Hillary Clinton Is Playing With Thermonuclear Fire, And You Will Be Glowing

by Joe Clifford, via Global Research

I would never vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and therefore have no dog in this fight.  That said, I am an interested spectator, and clearly see that Ms. Clinton is playing a very dangerous game by using the Russians as an election issue and blaming them for everything. When asked about her leaked e-mails in the last debate, she skillfully avoided the damaging content of the e-mails, and turned the table on the Russians, claiming they are the danger.  She argued we should all be alarmed at the attempt by Russia to manipulate our election, a charge which is totally untrue, and without any evidence.  

The leaked DNC e-mails clearly show that she and the DNC, not Russia, were successful in manipulating the election to defraud Sanders. Ms. Clinton lied about US intelligence agencies. She lectured Trump, saying 17 intelligence agencies said the Russians were behind the WikiLeaks release of DNC emails. That is a lie on several counts. First, 15 agencies never said a word about leaked e-mails.

Only two said anything, and this is what they said: The hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

Read it again. That’s a far cry from saying the Russians did it, and here is the proof.  To this day no one knows who leaked the e-mails to WikiLeaks. No one.
Clinton’s using Russia as a political scapegoat is very dangerous. At a time when there is bad blood between the two thermonuclear powers, it is irresponsible, and demonstrates a callous lack of judgement to falsely accuse Russia of such a deed without the slightest bit of proof for purely political reasons.  Provoking the Russians for political reasons speaks volumes about Ms. Clinton.
Perhaps the moderator should have asked Ms. Clinton: Has the US ever attempted to influence another nations election, or have you Ms. Clinton, in your capacity, ever tried to influence another nations election? Trump, not a quick thinker, should have attacked Clinton, asking: Are these the same intelligence agencies that lied about WMD in Iraq resulting in over one million useless deaths?
Another well founded accusation against her candidacy is her eagerness to make war.  She supported the illegal war on Iraq which killed millions of innocents.  She pushed and continues to push for the 15-year war in Afghanistan. She supported “the surge” in Afghanistan, a total failure. She assisted the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Honduras by supporting the military and a dictator. She was the one of the primary architects of the Libyan debacle, which led to the bombing and total disintegration of Libya. It is now the leading terrorist breeding ground in Africa. It was Clinton who took on Cabinet members who argued against military intervention in Libya. She had her way. Result; utter disaster! Ms. Clinton never saw a war she did not want to avoid.
But now she is playing with fire. Russia has made it clear that they will not tolerate another Iraq in Syria. They will support the Assad regime and not allow the US to overthrow yet another Middle Eastern government. Russia insists the US is intentionally trying to promote anarchy in Syria by destroying the country, maintaining brutal sanctions that only harm innocents, and giving “moderates” heavy weapons to help bring down Assad. Russia has drawn a line in the sand, and Ms. Clinton is showing a severe lack of judgment in provoking and blaming them for all that ails the world. She has even compared Putin to Hitler, which historically, is tantamount to declaring war.
Manuel Noriega was called Hitler, Saddam Hussein was called Hitler, Muammar Gaddafi was called Hitler. The pattern is clear.  Vilify the enemy and attack. Ms. Clinton, we are told, is intelligent. Her actions indicate she is either stupid, or she has no sense of sane judgment, or both. She has called for a No-Fly Zone in Syria, which General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, would mean war with Russia and Syria.
As Secretary of State Ms. Clinton’s job was to maintain peace, not start a war. She was not interested in peace as Secretary of State, but did start wars, and added fuel to the many we are currently fighting. She compared Putin to Hitler. No respectable Secretary of State, the nation’s chief diplomat, would call another world leader Hitler. Nor does the Chief Diplomat look for and argue for war, by shouting down all who wished to avoid war in Libya.
What is even more alarming is that mainstream media has followed their leader, Ms. Clinton, in demonizing Russia. The press has lost its way and is merely an echo chamber for Ms. Clinton and her neocon supporters who are vengeful, militaristic, and bombastic.
In conclusion, take note of those who have rallied to her cause.  Numerous war mongers from the past.  They smell war, and like the smell of death. They want an escalation with Russia. Over 50 of those who brought you the War in Iraq, have pledged their fealty to the Warrior Queen. Her past war record, combined with a complete lack of judgment, and surrounding herself with war crazy neocons, make a recipe for thermonuclear war.  Of course, MSM has kept the public totally in the dark about the impending day of doom, and most don’t even see it coming.
As a spectator, and one who would like to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Russia, I now maintain Clinton is far more dangerous to the world’s future than Trump, even though he is woefully unfit.  Thankfully there is a sane alternative candidate.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nov 5, 2016 8:42 AM

Matthew Yglesias provides a detailed history of the email scandal, in the process debunking it as the load of hyped propaganda nonsense it always was.

Nov 5, 2016 8:54 PM
Reply to  damien

Ok, there are two ‘rate downs’ against my comment but no detailed rebuttals. Apparently people are just feeling bad that their bad email arguments have been rejected.

