Hillary

[Michael Scally MD]

The most flawed female president ever
The most flawed female president ever

…

What is her forte? Just ask anyone who knows her: Personal connection. Networking. Identifying the problem, and then making a plan to fix it. And then fixing it. Follow-through. Getting things done. Genuine warmth, humor and formidable intelligence. Doing what Traister called “the real work of politics,” making her way through a thousand issues and causes at once, in the grit and meat of it, every single day, usually without fanfare, without melodramatic newsworthiness, without much by way of acknowledgement by the Left, or the media, or anyone else.

It’s what all insiders say is her single-most distinctive characteristic: her ability to listen, and take action. And it illuminates the vicious disconnect between endlessly mangled public perception everyone is addicted to, and the hugely impressive one-on-one reality that too few seem to understand.

…

Let’s be clear: Hillary’s record is certainly far from saintly, and her past (and present) have some terrible dark spots, but what politician’s wouldn’t, after 30 years in the blazing spotlight, most of it also in the savage crosshairs of the viciously sexist GOP? Do not misunderstand: her mistakes and corrupt bedfellows are legendary, and deserving of scrutiny. But how much of that scrutiny (and concomitant hate) is because she has the nerve to be Hillary Clinton? Can you even parse?

…

Here, then, is the best gist we can cull. She will make a remarkably effective, historic president, but will do so in a way we are unused to – sans bombast, oratory, glamour, outsized persona, endless extolling of her own virtues to a press and populace trained to mistrust and eviscerate her anyway.

She will get more done and move the needle more effectively in the overall progressive direction than perhaps even Obama was able to manage, but will seek no thanks, no broad-stroke understanding, no notion that lefties will stop hating her because of it, because that’s not her wiring and that’s not what she’s in the game for anyway.

She knows there are no thanks coming. She knows the haters will hate no matter what, because it’s drilled into them, into the culture, into her image. And of course, some of it is deserved, and will continue to be so. And much is not at all deserved, and will never be. Same as it ever was in public life? Sure. Only much more so, because she’s a woman. And a Clinton.

Thing is, devoted Hillary haters have easy and instant access to all the reasons they despise her. Clinton’s flaws, mistakes, backroom dealings and physical shortcomings have been screamed from the rooftops for 30 years, have been drilled into her detractors like a mantra, to the point they never question their snarling ideology, whereas they freely ignore, reject, deny, minimize or are simply bored by all the far less glamorous policies, positions and wild successes she’s had, and continues to have, in their favor, to the point they will never dare change their minds, or even soften their glare. What a thing.

Hating Hillary is as obvious as it is mindlessly hip – but it’s also intellectually lazy. Realizing she’s a tremendously successful, flawed champion for progressive causes, a true workhorse for nearly all that lefties claim to care most about, and that she might, just might, go down in the “triumphant” column of history for far more than her gender, is searingly difficult, and requires going against one’s sociocultural indoctrination, not to mention one’s passionate Facebook friends.

And the strange thing is, as far as the candidate herself is concerned, that’s perfectly OK. She’s used to it. She’ll do the work anyway. But that doesn’t make it any less of a shame.

 

[Mr.B66]

While they fought, they were no doubt clinging to the hope that backup would be there anytime. But backup was NEVER coming, even in a 9 hour fire fight. As a vet , this means a lot to me. SHE AND OBUMMER abandoned them. Where i come from, thats NOT listening and taking action. In fact its quite the opposite.
They were FAR more concerned about their political careers than the lives of our people.
If thats an admirable person to you, well we come from two different worlds.
Then of course there's all the lying, but i expect that from scumbag politicians.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

 

[flenser]

Hillary Sued For Wrongful Death, Defamation By Parents Of Benghazi Victims

Tyler Durden
Aug 9, 2016 11:13 AM

Perhaps in indirect response to the Kahn family attacks on Donald Trump, Pat Smith and Charles Woods, parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods who were killed in the Benghazi terrorist attacks on September 11, 2012, have filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton alleging, among other things, that her "negligent and reckless" actions with regard to her private email server resulted in the "wrongful death" of their sons. The lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia, also accuses Clinton of "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" as they claim she has launched a "smear campaign" against the Plaintiffs in an effort to cover up the facts and save her Presidential campaign.

