And we're already attacking Syria.
Before she's the actual President.
So how's that for most effective warmonger?
Was that a competition?
"You've seen the inside of the honeycomb, June."_ _ _ _ _ _ _
"You can never go home."
"Knight and Day"
"With me? Without me?
With me? Without me?
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has quietly cleared the late Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, including the massacre at Srebrenica.
Far from conspiring with the convicted Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, Milosevic actually “condemned ethnic cleansing,” opposed Karadzic and tried to stop the war that dismembered Yugoslavia. Buried near the end of a 2,590-page judgement on Karadzic last February, this truth further demolishes the propaganda that justified Nato’s illegal onslaught on Serbia in 1999.
Milosevic died of a heart attack in 2006, alone in his cell in The Hague, during what amounted to a bogus trial by an American-invented “international tribunal”. Denied heart surgery that might have saved his life, his condition worsened and was monitored and kept secret by US officials, as WikiLeaks has since revealed.
Milosevic was the victim of war propaganda that today runs like a torrent across our screens and newspapers and beckons great danger for us all. He was the prototype demon, vilified by the western media as the “butcher of the Balkans” who was responsible for “genocide,” especially in the secessionist Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Prime Minister Tony Blair said so, invoked the Holocaust and demanded action against “this new Hitler”.
David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], declared that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59” may have been murdered by Milocevic’s forces.
This was the justification for Nato’s bombing, led by Bill Clinton and Blair, that killed hundreds of civilians in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and television studios and destroyed Serbia’s economic infrastructure. It was blatantly ideological; at a notorious “peace conference” in Rambouillet in France, Milosevic was confronted by Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state, who was to achieve infamy with her remark that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were “worth it”.
Albright delivered an “offer” to Milosevic that no national leader could accept. Unless he agreed to the foreign military occupation of his country, with the occupying forces “outside the legal process,” and to the imposition of a neo-liberal “free market”, Serbia would be bombed. This was contained in an “Appendix B,” which the media failed to read or suppressed.
The aim was to crush Europe’s last independent “socialist” state.
Once Nato began bombing, there was a stampede of Kosovar refugees “fleeing a holocaust”. When it was over, international police teams descended on Kosovo to exhume the victims. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. The final count of the dead in Kosovo was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the pro-Nato Kosovo Liberation Front. There was no genocide. The Nato attack was both a fraud and a war crime.
Read the entire article here.
Just remember. No countries can be allowed to operate independently of the United States of Armageddon.
By John Pilger
August 23, 2016
The exoneration of a man accused of the worst of crimes, genocide, made no headlines. Neither the BBC nor CNN covered it. The Guardian allowed a brief commentary. Such a rare official admission was buried or suppressed, understandably. It would explain too much about how the rulers of the world rule.Read more at the title link above.
No other couple in American politics can offer what the Clintons have to sell.
By William McGurn
Aug. 22, 2016
Many Clinton scandals ago, when Hillary Clinton was trying to explain how she’d parlayed a $1,000 stake in cattle futures into $100,000 in 10 months (by talking to other people and reading The Wall Street Journal) folks were skeptical. How, they asked, could a novice make so much money in so short a time in such a risky market?
Turns out Mrs. Clinton is a better learner than she’s given credit for, and the Clinton emails released by Judicial Watch on Monday prove it. The emails were pried out of the system by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, and they suggest why the Clinton Foundation could be so attractive to the rich and mighty. When a donor had a problem that required the secretary of state’s attention, there was Doug Band — a Clinton Foundation exec — emailing Hillary’s top staffers at the State Department to ask a favor.
Take a June 23, 2009, email from Doug Band to Huma Abedin. In his email Mr. Band noted that the Crown Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend of ours”) was asking to see Mrs. Clinton. There are, of course, many ways to be a “good friend,” but one sure way would be to contribute between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as the kingdom of Bahrain had done. Not to mention that the prince had also spent $32 million on a scholarship launched through the Clinton Global Initiative.
. . . It isn’t the only favor Mr. Band requested. A month earlier, he had emailed Ms. Abedin to ask her help in getting an English soccer player a visa to the U.S. The player was supposed to come to Las Vegas for a team celebration, but he needed a special interview with the visa section at the American Embassy in London due to a “criminal charge” against him.
Because of this, the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) had refused to intervene. Mr. Band’s email made clear the request was on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a sports and entertainment exec who had contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation via the Wasserman Foundation.
These are only two of the many email exchanges in which Ms. Abedin was asked to intervene on behalf of some Clinton Foundation donor. These latest emails fit the same pattern as another batch released earlier this month, which showed Mr. Band asking Ms. Abedin and longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills for a meeting with a U.S. ambassador on behalf of a foreign businessman, as well as seeking a job for someone he described as “important to take care of.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton sums it up this way: “It looks like the State Department was outsourcing its work to the Clinton Foundation.”
