13:50 GMT +330 March 2017
Live
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (L) and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are seen in a combination of file photos

    Warmongering Clinton Accuses Trump of Madness

    © REUTERS/ David Becker/Nancy Wiechec/Files
    Columnists
    Get short URL
    Finian Cunningham
    304631605

    Presidential contender Hillary Clinton has warned that if her Republican rival Donald Trump makes it to the White House, it’s time to kiss goodnight to the world.

    Paradoxically, it is Hillary “the voice of reason” Clinton who is the proven warmonger and who would more likely be a bigger threat to world security. Less Commander-in-Chief, and more Commander-in-Grief.

    That the Western mainstream media can invert that fact shows how twisted and unreliable their “information” is.

    Democrat Clinton came out rhetorical guns blazing this week, excoriating the billionaire property tycoon for espousing “dangerously incoherent” ideas on foreign policy; and that his “bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies” would spark a nuclear war.

    “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear [weapons] codes — because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin,” Clinton said to rapturous applause at a rally in California. 

    Let’s be clear. This columnist is no fan of Donald J Trump. The real estate magnate's views on international politics are as dodgy as a business degree from his so-called Trump University.

    But one thing that can be said in Trump’s favor with regard to Clinton is this: he is not responsible for inciting a catalog of wars and millions of deaths in the way that Hillary Clinton actually has.

    Clinton’s track record as US First Lady, when her husband Bill was in the White House in the 1990s, followed by her years as a Senator, and then as US Secretary of State has accumulated enough evidence that would arguably allow her to be convicted as one of the biggest war criminals in recent times.

    She's publicly admitted to exhorting her husband to launch an illegal NATO war in the Balkans when US warplanes bombed Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, in 1999. That led to the unlawful secession of Kosovo, which today is a “breeding ground” of jihadist terrorism and Mafia corruption, according to a recent report in the New York Times. It was the Clintons more than any other international figures who created the failed state of Kosovo and the current instability in the Balkans – on the doorstep of Europe and Russia.

    As a congressional Senator, Hillary Clinton backed both the illegal US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which not only caused more than a million deaths and destroyed those societies, but in addition those wars exploded the phenomenon of jihadist terrorism across the globe.

    In her failed bid for the US presidency back in 2008 against Barack Obama, Clinton warned that she would order the “obliteration” of Iran in order to defend Israel if she were to become Commander-in-Chief. She was obviously alluding to her willingness to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran, yet this is the same person who says that Donald Trump should not be let anywhere near the nuclear keys to America’s arsenal.

    During her four years as Secretary of State under Obama, Clinton was the stand-out gung-ho senior member of the White House administration. It was she who pushed for the disastrous war for regime change in Libya and boasted after the murder of the country’s leader Muammar Gaddafi by US-backed jihadists in 2011. Clinton’s policy turned a once-prosperous North African nation into a charnel house, which continues to destabilize the entire region and Europe from terrorism and refugees, who are dying by the thousands as they attempt to cross the Mediterranean.

    It was Clinton who colluded with the Central Intelligence Agency, and with  Arab and Turkish despotic rogue states to ship weapons and terror brigades from Libya into Syria in order to instigate another war for regime change. That war has caused as many as 400,000 deaths and up to 10 million displaced people, compounding the mayhem of instability in the region and for Europe that was unleashed with Libya.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is also responsible for the lamentable downturn in relations between the US and Russia, after she began falsely accusing Moscow of trying to resurrect the Soviet Union and threatening its neighbors. Clinton’s reckless provocation of a new Cold War led to the Ukraine crisis, the US-backed coup d’état in Kiev in 2014 and the ongoing bloody aggression against the ethnic Russian population in the east of that country. That in turn has created the worst tensions between Russia and the US and Europe in decades, to the point where many commentators fear that a nuclear war could break out.

    If Clinton were to get elected to the White House in the November presidential contest, the prognosis for world relations is even grimmer. In her latest foreign policy “showcase speech” this week, in which she lambasted Trump, Clinton snidely referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “tyrant”. She also said that if Trump should win the presidency, then the “Kremlin would celebrate” – inferring that Russia harbors irrational enmity towards the US.

    Trump may have many faults and vulgarities. His demagogic views seem off the wall and at times repugnant. Whether he would be a danger to world peace is moot.

    But one thing is sure about Clinton. She is a warmonger of the highest order whose criminal interventions have led to millions of deaths and a world haunted by terrorism and the specter of nuclear war.

    Trump maybe a huckster, but at least he does not have blood on his hands.

    Clinton is provably far more dangerous than Trump. Laughably, she poses as a “foreign policy” mandarin and a reliable pair of hands for national security, against Trump’s “incoherent rantings”. The only thing reliable about Clinton is that she will serve Wall Street banks, the Pentagon and CIA as a rubber-stamp Commander-in-Chief to facilitate whatever overseas agenda furnishes maximum profits for these secretive power entities.

    Her so-called Clinton Foundation, set up with her husband, has received millions of dollars in grants from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf dictators. Any wonder that her foreign policies and penchant for murderous operations concurs with the regional machinations of these same despots.

    The ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton’s violation of classified government information from using her private, insecure email account is but one illustration of just how dangerous this person is. She considers herself above the law, and given her propensity to sell her policies to the highest bidder that makes for a highly corrupt and unscrupulous leader of the world’s biggest nuclear power.

    Clinton or Trump for president? It’s an abject choice either way, which shows just how degenerate American democracy has become. A recent poll indicates that most American voters do not support either candidate.

    Democrat contender Bernie Sanders is still in the race of course. Admittedly, if Sanders or Trump were to get elected, the prospect for America becoming a law-abiding peaceful nation is not much brighter, such is the endemic criminality of US foreign policy.

    However, if Hillary Clinton makes it to the White House, the outlook for the world is a whole lot worse. If she can start so many wars as a diplomat, one shudders to think of what she will be capable of as Commander-in-Grief?

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    Related:

    Majority of US Thinks Clinton Has More 'Presidential' Experience Than Trump
    Hillary Clinton's 'Greater Experience' is Not a Reason to Vote for Her
    Bolivia's Morales Considers Clinton Vs Trump Battle Irrelevant
    Tags:
    elections, 2016 US Presidential Run, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, If I may draw an analogy. Consider the USA to be the Titanic which has already struck the iceberg and is rapidly sinking. The three presidential candidates are like three maniacs fighting over who is supposed to be the captain. While the really smart passengers are figuring out ways to save themselves. This whole election has a very strong sense of preordained FATE to it. That is whoever the next president is, they are the one chosen to bring about the collapse of the country. If that means that it returns to what it originally was, I mean the good parts, then that would not be a bad thing.
    • avatar
      terryjohnodgersin reply toAnn(Show commentHide comment)
      Ann, thank you! And you are correct in that the author of this article cherry picks his 'preferences' while deliberately omitting factors that would give his article much more credibility than it garners.
    • avatar
      amin rshd
      Really, which would be obliterated? Iran? or USA? I'd say USA.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, thanks for the insightful comment - it certainly struck a nerve. To whit 'the atmosphere' or 'feel' (or as you put it 'Fate), in the us currently. This is something that people outside of the us cannot grasp. The same of course applies to the eu, Russia and everywhere else of course, but we are hearing more about the election and that's what makes it fascinating, especially when I compare what is written or shared by commentators here, with americans I have spoken with over the years at different times. It does seem that the us has changed considerably for the worse since 9/11 maybe?
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, That is an extremely complex subject to discuss with anybody not intimately acquainted with all of the dark corners of US history. Little to no history is being taught in US schools anymore, and what there is is unreliable. So many Americans, especially the younger generations, are woefully ignorant of genuine US history.

      One could begin to discuss the subject from a number of different points such as 9/11 and be quiet correct as far as it goes. But that still wouldn't help you to identify where it all started. It is my firm conviction that it started with the defeat of the CSA in the American War Between The States. Washington was fighting to establish a highly centralized Empire that would eventually go on to dominate the entire world. The Southern states were fighting to maintain for themselves the nation as it was originally established basically. The CSA didn't want to be a part of the universal Yankee nation. Slavery was only a smokescreen used to hide what was really going on. Left alone the Southern states would have ended up abolishing slavery themselves anyway. What they weren't willing to tolerate was a central government determined to control every facet of their life's. With the Southern defeat all that has happened since then has been inevitable. What I am saying is all that has come afterwards are details with the basic course already firmly set.

      So I look upon the election as just another chapter in a much longer saga. Another step on the road to world empire. The world is in the coils of the serpent and it is starting to squeeze the life out of it. This election is just the coils tightening just a little bit more.

