Hillary’s Machine of War and Destruction

Hillary Clinton and war 2

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton was, in the U.S. presidential election in 2016, the candidate of Wall Street, which is the backbone of the American financial system. She was also the favorite candidate of the largest U.S. capitalist companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, HP, etc. Even more dangerous, though, is that she was the candidate of the U.S. military industrial complex. The idea that she was bad for corporate issues, but good for U.S. national security, has no basis. Her foreign policy experience has been to support wars and more wars, according to the directions of the U.S. national security elites.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped trigger two major financial crises (1999-2000 and 2005-8). In the 1990s, they removed government restrictions for businessmen who financed their political campaigns, thus causing financial manipulation, financial fraud and eventually financial crisis. In the process, they won elections and got mighty rich.

However, Hillary’s connections to the U.S. military complex are scarier. Many believe that only Republicans are neocons and that Democrats only seek to stop Republican warmongers. This is not true. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have warlike neocons members. But they also have a minority of cautious realistic members who do not want the U.S. involved in endless wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose history of favoring American military adventures explains many of today’s military crises that threaten U.S. security.

Just as Bill Clinton’s presidency paved the way for financial crises that benefited his supportive businessmen, so did it pave the way for endless wars. On October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Law which made it official U.S. policy to support “regime change” (a nice term with a nefarious meaning: to overthrow a government) in Iraqi.

Since Clinton, it was already the goal of the U.S. government to remove Saddam Hussein and establish a “democratic” government, as if it were possible to democratize an Islamic nation. Saudi Arabia, which is the largest Islamic ally of the United States, has never been democratic. Even so, the U.S. never bothered to invade it to democratize it.

The case of Saudi Arabia is serious: while in Iraq the Bible was allowed, there were Christian churches and Saddam protected Christians, in Saudi Arabia the Bible is banned, there is no Christian church and Saudis kill Christians.

It seems that the only reason for the invasion of Iraq was that this nation was not allied with the US, but with Russia.

Many people think that President George W. Bush’s attitude of invading Iraq was just his initiative and decision. No. Long before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, with the excuse that Iraq was behind the 2001 terrorist attack on New York, Bush was already under Bill Clinton’s policy to topple Saddam.

Today, it is obvious that who was behind this attack was Saudi Arabia. Even so, the U.S. never wanted to invade it, either for revenge or to democratize it. Saudi dictators have always enjoyed the close friendship of Republican and Democrat presidents. Today, the greatest friend and ally of the Saudi Islamic dictatorship is Donald Trump.

In 2003, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and essentially created ISIS.

Before the American invasion, Iraq had a Christian community of more than 2 million people. Today, it is less than 400,000 and continues to decline.

Following the Iraq Liberation Act, the Kosovo War took place in 1999, in which Bill Clinton used NATO to bomb Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, an Orthodox Christian country allied with Russia, thus creating Kosovo, a Muslim enclave that now is an important Islamic smuggling ground for arms and human beings in Europe. Hillary confessed to journalist Lucinda Frank that it was she who had urged her husband Bill to make bombings on Serbian Christians.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern American history. She is a staunch defender of the powerful U.S. military industrial complex, helping to create military disasters in several countries, including Libya and Syria.

Hillary is heavily criticized for the deaths of American diplomats in Benghazi, but her relentless actions to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi through NATO bombings were by far the biggest disaster. Hillary used NATO to overthrow the Libyan government in violation of international law only to meet the wishes of Saudi Arabia. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war and Islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, spread in Libya and then to North Africa, arriving at Syria. Gaddafi’s overthrow also left Libya free for millions of African Muslims to go though and invade Europe. The Libyan disaster provoked war in Mali, supplied arms to the Islamic group Boko Haram, which has raped and killed thousands of Christians in Nigeria, and strengthened ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Then Hillary took aim at Syria. With CIA support, which provided weapons and training for Islamic rebels, Hillary wanted to oust Syrian President Bashir al-Assad and said that this would be a quick, costless and successful move. In August 2011, Hillary led the U.S. to disaster with her statement that Assad should “get out of the way,” with the backing of secret CIA operations.

