The Cynicism of Hillary 346


Hillary Clinton’s completely unfounded claim that Russia was behind the passing to WikiLeaks of Democratic National Committee documents was breathtakingly cynical. It was a successful ploy in that it gave her supporters, particularly those dominating mainstream media, something else to focus on other than the fact that the DNC had been busily fixing the primaries for Hillary.

It was however grossly irresponsible – an accusation that a US Secretary of State would hesitate to make in public even at the height of the Cold War. It raises further the tensions between the World’s two largest nuclear armed powers, and plays into the mood of rampant Russophobia which we are seeing whipped up daily in the press. With the Ukraine and Syria as points of major tension, to throw such an accusation wildly in defence of her own political ambitions, shows precisely why Hillary should never be US President.

This is all the more true as not only did Hillary have no evidence of Russian involvement, she almost certainly knows the allegation is completely baseless.

Which brings me to the curious murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer killed by an armed street robber who left Rich’s gun, watch, cash and wallet. WikiLeaks have offered an award of US $20,000 for information on his assassination. This does not indicate that it was Rich who leaked the emails. It does indicate that WikiLeaks are aware of profound shenanigans involving the Hillary campaign, and are putting effort and resources into piecing together the picture.

Liked this article? Please share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts


346 thoughts on “The Cynicism of Hillary

1 2 3
    • Eric Smiff

      Assange is heavily indicating that Rich was Wikileaks source and that he was murdered. As someone who believes Assange is an intelligence glove puppet, I wouldn’t be surprised that Wikileaks revealed his name to the authorities.

    • MastaBaba

      He also claimed he redacted personal credit card details, which is the opposite of what the media reported after the DNC leak. Who is right?

  • Martinned

    completely unfounded claim that Russia was behind the passing to WikiLeaks of Democratic National Committee documents

    Ooh, do tell! What do you know that we don’t?

  • Martinned

    rampant Russophobia

    Yes, poor innocent Putin, innocent as freshly fallen snow yet unfairly maligned by all the world. Whatever did he do to deserve that? (Well, other than invade and/or destabilise just about every country on his borders and beyond, while ruthlessly crushing any semblance of democracy or human rights protection back home.)

        • craig Post author

          No they just bomb them, invade them, use depleted uranium and white phosphorus on them, set up puppet governments or destroy any effective governments, or arrange coups by military leaders, then seek to control their resources through “legitimate” commerce.

          Martinned you are not nearly as stupid as you purport to be in this thread.

          • Martinned

            I apologise. Sometimes I am temporarily overwhelmed by your moral bankruptcy, treating anything even Bush jr. has done as equivalent to what the Russians do on a daily basis.

          • Manda

            You forget crippling, often decades long severe sanctions inflicted on target countries/states.. Iraqi men women and especially children suffered terribly under the UK/US administered UN sanctions before the criminal and brutal assault in 2003.

          • Goodwin

            @Manda
            The problem wasn’t the UN Sanctions, it was what Saddam chose to spend the $4bn – £10bn pa oil proceeds on. Booze and fags for the cronies seemed preferable to food and medicine for the great unwashed.

          • Manda

            Goodwin, here’s just one documentary. If you search you will find tons of evidence of what the sanctions meant. Oil for food was a corrupt scheme as far as I understand it and are the UN/UK/US so dim they couldn’t see their measures would force the population into horrific depravations.

            http://johnpilger.com/videos/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq

            Punishing a whole population to force your will on a Dictator is an inherently dubious method if you have an ounce of common sense or humanity. Hey, if that don’t work just bomb the country to smithereens… that will make chaos and carnage you can deal with to meet ‘your’ goals.

          • Martinned

            Wait, so sanctions are bad, and overthrowing the dictator is also bad, so there are supposed to be no consequences for war crimes, and no attempt ever at actually getting rid of a dictator? I mean, in a given case doing nothing can be the best course of action, but to claim that it’s the only thing that’s ever acceptable is a bit much.

          • Manda

            Martinned
            August 11, 2016 at 18:30

            “Wait, so sanctions are bad, and overthrowing the dictator is also bad, so there are supposed to be no consequences for war crimes, and no attempt ever at actually getting rid of a dictator? I mean, in a given case doing nothing can be the best course of action, but to claim that it’s the only thing that’s ever acceptable is a bit much.”

            The citizens would eventually get rid of their dictator but funnily enough western powers often support the dictator in various ways. Western powers like dictators because they keep citizens repressed and unable to demand a share in the wealth from their countries resources. How about ‘we’ stop going round the world interfering in countries to force them to our economic will and trade with them fairly and above board? Societies might sort themselves out and make progress if left alone, you never know…

        • Andrew

          “Yup, because Western leaders also routinely go around annexing random countries” (August 11, 11.45)

          1845 – US annexed Texas
          1858 – US annexed Johnston Atoll
          1859 – US annexed the Palmyra Atoll
          1867 – US annexed Midway Islands
          1898 – US annexed Hawaii
          1898 – US annexed Puerto Rico
          1898 – US annexed Guam
          1899 – US annexed American Samoa
          1899 – US annexed Wake Island
          1904 – US annexed Manua
          1922 – US annexed Kingman Reef
          1925 – US annexed Swains Island

          1282 – England annexed Wales
          1796 – Britain annexed Sri Lanka
          1832 – Britain annexed Graham Land
          1842 – Britain annexed Hong Kong
          1877 – Britain annexed Transvaal
          1852 – Britain annexed Burma
          1908 – Britain annexed parts of Antarctica
          1914 – Britain annexed Cyprus
          1914 – Britain annexed Egypt
          1955 – Britain annexed Rockall
          (The list of British annexations is only a sample!)

