RI... Back in June, I published a piece titled, More Troubling Evidence That Hillary Clinton Will Start WW3. In it, we learned the following:
Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One calls the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton, this week advocated for sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit. In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assads forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region. She had previously condemned the Obama administrations ISIS policy as ineffectual, denouncing it as under-resourced.
This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called limited military coercion to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called limited airstrikes in Iraq and theyre still continuing almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created military coercion for creating a no-bomb zone that would entail a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force. If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets, she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is guilty of inaction in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in Syria.
Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising which Hillary Clinton herself has previously advocated would risk a military confrontation with Russia. Obamas defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December that the policy Clinton advocates would require substantial ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces. Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clintons defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action will be designed to help Syrians.
While that post focused on a likely massive escalation of U.S. militarism in the Middle East under a President Clinton, most Americans remain dangerously unaware of the extreme bad blood between her and Russias Vladimir Putin.
For some insight on the topic, lets examine a few excerpts from an article published earlier today at Reuters:
With U.S. relations with Moscow already plumbing post-Cold War lows, the aides and veteran Russia watchers said she would likely take a harder line than Obama or Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has praised Putin as a strong leader.
Dealing with Putin, who is flexing his geopolitical muscle from Ukraine to Syria to cyberspace, will be among Clintons biggest foreign policy challenges one made more daunting by the personal bad blood between them.
Jake Sullivan, a former top State Department aide and now senior Clinton campaign advisor, said Clinton could consider the shipping of lethal arms to Ukraine government forces and the creation of no-fly or safe zones in Syria. Obama has rejected both ideas.
While such moves could further stoke tensions and might even face resistance from some U.S. allies, Sullivan said in an interview with Reuters that Clinton could manage ties with Russia effectively because Putin would respect her as U.S. president, her strength, her clarity, her predictability.
That gave me the biggest laugh Ive had all month.
According to current and former Clinton advisers, she could consider other policy moves such as stiffer sanctions against Russia over Ukraine and doing more to wean Russias neighbors off reliance on Moscows energy supplies.
Clintons first fence-mending effort in March 2009 was not so much a show of strength than of diplomatic clumsiness. She handed Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a red button that was supposed to have the word reset on it. Instead, it was labeled with the Russian word meaning overcharged.
Clintons distrust of Putin deepened, mirrored by his growing list of grievances against her.
Now heres the most concerning part.
Putin, a former KGB agent, doesnt have a soul, Clinton quipped on the eve of the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary, riffing off of President George W. Bushs comment seven years earlier that he had looked into Putins eyes and seen his soul.
The Russian leader retorted: At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.
Is this the sort of starting point you want from a new U.S. President? Theres a reason so many genuine progressives and liberals cant stomach Hillary Clinton and refuse to vote for her. Sure, theres the rampant embrace of cronyism and incessant oligarch coddling, but theres also her penchant for bloodthirsty militarism.
Oliver Stone summed it up perfectly earlier this year when he wrote:
Were going to war either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they dont because our media is dumbed down in its Pravda-like support for our respectable, highly aggressive government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s, by a government full of crackpot realists: in the name of realism theyve constructed a paranoid reality all their own. Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience, unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. Shes comparable to Bill Clintons choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States weve had since
Condi Rice? Albright boasted, If we have to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.
Hillarys record includes supporting the barbaric contras against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the present attempt at regime change in Syria. Every one of these situations has resulted in more extremism, more chaos in the world, and more danger to our country. Next will be the borders of Russia, China, and Iran. Look at the viciousness of her recent AIPAC speech (dont say you havent been warned). Can we really bear to watch as Clinton takes our alliance [with Israel] to the next level? Where is our sense of proportion? Cannot the media, at the least, call her out on this extremism? The problem, I think, is this political miasma of correctness that dominates American thinking (i.e. Trump is extreme, therefore Hillary is not).
This is why Im praying still for Bernie Sanders, because hes the only one willing, at least in the name of fiscal sanity, to cut back on our foreign interventions, bring the troops home, and with these trillions of dollars no longer wasted on malice, try to protect the homeland by actually rebuilding it and putting money into its people, schools, and infrastructure.
This isnt to say World War 3 is avoidable under a President Trump Im not convinced of that. As with everything else regarding Trump, hes too much of a wildcard to know for sure. That said, Id certainly argue that under Hillary Clinton, World War 3 is a virtual lock.
Do we really want someone this twisted in charge of the country?
Originally appeared at Liberty Blitzkrieg
Poster Comment:
Wars, deceit, illegality, and thievery are the cornerstones of Khazarian Jew mores beginning with the Rothschild spread of false rumors of Napoleonic victory over Wellington to spook his fellow parasites to sell on the London Stock Exchange which netted the Khazarian kingpin $3-million. WWI & II facilitated establishment of the illegal Israeli state by Jew squatters taking up arms to drive Palestinians off their lands. Clinton is just a a psychotic soldier on the march to civilization's apocalypse.