The suit alleges that Clinton's use of a private email server is what allowed terrorist groups in Libya to obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens which ultimately led to the "wrongful death" of their sons:

This information was compromised from the second that it left Defendant Clinton’s private e-mail server and easily found its way to foreign powers including, but not limited to Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. As a direct result of Defendant Clinton’s reckless handling of this classified, sensitive information, Islamic terrorists were able to obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now infamous September 11, 2012 attack.
​

The suit also alleges that Clinton has gone a "defamatory smear campaign" to paint the Plaintiffs as liars and discredit their claims that Clinton blamed the attacks on a YouTube video in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. The suit goes on to highlight specific instances where Clinton denied that she originally attributed the deaths of the Americans in Benghazi on the YouTube Video.

Defendant Clinton made false and defamatory statements negligently, recklessly, purposefully, and/or intentionally with actual malice as set forth in paragraphs 23(a), (b), (c), and (d) concerning Plaintiffs by stating that Plaintiffs were lying about Clinton having told them that the Benghazi Attack was caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

Now, Defendant Clinton, in an attempt to save her reputation and intimidate Plaintiffs and their surviving family members into silence as she attempts to be elected President in the November, 2016 election, has gone on a defamatory smear campaign to paint Plaintiffs as liars in the public eye in order to discredit Plaintiffs, who have been vocal about Defendant Clinton’s pattern and practice of dishonesty regarding what caused the Benghazi attack, its aftermath, and the death of their sons.

March 9, 2016 – Democratic Presidential Debate – When asked about Plaintiff Smith’s allegation that Defendant Clinton lied to her by blaming the Benghazi Attack on the YouTube video, Defendant Clinton responded by saying, “I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi, and I certainly can’t even imagine the grief that she has for losing her son, but she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong.”​

The suit points out the various instances where Clinton did in fact reference the YouTube video as the potential cause of the attack:

After the Benghazi Attack, Defendant Clinton attempted to blame an anti-Muslim YouTube video for inciting the Benghazi Attack. On September 11, 2012, Defendant Clinton stated in a Press Statement, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Again, on September 12, 2012, in a public speech, Defendant Clinton states, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

On September 14, 2012, Defendant Clinton met privately with the family members of the four Americans who were killed during the Benghazi Attack, including Plaintiffs Pat Smith and Charles Woods (“Woods”) at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. During the private meeting, Defendant Clinton lied to Plaintiffs and told Plaintiffs that the Benghazi Attack was the result of the anti-Muslim YouTube video that had been posted online and that the creator of the video would be arrested.

Woods contemporaneously recorded this September 14, 2012 interaction with Defendant Clinton by writing in his diary, stating that “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.”​

Paradoxically, she simultaneously admitted the attack "had nothing to do with the film" to the Egyptian Prime Minister:

In another email the day after the Benghazi Attack, Defendant Clinton directly told the Egyptian Prime Minister “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”​

Unfortunately, video of remarks made by Mrs. Clinton seem to support the claims made by Pat Smith. Below is a video of comments made by Secretary of State Clinton on September 14, 2012, as the bodies of Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith were arriving home, in which she clearly blames the attacks on a YouTube video (fast forward to about the 1:00 mark for the specific comments).



And then we have the video of Clinton from a recent Democratic Presidential Debate saying the Mrs. Smith is "wrong." We guess we should just ignore the video above then? That never happened...nothing to see here.



But we're sure this was just another couple of "short-circuits" that will conveniently fade away.

Full complaint [here]

 

[XKawN]

Father of Orlando shooter, largest mass shooting in US history, attends clinton rally. Son is a muslim terrorist and father is an open supporter of the taliban. Not suprising terrorists support clinton. Her agendas support them back.

 

[flenser]

Father of Orlando shooter, largest mass shooting in US history, attends clinton rally. Son is a muslim terrorist and father is an open supporter of the taliban. Not suprising terrorists support clinton. Her agendas support them back.

Yup..

