11:07 GMT27 February 2021
Listen Live
    Get short URL

    Hillary Clinton stands a pretty good chance of winning the presidency this November. However, not everything is rosy in the garden of the Democratic hopeful as distrust is growing among American voters, according to recent polls.

    After Bernie Sanders officially endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States, she stands a much better chance of assuming the presidency.

    "How drearily predictable! You get the 'radical' 'left wing' 'socialist' candidate to build up a political movement of idealistic people thirsting for change. He then troops them off behind Hillary Clinton — the epitome of the corrupt establishment candidate — bolstering her numbers and making it more likely she gets elected," London-based political analyst Alexander Mercouris remarked in his comment for The Duran.

    However, Hillary Clinton's potential victory spells trouble for the United States, according to investigative reporter Robert Parry.

    "In Campaign 2016, the American people have shown little stomach for more foreign wars. The Republican candidates who advocated neoconservative warmongering crashed and burned, losing to Donald Trump," Parry writes in his opinion piece for Consortiumnews.com.

    "Only Hillary Clinton is carrying the neocon banner proudly in the general election, advocating a US 'regime change' invasion of Syria — dressed up as 'no-fly zones' and 'safe zones' — while she also cheers on more hostilities toward nuclear-armed Russia," he stresses.

    The investigative reporter draws attention to the fact that although Clinton admits that some of her judgments were "mistakes," such as believing the false narrative on Iraq's alleged WMDs, it seems nothing can prevent her from pushing ahead with her warmongering agenda.

    Parry continues that while the Democratic hopeful "toyed with both the democracy and humanitarian arguments," one of her official emails, released by the State Department, indicated clearly that Hillary Clinton — the US Secretary of State — had no scruples about meddling into foreign affairs of other countries using false pretexts.  

    The email Parry is referring to reveals one of reasons for the Syrian "regime change" war:

    "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad," the email stated.

    "Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted," the email, allegedly written in April 2012, underscored.

    In other words, Parry remarks, all the "humanitarian" talk about "safe zones" and other excuses for Syrian "regime change" was only the cover for a desire to ensure Israel's "nuclear monopoly."

    Furthermore, it is clear that the Clinton team went even so far as to envisage kicking off military actions against Iran.

    Paul Craig Roberts, author and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration, lambasted Hillary Clinton for being a "warmonger" in his April article for Sputnik.

    "Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya… She has pushed for 'regime change' in Syria… She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the 'new Hitler.' Hillary as president guarantees war and more war," Roberts warned.

    The investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while exchanging sensitive information has added fuel to the fire.

    Although FBI Director James Comey signaled last week that the former secretary of state would not be subjected to security or administrative sanctions, he noted that Hillary Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    These revelations have obviously undermined trust in the presidential candidate among American voters.

    Apparently therefore, the latest poll conducted by New York Times/CBS News showed that "a quarter of Democratic voters say they are disappointed in [Hillary Clinton] as the nominee; an additional seven percent say they are upset."

    Furthermore, 67 percent of respondents said Clinton was not honest and trustworthy. Interestingly enough, 62 percent of those surveyed expressed their distrust for Republican candidate Trump as well.

    "Mrs. Clinton's shifting and inaccurate explanations of her email practices at the State Department appear to have resonated more deeply with the electorate," The New York Times wrote Thursday.

    Another poll carried out by Reuters/Ipsos in early July underscored the unpopularity of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, suggesting "a strong potential for a third-party candidate," Reuters reported on July 8.

    "While there will be enormous pressure on responsible Americans not to elect the loose cannon known as Donald Trump, there are serious worries that Hillary Clinton may present her own enormous risks as President," Parry believes.


    If She Wins: These Three Clinton Decisions May Ruin US Foreign Policy
    President Killary: Would the World Survive President Hillary?
    Bernie or Burst: Sanders Backers Plan 'Fart-In' For Democratic Convention
    Middle East, US foreign policy, warmongering, 2016 US Presidential Run, U.S. Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Israel, Libya, Syria, US, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion