I have just read Paul Craig Roberts' article "The Next Presidential Election Will Move The World Closer To War". In the article, PCR refers to an article by Glenn Greenwald entitled "Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton Candidacy". Both authors agree that the possibility of Clinton becoming President is very bad news, PCR even mentions the risk of war.
Sadly, I have to agree with both of them. Hillary is the quintessential expression of everything that is wrong with the USA, and on the heals of an absolutely disastrous presidency by Barak Obama, Hillary will have a lot to prove to herself and to her power base (which Greenwald describes in his piece). I won't repeat all the arguments of PCR and Greenwald, but I will just add that I am absolutely convinced that Hillary is both delusional enough and arrogant enough to believe that she can bully Russia, including with the use of military force. And at the risk of sounding a little naive, I would also add that I think that she is also simply an evil person.
The problem is, of course, that Russia will not back down. Not for issues which are clearly of strategic, existential, importance to her. That very much includes the Ukraine's future. I am afraid that the US will think of a military confrontation with Russia as a game of chicken when for Russia it will be a matter of survival. We all know how that can end.
Two forces might, maybe, prevent this descent into war: a hypothetical part of the ruling 1%ers who might realize how much the US would risk in such a war, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That, or an internal crisis which would draw enough energy from the Federal government to make it unable to pursue foreign imperial policies.
Either way, I have to say that I look at the future with a great deal of anxiety.
The Saker
PS: this begs the question of whether a Republicrat candidate would be any better than a Demoblican one. All I can say is that Jeb Bush is an intelligent man (at least he knows a foreign language) and that he does not appear delusional. Is that better? Maybe.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Hillary's impersonation of Julius Cesar
Hillary Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Imperial hubris at its worst: Hillary tries to sound like some new Julius Cesar.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Listening to Hillary - the sound of silence?
I just heard a joint press conference by Hillary Clinton and the Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota. During the Q&A Hillary was asked what the USA's position on the situation in Libya was and I was quite amazed to see how lame, how vapid, how completely banal her response was. I think that this shows that US diplomats are both overwhelmed, clueless and quite frightened by these developments. They seem unable to offer anything but vague pious statements about freedom, democracy, human rights and the obligatory condemnations of violence. I also think that the crisis in Libya really frightens them. Not only does Libya sit on a non-trivial amount of oil, it has a common border with Egypt, whose future is still in the balance: will the puppet-change in Egypt eventually lead to a real regime change? I would say that it is quite possible. Hence the clear mix of bafflement and fear which seems to paralyze the otherwise endlessly preaching mouths of US diplomats.
Friday, February 18, 2011
What is that crazy bitch smoking?
Listen to these words of wisdom about the situation in Afghanistan:
"They face a stark choice between war and peace, as (...) military pressure on them mounts. They cannot defeat us. And they cannot escape this choice"
Who do you think said that? Mullah Omar? Hakimullah Mehsud? Maybe Osama himself (from the word beyond, IMHO)? Nope.
She is one hell of a joker, is she not? She seriously claims that she supported the Egyptian Revolution from day 1, that there is a bloodbath in Iran, but that the killings in Bahrain are only "deplorable" and now that: Hillary is telling the Taliban that they cannot defeat the USA! That at a time when the USA spend more time in Afghanistan than the USSR and when it has comprehensively been defeated (does anybody still remember the lame US campaigns in southern Afghanistan last year?).
I usually do not refer to ladies with the word "bitch", but after much consideration I think that this term is ideally suited for Hillary. She is clearly evil to the core, without even a minor trace of decency or honesty. She is nasty and bellicose in a way Maggie Thatcher was, but unlike Maggie, Hillary is all words, she cannot deliver on any of her threats. Maggie, for all her numerous other faults, at least had a bite which matched her bark. Hillary is a toothless barker, something rather pathetic.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Hugo Chavez makes fun of Hillary Clinton :-)
(sorry guys, I only found a version with French subtitles)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Hillary is the candidate of the military-industrial complex
Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.
Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.
Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.
Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.
After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.
This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.
So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.
The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive US military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.
Mrs Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash from the arms industry is the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who raised just $32,000.
"Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts that companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House," added Mr Edsall.
The industry's strong support for Mrs Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination in the spring and the presidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than $800,000 – twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry.
Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.
Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.
Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.
Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.
After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.
This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.
So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.
The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive US military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.Mrs Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash from the arms industry is the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who raised just $32,000.
"Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts that companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House," added Mr Edsall.
The industry's strong support for Mrs Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination in the spring and the presidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than $800,000 – twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry.
Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Hillary The Republi-neo-Con And The Inner Party Push
Although other bloggers have been cited elsewhere on the Barbour, Griffith PR firm move to replace Maliki with Allawi, they have all missed the point: This is NOT a Democrat plot to undermine Republican policy in Iraq, dude: This is "The Party" shifting tactics toward open conflict with Syria and Iran. Anything else is diversionary propaganda.
Case in point: Barbour, Griffith is a Republican firm. No doubt about it. Look at the staff. But its highly paid push to replace Maliki who is veering wildly off the reservation has been picked up without skipping a beat by Democrat neocon Hillary Clinton, who has enthusiastically endorsed the replacement of Maliki. Quoth Hillary: "I share Senator Levin's hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."
Let's see here: in recent weeks Maliki has reached out to both Iran and Syria to look for solutions to the incomprehensibly murderous civil war/counter-occupation in Iraq, and for these efforts to quell the sectarian and anti-occupation violence (in other words to secure Iraq so that American troops can be safely brought home and victory legitimately declared) he is rewarded with open calls for his replacement with one who embraces the neo-con agenda of expanding the war into Iran and Syria. So who is against "success" in Iraq?
They write to Congress saying "don't you dare interfere with the success of our soldiers in Iraq." Two questions: what is success and who is interfering?
The two parties do NOT disagree about US policy in the Middle East (or Darfur or elsewhere for that matter). The Party has total unity, but for Paulian and Kucinichian flies buzzing noisily past...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