Nov 5, 2016 8:36 AM

The latest FBI email outrage against Hillary is a total beat up. Rachel Maddow has uncovered the following facts:
— Rudolph Guiliani was claiming a ‘surprise’ was in the offing just days before FBI Director Comey sent his letter to Congress. Guiliani had been liaising with NY FBI officers for some time in orchestrating this.
— The whole exercise came out of the FBI New York offices who were getting all their ‘evidence’ from Breitbart.com.
Read that back. Bretbart.com, that racist Right wing nutjob site backed by billionaire Robert Mercer was the primary (if not only) source for the latest claims against Hillary. Mercer had supplied Trump with his key campaign officials Kellyanne Conway and David Bossie. The FBI claims about the emails and the Clinton Foundation were total BS lifted from a Breitbart book.
— Now there is the suggestion that Guiliani will be the FBI head in a Trump government.
There is no honest FBI inquiry. When the NY FBI officials took these spurious claims to the Justice Department those officials were dumbfounded by the lack of heard evidence supporting these Trump-generated propaganda issues.
More here.

Nov 4, 2016 6:53 PM

I was going to suggest that HRC should be called the Red Queen, like the Alice in Wonderland character.
However, in the US context, I suppose she would be called the Blue Queen.
Her proximity to the Lewis Carroll’s character’s repeated calls “Off with their heads” still seems apposite.
She has the heads of Saddam Hussein, Muamar Qadafi, Osama bin Laden and the heads of millions of innocent Afghans and Iraqis in her back pack. Even they seemingly do not satisfy her blood lust.
Now she wants the heads of Presidents Assad and Putin as notches on her bullying stick.
Not forgetting all the lives of many innocent American citizens lost just for her ambitions.
To paraphrase the 1964 US presidential election, “In your guts, you know she’s nuts”!

Nov 4, 2016 10:27 PM
Reply to  John

Wicked Witch of the West would be a better title.

Simon Roberts
Simon Roberts
Nov 4, 2016 2:00 PM

“Read it again. That’s a far cry from saying the Russians did it, and here is the proof. To this day no one knows who leaked the e-mails to WikiLeaks. No one.”
Seems Steve Pieczenik has on the record declared it was disgruntled FBI, CIA and NSA people that leaked it.

And yes, this guy is unbelievably credible (creator of Delta Force, Grandfather of modern psychological warfare, former high level CIA, former member of Council on Foreign Relations).
In your face Hillary.

Nov 4, 2016 1:41 PM

We all know that the Russian email hack is BS – a weak smokescreen to cover the substantive content of the various dumps on Wikileaks.
In this video Assange attests to Seth Rich being a probable source for the DNC hack.
Seth Rich was in charge of voter expansion data for the DNC. He was alledgedly on his way to meet with the FBI when he was shot – in a robbery where nothing was taken. Draw your own conclusion.
In an upcoming interview with John Pilger – Assange further states that Russia was not the source and that “Trump will not be allowed to win” (to be broadcast by RT tomorrow)
If so, I think we can expect a coup d’etat originating in the intelligence community to take her down. She could be the first POTUS in history to be impeached on her first day in office.
Russia may gloat, and even cheerlead from the sidelines, but it is not the initiator of this. (They’re going to be quite busy killing the last of the murderous American allied thugs in E Aleppo this weekend anyway.)
American power politics – the Establishment v the Intelligence Community – looks to me as though it is set to tear itself apart.
Even though this could potentially be bigger than Watergate, the Mockingbird M$M will do their best to make sure none of this will come to light.
Yet the cries of “lock her up, lock her up” are growing louder and louder.

Nov 4, 2016 12:21 PM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

Nov 4, 2016 11:33 AM

Speaking to a friend last night. His wife postal voted for Hillary (as did her sister) in a safe Democrat state. I would mark them down as Green voters in the UK (dual citizenship). I think that they both are avid readers of the Guardian and have swallowed the pro-Hillary identity politics propaganda wholesale.
They are (understandably) desperate that Trump does not win, but also they’re simply uninformed about the argument that Clinton is widely considered among genuine dissenters as the more dangerous choice. They have not read the arguments (“no time to read around”), and have voted largely as objects of emotional manipulation.

Nov 4, 2016 12:36 PM
Reply to  mog

That echoes my experience, mog. I challenge pro-Clinton FB posts often, with evidence of her record, but rarely get a reply and never an informed one. The idea of HRC as “lesser evil” is premised on ignorance of her actual record, especially on overseas matters.