Seven years later, no country in the world is more devastated by endless war than Syria, with hundreds of thousands of dead, including Christians. More than 10 million Syrians have been displaced, and refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or undermining Europe’s political stability. Those who do not flee become victims of ISIS or U.S.-backed Islamic rebel groups. In the chaos created by the CIA and Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, using Syrian territory as the base for Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide.

The list of Hillary’s manipulations and provocations of wars goes on. She has always supported the expansion of NATO, including in Ukraine and Georgia, defying all common sense. She violated post-Cold War agreements signed in Europe in 1991, leading to violent defensive reactions from Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. As a senator in 2008, Hilary was a sponsor of the 2008-SR439 Act, which calls for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.

She wanted to become president of the United States to continue her project of wars and more wars. The biggest individual financier of her presidential campaign was the U.S. leftist billionaire George Soros, the “father” of the Ukrainian revolution.

Republican neocons are not against the wars Bill and Hillary Clinton provoked. They say that if they were in their place, they would do exactly the same wars, but without the disasters that appeared. Really?

The U.S. Founders always opposed U.S. military involvement abroad.

But today, both among Republicans and Democrats, there are warmongers. So in the last U.S. election, prominent Republicans said they preferred to vote for Hillary because they saw her as a legitimate neocon. For them, an anti-war Republican candidate was inconceivable.

Current U.S. President Donald Trump caused surprise, because he did not fulfill his promises contrary to Hillary’s warmongering.

During the election, Trump showed an anti-neocon policy line, contrary to unnecessary American military interventions in other nations. He also opposed the expansion of NATO.

Today, in matters of foreign policy, he imitates neocon politics and wants to strengthen NATO. He’s doing exactly what Hillary would have done.

Hillary and the neocons wanted an alliance of Islamic terrorism against Russia. So, in his election campaign Trump said that who founded ISIS was Obama and the co-founder, in Trump’s own words, was “crooked Hillary Clinton.” ISIS, which was founded by Obama and Hillary with Saudi assistance, is the largest genocide machine for Christians today.

Trump’s campaign speech clearly wanted an alliance with Russia, which is the world’s largest orthodox Christian nation, against global Islamic terrorism, which is sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

However, Trump failed to live up to his speech. He eventually signed with Saudi Arabia the biggest military deal in U.S. history, selling the Saudis at once 110 billion dollars in arms.

In the end, Trump became a great ally of Saudi Arabia, beating Obama and Hillary, who were bought by the Saudis.

Trump’s move to Hillary 2 was possible because whenever Trump tried to get close to Russia for an alliance against Islamic terrorism, criminal leaks weakened his administration, until all Trump’s pro-Russian advisers were overthrown and Trump had to choose anti-Russia advisers to please the neocons.

The only striking difference today between Hillary and Trump is that Trump has a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he follows the pattern of previous presidents. So it was with Bush, who also had a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he followed the pattern of the previous presidents…

During his campaign, Trump clearly condemned Hillary for her interventions in Syria, including supporting the Islamic rebels. Today, as president, Trump gives the same support to Hillary’s and Obama’s Islamic rebels.

No one did more to provoke the Cold War with Russia than Hillary did, with her close alliance with the Saudi terrorists. Trump, who seemed to be in a better position to destroy the U.S. alliance with the Saudis and form an unprecedented alliance with Russia against Islamic terrorism, eventually became, in foreign policy, a mere Hillary 2 or Bush 2.

Hillary’s machine of war and destruction is the same machine led in the past by Bush and others. And today, unfortunately, led by Trump.

Everyone exploit the feelings of the American people, including evangelicals, who have been trained to confuse patriotism with aggressive military interventions abroad. Patriotism in the U.S. today reflects often mere neocons sentiments.

It does not matter, then, whether a right-wing Republican or leftist Democrat becomes U.S. president. It does not matter if it’s Hillary, Bush or Trump. In the end, the winners in foreign policy are the neocons and the U.S. military industrial complex. Another winner is Saudi Arabia, creator of ISIS and the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world.

Who loses, as ever, are the Christian victims, who suffer in the wake of U.S. military interventions and Saudi Islamic interventions. That is the price of U.S. foreign-affair neocon policy.

I’m glad Hillary did not become U.S. president. But I’m not happy that Trump is imitating her foreign policy in the service of neocon militarism.

With information from Huffington Post and WND (WorldNetDaily).

 Julio Severo

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *