Will the U.S. elect as president a politician who unleashed the Middle East holocaust?
American voters have done many strange things. But none would be stranger than electing as Commander-in-Chief a politician responsible for the ignorant decision to launch the cataclysmic and needless bloodbath in the Middle East and North Africa, who has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of international affairs, and who, incidentally, was recently named "the most corrupt politician in 2015" by a Washington ethics watchdog group. It is time for the American electorate to look more critically at whom they are in the process of elevating to high office.
Pity the citizens of the Middle East and much of North Africa whose lives have been brutalized by the violence set in motion by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. This intemperate attack was the brainchild of President George W.Bush, with his infamous team of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. But no less responsible for the war and the holocaust that we're still witnessing unfold in 2016 are the members of Congress who gave Bush & Co. the green light to destroy the region. While more perceptive members of Congress, like Senator Ted Kennedy and then-Representative Bernie Sanders, spoke forcefully against the folly of unleashing a war in the Middle East, Senator Hillary Clinton voted with the majority Republicans to attack Iraq and initiate the conflagration that followed, an act that has been called the most irresponsible, the most foolish, the most pointless and tragic in the history of American foreign relations. This bloodbath has to date resulted in more than a million dead throughout the region, including at least 4,500 American soldiers, plus more millions displaced and homeless across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe: a heavy weight on the conscience of those, like Mrs.Clinton, who started the war.
The fall of governments, the bloodbaths, the rise of inhuman terror, and the millions of desperate displaced families barely clinging to life throughout the region, is Senator Hillary Clinton's legacy, fourteen years after her choice to launch a war. Perhaps Hillary Clinton in 2002 had no idea of the horror that would follow, but she knew she was starting a war, and war is never without horror. Her failure to grasp that was not due to lack of information, it was due to her lack of understanding.
Just two weeks before the fateful vote in the Congress, Senator Kennedy gave a speech at Johns Hopkins where he detailed the overwhelming reasons against starting a war in the Middle East. He stressed that the U.S. military leadership opposed the idea of a new war while the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was still unfinished. He warned that "This escalation, spiraling out of control, could draw the Arab world into a regional war..." Exactly. Jim Webb in a Washington Post op-ed made the same points and more: no exit strategy was planned, Bush's idea that Americans would be welcomed as liberators was nonsense – instead they would be seen and hated as Christian crusading armies.
While Kennedy, Sanders, and other thoughtful and well-informed members of Congress tried hard to stop the folly of starting a Middle East cataclysm, Hillary Clinton and other war lovers sided with Bush and Cheney. She said years later, campaigning for votes, that she was "sorry". Sorry about what? She didn't say - she didn't mention those millions dead or displaced because of her decision. So here we are, in 2016, and where is this former first lady who was ushered into a Senate seat and into our top diplomatic post on the strength of her being married to the president? After having said she is sorry – let's say for the million dead, has she retreated to reflect on the consequences of her actions? Is she doing penance to expiate her guilt? Not at all – instead she has had the brazenness to present herself unapologetically to the country as the best-qualified person to be our Commander-in-Chief! The cheek! And the Democratic party has sunk to a level where it allows itself to be manipulated by the famously corrupt Clintons and their operatives to the degree that it has to all appearances consented to the farce of presenting the incompetent and compromised Mrs.Clinton as its nominee-to-be for president of the United States.
Most of the politicians who started the Iraq war later moved on, some of them voted out of office for their thoughtlessness in approving Mr.Bush's atrocity. But President Barack Obama, who won nomination to the presidency over Hillary Clinton in 2008 by lambasting Clinton's support for Mr.Bush's war as failure to understand international relations, nevertheless appointed Mrs.Clinton to the nation's highest diplomatic post as Secretary of State in 2009. It is understood that a quid pro quo with the Clintons lay behind this strange appointment – very likely a promise that Hillary would not challenge Obama for the Democratic party nomination in his expected reelection bid in 2012.