Kathleen Lowrey
Kathleen Lowrey
Nov 4, 2016 4:23 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Something strange about the contemporary American left is that it behaves as if the whole rest of the world doesn’t quite exist. I’m from North Carolina and last year visited the mostly very good Civil Rights Museum in Greensboro. It’s well done, but nowhere mentions that the American civil rights movement of the 1960s was intimately connected to global anti-colonial movements. The amnesia about why Dubois moved to Ghana at the end of his life, or James Baldwin chose to live in France rather than the U.S., or Malcolm X’s internationalism, or Martin Luther King’s opposition to the war in Vietnam: there is precisely zero of any of that in today’s discourse which decries Trump’s racism (and he really is a racist, no doubt at all) but doesn’t have a thing to say about Clinton’s racist imperialism. It’s the same in mainstream American feminism: very very worried about Trump’s misogyny (which is perfectly real) but not at all about Clinton’s militarism. I was speaking to a friend earlier in the year who actually didn’t know the drone strikes under Obama had killed many, many children overseas. She wasn’t pretending — she really didn’t know. She’s a well informed leftist working (really working, not just internet-lamenting) on incarceration issues in the U.S. That’s just one example of many that I keep encountering.

Nov 4, 2016 10:37 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

I wrote over here on the emails and got a vast stony silence. Apparently the arguments against Hillary are so compelling they don’t need defending.
Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is abysmal. But her domestic policies are, if anything, consistent with other liberal Democrats in the Senate and well established conservative US beliefs about market forces and the like.
It’s one thing to object to the corrupt libertarian and military complex that the US has become (and has been for a century). It’s another thing to sheet it all home to one woman and give her the vilification due to a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Joseph Mengele.
At a certain point this kind of idiotic moral outrage becomes a parody of itself. Hillary Clinton is no more or less than a reflection of US foreign policy for the last 40 years, everywhere from Nicaragua to Serbia to Iraq to Libya.
I for one have pretty much had it with the falsehood that Hillary Clinton is sui generis, a never-been-seen-before evil entirely different from anything gone before. It’s nonsense.
And hey, let’s put into the White House a certifiable nut job whose every breathing action is criminal and self-serving. What could possibly go wrong?

R, J, Armstrong
R, J, Armstrong
Nov 6, 2016 8:08 PM
Reply to  damien

Please prove your last paragraph. Not hearsay but facts.

Nov 4, 2016 11:19 AM

Reblogged this on EU: Ramshackle Empire and commented:
Washingtons Blog is also about this and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Nov 4, 2016 10:32 AM

Reblogged this on sand49 and commented:
It’s so dangerous she must be stopped.

Greg Bacon
Greg Bacon
Nov 4, 2016 10:22 AM

Yes, the Killer Queen will gladly continue to wage endless wars, if the DC/Tel Aviv/Brussels war machine succeeds in Syria, the corrupt MSM will start braying about Iran’s non-existent nukes and how us ‘indispensable’ people just have to destroy Iran.
But what is really behind this madness that has turned the USA into a full-time lethal killing machine against nations that are NO threat to Americans?
“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria and Iraq, the war in Yemen, the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states….
Click on the link to read about the 1982 Oded Yinon plan, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” which Israel’s American colony is fulfilling. This is what we dare not speak of, since we have been trained to nearly worship Israel and dare not question her homicidal behavior. Trained by our corrupt government; by our corrupt churches who seem to have no problem with mass-murder, as long as its Muslims and trained by our corrupt MSM.
Israel is NOT an ally or friend, it’s using and abusing us just like a drunken, hateful husband would to to his wife.
And like the wife, we’ll be lucky if our dear hubby doesn’t beat us to death.

Nov 4, 2016 5:53 AM

At last – some one telling it like it really is.
Yet HRC and DJT are just symptoms, not causes of the calamity. I fear nuclear war is inevitable regardless of the outcome of the ‘election.’

Nov 4, 2016 4:13 AM

This article tells it as it is. Mme. Clinton’s recent history is an open book of one disaster after another! Read it if you dare. She has no abilities that would prepare her for the presidency. Her past decisions prove that. How many human beings died terrible deaths because of her? Sure she had the Nobel “Peace” Prize winner of a President to help her, but the decisions she made were the ones she wanted to make. She is a warmonger and an existential threat to America!

Kenneth Lindemere
Kenneth Lindemere
Nov 4, 2016 2:24 PM
Reply to  archie1954

I disagree that Clinton has no abilities and that she makes bad decisions. She does what her handlers – the banks, the arms manufacturers, outside influences such as Israel & the Saudis, the wealthy – tell her to do, and she gets it done. The endless wars, terrorism, failed states, chaos… this is just part of the plan for the NWO. You can’t implement worldwide corporate governance if you have to deal with strong independents, and the most obvious solution is to destroy and disrupt those who stand in the way. Hillary knows how the game’s played, which is why all the establishment’s behind her. Trump, on the other hand, scares the shit out of them, not because of his racism or sexism or whatever that they use against him to feed the ignorant public, but because he’s not a team player and they can’t trust him to work only in their interests.

Nov 4, 2016 2:36 AM

HRC ‘s probably croaked. The double won’t press the button. http://rense.com/general96/doublefnl.htm