Another Liar-For-the-Iraq-Invasion Endorses Clinton

Another Liar-For-the-Iraq-Invasion Endorses Clinton

Colin Powell, who lied for invading Iraq in 2003 (but who later said that he had been lied-to, instead), announced on October 25th that he’ll vote for Hillary Clinton, who was yet another prominent liar (or sucker — take your pick) for invading countries that haven’t invaded, and that present no imminent threat to invade, the United States. (Such unprovoked aggression is an international-war crime. That’s what neoconservatives support: international war-crimes — but only if the U.S. government perpetrates them. And they demand that we be proud of a country that’s led by them; otherwise, we’re not ‘patriotic’.)

Donald Trump terrifies all of the neoconservatives — the bullies who crave ever-new invasions. (Colin Powell pompously calls Trump a «national disgrace»). Is it really because Trump is a bigoted rapist and not so bright, or is it instead because he’s bright enough, and good enough (despite his obvious flaws) to puke at what neoconservatives such as Powell and Clinton have done to America, and to the world that America has so wantonly invaded and turned into seas of blood and misery?

Here are some of the other neocons — liars for invasion — who endorse Hillary Clinton (they don’t yet have their fill of blood, and money, and honors).

Most of them are Republicans, but these are the ones who are proud to call themselves neoconsDemocratic Party neoconservatives are so deceitful they never apply that contemptible term to themselves; they don’t have the guts to, regardless of how strongly their polices indicate that that’s what they clearly are. Has Hillary Clinton ever called herself a «neocon»? Of course not, even though she surrounds herself with them and adheres strictly to neoconservative policies. Though President Obama admires the super-neocon Robert Kagan and has been strongly influenced by his books, Hillary Clinton is even cozier with them: personal friends with Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, and as Secretary of State, Hillary led the first Obama Administration’s neoconservative wing.

While Nuland was a protégé of Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton and arranged the coup d’etat that overthrew the Ukrainian government on 20 Fabruary 2014 (which U.S. coup started being organized inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013, which was a month after Clinton ended her service as Secretary of State), Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, was soon to come out publicly as a fundraiser for Hillary’s Presidential campaign.

When the Daily Beast during the primaries asked 121 Republican Party foreign-policy specialists who had signed a letter condemning Donald Trump, whether they would vote for the Republican nominee if it turned out to be Trump, only one said yes, and he refused to allow his identity to be made public, because he was the only one of them who opposed neoconservatism. (He noted that Hillary’s «record is filled with foreign policy disasters» — those being, of course, her neocon actions as U.S. Secretary of State.)

Democratic Party ‘news’media report this only rarely. But those are media that have already filtered out, never reported to their own readers and audiences, the basis for those disgusting endorsements from neocons. So, to many of these Democratic Party voters, the neocons’ endorsements seem to have been done for reasons that prove Hillary to be progressive («It's called reverse psychology folks and they are doing it to try and turn off the base. If you believe for a moment that they would actually support her, then you're even dumber than they are.» But, in fact, the leading neocons are actually fundraising for her. Democrats cannot acknowledge the neocons amongst themselves, such as, for example, Obama’s own current ‘Defense’ Secretary, Ashton Carter, but that’s what they are: neocons.)

The Obama coup in Ukraine was immediately recognized by the Russian people to be directed against them (just as we would hate Russia if Russia were violently to take over a neighboring country such as Mexico), and so in the Pew international polls, the approval-rating of the United Sates among Russians plunged from 51% in 2013 right before the U.S. neocon coup in Ukraine, to 23% in 2014, right after their coup. Then, in 2015, it sank even lower, to 15%.

Republican Party ‘news’ media report Democrats’ neoconservatives just as rarely — because they’re just as committed to conquering Russia (and to overthrowing its allies such as Bashar al-Assad and installing a jihadist government there) as the Democratic Party’s billionaires are. (To be that evil is embarrassing, even for some Republicans. They don’t want the public to know about it.) 

The super-Republican Paul Wolfowitz calls Trump «dangerous» and says «I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton.» Hillary herself says «Tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you what you are.» Wolfowitz knows that she’s a neocon. But the powerful ones right now are Hillary’s billionaire donors. They’re just more private about what they are than Wolfowitz, who is perhaps the most famous one of them all (other than perhaps Dick Cheney). 

Hillary Clinton is their choice. And there’s very good reason why (though it’s a very bad reason to vote for her). Neocons don’t care about the aftermath. That’s why they’re so dangerous. («We came, we saw, he died. Ha hah!» And she’s going to have her finger on the nuclear button?)

Saddam Hussein was friendly toward Russia. Muammar Gaddafi was friendly toward Russia. Viktor Yanukovych was friendly toward Russia. Hillary Clinton helped conquer all of them, and now she wants a «free-fire zone» in Syria to eliminate Bashar al-Assad there, who is outright allied with Russia. That would mean war against Russia. She wants war against both Russia and China. The buildup, if not the aftermath, to such war, will be great for the bomb-makers etc. (And that’s whom neocons authentically represent. War can be very profitable for the ‘right’ people — including Hillary Clinton’s mega-donors.)

Regardless of what one thinks about the Presidential candidates’ domestic policies, those policies pale into insignificance as compared to the neocons’ craving to expand NATO not only up to Russia’s borders (as has frighteningly already happened), but beyond. It’s world-conquest they crave, and that’s the only reason why we’re placing America’s missiles on and near Russia’s borders — an outrageous thing to do. And that craving-of-global-conquest will kill billions, and will leave the survivors wishing that they weren’t.

When bullies push a victim into a corner, he’ll strike back with everything he’s got — or do they really expect Vladimir Putin simply to cave in to their demands? They plan to terminate Russia’s sovereign independence. Will the Russian public — who overwhelmingly (over 80%, even in U.S. sponsored polls of Russians) support and approve of Putin’s leadership of their country, continue to support Putin if he does cave in? Nothing sparks a nation’s patriotism like being invaded does. It happened even in the Soviet Union, during World War II, a nation which was led by a real monster: the Georgian, Josef Stalin. The Soviet people fought with enormous courage, and were not stopped no matter how many millions of them died under Hitler’s onslaught. Russians, no matter how much the U.S. bombs them, will never yield their sovereignty over their own land — no matter how horrific the U.S.-NATO invasion might be.

When the crunch finally comes, these U.S. billionaires and their guests will presumably be inside the luxurious nuclear bomb shelters, glorious bunkers, or the «Doomsday Bunker for Billionaires». (Why else would they be building and buying these deep-underground palaces?) America’s super-rich believe in it, no matter what their duped public believes. That’s why they are donating heavily to Hillary Clinton’s (and associated) billion-dollar-plus campaign. To them, Vladimir Putin is ‘America’s enemy’, they’re not that; they’re not ‘The enemy’. They’re instead ‘patriotic Americans’. (They just happen to be committed to America’s global conquest. They’re investing in it. They expect to profit from it, or else to be paid well by the people who are.)

Here is their record of controlling the U.S. government: it’s international criminality that is vastly rewarded. This is called American ‘democracy’.

Will the American public elect those individuals’ favored representative into the White House, on November 8th? Probably. Most Americans would never vote for ‘a rapist’. (Even though they did — twice — with Bill Clinton, in 1992, then 1996.) Let’s vote for Hillary Clinton, because she’s no ‘rapist’! What? Really? Wow! Can there be that many Americans who are that ill-informed, or that stupid? (The billionaires would be chuckling at that. Investing in conquest is so rewarding! Just ask people such as George Soros.) (Oh, and he’s here, too.) (And even the far-right Koch brothers are on her side.)

Incidentally, a relevant web-search — «outcome of a nuclear war russia united states» — produces nothing trustworthy, only speculation, nothing reliably conclusive, but unpublished studies are constantly being produced on the matter. No one who is involved in that is going public with any data or information that could reliably inform the public. Perhaps some of the major investors are reliably informed about it, but the public certainly are not. And this is supposed to be a ‘democracy’.

Adolf Hitler was able to win an ‘election’. Such a catastrophe could happen again. The actual danger this time is even worse. And the public aren’t being reliably informed about it. That alone tells the public everything that’s important to know about this matter.

Perhaps some of the billionaires who are buying those bunkers know more than is publicly available on this matter, but the public do not. And the aristocracy read such things as this. But are they really fooled by their own propaganda? Well, they know enough to build and buy those bunkers. But none of those bunkers will ever do anyone any good. And those individuals are Hillary Clinton’s masters.

Tags: Iraq  Clinton