Clinton against Syria: Criminally Stupid, or War Criminal?

Ads

Clinton's attempts to mimic human emotion at the Convention were unsuccessful

by Miri Wood, RNc

Graphic.  Contains images of inappropriate smiling and laughter.

To Fellow Americans, please attempt to  imagine the following scenario:  More than 100 countries have dumped their human garbage here; more than 360,000 foreign terrorists have been armed, have invaded us.  They are all over our country, and heavily concentrated in specific areas, where they hold our civilians hostage. Our troops are on the ground, defending us; our Air Force is strategically bombing these concentrated areas, minimizing the risks of civilian casualties.  We are defending ourselves within our own borders.  The world claims that these terrorists are “American freedom fighters,” that our government is murdering us.  A leading candidate for president of the world’s most powerful country has announced she will “continue to push” for the shooting down of US Air Force jets, within American airspace, by a coalition of other countries.

Fellow Americans, would you ever swallow such a scheme?

Why, then, should it be given so much a veneer of legitimacy, that it is not to be challenged when Hillary Clinton’s stated goal is to inflict such murderous colonialism on Syria?

Despite the massive domestic problems of the US — among them, unemployment, healthcare and the crumbling of infrastructure — Clinton chose to make her intended destruction of Syria the key point in the final presidential debate, 19 October.

I’m going to continue to push for a no fly zone and safe havens within Syria…[to] gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians… — former US Senator, former Secretary of State Clinton

Who is Hillary Clinton, to demand, with colonialist impunity,  “some leverage” against Syria and Russia?

According to WikiLeaks — whose veracity Clinton acknowledged during the final, nationally televised debate — at a private, paid speech before the Goldman Sachs financial empire, in 2013, Clinton noted that a NFZ would “kill a lot of Syrians.”

Clinton wants to murder more Syrians

One year ago, the Democratic nominee ignored both American problems in need of solutions, and the will of the Syrian people, who elected Dr. Bashar al Assad as their president, in 2014 when she — in true colonialist fashion — stated that the removal of Syria’s president is her number one priority.

Destroying yet another country takes precedence over fixing massive US domestic problems.

On 9 September 2015, Clinton gave a campaign speech at the Brookings Institute.  It was so bellicose that several media sources reported on her “more muscular foreign policy.”  How does it get more muscular than Barack Obama bombing seven countries between 2009 – 2014?  Why would any candidate want more devastation than afforded by the more than 23,000 bombs dropped on Muslim majority countries, in 2015?

In this Brookings speech, Clinton actually suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney has become a dove, and offered the inference that there may be an ‘Arab Springing’ in Iran’s future.

My approach will be distrust and verify.

She also promised an increase “in our efforts to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition.”

Certainly, we Americans would appreciate a foreign head of state offering more weapons to terrorists among us, would we not?

Geopolitical Repetition Compulsion:  Is Nominee Clinton Criminally Stupid, Or War Criminal?

The orwellianly bloodless euphemism of the colonialist No Fly Zone was born in 1991, first used against the Iraqi government; it is the genocidal “stuff” of which NATO-UN dreams are made on.

Col. Clint Hinote, Military Fellow of the perpetual war think tank Council on Foreign Relations — a “Dr. Strangelove” type [1] — has noted  “[t]he United States and its allies enjoy a significant advantage over most potential adversaries in the air,” making the NFZ a perk of international, fascist, bullies.

The result of the NFZ  against Iraq was genocide.  The Bush/Cheneyac/Halliburton destruction of Iraq, led to the creation of ISIS (al Baghdadi — with whom John McCain had meetings when he illegally entered Syria — was released from an Iraqi jail by US forces, in 2006) led to the country’s never-mentioned balkanization, terrorism where there was none, previously, and to the exportation of terrorism throughout the region.

Hillary Clinton was part of the 57% of the Democratic Senate that voted to support the Bush/Cheneyac/Halliburton carnage against Iraq.  In 2015, she began calling her genocidal vote, a “mistake,”  while negligently omitting the mention of, exactly, how many times she voted to fund this “mistake.”

During her 2008 presidential campaigning, though, she was still not ready to make such a “big” admission (her fan club now considers her new admission as evidence of her phenomenally noble character,  à la “It takes a big man to admit he was wrong” whitewash).

Back in 2004, though, Clinton’s only “regret” involved “the way the president [George W. Bush] used the authority.”

How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?  I don’t understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen.

Between her stupefaction of 2004, and her brave mistake admission of 2015, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State (21 January 2009 – 1 February 2013), during which time she not only supported a NFZ against Libya, but also happily met with al Qaeda terrorists who helped in the obliteration of that country.

Clinton: Killing Libya was good, and supported by leading countries of genocide.

