Would-be Leader of the World Hillary Clinton just floated a conspiracy theory that accused one of “her own”, Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, the US Representative from Hawaii, of being groomed as a Russian asset. Yes, you read that right. This power-hungry woman, who never got her crown just cannot keep her mitts out of politics, but here, she attempted to demonize one of the candidates presently in her own party. As of early Saturday morning, even the liberal stalwarts CNN and MSNBC are avoiding coverage of this allegation. One surely cannot imagine why. (wink, wink!)
Fox News carried this piece Friday afternoon, October 18. Alex Pappas, writing for Fox said this in his piece:
Hillary Clinton in a new interview appeared to float a conspiracy theory that the Russians are “grooming” Hawaii congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard to be a third-party candidate in 2020, while claiming 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein is “also” a Russian asset.
Appearing on former President Obama aide David Plouffe’s “Campaign HQ” podcast, Clinton did not mention Gabbard specifically by name, though Plouffe ended the podcast by noting Clinton’s “belief that Tulsi Gabbard is going to be a third-party candidate propped up by Trump and the Russians.”
“I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”
We have seen this before, but last time it was Democrat opposition research weaponized against the GOP candidate, one Donald J. Trump.
It did not work very well.
He won the Presidency, and his unusually direct and populist method of leadership has been largely successful in the face of ‘YUGE’ Democrat opposition and fake investigations. Even now, we have the Compleat Fake Impeachment Inquiry snarling the airwaves and internet streams all around the world for anyone following American politics.
Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee from the 2016 election cycle, has photos on file with her sitting in close proximity to the Russian leader. Indeed this was broadcast to ostensibly smear Stein, though she hardly had a chance at the Presidency that year.
Tulsi Gabbard is another matter, though. While she is very far back in the Democrat Party’s candidate field, she has broken through on several occasions with her bold and unequivocal statements and policy positions speaking solidly against US intervention in Syria and against war with Iran. While domestically a liberal on par with the rest of her peers, in terms of foreign policy, Gabbard’s views most strongly match those of President Trump himself.
They both deplore the US constantly getting itself into foreign wars that serve no better purpose than protecting US hegemony or maybe, more cynically, keeping gas prices a few cents lower at home. However, they both also seem to both be aware of the fallacy of the King of the Hill Syndrome, which we will examine in another news piece.
They both understand that the US need not have its fingers everywhere in order for the world to get along just fine.
But to someone like Hillary Clinton, whose foreign policy “hawkishness” was so inept (perhaps deliberately so) that four Americans died without protection in Benghazi, who shockingly revealed how cold-hearted she is as a human being with “we came, we saw, he died”, referring to the brutal murder of Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi (who had cooperated with President George W. Bush after the 9-11 attacks and was not doing anything that was a threat to the US). Remember this? This is a woman speaking about ending someone’s life as a joke.
One wonders what Bill goes through with a wife like this. Maybe we ought to pity that poor man.
For Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard is dangerous for wanting the US out of being so involved in the Middle East. Why?
The US news media only go so far when – or if – they try to answer this question. Most of the time they never let the question be raised.
They go so far as to say something like, “well, if we don’t protect these people, the ______ (lately this blank has been filled by the word Kurds), then Vladimir Putin will win control over this area.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has become quite the statesman in the Eastern Hemisphere, and despite how amazingly astute President Donald Trump is, Mr. Trump has his hands tied in the US somewhat by an establishment elite that spends a lot of time and energy resisting his policy moves. He is making progress, but against fierce opposition.
Not so with President Putin. He pretty much has the cooperation of his government, and to a large degree, the support of his own people in the Russian Federation.
All the US demonization of Russia, culminating with the 2016 election scandal that got dubbed “Russiagate” had many Russian people laughing wholeheartedly at the American press and government shenanigans. “Putin runs everything, don’t you see?” they say. “Even the American press admits this!”
But humor aside, there is significant geopolitical shuffling taking place, most notably in Syria. President Trump’s decision to remove US troops from northwestern Syria got absolutely panned by the American press and political establishment, save a few people like Tucker Carlson and probably Tulsi Gabbard.
The panning just shows how deeply lost in propaganda narratives the American press and elite are. The truth is that President Trump made a masterstroke (again) in terms of ceding the geopolitical mess that is the Middle East to Russia.
This is not to say that the US is dumping the problem on President Putin. However, for propaganda purposes, unfortunately, the US press will almost certainly try to paint this that way.
The reality is that President Putin actually has better relationships in force with the people in this area. He has good relations with Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, even Turkey, and his approach is less one of hegemony and more of strategic partnership. Additionally, he is far more likely to understand or at least not attempt to pigeonhole the people of these nations into convenient “classifications” that easily spread across television news broadcasts. His own country is twenty percent Muslim, and it is strongly Christian in its identity. In Russia, peace is the standard between people of these two religions. He knows how to work through situations honestly without raising resentments among one group or another.
Pat Buchanan wrote a piece that The Duran ran, and in it he says the following:
…[N]ow that we are out of Syria’s civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin’s lap. He is now the man in the middle between Turkey and Syria.
He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.
Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops.
Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin’s problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.
The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.
If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United States of America, 6,000 miles away?
Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to denounce Trump’s decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.
…[H]ow long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?
And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey’s Incirlik air base to attack Turkish soldiers fighting in Syria?
If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war for them — against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran — why does Congress not declare those interests and authorize war to secure them?
Our foreign policy elites have used Trump’s decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values.
That is because the Syrian war never was about American values. This silly statement quoted any number of news networks recently about how someone speaking for the Kurds said, “we want to be a part of America.” Really. What propagandistic shill said something like that? How do you be a part of America from 6,000 miles away?
Pat Buchanan is historically about as deep-red-blooded American conservative as one gets. And he is seeing the fallacy of the US involvement in Syria. Should Hillary also determine that he is working for President Putin as well?
The real issue is that the veneer of lies concerning US’ “King of the Hill” style foreign policy is crumbling. More and more people are going to see or admit how true this is. President Trump is cracking these walls and letting the truth flow out. As that happens, brutal people like Hillary Clinton risk being exposed for who they truly are. They are desperate to stop this wall from cracking, but it seems that its collapse is begun and inevitable.
Let us hope so.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.