      • Paul Barbara

        Which Western leader answers questions from journalists with the ease, and I would say apparent honesty, of Vladimir Putin?
        Who ‘tells it like it is’ so effortlessly, and doesn’t waffle ‘divert the discourse’?
        Which Western leader does not want war, is happy to trade with all, and hasn’t surrounded his country’s ‘enemies’ or potential ‘conquests’ with military bases (the latter is referring to US bases, of course)?
        Who doesn’t invade countries in order to effect ‘Regime Change’ on totally spurious grounds?

    • Tom Welsh

      “Well, other than invade and/or destabilise just about every country on his borders and beyond, while ruthlessly crushing any semblance of democracy or human rights protection back home”.

      What utter balls. The nations that border on Russia are:

      1. USA (across the narrow Bering Strait). Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized the USA, nor does it have any interest in doing so.
      2. North Korea. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized North Korea, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are on quite friendly terms.
      3. China. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized China, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements and having set up financial institutions in partnership.
      4. Mongolia. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Mongolia, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements.
      5. Kazakhstan. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Kazakhstan, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements.
      6. Azerbaijan. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Azerbaijan, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements.
      7. Georgia. Russia has not destabilized Georgia, although the Georgian governments threats to join the anti-Russian aggression alliance NATO can only be seen as extremely hostile to Russia. In 2008, in response to unprovoked Georgian attacks on two far smaller neighbours, Russia counterattacked and brought Georgia to its knees in a matter of days. It then pulled out all its forces and left Georgia completely independent.
      8. Ukraine. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Ukraine, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Russia used to support Ukraine with extensive subsidies, which have ceased since the violent US-orchestrated putsch in Kiev two years ago and the subsequent systematic persecution and murder of Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens. The US government presumably hoped for Russia to invade Ukraine, but it did not take the bait. Russia has treated Ukraine as well as any nation could conceivably treat a less powerful neighbour that is so ruthlessly antagonistic to it that it sends its armed forces to exterminate hundreds of thousands of its own people and forbids the speaking of their language (Russian).
      9. Belarus. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Belarus, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements.
      10. Latvia. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Latvia, nor does it have any interest in doing so. As in the case of Ukraine, Russia has been patient considering the ill-treatment of the many ethnic Russians unfortunate enough to be living in Latvia.
      11. Estonia. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Estonia, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Indeed, the two nations are firm friends, having signed wide-reaching trade and defence agreements. As in the case of Ukraine, Russia has been patient considering the ill-treatment of the many ethnic Russians unfortunate enough to be living in Latvia.
      12. Finland. Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Finland, nor does it have any interest in doing so. Many Finnish politicians and others insist on slandering Russia, but public opinion is surprisingly friendly to Russia.

      So the only two countries out of Russia’s 12 direct neighbours that have had any trouble with it are Georgia and Ukraine – both of whose governments, egged on by Washington, did their level best to start wars with Russia by attacking and killing Russians and Russian speaking civilians without the slightest provocation.

      As for democracy, polls conducted by leading American corporations repeatedly show that President Putin’s public approval rating is well above 80%. The latest equivalent polls show President Obama’s approval rating in the USA between 50% and 56%. Which of these do you think demonstrates a more democratic government? (At least Obama does better than the US Congress, which – only one year after it was, supposedly, elected – has a popularity rating of 13%).

      Finally, since the break-up of the USSR the USA has launched vicious and entirely unprovoked attacks on Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria which resulted in the destruction of the Yugoslav, Iraqi, Afghan, Somali, and Libyan states and the reduction of those countries to chaos and anarchy. In Iraq alone, the US invasions have resulted in at least 2.8 million well-documented deaths. The number of governments the USA has set out to overthrow, and the nations it has attempted to destabilize, are too many to list but certainly amount to dozens.

      • Ian Fairbairn

        Nice one Tom. I truly fear this endless Russian-Bear baiting and propaganda being peddled by Hilary Clinton and her MSM useful idiots. What a situation – when the election of a twit like Trump could look like the safer bet for the US and the world.

      • Martinned

        I’m not going to respond to every bit of nonsense here, but I thought I’d pick this one out:

        Russia has been patient considering the ill-treatment of the many ethnic Russians unfortunate enough to be living in Latvia

        This seems to be based on the premise that Russia has some kind of responsibility to look after “ethnic Russians” living abroad – as opposed to Russian citizens – and that it would be entitled to take action against Latvia or any other country that, in the judgment of Czar Vladimir, mistreats ethnic Russians. Care to explain where that one comes from?

        • Loony

          It would appear that no argument is too ridiculous for you provided always that it supports your anti Russian agenda.

          What has Russia got to do with you? There is no obligation for people to share your world view, so why not just leave people alone.

          If you refuse to leave people alone, then what are you going to do about it? Every time in history that someone thought they knew better the Russians have responded by creating vast mounds of corpses. How millions of people do you propose should die just to feed your ego?

      • Martinned

        OK, I just noticed another one. This one is so ridiculous that it can only be ascribed to a significant Russian paycheck.

        Russia has neither invaded nor destabilized Ukraine

        I’ll just leave that one there.

  • clansaorsa

    Clinton, like the previous member of the family involved in the U.S. political system (I hesitate to use a male/female distinction), is clearly, as you say Craig, a devious liar – but America will have a new president in just a few months and there is no doubt it will be Hilary or Donald Trump.
    So, having set about one, what are your views on the other? Which would you like to see as boss and why?
    clansaorsa

          • michael norton

            Something to be aware of, as The Russia-Syria cooperation is just on the cusp of “winning” the war in Syria,
            in my oppinion started by Turkey, U.S.A. & Saudi,
            Clinton -Obama are about to set up a no-fly zone over Syria.
            This is all about America stopping Russia using its naval base in Syria, for Saudi it is about imposing Sunni restrictions on Syria, for Turkey it is about grabbing more land from Syria.