 

Let us remember that Clinton acknowledged that the US created al Qaeda for the purpose of fighting the Soviets, in Afghanistan (‘and it was good’), and that the US left al Qaeda massively armed.

Let us remember here…the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago…and we did it because  we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

They invaded Afghanistan…and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work..and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said ‘you know what?  It sounds like a pretty good idea.  Let’s deal with ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’

And guess what?  They [Soviets] retreated…they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So there is a very strong argument which is, it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union, but let’s be careful with what we sow…because we will harvest.

So we then left Pakistan…we said ‘okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country…you deal with the mines that are along the border, and, by the way, we don’t want to have anything to do with you.  In fact, we’re sanctioning you.’  So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we are making up for a lot of lost time.  — Senator Hillary Clinton, during her Secretary of State Senate Confirmation Hearing, 13 January 2009

What was the purpose of Clinton’s support for the NFZ against Libya?  Did the NFZ not become a campaign to literally take out, destroy, the entire country — with the first bombs razing the infrastructure of the Great Man-Made River, which Gaddafi called “The Eighth Wonder of the World.”?

According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver…This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to  establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar.  This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French france (CFA).”  — declassified email from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton, 2 April 2011

On 20 October 2011, then Secretary of State Clinton was interviewed by Leslie Stahl, on 60 Minutes.  In this now infamous clip, Clinton quite un-diplomatically — and quite sadistically — cackles over her part in the brutal rape and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, just reported [2]

Clinton, filled with joy
Gaddafi, moments before his happiness-inspiring rape and murder, 20 October 2011, in Sirte
Sirte, post Clinton’s No Fly Zone success

That Clinton ungraciously accepted the laurels Stahl placed at her feet, becomes especially  shocking upon realization that Gaddafi was still alive — though kidnapped — when Clinton arrived in Tripoli and met with State Department supported  al Qaeda terrorists, on 18 October.  Her arrival was kept secret until after she left, and US security teams secured the meeting place, before her plane landed.

Then Secretary of State Clinton, with al Qaeda terrorists in Tripoli, Libya
Clinton bubbling over with joy, among her friends of the takfiri al Qaeda, Tripoli, 18 October 2011

During this short meeting, Clinton promised an influx of US funding to this terrorist “transitional government,” funding not tied to these ”freedom fighters” ending the slaughter of black people in “new” Libya.

These terrorists had begun a campaign of extermination, labeling blacks as “Gaddafi loyalists,” especially the migrant workers from Sub-Saharan countries of Africa.

Note that this video was uploaded 30 August 2011, almost two months before Clinton’s elated airport meeting.

In 2014, the RAND Corporation issued a policy paper, “Libya After Gaddafi.”  Its authors note that “Libya verges on becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda linked groups,” and that terrorists have established “a foothold nationwide.” [3]

The country was awash in small arms and light weapons including MANPADS, anti-tank missiles, GRAD rockets and mortars.  France, Qatar and other countries had supplied the rebels with weapons during the war, with Qatar contributing more than 20,000 tons of weapons…More important were Gaddafi’s own weapons stocks, most of which had been let loose during the war.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political history is in its 44th year of public service.

  • Hillary Rodham was a junior member of the Temporary Impeachment Inquiry into President Richard Nixon, ’73-74
  • She was Arkansas state’s First Lady, ’79-’81, and ’83-’92
  • She was First Lady  of the US, ’93-’01
  • When Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement from the Senate, the Clintons immediately bought a house in NYC, so that H. Clinton could run for his seat, creating the opportunity to nickname her ”carpetbagger.”  She ran on a platform of 200,000 manufacturing jobs for the state.  During her tenure, NY manufacturing dropped by 24.1%, which she blamed on the policies of the Bush/Cheneyac administration.
  • In ’08, she ran for president.  During that campaign, she answered a provocative question by  provocatively threatening Iran with nuclear annihilation [4]
  • On 13 January 2009, she was confirmed as Secretary of State, a position she resigned from 1 February 2013, in order to have time for her presidential campaign
  • Though not a member of the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, her husband and daughter are.  She has not only spoken on several occasions to this group, but has admitted that as SoS, she received marching orders from it:  “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Given Clinton’s considerable history in politics, are we to be counted among the wide-eyed fools who claim she made a mistake in her decision to support the genocide against Iraq, based on lying propaganda, a “mistake” for whose financing she kept funding?

How did she manage to commit the very same mistake, by supporting the No Fly Zone which turned Libya into a landmass, a haven for the new generation of mujahideen whose terrorism in Afghanistan she deemed successful, during those 2009 confirmation hearings?

How does she unabashedly, unashamedly, tell the US electorate that her priorities are to commit the same atrocities against the Syrian Arab Republic as she helped to commit against Iraq and Libya?

