Tag Archive | "Hillary Clinton"

Did Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Approve Sending Sarin Gas to Syrian Rebels?


NOVANEWS

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh

 
Clinton lunettes noires

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh believes that Hillary Clinton approved the sending of sarin gas to Syria. At a time when Clinton is trying to secure the 2016 democratic presidential nomination, Hersh is coming forward with allegations that the democratic presidential front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a go-between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Middle Eastern nations (namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) to set up a horrific sarin gas attack and place the blame on the shoulders of Assad. Why? So that the U.S. could invade Syria and blame Assad.

“By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”

Hersh didn’t elaborate as to whether the “arms” he referred to encompassed the chemical precursors for creating sarin gas, which Libya stockpiled. However, multiple independent reports have independently confirmed that Gaddafi of Libya did, indeed, possess such stockpiles. Additionally, the The Free Thought Project reports, the much-touted U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was operating as a “rat line” for Gaddafi’s weaponry while Hillary Clinton was at the helm.

Seymour Hersh isn’t the first or only reporter to publicly call out the Hillary Clinton/Syria connection. Christopher Lehmann said on October 7, 2013 that top U.S. (and Saudi) officials were responsible for the chemical weapons being used in Syria. Interestingly, Lehmann’s sources were completely different than Hersh’s.

“Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.”

The headline of Lehmann’s article? “Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria.”

To make matters more damning for Hillary Clinton, two industry-leading U.S. analysts determined that Lehmann was correct. Indeed, the Lloyd-Postal report reportedly concluded that the U.S. government’s public claims regarding the attack are inaccurate.

“The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.”

As one news outlet reports, “Obama has clearly been lying.”

However, for the first documented time, Hersh has now pointed the finger at democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. Indeed, during an interview with Aternet.org, Hersh said that during the Hillary Clinton Secretary of State/Obama Administration, the Benghazi role was to “collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi.”

“That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission hewas meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel.”

According to Hersh, this was (in fact) a large part of the Hillary Clinton State Department’s operation in Libya. While Hillary Clinton was running the show, her job description reportedly included doing to Syria what had already been done successfully in Libya.

Hersh ultimately wrote a book, The Killing of Osama bin Laden, in which an ex-U.S. intelligence official says that the Hillary Clinton White House rejected 35 targets because they were “insufficiently painful to the Assad regime.” Later, the Hillary Clinton White House put forth a target list that included, among other things civilian infrastructure.

“What would the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?”

In response, Hersh said that he U.S. “tradition” had been to ignore civilian casualties, and he presumed that the tradition would continue under Hillary Clinton.

“U.S. attacks are okay or even desired (so as to terrorize the population into surrender) – not an ‘issue’, except, perhaps, for the PR people.”

When asked why Obama and Hillary Clinton are so “obsessed” with replacing Assad in Syria, the answer was not forthcoming.

“Nobody could figure out why. Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period.”

This White House policy came long before Hillary Clinton. Indeed, since the Ba’ath Party in 1957, Assad’s party has been the subject of a CIA coup. Why? To enable an oil pipeline for the democratic (and Hillary Clinton) favorites, the Saudi’s through Syria. Before Hillary Clinton’s decades-old plan could come to fruition; however, a multitude of Syrian coups took place.

Despite the efforts of the Hillary Clinton State Department and the Barrack Obama White House, the Trans-Arabia pipeline still doesn’t exist.

However, Obama, via Hillary Clinton, is the first U.S. president to serious tried to push for the long-anticipated Syrian regime change that would be required for the pipeline to come to pass.

The issue has drawn Russia into the most substantial conflict with the U.S. since the Cold War, all under Hillary Clinton’s leadership of the State Department.

“The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman). Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).”

Maybe Hersh was incorrect to proclaim that “nobody could figure out why” Obama (and previously Hillary Clinton) were so obsessed with overthrowing Assad. According to Hersh, they have all been hired to do specific jobs. Jobs that remained the same after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded.