          • michael norton

            No permanent strategic bombers & nukes in Syria but Khmeimim base to be enlarged – Russian senator
            https://www.rt.com/news/355516-khmeimim-base-russia-enlargement/

            Russia’s military base in Khmeimim, Syria, will be converted to make it a permanent site, a Russian senator has said. After various questions are agreed with the Syrian authorities, the base will have extended operational capabilities.

            Moscow is committed to project its military power into Syria and transform the Khmeimim airfield into a full-fledged military base with a permanently deployed task force, Deputy Head of the Upper House Committee for Defense and Security Frants Klintsevich told Izvestia daily.

          • MJ

            “Clinton -Obama are about to set up a no-fly zone over Syria”

            There is already a de facto no-fly zone over Syria, which is why the US no longer flies there.

          • michael norton

            On Radio 4
            they have just been saying the Russians/Syrians are dropping barrel bombs of gas onto Aleppo,

            something must be done to stop them!

      • CanSpeccy

        I could never vote for either of them. I really don’t have a preference.

        Time to get out of politics then, for as John Kenneth Galbraith remarked, “In politics you have to decide.”

  • MJ

    “to throw such an accusation wildly in defence of her own political ambitions, shows precisely why Hillary should never be US President”

    Not to mention the fact that she’s a big-time crook who made most of the US’s military secrets publicly available on her mail server. How have the Russians managed to build a device that can jam US military electronic systems, including Aegis? Clinton should be in gaol.

  • Mick McNulty

    I don’t know if an ailing Hillary will survive her first term as President but I’m sure there are a million Muslims who will not.

    • Martinned

      Because a President Clinton would unleash a Muslim genocide on the world? Are you sure you don’t have the candidates mixed up?

        • glenn_uk

          Ah, thanks Martinned. Not being a fan of the much-unlamented, undearly departed liar Andrew Breitbart, or the website he created which peddles nothing but lies, I hadn’t heard of this particular falsehood.

          The disinformation and outright falsehoods from sites like Brietbart, The Blaze, Prison Planet and so on, make our gutter-press look positively virtuous by comparison.

      • Mick McNulty

        There is a photo of her being helped up a small flight of maybe ten steps. One of her aides is thought to be a doctor who carries what looks like a diazepam injector-pen to calm her if she has an anxiety attack, which she is said to suffer if anybody asks her anything off-script. In the comments section of this ANP page there are other images posted by readers, one of which shows a stain at the back of her skirt which is either incontinence or an embarrassing accident people like her don’t make, while her new style of wearing long jackets is said to hide incontinence pads.

        http://allnewspipeline.com/Hillary_Clinton_Physically_Mentally_Unfit.php

        She’s 68 so no spring chicken. We don’t have to be doctors to know complications can set in at that age and from some of her recent photos she doesn’t look fully competent, and unlike others of the elite I don’t think she’ll see eighty.

    • Alan

      “I don’t know if an ailing Hillary”

      You aren’t referring to the allegation in certain quarters that she has Parkinson’s Disease?

      • MJ

        She appears to suffer regular blackouts, episodes of metal confusion and can’t walk up stairs unaided. Don’t know what that’s called but but it doesn’t make for good presidential material.

          • MJ

            She’s not. These details are taken from simple observation of her behaviour in public. Her medical records have not been released, which is why there’s only speculation regarding the identity of the problem.

          • Martinned

            Yes, an the same goes for the financial position of the Donald, the sources of his income, the identity of his business partners, etc. Which is why I drew the analogy…

        • fred

          Roosevelt had problems walking up stairs unaided as well but it didn’t stop him being president.

          • Martinned

            Yes, but didn’t you hear? Roosevelt was a shill for the Germans! How could he not be, given his decades of public service and his ties to other wealthy families?

          • michael norton

            Winston could not walk up stairs most evenings, he was drunk
            but he still won the war.

          • Neil Anderson

            Winston Churchill didn’t win the war. The men who went and killed other men from different countries “won” the war. Divide and conquer. The Romans were very clever.

        • Alan

          Citing his “15-year background in drug discovery and pharmaceuticals,” Shkreli asserts that the videos of Hillary’s strange facial movements and her difficulties with walking are “pretty unmistakable signs of Parkinson’s disease.”

          As somebody with PD myself, yes, nothing like a bit of stress to send you into mental confusion. If she has PD, allowing her to be POTUS is complete insanity. As for having the PD tremor with your finger on the big red button…

          • Njegos

            The vote-rigging consists not just in the DNC’s anti-Sanders strategy but the whole superdelegate system. Hillary had 500 superdelegates lined up before the primaries even began. The idea, of course, was the convince voters of the inevitability or her nomination and discourage people from choosing “losers” like Sanders.

            If that isn’t vote-rigging then I don’t know what is.

          • Martinned

            That’s not vote rigging. That’s a transparent system for choosing a nominee that is complied with by all. No rigging of any kind taking place. This, on the other hand, is vote rigging: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/88661

            (And I shudder to think that this might need repeating, but you know that superdelegates weren’t actually committed to do anything right? They weren’t committed to voting for Mrs. Clinton at any time, they weren’t even required to turn up to the convention in the first place.)

          • Martinned

            By that logic, the method for electing US Senators is also vote rigging, since it also deviates from one-man-one-vote, albeit in a transparent way, known to all. You can’t reasonably apply the label “vote rigging” to a procedure that was fixed in advance and known to all.

          • Njegos

            It is systematic vote-rigging. It was brought in by the party establishment in the 70s to avoid another McGovern fiasco. HRC was the darling of the establishment hence the huge head start.

