|EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton was guarded by known Islamic ‘terrorist’ on her ‘triumphal’ tour of Lybia – less than a year before U.S. personnel were murdered in Benghazi|
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton is "trigger happy, and very unstable."
He's right about her, even though his rhetoric is equally "trigger happy, and very unstable."
Declassified or leaked Hillary Clinton E-Mails show that she and her aids took credit for leading the push for an air war against Libya. A closer look at her record on Libya including a photo op with Qaddafi's son, Mutassim Gaddafi, her silence on the dog attacks against Standing Rock Sioux protesters and other activities promising one thing during campaigns and supporting donors in office either as First Lady, Senator or Secretary of State indicates that she'll betray allies or former allies repeatedly and even laughing at Qaddafi and his son, Mutassim Gaddafi when they were tortured to death.
Hillary Clinton and her aides seemed to think it might be amusement to title their E-Mail exchange Tick Tock On Libya; it could be Tick Tock on America next if we accept this insane choice between two lunatics that, with the help of enormous coverage for them, while ignoring rational candidates, managed to get the two major nominations.
|Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was|
I went into Hillary Clinton's bad record at foreign policy previously in several previous articles including Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster; the media presents her much more positively but when it comes to the details of her worst blunders they often only cover them briefly while repeating her credentials over and over again to give those that don't do much fact checking the impression that she has lots of experience. She does have experience but when you look at the details it is obvious that her experience involves doing a terrible job, selling weapons or supporting tyrants or rebels that often get turned against us.
Her Tick Tock On Libya E-mail adds to the shallow and callous way she treats foreign policy as further indicated in the following excerpt, which the mainstream media only mentioned briefly, at most.
During her campaign she has repeatedly said that we shouldn't be coddling dictators, which sounds very good; however like many other issues, while saying one thing during campaigns she routinely does another when she's been in office. She has a long history of supporting tyrants around the world including the Honduran coup dictators, after expressing opposition for public relations purposes, the Saudi Arabian royal family, Hosni Mubarak, and even Qaddafi and his son, Mutassim Gaddafi, when it suited her purposes.
By supporting these dictators when it suited her purposes, including in 2009, when she said, “I am very pleased to welcome Minister Gadhafi here to the State Department, ... We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya,” then laughing and saying "We Came We saw, he died" she demonstrated truly incredible amounts of callousness that should raise serious doubts about her sincerity as a candidate.
Is this what we're supposed to consider the more diplomatic nominee to behave?
According to What Clinton left out about her history with Gadhafi 10/14/2015 the talks to reform relations began when her Bush came to an agreement but it accelerated when she was Secretary of State and sent David Goldwyn to explore the possibilities that they could increase business dealings with Libya. However when it no longer supported her purposes, Emails show Qaddafi son offered talks – but Clinton ordered top general to 'not take the call,' source says 10/07/2015 She seems willing to negotiate and minimize violence or look the other when it suits her political interests and the business interests of corporations that abck her; but not when it might help transition to a more rational democratic process, assuming they could work out additional details.
Additional Emails Show Hillary Clinton Briefed On Crimes Of Libyan Rebels 12/06/2016 further indicating that she may be far more concerned with business opportunities like when she famously said "It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity"
Is she more interested in serving the best interests of our country and protecting national security of looking for the best business opportunities for her campaign donors?
It may seem hard for many people to believe that she's allying herself with criminal rebels or terrorists; however the people they rely on to fight for our freedom often use the same violent tactics as the terrorists. It is only the propaganda that portrays them differently. The United States government has supported violent terrorists for decades including CIA operatives that used terrorist activities in Vietnam before it escalated into a large scale war, which was even worse; support for the Shah and SAVAK which terrorized the Iranian people; support for the mujahedin, which later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and support for the Nicaraguan Contras which included Felix Rodriguez who had direct connections to Bill Clinton in the eighties when he was governor; and these tactics haven't stopped, although the media still rarely reports on them.
Regardless of which concerns her more, this would inevitably raise serious doubts if any foreign leaders including Kim Jong-un and many others decide whether they can trust our leaders when negotiating. In Kim Jong-un's case he wouldn't be as much of a threat or perhaps he never would have risen to power if Bush hadn't abandoned the negotiations with North Korea by Jimmy Carter in the late nineties. While Clinton was Secretary of State for Barack Obama their diplomacy was just as antagonistic which is part of the reason he's such a problem. I'm not fan of many of these tyrants any more than Clinton claims to be but it's clear that they will be much more reluctant to negotiate a reasonable deal if the president is so callous that she behaves like this after betraying promises that previous leaders thought they could trust her to keep.