Clinton campaigns before the Council of Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute, yet she magically remains oblivious to the report of the Rand Corporation.

Though her lamentation regarding her mistook Iraqi destruction vote was limited to Bush/Cheneyac being “poorly prepared” for post-Hussein chaos, she feigns blindness to the same horrific problem in post-Gaddafi Libya, and loudly proclaims her plans for the same devastation in Syria.

Criminally stupid, or war criminal: Is there any difference, in genocide tallies of perpetual war?

 

Miscellaneous Clinton addenda not specifically related to her NFZ priorities.

On 4 September 2014, Clinton wrote a review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order,” for the Washington Post.  In it, she noted that “Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state.

During the 19 October debate, Clinton — again, she did the veracity of the WikiLeaks — Clinton emphatically stated that

We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.  I find that deeply disturbing.

“Neutral” US msm supported this saber-rattling claim, some using the corrupt “fact-checking website PolitiFact,” which ‘rated’ Clinton’s statement as “true” (as though this site were judges of Dancing with the Stars).  According to a 7 October Joint DHS and ODNI Security Statement, the leaks “…are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russia-directed efforts.” Being “consistent with” does not denote conclusion.

When did “consistent with” come to mean proof?

Time, somewhat presciently, had already supported Clinton’s uncorroborated allegation via its 29 September cover story, Russia wants to undermine faith in US election, and advising US not to “fall for it.”  Did Time really forget its bragging cover of 15 July 1996, cheering that Americans rescued Boris Yeltsin, making him the first post Soviet president of the Russian Federation?

Double standard hypocrisy

While noting the integrity of double standards, let us ponder why politicians and media grossly offended by the coarse words of the “hot mic,” were not also offended by celebrity Madonna’s grotesque offer for those promising to vote for Clinton.  More politically, let us consider why the same media outraged by uncorroborated allegations of foreign influence in US elections, had no problem in cheering the talent-less, Russian Pussy Riot support of Clinton’s candidacy.   Back in August 2012, the US State Department also had no problem sticking its nose into Russian affairs, issuing a condemnation of against the PR convictions, via spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Nuland, by the way, at a think tank meeting in DC, December 2013, bragged that the Nazimaidan coup in the Ukraine cost US taxpayers five billion dollars (another State Department employee, Natalie Jaresko, US born and reared, is post Nazimaidan Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, and may become its Prime Minister, in December); bipartisan support of the Nazimaidans was much more than Nuland and McCain giving free lunches to the terrorists in Kiev.

The freedom-loving  US State Department, by the way, in March 2014, demonstrated its support of “democracy” by restricting the mobility of Syria’s ambassador, to a 25 mi/40 km radius from the UN, in order to stop his successful Town Hall Meetings throughout the country.

One of the few times Clinton smiled — nay, she beamed — during the final debate was when moderator Chris Wallace asked the hypothetical question, “Does President Clinton shoot that [Russian] plane down?” as follow-up to her NFZ plans.

More glee, over the thought of shooting down a Russian jet.  Like Bush, Clinton appears most jubilant when thinking of destruction

Clinton savored the moment, but did not answer the question.  Instead, she moved into war porn mode, re-pimping the story of the little boy painted with dust, and placed into the pristine ambulance.  Should she, or anyone else, be concerned that the guy who took that “iconic” photograph is friends with the savages who cut off the head of 12  year old Syrian-Palestinian, Abdullah Issa?

[1]

[2] Stahl, no novice to journalism, cackled along with her.  In May 1996, Stahl still maintained a semblance of journalistic propriety, when interviewing UN Ambassador Albright.  Stahl asked whether the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children — dead from US-imposed sanctions — was “worth it.”  Albright, appointed ambassador by President Bill Clinton, was appointed — also by Clinton — Secretary of State, in December 1996.  In 2012, Albright received the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama.  In February of this year, while campaigning for H. Clinton, stated that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

[3] RAND Corporation is a global ‘non-profit’ which was founded in 1948, “to connect military planning with research and development decisions.”  Qatar (“pronounced ‘gutter”’) is the Gulfie absolute monarchy that bragged in 2013, of having spent more than 3 billion USD for its part in the final solution against Syria.  Through its monarchy-owned media, al Khanzeera and ak+, it has engaged in the most heinous psy-op propaganda against the SAR.

[4] On 22 April 2008, on Good Morning America, then ABC News reporter Chris Cuomo — now at CNN — asked candidate Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.  Instead of using the opportunity to let the viewing population know that Iran did not have nuclear weapons, instead of even showing leadership character via saying she would use diplomacy to prevent such a thing, Clinton jumped right into perpetual war fantasy:  “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran…in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

 

Spread the word:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Ads