            As I say, the idea is not merely to stack the odds in the establishment candidates favoured but to convince other voters of the futility of going for a “fringe” candidate.

            The irony is even that wasn’t enough. Things didn’t go according to script and the DNC panicked at Sanders’ unexpected popularity which is why they went into overdrive to undermine him.

            Yet we are supposed to believe that Putin is undermining US democracy.

          • Martinned

            Political parties’ primaries are not elections, they are internal party-political events. As such, political parties are entitled to organise them in whatever way they please, and it’s difficult to see what the objection is to the Democratic Party’s rulebook, given that all the rules of the game were known in advance to all. The Republicans had different rules, and the Green Party had different rules again. Now they all have a nominee, and it’s time for the general election, which we judge by higher standards.

            It’s the same in the UK. Whatever weird rules the Labour party has set up to choose a leader is no one’s business, as long as they follow them. What the NEC got smacked down for on Monday was not following its own rules.

          • Njegos

            Your argument seems to be that since the process is transparently undemocratic and weighted towards establishment-approved figures, there is nothing wrong with it.

            Just as I suppose you would argue that there is nothing wrong with a candidate accepting big money from Wall Street or AIPAC because such systematic corruption is part of “the rules of the game”.

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • Martinned

            Candidates for public office should be severely constrained in who they can take money from. But if that’s not legally possible, transparency is the next best thing.

            And yes, I’m quite convinced that we’re going to have to agree to disagree about a great many things. Don’t worry, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

          • Njegos

            “Don’t worry, I won’t lose any sleep over it.”

            Why should I care whether you lose any sleep over it?

    • Loony

      Who would dare to suggest that the Democratic Party would ever be involved with vote rigging?. What a calumny. What kind of fair minded person would bother reading the 20,000+ e-mails that confirm vote rigging? Why would this be remotely interesting.

      Take this article as an example

      http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

      Journalists that write stories like this should understand that time is being wasted. Surely the most important task is to smear Donald Trump.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    I call it her narcissism, especially since her life is at stake.

    There are all kinds of cynics about everything who get along quite well no matter what they say or do.

  • Loony

    Hillary Clinton surrounds herself with only the very best and most enlightened people.

    Take for example one Bob Beckell a CNN host and Democrat strategist. A man who has identified Julian Assange as a “treasonous traitor”

    Mr. Beckell not only identifies the problem he identifies the solution live on TV. Naturally Assange should be assassinated. Demonstrating his competence as an all round strategist Mr. Beckell reduces the solution to a catchy soundbite “Forget due process – just kill the son of a bitch”

    • Mick McNulty

      Typical Americans, they fail to grasp that as an Australian Julian Assange cannot be a traitor to America. He could be a spy, but not a traitor. I think because the sun rises over their east coast and sets over their west coast they think the whole world’s America.

      • Tom Welsh

        “I think because the sun rises over their east coast and sets over their west coast they think the whole world’s America”.

        They think the whole world *belongs to* America.

        FTFY. There will be no charge.

  • Republicofscotland

    Ah, Hillary Clinton, what’s left to be said about her that hasn’t already been said.

    Her donors and sponsors list are long and packed with the usual financial institutes and pharmaceutical companies.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-24/heres-full-list-organizations-paid-hillary-clinton-2013-2015

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

    It has been alleged that even Saudi Arabia has helped fund her POTUS campaign.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

    Article on the web can also be found, that claim Clinton’s fast and loose approach with sensitive security based e-mails, could’ve led to the death of an Iranisn scientist.

    We know that Clinton is a war hawk, and has often made noises, on coming down hard on Iran, if she’s elected as POTUS.

    On the otherhand Trump, doesn’t appear to be any better with his anti-just about everything rhetoric.

    There are millions of American’s who don’t vote and millions more who are disinfranchised and can’t obtain a vote due to the system. It seems to me that American’s are stuck with the two horse race, that ultimately has in the long run the same goals.

    A bit like the Blairites and the Tories, two parties one goal.

  • harrylaw

    Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell has just publicly endorsed Hilary Clinton, in an interview on the Charlie Rose show he said the US should Kill Russian and Iranian troops in Syria. Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
    Morell also proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, including government offices, aircraft and presidential guard positions.
    Sounds like he is singing for his supper and a lucrative job in the Clinton crime family.
    The man is a complete moron, unfortunately he could be one of the next leaders of the “exceptional nation”, “the shining city on a hill”, “the indispensable nation” and all that unbelievable crap. Gawd help us all.

    • nevermind

      Thanks for mentioning this wimp, harrylaw
      So we change his title slightly, to Mayor moron and former loser, CIA director Michael Morell, I’m sure Judge Pirro could find other names for him, is sucking up to a not so well Shillary.

      the disgrace to the intelligence community is touting himself for a job after the Benghazi f..k up he was part of.
      Now, what would happen if she anoints her husband as her vice president, should Tim kayne drop out for some reason or other, and she then dies of a mysterious illness we never knew?

      What if House of Rep.s and Senators come to an agreement that both presidential candidates are declared mentally unfit to rule Neoconia? Now that would be the only rescue option I can see for this madness to stop, the only way a new choice could be offered to American voters, a new choice for life.

      http://thelastamericannewspaper.com/cooking-the-news-with-cbsn/cia-deputy-director-michael-morell-is-a-disgrace-to-the-intelligence-community/

    • Tom Welsh

      ‘Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”’

      I hope he has the opportunity to meet and visit with some Spetsnaz. They may be willing to show him how that kind of thing is done.

    • Njegos

      Harry:

      Morell is a crackpot. The biggest con of the Clinton team is to persuade voters that she is a safe pair of hands.