Are foreign leaders likely to forget this any time soon even if a large percentage of the American public is quick to forget just about everything?
It's not just foreign leaders that should doubt her credibility; she also has an incredibly long record of betraying promises to the voters she often takes for granted, who might want to remember her past positions. When she was Secretary of State she called the TPP the "Gold Standard," supported the Keystone pipeline, fracking and many other interests that damaged the environment while enabling corporations to make enormous profits. She was silent on lead poisoning problems in Flint Michigan until it became an enormous national story and is still silent on similar problems in Chrystal City Texas, East Chicago Indiana and many other locations.
Amazingly she repeatedly said that the public doesn't need someone that only comes around during campaign time.
Does she think no one will notice that is exactly what she's doing?
Has anyone heard from her about the oil companies siccing dogs on native American protesters in North Dakota? This is exactly the type of situation she seems to be implying that office holders need to act on yet she isn't even speaking out on it during the campaign let alone what she might do in office!
No one has been held accountable for giving the orders for the illegal war in Iraq or authorizing the torture at Abu Ghraib or for epidemic levels of pollution that kills millions of people every year any more than Hillary Clinton has been held accountable for her questionable, if not illegal use of a private server to hide her activities as Secretary of State; yet an arrest warrant has been put out for Jill Stein for spray painting a bulldozer.
|Jill Stein, facing possible charges for protest, calls out Dakota Access Pipeline for “vandalism on steroids”: unleashing attack dogs, endangering water and climate, and destroying sacred sites|
This kind of protest isn't the way I would like to see a good presidential candidate campaign for office, even if I do agree with her on most issues; however when the media refuses to provide coverage for sincere candidates that address the issues in a much more rational manner while giving obsession coverage to corrupt candidates that take enormous amounts of bribes, thinly disguised as campaign contributions, enabling them to appear as the only viable candidates it seems to me that the fault for these campaign tactics should lie with the media and the political establishment since they won't allow rational campaign tactics to work.
Even though Jill Stein's tactics aren't the ones I would prefer she has demonstrated an incredible amount of hypocrisy in the selective prosecuting of people who are trying to protect the environment while letting those off who are destroying it and causing thousands if not millions of premature deaths every year as a result of pollution.
Also given the choice of doing something that the media considers acceptable that has no chance of succeeding or doing something the media portrays as rebellious or unacceptable that might work or at least draw attention to the hypocrisy perhaps these methods aren't so bad at least until we have major media and political reform that enables more rational campaigning tactics to work.
During Barack Obama's visit to Laos recently he spoke about how heroic many veterans were who fought to defend our country; and even said they were heroes when they obeyed orders they didn't agree with. In the past he has often called people cowards when they went on shooting sprees ending up getting killed by much more powerful forces, often the police, including the recent shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Clearly they were not acting in a productive manner or taking justified actions to address their concerns but taking on insurmountable forces that would inevitably result in their deaths is hardly cowardly, even if it is foolish and unjustified.
The problem is that the vast majority of wars we fight have little or nothing to do with defending our country at all; they're all based on lies that have been exposed over and over again. Barack Obama ran as the anti-war candidate that was opposed to putting lobbyists in his cabinet and promised to put on a pair of "comfortable shoes" if the need came to stand up for workers rights and made many other promises during the campaign breaking most if not all of them once in office.
After World War II there was plenty of talk about how we would "never again" allow this to happen and that we need to learn about blind obeisance to authority without scrutiny. Sometimes it isn't easy to sort out the details and we don't have to advocate for the actions of those that go on shooting sprees against cops to try to reform the root causes of violence. Nor do we have to redefine what is cowardly or brave depending on which political side we're on not the dictionary definition to try to bring about rational reform.
If we can't recognize this primitive propaganda believing that as long as we obey without question we're brave and if we disobey we're cowardly and if we have to accept the incredibly horrendous choices given to us by the political establishment instead of at least trying to support alternatives, then we can't operate as a functioning democracy.
Amazingly her rhetoric on the campaign trail has become as outrageous as her diplomatic skills now that she notoriously called half of Donald Trump's followers a "Basket full of deplorables." First of all she should think carefully about her own record before saying something like that even if there might be some truth to it. She has said that she "knows how to handle people that have gone off the reservation," made in incredibly bad joke about Mahatma Gandhi on the Senate floor, said that "super_predators need to be brought to heal," and taken many temper tantrums when challenged on this by critics who saw through her propaganda including Black Lives Matter protesters and a Greenpeace advocate who accurately asked about her connections with fossil fuels and she falsely and angrily replied that she's "sick and tired of the Sanders people lying about her record," even though neither the Green peace advocate or Sanders people were doing so.
