If there is any lingering doubt 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 other member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They rallied to our 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 wasn’t there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”
Expertly weaving from 9/11 to “Russian aggression” having the potential to change the face of Europe, she covers it all, mentioning all of the Pentagon’s Top Five existential threats: the first (Russia) and the last (terrorism), and the others being China, North Korea and Iran (note that Hillary has always accused Tehran of “terrorism”). “We will continue to look for missions” is basically 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 isn’t finished with the Middle East and would continue in the “mission” to impose democracy via whatever means necessary, from drones to R2P (“responsibility to protect”) – a cute way of calling for humanitarian imperialism.
For EU citizens, there isn’t any time for shock and awe; after all, they are now faced with a candidate who more or less 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 is the pursuit of endless wars.
So let end end the charade of this carefully cultivated P.R. image, of a kind, harmless, old grandmother; when what we really have is a Hillary revealing she has more of Kissinger’s personality inside her.
Married to the “rat line”
The US consulate in Benghazi was essentially a CIA cover, used as a rat line for weapons smuggling operations for “moderate rebels” fighting Damascus.
Seymour Hersh was among those who uncovered this reality; “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 enemy. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaeda.”
Now, just 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 jihadists. 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 hidden email server is concerned. The consequences of her personal crusade to privatise information from the US State Department may lie at least three extremely serious violations;
The whole nation is waiting on the decision of US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who answers to President Obama, on whether she will decide to prosecute the former Secretary of State with these violations.
As if this was not enough of a cliffhanger, former CIA director 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 a loose cannon.
Gates revealed an open secret in the tri-state area – that Hillary was totally focused on regime change in Libya; “The President told me that it was one of the hardest decisions he’d ever made, sort of a 51-49 situation, 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.”
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 had in part 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 said to be quite the charmer, Jibril ran 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. We wanted to believe him.”
And that was the final straw; it’s all about what a US administration “wants to believe”. Hillary was instantly convinced without reviewing any of these silver tongued words with factual assessment through the numerous US intelligence agencies.This can be identified as the definitive catalyst for what was the forthcoming regime change in Libya, and is far more pertinent than the fictional French account given by “Little Napoleon” Nicolas Sarkozy who had taken command spurred by that pathetic philosopher with the perpetual white shirt open on his puny solar plexus.
As a result of these factors, Libya became Hillary’s war – just as Iraq in 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 goals. 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.