Early in 2011, as anti-government protests raged in Libya, Secretary Clinton urged President Obama to engage U.S. forces in a bombing campaign to take down the government of Colonel Gaddafi. How many times must it be learned that when you remove a strongman and his security apparatus from a multitribal or multiethnic nation with a history of violent internal relations, without planning for the follow-up, chaos will result. We saw it in the USSR and in Yugoslavia in the '90s, and Hillary should have learned it after her own tragic vote in favor of dismantling Iraq, but she hadn't learned it by 2011, and when President Obama followed her advice Libya ceased to be a state and became what it is today: civil war continues, and parts of the country are a lawless haven for terrorists and weapons dealers. Mr.Obama has called this the worst decision he ever made as president, and while mentioning no names he lay the blame on getting bad advice. His advisor Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, has touted the Libya bombing as one of her top achievements as Secretary of State. And it probably was.
Shortly thereafter, Secretary Clinton advised the president to move American ground troops into the civil war in Syria, advice that the president fortunately ignored. Mrs.Clinton is evidently a slow learner, she had still not learned the basic lesson about dismantling governments without a plan, not to mention the illegality of such acts of war.
Hillary Clinton not only likes to start wars, she wants to be credited with having been in one. When running for reelection to the Senate in 2006, she wanted to polish up her credentials with a little war-experience. She told the campaign crowd of her visit to Bosnia while she was "first lady", how she and her party had to duck bullets when exiting their plane at the Tuzla airport, and how the welcome ceremony had to be cancelled on account of the shooting.
Unfortunately, there was video of the event that showed a perfectly peaceful arrival with a little girl giving Hillary flowers at the non-cancelled ceremony. It was all a lie intended to burnish her otherwise rather pedestrian background with some brush with the reality of war. But the brush was just a paint brush. (There are several more videos of Hillary's brave trip on YouTube.) Hillary's craven effort to borrow the glory of our soldiers was the behavior of a moral bankrupt, of a knave that would resort to any calumny to win personal recognition. (News anchor Brian Williams had been fired by NBC for exactly the same kind of exaggeration of his non-existent war experience – viewers felt he could no longer be trusted.)
The revelation in 2015 of our Secretary of State's cavalier attitude toward diplomatic security, and of her complete lack of appreciation for the hazards inherent in electronic communication, came as a shock. Currently, the FBI is still investigating Mrs.Clinton's insecure home basement email server, to determine whether the evident laxness of security includes indictable violations of law. We will take this up in another episode, but regardless of the outcome, there is a fundamental problem in the fact that FBI's findings will be forwarded for disposition to the U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, a political appointee and ally of President Obama. While the President is thought to be a fair man by political standards, he nevertheless has a close connection with Mrs.Clinton, and he – as well as the Attorney General – has already pronounced his opinion that Clinton's casual use of her easily hacked private server has not been the cause of any significant damage from loss of classified information. It is not known how he could know this while the FBI has not yet completed their investigation, but in my view the op-ed by Matthew Whitaker on "TheBlaze", arguing that a special prosecutor should be appointed to deal with this case in place of the Attorney General, reflects the best way to ensure that this matter is handled without the taint of political favor. I hardly need add that any security breach reflecting on the Secretary will also reflect on the President, whose chief concern at the present time is his own legacy – a compelling reason to appoint a special counsel. But no matter whether criminal charges are warranted, the episode demonstrates again the arrogance displayed by Secretary Clinton in refusing to follow standard Department of State security rules and practices, although she was repeatedly urged to do so.
The idea that the Democratic electorate of the United States are now in large numbers casting votes for nomination to the office of president for one of the originators of the current horror in the Middle East, one of the chief malefactors who has these million deaths and more millions of hopeless refugees on her conscience, and who has repeatedly demonstrated her lack of understanding of international affairs and of basic security requirements, is bizarre. Though, with some knowledge of how big money works in the U.S. to buy political position and influence, and of how easily a large portion of the electorate is led by money spent on slick advertising, the process becomes credible, if still sad. At this date, there is only one serious challenger to her crowning by the Democratic party, and that is Senator Bernie Sanders, a competent and conscientious man of the people who refuses to seek or accept the huge, politically motivated corporate quid pro quo donations that are and have been the hallmark of Clinton campaigns. Bernie Sanders is the single honest and non-corrupt politician left in this campaign. He will make a thoughtful, fair, and productive president, and he deserves all our votes.
A presidential election campaign is the great quadrennial opportunity for a national conversation about our future – about how well we've done and where we've failed; about how we will improve our society as we go forward. The conversation is carried by the candidates for that high office, and is urged forward by "The Press", which is expected to remind the people of our failures and urge the candidates toward solutions. But our Press, print and electronic alike, is completely failing to fulfill its necessary role in a democracy.
Washington ethics watchdog ("FACT") names Hillary Clinton the most corrupt politician of 2015.
It's nice to see someone get the recognition they deserve. On a list of the eight most corrupt politicians of both major parties, Hillary was in a class of her own. She was cited for "overwhelming evidence" of a range of ethics violations and abuses of the public trust, involving the Clinton Foundation, preferential corporate donor treatment as Secretary of State, and campaign violations. Isn't it about time we call a crook a crook?
The DNC's War on Bernie Sanders
The Democratic party is in full war modus against the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders.
DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz explains in this video that the function of "superdelegates" is to protect the Dem'c party from grass roots movements. Really! That's what she says! She also just reversed Obama's anti-corruption decision of 8 years ago to ban lobbyist donations to the DNC, which in effect means more corporate donations to the Clinton campaign.
The true Hillary Clinton is not the construct we see running for president of the United States. Indeed, "true" is not a word we are used to associating with Mrs. Clinton. Her 40 years in the public eye call up vivid memories of scandals and lies, incompetence, bribery and other corruption, financial irregularities, felonious friends, and a supremely embarrassing tour in the White House with a supremely embarrassing husband, "Horny" Bill Clinton, who again is a co-applicant to return to the White House.
For some inexplicable reason, a substantial portion of the Democratic Party's voters seem to have excused Bill and Hillary's past outrages, or – if they're young – they may simply be unaware of the real Hillary, who by now has learned to play nice to the public. Many who do remember the 90's find it astounding that the party cannot find an honest, qualified leader as a candidate for the presidency. The above link should help with recalling the nature of the schemes of the former president and his wife, and their unquenchable and unprincipled lust for power.
It's particularly strange to see both the Democratic and and Republican parties offering us family members of recent presidents as candidates. We have 320 million people in this country. The attempt to convince us that the wife, brother, or son of the president would be the best president reeks of corruption, of improper money influence and maintenance of the political power elite. Family dynasties have been customary in some countries, but it's not a custom we ought to adopt in the U.S. The effort by Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to seem and sound "progressive" or "renewing" is a sham and a fraud. One can only hope that the American people will, in the end, not allow themselves to be duped by these slick snake-oil hawkers.
NYTimes: Clinton received TOP SECRET emails on home server
The NY Times reports that at least 22 emails received by Hillary on her home acount contained "Top Secret" information. It can be assumed that her home email account was routinely hacked, and that the Top Secret material fell into the hands of foreign agents. Most gov't employees would already have been indicted for such a security breach.
To the question, "Would you say that [candidate] is honest and trustworthy?" – asked about six candidates of both parties, Sanders led the positive responses, while Clinton led the negative responses with 61% "no", and Trump elicited 54% "no" replies.
In an unprompted word association question, the words most often immediately associated with Hillary were 1. "liar", 2. dishonest, and 3. untrustworthy. Most frequently associated with Donald Trump were arrogant, blowhard, and idiot. So it could be an interesting election.
Interesting election footnote:
The Washington Post reported on August 5 that Bill Clinton had a phone call with Donald Trump a couple of weeks before Trump's declaration as a presidential candidate. Aides to both men say that the former president urged Trump to get more involved in politics, and that Trump's ideas could be a valuable addition to the Republican party's discourse. No one says Mr.Clinton urged Trump to run, but he knew Trump was near the moment of decision. Was Clinton sowing the seeds of tumult in the Republican camp? Setting up a perfect foil for his wife's barbs? Dangerous sport, exchanging barbs with Trump.