Threatened to Kill Obama and Clinton

Quote: "No need to add more many already know what was going on during the previous administration, that congress, the Pentagon and the VA".

Complete senses better express what the writer or speaker intends to fully say, but it seems obvious enough that what's intended is that the Bush Jr admin., Congress, the Pentagon and the VA rather criminally disregarded the needs of US veterans suffering from PTSD and other injuries due to these wars. That, however, is nothing new; plenty of prior administrations also treated such soldiers as disposable once they had served their purpose in the wars.

Quote: "But this will be followed, if any reports are forth coming, as to exactly what discharge this soldier received as he was pushed out because he was already known to be suffering from PTSD according to his mother".

If he was really discharged due to suffering from PTSD, then I doubt that he would've been given a bad discharge, so I doubt the discharge would be the cause of him doing what the federal prosecutors claim that he did with taking three hostages and, especially, threatening to kill Obama and Bill Clinton, unless it's Hillary Clinton that's meant. If she's the Clinton he purportedly threatened to kill along with Obama, then this'd be odd, for then I would expect a threat to kill the Sec. of so-called Defense, instead of the Sec. of State. But it wouldn't make much sense to threaten to kill Bill Clinton even if his existence or criminality would make it understandable, for it was Bush Jr who was President when this soldier served in Iraq.

If anyone threatened to kill all three of those presidential criminals, then it'd be understandable and I certainly couldn't blame someone for having such thoughts or desires; because the three are all guilty of politically leading supreme international crimes, putting U.S. soldiers' lives in extreme danger and through extreme psychological stresses, and all three are guilty of leading, politically, mass murder, genocide and mass destruction while doing so based on lies and no significant truths, for the [few] instances of little truth that they did give.

But the allegations of the federal prosecutors against him strike me as suspect and we have more than enough reason to not believe the political leadership and federal prosecutors based only on their words.

Their words don't constitute proof as far as I'm concerned. The same was true with Bill Clinton's bogus claims of what he said justified war on Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and we got more such political fraud with the Bush Jr administration's lies about what supposedly justified war on Iraq; but prior administrations also committed similar high crimes. People who pay attention to reality and not only claims by political leadership, which is bogus leadership, but they get elected because of malicious and negligent voters, won't take the words of such so-called representatives as truth without real and plenty of proof that what they say is true. And people who critically pay attention to reality in this way can easily realize that we are never provided with proof. All we ever get, by far mostly get anyway, are claims never backed with real proof.

I won't believe these federal prosecutors without real proof that their allegations are true. They could be false while we have little or no way of really getting proof.

Re. the anology made to Tim McVeigh:

For anyone who's seriously taken time to learn about the full story of the OKC Bombing in 1995, these people can see that there's more than enough evidence that clearly shows that Timothy McVeigh and his alleged partner in the bombing definitely were not alone in committing this bombing. The federal government and the government of Oklahoma were clearly involved. But only people who are locals to where this bombing took place, people at the heavily bombed building, some news media people, and others who take time to get seriously informed about the whole bombing incident based on real, factual and eye-, mind-opening facts about it know that there's plenty of serious or strong proof of federal and state government complicity, to call it the least of what it evidently was. I believe it was an Oklahoma Congressman who, once he learned of the highly suspect claims of the federal government and possibly also the Okla. state government, undertook an investigation that he spent a year or more on and when he came up with strongly incriminating evidence of "inside job", he was opposed, obstructed by the state and federal governments in his efforts for an official investigation.

So it's hilarious to read that the federal prosecutors alleging that this soldier took three hostages and had an arms depot at his home or apt compare him to Tim. McVeigh, who evidently was more-or-less of a patsy. Either these prosecutors are idiots, because there is no real analogy to what Tim. McVeigh was evidently part of, or these prosecutors are deliberately using this sensationalist allegation to try to deceive the public about something they and the elites they work for want us to be ignorant of or naive about.

They have high academic education, so I'll guess that the use of that analogy is really an attempt to try to deceive us. But maybe they're just idiots with degrees from universities that hand out degrees to any students capable of passing academic exams. Plenty of universities have graduated [psychopaths].

And it's darkly farcical that citizens live as if we can really expect much serious truth from this extremely criminal government of state gangsterism, organized crime, et cetera. It takes very irresponsible citizenship to treat the government, political, military and bureaucratic leadership, as if we can entrust them with our security, because this government definitely merits extremely little trust from us.