The dark side of Hillary
Since some weeks, the Washington Post and the New York Times are narrating, in great detail, the Libyan “deeds” of the candidate to the USA presidency, Hillary Clinton. Allegedly, she would be the one behind the intervention in Libya in 2011.
The night of March 14th 2011 is not just another night. Hillary Clinton is in Paris. Darkness already fell and it looks like the plane carrying Mahmoud Jibril, one of the main leaders of the Libyan revolt, is not going to land. It is an important meeting not just for the American history but for the planetary history. A new war is in the offing. Jibril realizes that, in order to convince Obama to wage war to Libya, one needs to convince Hilary Clinton. He will manage to do so, submerging Libya in chaos. As the New York Times observed: “Today Libya poses a humongous threat to the area safety, so much that one wonders if, rather than avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe, the intervention might not have created a different one. The plunder, during the intervention, of the colonel’s vast arsenals of weapons fueled the Syrian civil war, beefed up terrorist and criminal groups from Nigeria to to Sinai, and destabilized Mali. A growing traffic of human beings forced 250,000 refugees to move North and cross the Mediterranean, with hundreds of persons dying by drowning”. To this adds the spread of the Islamic State in Libya.
A month later Hillary Clinton and Jibril meet again, this time in Rome. A very long meeting — over an hour. Jibril pushes the intervention painting a rosy future for Libya: elections, freedom of press and of thought. Hillary is enthusiastic. Never a profhecy was more wrong.
The new face of Libya is scarred by thousands of wounds, just like the face of colonel Gheddafi, brutally killed in October 2011. The rebels rage all converged into him: kicks, punches and beatings. “We came, we saw and he died”, these are, according to the New York Times, the words Hillary said, to then at once proceed to organize her triumphal march in Lybia. But Hillary curriculum includes more than just Lybia. There is Ukraina too, as clearly explained by Diana Johnstone in Hillary Clinton Queen of Chaos (Zambon Editore). Not so much (or rather not just) in organizing protests, as in spreading anti-Russian feelings.
On the wake of the tragedy of flight 17 of the Malaysian Airlines, Kiev accuses of it the pro-Russian. There is no evidence though. Neither in favor of the Russians nor against them. But immediately Hillary, like Johnstone writes, hands to the European the line to be followed: “If there is evidence connecting Russia to this event, this should push the Europeans to do much more, on three fronts. First to stiffen their sanctions. Make very clear that there is a price to be paid. Second, (…) find alternatives to Gazprom. And third, do much more, along with us, to help the Ukranians”. This incident is used as casus belli. A world war is risked.
The 4th Decembre 20 writes Johnstone in her book, “the chamber of the USA representatives passed a bill condemning Russia for an alleged ‘armed aggression agains allied and partners of the United States’ (…). The text was approved without any debate by a majority 411 representatives, apparently uncaring, who were about to leave the hall; only ten voted against it. Such resolution might justify a war against Vladimir Putin’s Russia and, like Johnstone writes, “such superficiality shows that the problem Hillary Rodham Clinton presents is well above her as an individual and reveals the deep crisis of the American political system”.