackie Kennedy, Michelle Obama took the fact that she was being scrutinized and itemized for everything she wore and used it to her advantage. This, arguably limited power remains one of the ways that women in politics can make a statement without saying a word.

'First Ladies': Reagan's inauguration was 'very Hollywood' Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images

Conflicting expectations

Nancy Reagan was seen as a relic of old Hollywood when she entered the White House. The inauguration celebrations in 1981 were, by all accounts, lavish and glitzy affairs. Around 700 private jets flew into the city that weekend, and Reagan's gown -- a white beaded one-shouldered sheath of lace over silk satin, made by high-society couturier James Galanos -- was a show-stopper.

She and her husband, President Ronald Reagan, were both former actors who had met in Los Angeles in the 1940s, and their love for each other was like that of the silver screen. Her critics initially mocked the adoring way she looked at her husband, calling it "the gaze," and she was seen as too wifely, too 1950s, too concerned with frills and the finer things in life, which seemed at odds with a country plunging into recession.

Nancy and Ronald Reagan arrive at the inaugural ball in the Washington Hilton on January 21, 1985. Credit: Ira Schwarz/AP

But, through the course of her husband's eight-year presidency she proved herself to be more than the outdated embodiment of a wealthy suburban wife. According to their son, Ron Reagan, who features in the documentary series, she wanted the President "to be the frontman, and she wanted to be the producer/director behind the scenes."

It was, perhaps, a precursor to the Clintons half-jokingly campaigning under the slogan "buy one get one free." Indeed, it's well-documented that Hillary Clinton often felt the scorn of the American public, due in part to her career-woman image. Ironically, while Reagan was criticized for being a 1950s housewife, Clinton was told she wasn't domesticated enough.

Hillary and Bill Clinton leave the White House after the Democratic Business Leaders event in September 1998. Credit: David Hume Kennerly/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Her aggressors painted her as being too strong to stand back and let her politician husband call the shots and too weak to walk away when he was unfaithful.

Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, for her 2016 presidential run. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

She took her signature look on the road again during her 2016 presidential campaign. In her book "What Happened" she explained: "As a woman running for President, I liked the visual cue that I was different from the men but also familiar."

The tactic didn't pay off. Throughout one of the ugliest elections in US history, Clinton would come under repeated fire. This time she wasn't charismatic enough, she was shady, she was "a liar."

But was the biggest issue, actually, the same one as always? Once again, her image didn't fit the mold -- because the president was supposed to be a man.

Watch CNN Original Series "First Ladies" Sundays at 10 p.m. ET.

Read more:
The weaponization of a first lady's image - CNN