Also the problem with a large number of racists people in this country isn't anything new but no politician in history has dealt with this in such an undiplomatic manner whiteout recognizing that they should at least try to be carefully about how they address the issue. If the best way of addressing the problem involved calling people names with trying to understand the root cases of hatred was likely to work it would have already done so. As I reported previously in Cause and Effect of Hatred some of the leading causes of racism starts with early child hood abuse teaching impressionable children to ahte before they're taught critical thinking skills.
Instead of trying to teach the public about how violence at an early age escalates to more violence later in life and also leads to escalating amounts of racism the media is challenging politicians to call each other names, like when they expressed outrage when Mike Pence refused to refer to David Duke as deplorable. I'm no fan of racism but simply calling people names only escalates it. At least when it comes to many of the people that have been mislead by their political leaders for so long and abused as children there are some mitigating circumstances, that the media refuses to discus.
I'm not sure it is worth calling anyone deplorable but if there is an exception it is Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and especially the media pundits that helped create both of these nominees and the racism they're complaining about. If the media did their job and allowed many of the most credible academic sources that know how early violence escalates and teaches hatred to have air time they could do a lot to discourage racism instead they're using it for divide and rule tactics turning Americans against each other.
The media is only providing a reasonable amount of coverage for two of the most incompetent untrustworthy corrupt candidates in history and they're trying to convince us they're the only viable options.
If they actually provided equal coverage or spent much more time on the issues instead of smearing everyone it would be clear that either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein would be ten times better than these two clowns. Both of them are opposed to the constant intervention abroad and maintaining a permanent state of war based on lies. Jill Stein has indicated that one of the first thing she would do is stop selling weapons all over the world especially in areas of conflict. She's also indicated that she would do far more to improve education programs that could help reduce the escalation of violence and repair abandoned inner cities.
If we can't get Bernie back then Jill Stein is far better than either of these two clowns who are both incredibly horrible. The lesser of two evil argument is pathetic since they've both become so incredibly bad that it is hard to tell which is the worse lunatic. Also falling for that same scam only ensures that they will do it every time.
If there is a candidate that has a better chance of getting elected that is worth supporting it is Bernie Sanders if as it appears more likely Clinton's campaign falls apart because of her health care problems, more leaks of her E-mails and her incredibly bad record.
However even if we do manage to get either Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders in office the most important work will still have to be at the grassroots level. This needs to include major reformers in the interview process before the next elections so that we can check out the most credible candidates instead of only those that take the most bribes, disguised as campaign contributions.
I consider both Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders much better than the other clowns; however if we had a reasonable election process we might hear from people that are even better in the future.
This won't solve all the problems but once you stop doing the things that make things worse and start listening to many of the more reliable sources routinely rejected by traditional politicians who are more concerned with corporate profits than learning about how to take care of social problems then they can figure out what many of the other solutions are.
We won't be able to do that with Clinton or Trump and even Johnson hasn't been as inclined to recognize many of these solutions but as I indicated in Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit some people at the grassroots level have already learned how to reverse some of these problems over the opposition of the political establishment.
If we could learn from those that really understand the problems instead of campaign donors solely interested in increasing their return on their investment then major steps can be taken in the right direction!
Julian Assange exposes Hillary Clinton’s “Libya Tick Tock” email: A step-by-step guide to destroy Libya 08/29/2016
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton was guarded by known Islamic ‘terrorist’ on her ‘triumphal’ tour of Lybia – less than a year before U.S. personnel were murdered in Benghazi 12/28/2016
Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was 03/02/2016
Clintons, Contras and Cocaine 03/11/2016
You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy It's been 70 years since we fought a war about freedom. Forced troop worship and compulsory patriotism must end 11/09/2014
Bill McKibben: Hillary Clinton needs to take a stand on the Dakota Access Pipeline 09/07/2016
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Calls for Investigation of Dog Attacks on Native American Protesters 09/06/2016
My only disagreement with Pat Bell is that I'm not sure she's making the decisions at all. Bizarre as it sounds both candidates may be playing their roles for some unexplained reason which is bigger than this election; however if the majority of the public accepts this absurd choice instead of election credible candidate that actually responds to the public's interests it will indicate that they're incapable of participating in the Democratic process as long as the consolidated media is rigging the coverage for corrupt candidates of their choice.