Hillary Clinton, Goddess of War
If any doubts linger on how Hillary Clinton will perform as an Athena – minus the wisdom – on steroids as soon as she’s elected President of the United States, here’s Exhibit A, taken from one of her debates with Bernie Sanders before the Battle of New York: “I will stay in NATO. I will stay in NATO, and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan. Most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They came to our rallying defense after 9/11. That meant a lot. And, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let’s not forget what’s really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward”.
Tell us what you feel in the comments below
Expertly weaving from 9/11 to “Russian aggression” allegedly rewriting the map of Europe, it’s all here, including two of the Pentagon’s Top Five existential threats: the first (Russia) and the last (terrorism), the others being China, North Korea and Iran (note that Hillary has always accused Tehran of “terrorism”). “We will continue to look for missions” should be read as code for more wars, and implies not – ever – admitting that Libya and Syria were major US foreign policy debacles.
In fact, Hillary even doubles down, saying she’s not done with the Middle East and would continue in the “mission” to impose democracy via whatever means necessary, from drones to R2P (“responsibility to protect”) – that neat euphemism for humanitarian imperialism.
For EU citizens, it’s useless to manifest Shock and Awe; after all, they are now faced with a war hawk who as much as admitted, on the record, for the first time in her presidential campaign, that she is actually a war hawk. As far as the “indispensable nation” (copyright Hillary’s mentor Madeleine Albright) is concerned, it will be business as usual – as in the pursuit of endless wars.
So exit the carefully cultivated P.R. image of a kind, harmless, old grandmother; this is more like Hillary channeling her inner Kissinger.
Married to the rat line
The US consulate in Benghazi was essentially a cover for a CIA rat line weapons smuggling operation privileging “moderate rebels” fighting Damascus.
Seymour Hersh was among those who uncovered it; “The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorized in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaeda”.
Now picture Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitating the shipment of SA-7 surface to air anti-aircraft missiles as well as rocket propelled grenades to al-Qaeda-linked jihadis. That’s exactly what you don’t want in your CV, especially in the middle of a nasty presidential campaign.
Hillary is already fighting a credibility war as far as her subterranean email server is concerned. Inbuilt in her personal crusade privatizing information from the US State Department may lie at least three extremely serious violations;
here ( destruction, alteration, or falsification of records);
here (converting for her use property of a US department);
and here (gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.)
The whole nation is hanging on whether US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who answers to her boss President Obama, will decide to prosecute the former Secretary of State for these violations.
As if this was not enough of a cliffhanger, former CIA head Robert Gates, a bona-fide credible source, questioned, on the record, her “judgment” and her lack of due diligence on the Libya debacle, for all practical purposes declaring that Hillary is inflammable material.
Gates revealed an open secret in the Beltway – that Hillary was totally focused on regime change in Libya; “The President told me that it was one of the closest decisions he’d ever made, sort of 51-49, and I’m not sure that he would’ve made that decision if Secretary Clinton hadn’t supported it.”
Gates later recalled Obama asking, “Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?” Colonel Qaddafi, Gates added, “was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.”
The key architect of a “liberated” Libya turned terrorist free-for-all is also a job description you don’t want on your CV in the middle of a nasty presidential campaign.
That Libyan charmer
What Gates said somewhat had already been leaked way back in March 2011; the famous late-night meeting in Paris between Hillary and Libyan “rebel” Mahmoud Jibril. Educated in the US, and quite the charmer, Jibril run rings around Hillary and “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” according to Philip H. Gordon, one of Clinton’s assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”
And that’s the clincher; it’s all about what a US administration “wants to believe”. Hillary was convinced on the spot without matching any of the rhetoric with serious assessments by the alphabet soup of US intel agencies. As the definitive catalyst for regime change in Libya, this version is more pertinent than the French fictional account of Little Napoleon Nicolas Sarkozy taking the lead spurred by that pathetic philosopher with the perpetual white shirt open on his puny solar plexus.
Libya was then Hillary’s war – as much as Iraq 2003 was the Cheney regime neo-con war. Obama as President, spurred by his Secretary of State, stepped into Libya without a Plan B, without a follow-up plan, without any long-term foreign policy strategic goal. Yet no one in the EU should expect the Goddess of War to explain her own strategic goals – be they conducted by drones, subversion, sanctions, liberation bombing or R2P. Be they in Libya, or be they in all those “missions” after she becomes President.