The model worked well for the Clintons, and some believe the Clinton Foundation will be copied by other pols, who will set up spouses or friends with foundations in hopes of attracting the big dollars that they can use to advance their brands, reward their friends and operate as a de facto permanent political campaign — all under the garb of charity.
No doubt some will try. But no one will be as successful as the Clintons have been.
The reason is simple. The Clintons are a business partnership with something that no other political couple has to sell. True, all ex-presidents hit the speaking circuit and have charities and foundations. Even so, the Clintons are unique in having an ex-president with a spouse in play, not only as secretary of state but as a possible president herself. If you are a foreign government or a wealthy businessmen, a donation to the Clinton Foundation might look like an excellent investment at just about any price.
Quid pro quo is notoriously hard to prove in such cases, and we will never know what (if anything) Mrs. Clinton or State delivered in return. We’re asked to believe that it was somehow an accident that so many of the millions former President Bill Clinton raked in from speaking fees would come from companies, countries or people who had business before a State Department run by his wife. The truth is, this was inevitable under the Clinton Foundation business model. And it beggars belief to think all these dollars were being given out without an expectation of something in return._ _ _ _ _ _ _
And to think.
Even the deadly Bushes weren't this overt.
And as you know, I'm no Bush fan.
But it seems that the Bush program was to rape mainly just the U.S.
The Clintons had a much wider reach.
The transformation of the Democratic Party from the relative “peace party” to a belligerent “war party” occurred during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is likely to resume if Hillary Clinton is elected.
August 23, 2016
The current debate over the future of U.S. foreign policy is largely over whether the U.S. should continue its self-anointed role as the policeman of the world, or whether it might be wise for the next administration to put, in the words of Donald J. Trump, “America First.”
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for a more active U.S. foreign policy. The 2016 election is shaping up to be, among other things, a battle between the inarticulate isolationism of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s liberal interventionism. Hers is an approach which came into vogue during the administration of her husband.
During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton sought to differentiate himself from President George H.W. Bush by sounding “tough” on foreign policy. At the time, Clinton declared that, unlike Bush, he would “not coddle dictators from Baghdad to Beijing.”
Once in office Clinton departed from policies of his predecessor, whose foreign policy was steered by “realists” such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James A. Baker. Baker’s judgment that the war in the Balkans did not merit American intervention – “we don’t,” said Baker, “have a dog in this fight,” was emblematic of the administration’s approach, which, despite launching interventions in Iraq and Panama, was for the most part, a cautious one.
Bush outraged New York Times columnist William Safire when he warned of the danger that nationalism poses to regional stability. Speaking in Kiev in 1991, Bush promised that “we will not meddle in your internal affairs.”
“Some people,” he continued, “have urged the United States to choose between supporting President Gorbachev and supporting independence-minded leaders throughout the U.S.S.R. I consider this a false choice.”
Such was Bush’s wariness over riling Russia that, according to the historian Mary Elise Sarotte, Secretary of State Baker (along with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher) “repeatedly affirmed” to the Soviets “that NATO would not move eastward at all.”
Bush decided that it was best not to rub Russia’s diminished fortunes in its face. Not so President Clinton, who vowed “not let the Iron Curtain be replaced with a veil of indifference.” The Clinton team ignored the advice of Senators Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn and Gary Hart and the former Ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock, who all urged the administration to reconsider its policy of NATO expansion. Needless to say, predictions that NATO expansion would have dire consequences for U.S.-Russia relations have come to fruition.
Speaking before the U.N. General Assembly in September 1993, President Clinton declared that the U.S. had “the chance to expand the reach of democracy and economic progress across the whole of Europe and to the far reaches of the world.”
At the time, the stars seemed aligned for such a pursuit. In Foreign Affairs, neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer declared that the end of the Cold War was America’s “unipolar” moment. The pursuit of American global hegemony was not, according to Krauthammer, some “Wilsonian fantasy.” It was, rather, “a matter of sheerest prudence.”
During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. military was dispatched on ostensibly humanitarian grounds in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Kosovo (1999). Clinton also directed airstrikes on Sudan in what was said to be an attempt on Osama bin Laden’s life.
Clinton bombed Iraq (1998) over its violations of the NATO enforced no-fly zones. That same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law which stipulated that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”
In some ways the now deeply embedded belief in the efficacy and rightness of humanitarian intervention dates back to NATO’s intervention in Bosnia in 1995.
. . . The Clinton administration’s second intervention in the Balkans in 1999, set the template for what George W. Bush attempted in Iraq, and, later, what Barack Obama attempted in Libya. Once again, in the absence of U.N. sanction, Clinton launched a war under humanitarian pretexts. The 77-day aerial bombardment of Serbia carried out by NATO was ostensibly undertaken to prevent what was said to be the looming wholesale slaughter of Albanian Kosovars by Serbian forces.