  • harrylaw

    Just to add to my comment above, This is the definition of terrorism. It violates the UN charter, he is advocating a grave war crime. If he was to say this as a member of the Government it could constitute an act of war.

  • Republicofscotland

    Staying on Hillary Clinton, the father of Omar Mateen, (the man who “killed” 49 people at a gay club in Florida), Seddique Mateen, has been spotted at a campaign event for dear old Hillary in central Florida.

    Mr Mateen was standing in a crowd behind Clinton during Monday’s event. It’s no secret that Hillary has spoken out in favour of gun control in America, of which Trump has recently hit back at.

    If one were minded to, they could draw a line between the shootings in Florida, Clinton’s gun control, and the Mateen’s. But we’ll leave that for another day shall we.

    • Martinned

      Why be so modest? From your evidence, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton had all those people in Orlando murdered so that she could gain votes in a key swing state!

  • Njegos

    Speaking of Wikileaks, looks like the Swedes have cried “uncle”:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/11/julian-assange-to-be-questioned-inside-embassy-as-ecuador-agrees-to-set-date

    But note the Guardian spin. You would think from the headline that it was Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy who had caved in to a meeting with the Swedish prosecutors inside the embassy!

    Why didn’t The Guardian choose the title “Swedish prosecutors back down on refusal to question Assange in embassy” ?

    Just how stupid does The Guardian think we are?

    • Manda

      “Speaking of Wikileaks, looks like the Swedes have cried “uncle”:”

      I find this a very worrying development based on the timing. I fear greatly for Assange’s safety.

      • Martinned

        So if an EAW is issued for Assange, it’s a conspiracy to hurt him, and if the EAW were to be withdrawn, that would also be evidence of a conspiracy to hurt him? Wow…

        • Manda

          I am referring to the timing of Sweden to interview Assange in person at the Embassy. they could have done it months/years ago! Why now?

          • Martinned

            Because someone somewhere gave up hope on ever getting him to actually come out of there? (Or at least before the statute of limitations on the alleged offence runs out, as it did for the others.)

          • Njegos

            You could be right about the timing. Wikileaks is doing big damage to HRC and Assange has promised more revelations. Co-incidence? Maybe the idea is to drop the charges to lure him out of the Embassy.

            In any event, the article confirms the pathetic bias of the Guardian.

  • Republicofscotland

    Craig.

    This site claims the opposite, that Hillary Clinton has and has had business dealing and connections with Russia. It also claims that Trump had been trying unsuccessfully, I might add, since the 1990’s to set up hotels in Russia.

    I should add the site claims that it’s Julian Assange and Wikileaks, that have provided the information.

    It could be one possible reason as to why Clinton is attempting to demonise Russia, and it could explain why Trump isn’t terribly hostile towards Putin or Russia.

    You can decide for yourself.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/08/wikileaks-assange-hillary-tries-to-link-trump-to-putin-to-hide-her-many-connections-to-russia-video/

    • Republicofscotland

      More sleaze on the Clinton trail, that allegedly involved Russia.

      “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved a series of deals that gave Russia’s atomic energy agency control of one-fifth of the uranium produced in the U.S. as major stakeholders in the transaction donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charity-donors-profited-from-russian-deal-for-us-uranium/#ixzz4H1ujUiJ9

      • Tom Welsh

        “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved a series of deals that gave Russia’s atomic energy agency control of one-fifth of the uranium produced in the U.S. as major stakeholders in the transaction donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

        Oh, how horrible! How ghastly!! You mean they were proposing to let Russians own strategic US resources, just as they want the Russians to let Americans own their strategic resources? Just as if Russians were as good as Americans, and Russia was as good as the USA? Shame! Traitors! Treasonous traitors! Murder them illegally!!!

    • Manda

      As far as I can see multinational and banking elite interests have no barriers and warmongering and war are also a very lucrative profit streams. This is one reason we see such apparent contradictions. Many politicians are deeply involved or just willing or coerced puppets, as they say… follow the money/wealth flow.

      I am pretty convinced the world is now dominated by and at the mercy of a loose cabal of ruthless robber barons and the numerous networks they have built over many decades.

  • nevermind

    Another person in a long line of people who died in mysterious circumstances. I believe the list is now up to over eighty unexplained, some apparent suicides, death surrounding services to or dealings with the Clinton’s.

    Thanks to Paul Barbara for educating our resident solicitor/judge/whatever in a little historic reality, although he missed out mentioning which western leaders benefited from the Iran Contra affair, arms for coke, and or various other South American coups.

    I would have thought that such knowledge comes off the peg in higher education, just shows how wrong one can be.

  • Martinned

    Leaving all these silly conspiracy theories to one side for the moment, I’m curious: What’s up with this constant desire of the extreme left to eat your young? You’re like those Muslim fundamentalists constantly waging war on everyone who is slightly less or differently fundamentalist than they are. Why do you guys feel the need to spend so much time and effort on the character assassination of the candidate that any sane left-wing person (as in: anyone to the left of Enoch Powell) would prefer over the alternative?

    And, a related question, what’s up with this “I’m not/would not vote for either of them” BS? Like Sarah Silverman said, you’re being ridiculous. When it comes to actions on the ground, there is virtually no difference between Clinton and Sanders, in terms of voting record. You lost, why not support the candidate who is obviously the next best alternative?

    I’m genuinely puzzled, because I’d have thought I’d have less skin in this game than you guys. After all, there are whole piles of Republicans that I would vote for over Mrs. Clinton. Donald Trump is just – most definitely – not one of them. But I don’t have any particular ideological fondness for her. I just prefer to have a US president with some kind of proven ability at a) holding political office, and b) politics. But everyone else in this thread is on her side, ideologically speaking. So why the eagerness to deny that in every breath?

    • Loony

      What conspiracy theories do you have in mind?

      It cannot be that the Democratic Party is involved in vote rigging as that is proven fact. Similarly it is proven fact that Hillary behaved with recklessness in regard of her usage of private e-mail servers. It is fact that Comey stated that someone who behaved like Hillary would not qualify for any kind of job in the FBI.

      It is proven fact that close aides/advisers to Hillary have called for a program of extra judicial killings.

      There are a number of conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton foundation – but also some known facts. For example the Government of Norway claims to have donated $80 million but the Clinton foundation claims receipts of only $30 million.

      It is fact that the effect of Clinton’s actions was to sell uranium to Russia in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation.

      It is fact that a number of people closely associated with Clinton have met strange and unexpected deaths. For example John Ashe, a former UN.official was scheduled to offer testimony against Hillary Clinton in a corruption case. However he did not do so due to accidently killing himself by crushing his own throat whilst weight lifting.

      Are you sure you are not confusing the word “conspiracy/” with the word “fact”?

      • Martinned

        Yeah, that’s the very definition of non-responsive. I proposed leaving the silly conspiracy theories to one side for a moment, and instead of answering my questions your response simply lists them. Way to go!

    • Republicofscotland

      I wonder if there was an outcry when Rutte’s junior party in the coalition backed Dutch F16 fighters to begin bombing in Syria. One has to make comparisons along the same lines as those Labour members who backed the war in Iraq. When comparing Rutte sucking up to the VVD.

      Still the Netherlands had to be put under pressure from Nato and the EU, to engage in the bombing sorties. If Clinton does become POTUS, I’m sure no such pressure will be required.

      • Martinned

        The Netherlands has two social democratic parties, a Blairite one and a Corbynista one. Only the former is in government at the moment.

        • Republicofscotland

          I can’t say I’m surprised by that, I wonder if Rutte will by his party’s actions in Iraq and Syria, suffer the same fate as Jan Peter Balkenende, did over his and his cabinets actions in Afghanistan in 2010. Which from what I’ve read were deeply unpopular with the public.

          Again there are comparisons with the Blair’s, Bushes and Clinton’s of this world albeit on a smaller scale.

          • Martinned

            All politicians are deeply unpopular at the moment, except the ones that tell people what they want to hear. We’re heading for a four-party coalition.

            http://www.ipsos-nederland.nl/ipsos-politieke-barometer/barometer-van-deze-week

            (This graphs shows seats – out of 150 – rather than % of votes, so you need 76 for a majority coalition. By my count, even putting Geert Wilders in government, which no one wants to do, doesn’t get you to 76 with three parties.)

          • Republicofscotland

            Thank you Martinned for that graph, Dutch politics, appears to be for now anyway built on coalitions, but a four party coalition could be unworkable if there are to many differences. The Spring of 2017 with regards to the election in the Netherland’s will be interesting to watch.

            With Germany to crack down on refugees who are suspected of sympathising with terrorists, and possibly banning the burqa. One wonders if the Netherlands will follow suit, Geert Wilders, may yet play a part, do you sense a change in Dutch attitudes towards refugees?

            I will not respond to your next comment, I don’t want to go too much off Craig’s topic, which would be disrespectful.

            Thanks.

    • Njegos

      “I just prefer to have a US president with some kind of proven ability at a) holding political office, and b) politics.”

      I would argue that she has dangerous and proven inability to learn from mistakes. She saw the mess Bush and Co made in Iraq and what does she do? She overthrows Gaddafi and creates jihadist hell in North Africa and the Sahel. The removal of Gaddafi was a big boost to Boko Haram – kind of ironic when you stop to think about HRC’s vaunted feminist credentials.

      She wants to cut up rough with Russia probably in revenge for the humiliation of her hapless neocon acolyte Victoria “F*** the EU” Nuland whose ham-fisted intrigues in the Ukraine are a direct cause of the present tensions in that unhappy country. And ex-World #1 Diplomat Clinton’s “diplomatic” instincts are to escalate the confrontation with arms shipments.

      An HRC presidency could, however, would discredit “liberal interventionism” once and for all. The question is: before or after a nuclear war?

      • J

        Hot and cold war require a lot of expensive kit. Trillions worth of it. Re-build, re-arm, demonise, bomb, extract resources, re-build, re-arm, demonise, bomb, contract, rebuild… It’s the very model of perpetual growth.

    • Tom Welsh

      I find it astonishing that anyone can believe there are “left-wing” people in US political or business life. How does being “left-wing” or “progressive” fit into a culture where everything revolves solely around money?

  • Njegos

    HRC is a warmonger, plain and simple. There is one word for her track record as Secretary of State: disaster. She opened the door to ISIS in Libya and was instrumental in torpedoing the Annan Peace Plan in Syria because she was hell-bent on removing Assad as a favour to Israel (more Wikileaks revelations):

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    No wonder her toadies avoid discussing her foreign policy “achievements”. There are none. Instead they make vague references to her “experience” and the incredibly important statistic that she covered more than a million miles of travel diplomacy (wow) which, considering the almighty mess she bequeathed to John Kerry, must rank as one of the biggest wastes of public money ever.

    If you want a glimpse of a future Clinton administration, just listen to this Russophobe nutcase:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ivt2NmbyGg

    Remember – this is an ex-CIA director and someone who claims that it would dangerous to entrust national security to Donald Trump!

    For the sake of the world, I truly hope HRC is defeated in November but Trump’s total lack of intellectual discipline are tilting the odds heavily towards the Wicked Witch of West.

    PS. Rumour is that HRC doesn’t do yoga. She listens to recordings of air strikes instead.

  • Ben Monad

    Let me tell you that twenty years ago she helped me with a simple phone call to a bureaucrat after I sent her a letter. Formerly he was nasty and full of his own power, but when he called me in to apologize for clerks ditching paperwork he asked me ‘who did i know?”.

    But politics takes good people and corrupts them or they get spit out. Why ANYONE with good intentions would want to participate within the Status Quo is beyond my acumen.

  • Paul Barbara

    I’ve copied your reply to me here, as I believe it is very important that anti-Putin merchants on here wee this video, and many will not bother to read past comments:
    @ Martinned August 11, 2016 at 13:03
    ‘Yeah, if you think that Vladimir – KGB – Putin ever goes into the vicinity of honesty, you are beyond hope of salvation.’

    Really? Show me ONE video of any Western leader speaking to international journalists like this:

    ‘Putin’s Warning: Full Speech 2016:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

    (This is about the video, by the guy that put it up on YouTube):
    Published on 24 Jul 2016
    ‘Initially, I translated only a small portion of this segment as I felt the key message must be made obvious. However, I have been pleasantly surprised with many people around the world reaching out to translate this into other languages, as well as to see the full address. This candid conversation took place with representatives of various media outlets during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, in June 2016. Putin urged journalists to report genuinely on the impending danger that is a nuclear arms race.

    Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security.

    If you are a journalist or a blogger, please do your part and share this message. Time is of the essence , especially in light of the recent NATO summit in Warsaw (July 2016) where the alliance stipulated that Russia is the main threat to international security (did you think that might be ISIS?) YouTube would not let me upload the video I did on the Summit, but it can be found on my Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/174777588 

    Back in 2007, Putin informed the Western world that Russia will develop its weaponry to counter US advances. This was said in response to the US missile defense system that was starting to be developed at the time (previously prohibited in international law.) 

    With the NATO missile defense system on Russia’s doorstep – the threat to international security is very real; not that you would know it via mainstream Murdoch media.

    In 2002, the United States unilaterally and without consultation, withdrew from the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. President George W. Bush noted that the treaty is “now behind us,” describing the ABM Treaty as a Cold War relic.

    Signed in 1972, the ABM Treaty barred both the US and the USSR from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense. 

    The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race, as each tried to balance its counterpart’s actions. Until Bush took office, the Treaty was referred to as a “cornerstone of strategic stability” because it facilitated later agreements, reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. 

    The US, assuming that a weakened Russia will never again be in a position to counter US hegemonic power, proceeded to encroach on Russia’s borders through its manipulation of NATO objectives. 

    Today, there is no instrument in international law that prevents the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Putin has been sending out warnings for over 10 years – all of which fell on deaf ears. Who will push the button first?’

    I rest my case…..

    • Martinned

      If you think that that is an example of honesty, the most obvious thing that you’d need to explain is this reference to “US advances”.

      • nevermind

        The earnest faces of journalists spoke louder than Putin, he did not throw insults about or berated the west, merely pointed out the threats as they perceive it and the message was stark, unless you stop expanding we will do something about it, their new base in Syria is just that.

        The advances are obvious, since NATO, a cold war body that has lost its legitimacy in 1989, expanded its bases into eastern Europe, broke the medium range (INF) missile treaty and added a new anti missile defence system deep into Romania, on false pretended threats of a non existing Iranian nuclear bomb, a base which is controlled by NATO and nobody else.

        yes, but that is NATO some will say, failing to see that this once international organisation is inhabited and undermined by neocons and arms interests that want to engage Russia in war.

        What they need to understand is that we in Europe have different interests to theirs, we don’t aspire to world Government, we don’t aspire to TTIP or TPA, nor do we want to eat foods that were genetically engineered for profits alone.
        Has NATO developed any anti missiles shields in Alaska? yes and in California. So’
        the jacks are alright,
        and now want a fight

        Far more important is why this stern message was never received in the west, glossed over with anti Russia fluff and personal attacks, disappeared.

        I say it again, the best thing that could happen to this presidential race between two mentally challenged people is that America’s politicians agree to oust both.

        or its nuclear winter for us all. Mind, Christian crusader Cruz could be up for some fun in foreign countries as well, so nothing is safe anymore and we have to stoop to the powerful with seats in nuclear bunkers.

          • nevermind

            There is nothing sovereign about the UK’s Trident engagement rules, are you really that thick.

            There is no Military defence alliance, it has become an offensive posturing shop window for new arms to be tried and for military expansion, since it has lost its guiding enemy in 1989.

            What about our interests in Eurasia and Europe do you not understand?

          • Martinned

            I can honestly say that I understand literally nothing about that comment. Well, I understand that it’s in English, but beyond that…

            Why do you mention Trident when I was talking about the Baltic states, Poland, etc.? Is that some kind of Corbynista derangement syndrome, where any topic of conversation goes in no more than three steps back to some kind of pro-Corbyn talking point?

          • nevermind

            So you are of the delusion that any of the baltic states and Poland will have a say in whether their country is annihilated in a nuclear response to NATO’s expansion, that they have any say in the use of these illegal weapons.

            Why is it illegal? because the INF treaty has been signed and simple software arguments cited as reasons, are not really applicable when the whole system can be changed into being offensive within hours.

          • Tom Welsh

            A defensive military alliance that has marched aggressively right up to Russia’s very borders, and held demonstrative parades within artillery range of St Petersburg? That has placed “ABMs” which could be converted to offensive nuclear cruise missiles without anyone knowing within a few minutes’ flying distance of the heart of Russia? That has brought German tanks and soldiers to the very border of Russia for the first time since 1941? “Defensive”? What on earth are you talking about? NATO is about as “defensive” as the Third Reich.