      I don't know if this answers your question. But at least you know where it all started. One lives in a country for sixty-one years and one develops sort of a feel for the flow of things which is hard to succinctly describe to someone not intimately familiar with that country.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, sad to read that Ford's comment 'History is bunk' is coming true from an educational perspective. As is happening in many other countries (mostly the ones influenced by us educational thinking - if that isn't too much of an oxymoron?) That would also suggest that thinking skills as they might be termed are also wanting? I have also read of the 'centrality' as it were of the ACW - it more reminds me of how history is entwined and leads both forward and back, there are really no periods or other ways to divide events etc. So, yes, my question is answered and the flow is important to recognise in a country or a culture - as my wife knows well - the flow of Russia in the '90's. Thanks :)
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, While the imperialist ambitions were present in certain circles from even before the USA gained its independence from Great Britain, indeed it is why those circles wanted independence to begin with, these circles did not become dominate until after the "ACW" (As a result it is sometimes called the 2nd American Revolution.). The power of the individual states had to be forever broken in order to insure there was a highly centralized government that a world ruling empire would need. So the war was indeed a watershed event. But not just for this country, but also for the world at large. The war established the US on the path of world empire. Any nation that allows itself to be absorbed into the empire is in danger of suffering the same fates as the Southern States, or the Native American tribes, or the Hawaiians, for that matter. Citizens of other nations who genuinely care about the futures of their countries need to take these lessons to heart. Never cease to defend your rights to run your own affairs, or Washington will run them for you. I will close with a quote from the great Mexican revolutionary hero Zapata. "It is better to die on my feet than live one more day on my knees."
    • avatar
      raptorabz
      It is Hillary,Kill ary that will create more grief in the Middle East if she is president of USA , she will be 10 times worse than Obama who does not deserve the Nobel peace prize.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, it seems too that what you have stated can be applied to many countries in their histories. It seems to me to be a shared state of mind if you like. As stated before, possibly tracing the historical roots from various empires or groups. It is a worldview inherent in specific acts or pathways which people through the centuries have not recognised and avoided in their own actions and as a consequence errors have piled one on another?
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, For sure. The United States have actually made the same mistake that so many others have made before them. It stems from the feeling of welding unchallengeable power, whether or not that feeling is justified. I'm sure that others will continue to make the same mistake in the future. When a people begins to feel that they weld such power, there seems to be a natural tendency to come to believe that they are specially chosen by deity to be in that position. This is not something peculiar to the followers of any particular religion. It is a tendency that runs threw all of them throughout history. I think it is more a product of just plain human ego than anything else. Americans were oh so sure that they would never fall into the trap that others have before them. Then they wind up being even worse than the others. Every other nation that comes into a position of power must always take care that they don't fall into the same trap that Americans have. Ultimately everybody shares the same human nature. None are exempt from the danger of inflated egos. In a true warrior power walks hand in hand with humility, while a bully feels that they must constantly prove their superiority over others.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, interesting book by Joe Hyams - Zen in the Martial Arts. He gives a few nice examples about this. :)
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, I feel so strongly about the matter that I believe that political and military leaders should always have a background in Zen and the martial arts, whether or not they are Buddhists.

      Were you aware that General Giap and the other senior leaders of North Vietnam who defeated the US and its allies in the Vietnam War were all martial arts masters and that they fought the war on a mental level as such? They defeated the Pentagon whose emphasizes was on "system analyses", that is fighting a war according to computer modeling. Since we all know that with computers garbage in is garbage out, Giap and the others insured that their enemies were fed a constant stream of garbage to process. They got the idea from the martial arts where you show your opponent what he expects to see while you are actually doing the exact opposite
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, no I didn't realise that. I'm not surprised though. The approaches to war on both sides were divided by the gulf of not only culture but also of what they were fighting over - one for the government and the other, for their homeland. :)
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, South Vietnam was a corrupt dictatorship run by religious fanatics. Their military was largely composed of exploited conscript peasants and tribal peoples who were used as cannon fodder by their government. The Americans who served there were also mostly working and lower class conscripts who were there because they were forced to be and had no stake in the war themselves. The threat from communism in this case was more propaganda than anything else. With the fact that the Tonkin Gulf Incident the government used to get the US into the war never happened. The US went to war over a lie in other words. In contrast the VC and NVA were fighting for the right to run their own affairs without foreign interference. Right after the US was defeated, China invaded Vietnam and were also defeated in turn.

      The biography of Giap written by McDonald talks about the martial arts connection if you were interested. "Giap" is the books title.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, thanks I'll chase up Giap (also with a sense of deja vu :)
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, One of the most amazing things about him, as far as I'm concerned, was his humility. That also I'm sure to an extent came from his background in the martial arts. Here you have the leader of the army of a third world country which has defeated the most powerful military on the planet at the time, and still there is not the faintest trace of arrogance in him. I frankly find this amazing, and even admirable.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, I think that that attitude or state of being is part of the professional soldier - the good ones at least. I seem to remember that coming through in Zhukov's biography as well. :)
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, A really good professional soldier or general lets his actions speak for themselves. He doesn't have to impress people with his verbal posturing. In contrast a mediocrity has nothing but his mouth to impress people with. From what little I know of Zhukov's background I would agree with you about him. Of course such examples are legion down threw history.
    • avatar
      michaelin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall, I had a W/O like that once. Scary as all hell but he made us better officers.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tomichael(Show commentHide comment)
      michael, One thing that I have seen as common to all such professional soldiers is that they are always in control of their emotions. The cold blooded efficiency is at one and the same time both a little frightening and deeply encouraging if you are under their command. An individual in control of their emotions can be deadly in their efficiency as can be well seen, while at the same time being very economical with the life's of their men.

      There is also one other I have noticed. Truly successful professional officers also tend to be unusually honest people. How could it be otherwise? How can one win a battle without being honest with others and especially with oneself? This can be seen by the failure rate of the leadership of the current American military. These people come up in a system that rewards the dishonesty that the truly competent professional officer abhors. While it persecutes those leaders of high character because they pose a threat to the corrupt system.
    Show new comments (0)