The intervention in Kosovo not only riled the Russians, it also upset American allies. Shortly before the commencement of hostilities in Kosovo, France’s Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine declared that the United States was not only a superpower, but a “hyper-power.” According to Vedrine, the question of the American hyper-power was “at the center of the world’s current problems.”
Kosovo set a pattern that has held in subsequent interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Advertised (all, or, in part) as interventions on behalf of suffering Muslims, they invariably end up strengthening the hand of those who are declared enemies of the U.S.: Sunni Islamic extremists.
By the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure, the prudence exhibited by George H.W. Bush had long since vanished. Given her record, should Hillary Clinton win in November, the elder Bush’s foreign policy “realism” will have little chance of reappearing.
A smart country like the USA having to make the choice between Bush policies and Clinton policies.
It doesn't get any more ludicrous (the Bush policies are just a place-holder at this point for an unknown Trump's policies).
Or does it?
Imagine a country that lets it get to this point.
Again and again.
And, no, Hillary isn't the only liar playing.
Begging the question: Why are we letting any of them play cat-and-mouse games with our civilization?
By Martin Berger
August 20, 2013
The notion that the United States is an empire of lies would be difficult to dispute by anyone who has followed the events of the last decade. It’s a sad fact that today the absolute majority of Washington’s policies along with the foundation of so-called “American democracy” are built upon blatant lies.
So is it any wonder that so-called American “heroes” of the Rio Olympics: swimmers James Feigen, Ryan Lochte, Gunnar Benz and Jack Conger, provided false testimonies about them being robbed in a taxi on the way to the Olympic Village? It turns out now that nobody came as close as even attempting to rob them. Now these athletes may face charges of making false accusations in Brazil, along with being accused of discrediting the sitting Brazilian President Dilma Vana Rousseff who has been the prime target of Washington’s meddling recently.
In all honesty, there is no need for being surprised, since these “hero-swimmers” have been educated regarding Washington’s lies, encountered in virtually all aspects of an American’s life. The White House has been lying its way through various attempts to overthrow unwanted governments and politicians upon the international stage, spreading disinformation through such CIA “benefactors” like George Soros.
The entire world witnessed former US Secretary of State Colin Powell in all seriousness displaying tubes with unknown substances in them before the UN Security Council, claiming they represented “convincing and incriminating” evidence against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, enough to launch a military attack against the nation.
We remember how renowned American journalist, Pulitzer Prize Laureate Seymour Hersh, caught the US government officially disseminating lies about how “terrorist number one” Osama bin Laden was actually killed.
He has also published an investigation piece under the title "Whose Sarin," demonstrating that the US government and President Barack Obama personally, deliberately lied when they claimed that the Syrian government had used sarin poison gas back in 2013. It’s been announced that Hersh was using information he had received from sources within the US intelligence community and the Pentagon. This evidence confirmed that both the White House statements and fraudulent propaganda unwound by the media, pursued the sole goal – to create a pretext for armed intervention in Syria and replace the government in Damascus with Washington’s subordinates, thus taking full control of the country.
Moreover, the "American Thinker" would note that:
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the US “did not lose a single person” in Libya during her time as secretary of state. To Hillary Clinton, the four male officials and warriors do not matter at all. They are at best an inconvenience. If they were alive, they would have to be dealt with, but because they are dead, they can be forgotten.But honestly, what does one expect from the likes of Hillary Clinton if even the Washington Post wouldn’t hesitate to present a video filled with her lies and “shifting positions?” Her ideas on Bosnia, healthcare, Wall Street, NAFTA are ever-shifting, since she’s convinced that Americans are unable to memorize basic facts or recall even recent American history.
Accusing Hillary Clinton of blatant hypocrisy, alternative media source Counter Punch would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats’ champion the following evaluation: “She’s sleazy – a cheater and a liar,” noting that she wanted to set the minimum wage at the level of 12 dollars per hour, but since Bernie’s 15 dollars per hour was more popular, she claimed she wanted to introduce precisely the same wage. When pressed, she conceded she’d “like” 15 dollars per hour, but would not lift a finger to make it happen federally. Incredibly, she still conducts herself in this same manner.
The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department’s inspector general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. What’s infuriating about all of this is that it is not, in fact, news. Over a year ago, Hillary Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations with the intent to put the whole controversy around her released emails to rest, yet, nearly every significant statement she made was a lie, The Baltimore Sun would note, adding that we have known it for a year now, that from the earliest days of this scandal, Clinton was lying.
So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these “hero-swimmers,” when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear whatsoever of any potential consequences? What’s even more striking is that those liars are being promoted and encouraged in the US political establishment, and they are being allowed to occupy the highest political positions in the state, as if we are being told: "In lies we trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies."
(Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”)