      • Paul Barbara

        What’s the matter with you? It was explained in the very next sentence:

        ‘Back in 2007, Putin informed the Western world that Russia will develop its weaponry to counter US advances. This was said in response to the US missile defense system that was starting to be developed at the time (previously prohibited in international law.)’

    • Manda

      Thank you for that.

      I see Putin as acting mostly defensively for Russia myself. The western corporate media have done a grand job with their long standing and now at times hysterical anti Putin/Russia campaign. It’s ‘reds under the bed’ days’ x 100.

  • Loony

    Anyone interested in the labyrinthine structures (of the almost certainly fraudulent) Clinton foundation could do worse than review the writings of Charles Ortel

    http://charlesortel.com/

    Is Charles Ortel some kind of nut who can be smeared, marginalized and ignored?

    Who knows, but he does have a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, He is a former Managing Director at investment bank Dillon Read and a former Managing Director of the financial research firm Newport Value Partners. More recently he has been a contributor to a number of news outlets including the Washington Times,

    So not exactly some kind of David Icke figure.

      • Loony

        The educational qualifications of Ted Cruz are entirely irrelevant to any inquiry as to whether or not the Clinton foundation is fraudulent. I assume that is why you raise the issue.

        The educational qualifications and background career information of someone alleging the Clinton foundation to be fraudulent is more germane to the issue. Of itself it proves nothing but it does perhaps make it harder to smear the author. Something I assume you to be aware of – hence your instant resort to irrelevances.

  • bevin

    Theodore Roosevelt’s dictum- ‘talk softly and carry a big stick’ has been updated to “Never stop shouting and whack the little guys.”

    The problem, essentially, is one of complete irresponsibility on the part of people like the Clintons. They have such a massive sense of entitlement, are so greedy and so appallingly amoral that risking a thermonuclear war or starting conflicts that lead to the deaths of a million and generations of racial and sectarian conflicts seem like really bright ideas if they can be spun into electoral gains.
    From a historical point of view what the USA needs is a real war, with foreign armies marching up the Ohio Valley the way that US armies have marched up the Mekong and Euphrates valleys within our life times.
    There is simply no inherited memory of the horrors of war, the way that there is in Russia or Germany.
    It is no accident that the most warlike communities in Europe are led by emigres bred up in Canada or the US to hate-Serbs, Russians, Reds, Blacks- and incubate ancient, imagined, resentments well away from a reality in which common humanity and shared experience make it impossible for healthy minds to fall under the influence of fascism.

    The list of countries in which the US government has either invaded or sponsored bloody coups, civil wars and pogroms is, as everyone knows, very long. And the suffering caused has been incalculable. And behind it all are the most sordid rationales- profits for armament manufacturers, to distract public attention from domestic scandals, to serve investors looking for lower labour costs, to solicit donations to the family foundation, and so on.

    • Martinned

      Really? As far as I can tell, the more a country fights – regardless of who started it or where the main theatre of war is – the more they seem to like it. The last thing you need is an invasion of the US mainland, or they’ll institute compulsory military service for the next century and turn into Israel, but without the restraint.

        • Martinned

          That was meant as equal parts sarcasm and recognition of the fact that the leadership of the IDF appears to be the least insane part of Israeli society at the moment. In recent years/decades, it’s usually been the generals who have counselled peace.

  • James lake

    I fully agree with this post. Hillary Clinton is irresponsible in her statements, what is worse is the media acting as cheerleaders for her in the usa and here in the UK the bbc being part of the fan club.
    The media today just act as PR for those in power, journalism does not existv

  • RobG

    Craig said: “Which brings me to the curious murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer killed by an armed street robber who left Rich’s gun, watch, cash and wallet.”

    Actually, in the last month or so 5 people connected to the Democratic party, including Seth Rich, have died in somewhat mysterious circumstances.

    Melissa Dykes has done a very good video about the Democratic convention, which was one of the most surreal events I’ve ever witnessed, even in American politics…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

  • Manda

    We are heading for very dangerous times and US/UK/France etc. will be at the forefront as usual no matter who is declared POTUS.

  • Njegos

    One of the great myths promoted by the Democrats is HRC’s skillful use of “smart power” which supposedly distinguishes her from the neanderthal neocons to whom the Middle East looks like a giant bombing target. Well, we saw precisely how “smart” she was in Libya. Heaven preserve us from more “smart power”.

    The truth is that HRC’s “liberal interventionism” is the flipside of GWB”s “neoconservatism”. Both are rooted in dogmatic adherence to a regime change ideology especially where it tips the strategic balance in favour of Israel.

    Both tendencies hate Russia, of course, because Russia does not bow down to anyone. Russia is a stark reminder of what the United States can never be – a country that pursues its genuine interests instead of kowtowing to this or that lobby. When HRC opens her mouth I only hear Wall Street or AIPAC speak.

    The biggest irony, however, is how the Democrats have become born-again “Red-baiters” which completely undermines their supposedly liberal facade. You want to work with Russia in Syria? You Kremlin troll!! You are glad that DNC corruption was exposed? Putin-loving traitor!!

    My big regret is that Trump is unable to structure any kind of coherent argument against HRC’s foreign policy belligerence and mendacity but then again imagine the “adult” foreign policy debate we would have if any of those 16 Republican dwarves had secured the nomination, ie. “I hate Putin!” “But I hate him more than you!!” “No, that’s not true. I condemned him 17x in the past week”. etc.

    • Njegos

      Loony:

      That reaction alone should be enough to disqualify her from ever holding the post of Commander-in-Chief. And to think that this woman was once the world’s most powerful diplomat.

      I wonder if she is still laughing given how well things have turned out in Libya……

1 2 3

Comments are closed.