“Hersh then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria with foreign jihadists to serve as the necessary ground forces for his planned aerial bombardment there, and, ‘if you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’ So, they actually pushed a lot of people [jihadists] to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but they certainly gave visas.”

However, Hillary Clinton’s America is not required to ally so closely with her Middle Eastern allies.

Rather, the support of the U.S. government to the Syrian rebels is solely at the behest of Hillary Clinton and her friends. If things go right, the Hillary Clinton-supporting aristocrats in the U.S. will be both supplying salaries for jihadists and walking off with a substantial profit.

As CNN reports, Ted Cruz dropped out of the 2016 presidential race tonight. It looks like it’s going to be a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Do you really want a U.S. president in 2017 that is conspiring with our enemies, as Hillary Clinton is reportedly doing?

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Did Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Approve Sending Sarin Gas to Syrian Rebels?

Jill Stein’s Vote-Recounts Aim for a Hillary Clinton Victory


clinton stein

Prior to the U.S. election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Obama White House, were saying that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was aiming to make Americans distrust the results of the November election. Of course, at that time, Clinton was considered almost certain to win.

Here was a typical piece of their campaign-propaganda at that time — the time when the expectation was that if there would be any challenge to the election-results, it would be coming from Trump, not from Clinton:

However, after Clinton turned out to be the loser in the election’s initial results, the face on that magazine-cover ought to be Jill Stein’s, instead of Vladimir Putin’s, because Stein is actually the person who turns out to be the prime mover in the attempt to discredit the initial outcome of November’s election.

The Clinton campaign is now joining Jill Stein’s effort to switch the results in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — that barely went tor Trump in the vote-count (Stein is ignoring to have vote-recounts in the states that Hillary had barely won: New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Nevada; so, this is hardly a non-partisan operation).

Furthermore, an article by Steve Rosenfeld at the anti-Russian website alternet headlined on November 26th, «Green Recount Effort Poised to Explore Whether Russia Hacked the Vote for Trump: The stakes and lines of inquiry became clearer as the Clinton campaign joined the effort». This fascinating report from a different anti-Russian propaganda site, indicates that «the first recount petition filed by the Greens, in Wisconsin, primarily focused on Russian hacking, not on the more easily understood line of inquiry of different voting technologies reporting different margins of victory for Trump despite their locations».

Rosenfeld supported that line of attack against a Trump win, citing as evidence for it an article at the anti-Russian website Medium, by an anti-Russian computer scientist at the University of Michigan, who argued that Russia possessed both the capacity and the will to throw the election to Trump. That professor cited as his sources other anti-Russian entities, such as the Obama Administration, and the rabidly anti-Russian Ukrainian regime that Obama had installed in a bloody coup (fronted by ‘democracy protesters’in Kiev during February 2014 (and which even a CIA-friendly American intelligence-expert called «the most blatant coup in history»). The Michigan anti-Russian professor said:

«Federal agencies publicly asserted that senior officials in the Russian government commissioned these attacks. Russia has sophisticated cyber-offensive capabilities, and has shown a willingness to use them to hack elections. In 2014, during the presidential election in Ukraine, attackers linked to Russia sabotaged the country’s vote-counting infrastructure and, according to published reports, Ukrainian officials succeeded only at the last minute in defusing vote-stealing malware that was primed to cause the wrong winner to be announced».

(Where that anti-Russian professor linked «election in Ukraine,» the source linked-to was the anti-Russian Christian Science Monitor, headlining in June 2014, «Ukraine election narrowly avoided ’wanton destruction’ from hackers (+video): A brazen three-pronged cyber-attack against last month’s Ukrainian presidential elections has set the world on notice – and bears Russian fingerprints, some say». The «Russian fingerprints» that were actually identified in that article, however, were not at all the Russian government, but «pro-Russia hackers, [who] infiltrated Ukraine’s central election computers and deleted key files, rendering the vote-tallying system inoperable», and who promptly posted online «spilling e-mails and other documents onto the web», which hardly seems like the sort of surreptitious election-manipulation operation that the professor, and Clinton, and Stein, are allegedly trying to document to have occurred in the Trump-Clinton electoral contest.)

So, all of that professor’s sources were anti-Russian and accepted U.S.-government propaganda without question — and furthermore cited sources as being evidence for hypotheses that they didn’t actually support.

Rosenfeld’s article noted that that professor’s article had prompted «the Clinton campaign’s top lawyer, Marc Elias» to seek a recount in the three states that in the initial counts had barely tipped to Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And, coincidentally Jill Stein had already been seeking funding to do precisely that; so, the Clinton campaign was now conveniently jumping aboard her bus (if it wasn’t actually Clinton’s bus from the very start — and funded by Clinton’s billionaires).

Both CNN and the ‘alternative news’ site alternet, and other ’news’ sites, quoted the Clinton campaign’s lawyer, Elias, who wrote at Medium, that, «just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Russian government was behind much of the ‘fake news’ propaganda that circulated online in the closing weeks of the election». (Was he referring to the fake news at sites, and print-publications, such as TIME? No.) On November 27th, I headlined «The Lying Washington Post Gets Exposed, And All Major U.S. ‘News’ Media Refuse To Report It», and documented, both from my own research and from the research by two reporters at The Intercept, that the Washington Post ‘news’ story cited there by the Clinton lawyer was itself fake ‘news’, an outright lie. Instead of America’s ‘news’ media publicizing the exposing of the hoax by the Washington Post, which had been based upon a hoax started by unnamed persons, America’s ’news’ media, and the Clinton campaign’s lawyer, were still citing that hoax, by ‘PropOrNot’ and spread virally now by the WP and other U.S.-government fronts, or ‘news’ media, as being their authority.

On November 28th, TIME headlined «What You Need to Know About the Wisconsin Recount», and a sub-headed section there was:

«What is Clinton’s role?

Peripheral. The effort is being led by Stein, who is filing petitions and raising the money necessary to secure the recount in each state. Though Clinton officials have weighed in on some of Trump’s responses, insight into the Clinton camp’s thoughts on the recount was provided by Elias via Medium».

Subscriptions to the mainstream ‘news’ media have been soaring ever since these medias’ predictions regarding who would almost certainly win the Trump-Clinton electoral contest became disconfirmed by subsequent events. This is like what had happened after those media had told us in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam Hussein must be overthrown because of his weapons of mass destruction. At such times as this, most people seek the assurance of obtaining their information only from ‘the top quality news sources’. And, of course, all of those ‘news’ sources validate all of the other ones; so, those are the ones which benefit the most from the public’s confusions and uncertainties. This is the way ‘democracy’ functions. It’s built on trust. (Trust in ‘authority’, of course.)

Posted in USAComments Off on Jill Stein’s Vote-Recounts Aim for a Hillary Clinton Victory

Hillary Clinton Leads by Two Million in US Popular Vote


H-Clinton

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote over Republican Donald Trump now tops 2 million votes, according to a tabulation of results reported by each state and reported by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Clinton has received 64,223,958 votes to Trump’s 62,206,395, with several million more votes remaining to be counted, mainly mail ballots in California postmarked by November 8 but received by election authorities after that date. Vote counting in California is slowed by the length of the ballot, which includes a large number of complex referenda proposals.

Under the antiquated Electoral College system, which grossly over-represents smaller rural states at the expense of California and other heavily urbanized states, Trump has won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. A vote in the Electoral College, set for December 19, will officially entitle Trump to take the oath of office next January 20.

Clinton’s lead of 2 million votes is far greater than the margin in any previous US presidential contest in which the popular vote loser was installed as president by the Electoral College. Her margin of victory in the popular vote, approaching 2 percent, is greater than that of seven candidates who actually won the presidency.

The antidemocratic character of Trump’s election “victory” has not deterred leading Democrats, from Obama and Clinton on down, from prostrating themselves before the “president-elect.” The newly elected Senate Democratic leader, Charles Schumer, made one passing reference to Trump losing the popular vote, suggesting this meant he had no “mandate,” but he drew no conclusions from this about either the policies or the personnel of the new administration.

Trump himself raised the subject Tuesday in the course of his hour-long, on-the-record discussion with editors, reporters and columnists of the New York Times. He noted criticism that he had not won the popular vote, and then argued that he could have done so if he had campaigned in the most populous states such as California, New York and Texas.

No one at the Times pressed the issue with him—or any other issue, for that matter. The transcript records a generally cordial discussion, punctuated at least 15 times by laughter. No one would guess, reading the transcript, that the newspaper had excoriated Trump not only in its editorial pages and op-ed columns, but also in its news pages, declaring him unfit for the presidency and a threat to American democracy. The verbal broadsides are forgotten, replaced by bowing and scraping before the new “commander-in-chief.”

Despite the media cover-up, however, Trump’s heavy defeat in the popular vote is significant. It underscores the fact that his installation in the White House is not the product of an embrace of his ultra-right policies by the American people.

Democratic candidates have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, but in two of the six popular vote victories, the Democratic candidate—Al Gore in 2000 and now Clinton in 2016—fell short in the Electoral College.

In 2000, when Gore won nationally by 540,000 votes, the election was stolen through the Supreme Court intervention to halt the counting of legal votes in Florida. The notorious Bush v. Gore decision effectively awarded Florida’s electoral votes to Bush and made him president.

A group of computer scientists and election lawyers charged this week that the 2016 election result is equally dubious. They presented a report to leading Democrats, including Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and general counsel Mark Elias, arguing that the vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania had been manipulated in favor of Trump.

The 56 electoral votes from the three populous industrial states were all awarded to Trump, who carried each state by a narrow margin: 27,000 votes in Wisconsin, 9,000 votes in Michigan, and 70,000 votes in Pennsylvania. If these electoral votes shifted to Clinton, she would win the Electoral College by 288 to 250.

The argument, presented by Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, is suggestive, but not conclusive. It relies on the finding that Clinton received disproportionately fewer votes in counties that used electronic voting machines compared to counties that used paper ballots and optical scanners. In Wisconsin, the only state analyzed in detail, Clinton may have lost as many as 30,000 votes, more than Trump’s margin of victory.

The analysts did not claim definitive proof, but urged the Democratic Party to file challenges in the three states to force reexamination of the tabulation and, if possible, full recounts. The deadlines are approaching fast: Friday, November 25 for Pennsylvania; Monday, November 28 for Wisconsin; and Wednesday, November 30 for Michigan.

There have long been suspicions of data manipulation by electronic voting machines, partly because of anecdotal reports of error—voters claiming they cast a vote for one candidate only to see the machine record it as a vote for another—and partly because the machines are manufactured by companies run by CEOs with close ties to the Republican Party.

The current claims, however, may well serve as an effort to whitewash the dismal performance of the Democratic Party in key working-class areas, particularly among minority workers in inner-city Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh and other urban centers.

There are additional problems with the claims of electronic manipulation. Michigan conducts voting entirely by means of paper ballots with optical scanners, making such manipulation difficult. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has an entirely electronic voting system, with no paper ballots. However, the state government is under a Democratic Party administration, and would therefore seem unlikely to steal the election for Trump.

Moreover, there have been attempts to link charges of election manipulation to the Russia-baiting by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party during the months before the election, when the Democrats claimed that the Russian government was responsible for hacking into the emails of campaign chairman Podesta and the Democratic National Committee. No evidence was ever presented of a Russian role in the release of these emails, which proved politically embarrassing, and the warnings that Moscow planned to disrupt the functioning of polling places on Election Day proved to be a false alarm.

The main obstacle to any serious investigation into possible rigging of voting machines or state tabulations, however, is the attitude of the Democratic leadership, above all the Obama White House, which has embraced Trump and promised a “smooth transition” to what will undoubtedly be the most reactionary, militaristic and dictatorial government in American history. New York magazine, which first reported the claims of vote manipulation in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, noted the stance of the Obama administration, writing, “Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Hillary Clinton Leads by Two Million in US Popular Vote


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829