Orlando Killer's Father "Knew Obama"? Schmoozed In Washington, Sought Afghan Presidency

Tyler Durden
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

How close was presumed killer Omar Mateen to the bizarre world of Washington politics?

Close enough to raise your hackles about what is really going on.

Mateen’s father, Seddique Mateen, apparently visits the Capitol frequently, take pictures in front of the State Department and White House press room, and likes to pose with Congressmen, especially from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

There are also rumors, though they are unconfirmed, that Seddique Mateen has also met with President Obama.

His activity at the State Department and Foreign Affairs Committee also suggest possible liaisons with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry, along with other U.S. politicians.

Picture of him were posted to his Facebook account:

Seddique is currently running for president in Afghanistan, and has been lobbying for State Department backing in what would be a tense balance between support for the Taliban and U.S. alike. He also broadcasts a TV show in California that feature his political views and campaign material.

full article

 

[flenser]

Speaking of potential for provoking a nuke exchange..

Former CIA Director And Hillary Supporter: "We Should Kill Russians And Iranians Covertly"

Tyler Durden
Aug 9, 2016 5:43 PM

Last Friday, former deputy and acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell became the latest neocon to join the Hillary bandwagon with a NYT Op-Ed titled "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton" in which he not only praised Hillary but slammed Donald Trump, as follows: "Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.... In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

What Morell, who sought to portray himself as bipartisan, did not say, is that he was an active participant in painting the Benghazi attacks as caused by YouTube video. When Hillary Clinton says 'best information provided by the intelligence community" she is referring to her man in the CIA: Michael Morell was the CIA official who crafted the "talking points" on Benghazi with the Obama White House according to his own testimony in 2014 to Congress. In emails later uncovered by Congress, CIA Director David Petraeus called the resulting talking-point language 'useless.'

What he also forgot to mention is that in 2013, he left the CIA to join a DC consultancy group with strong links to Hillary Clinton. http://bgsdc.com/team/michael-j-morell/, is a ten-person firm whose co-founders include http://bgsdc.com/team/philippe-i-reines/, a senior counselor to Hillary Clinton when she ran the State Department. Reines is still her spokesman, serving in that capacity in what New York magazine calls 'a second full-time job. “And if she runs again... Reines will be onboard,” the magazine concluded in Ferbruary 2014. Meaning that Morell, as a senior official at Beacon, will also likely be part of the Clinton spin machine.

But what he most certainly did not mention is that when it comes to the pinnacle of neocons (for Hillary), none matches Mr. Morell. In fact as the following interview excerpt with Charlie Rose conducted last night reveals, Morell may be considered the latest war criminal who openly conspired to "covertly" kill Russians and Iranians in Syria.

Attempting to justify what is essentially a conspiracy to commit acts of murder, terrorism and war, Morell compared his proposal to alleged covert operations waged against the US during its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and onward. The difference between the US invasion of Iraq and that of Russia's intervention in Syria, however, is significant. The US invaded Iraq in 2003, predicated upon a premeditated lie, while Russia was invited to aid the acting government of Syria.

Here is the key exchange:

Morell: We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make the Russians pay the price.

Rose: We make them pay the price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?

Morell: Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the world about it. You don't stand at the Pentagon and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad. I want to go after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. I want to destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to make him think we are coming after him.​

Since Morell's comments in 2015, two Russian helicopters have been shot down, one by terrorist organisation "the Islamic State," and one by Jabhat Al Nusra, a US State Department designated terrorist organisation also known as "Al Qaeda in Syria."

While we don't know if the Kremlin would be interested by this admission, we do know that for Mike Morell there is just one presidential candidate he would endorse: Hillary.

Clip below:

 

[flenser]

Wikileaks offers $20k reward over dead DNC staffer, but won’t confirm he leaked emails
Published time: 10 Aug, 2016 09:46
Edited time: 10 Aug, 2016 10:32

Assange made the comments on Dutch television about a DNC staffer's murder. © Peter Nicholls / Reuters

The whistleblowing organization Wikileaks wants to catch those responsible for the murder of Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich and are now offering a $20,000 reward for information.

The group’s co-founder Julian Assange suggested on Dutch television that if Rich is the source of the 20,000 emails exposing the party’s sabotage of the Bernie Sanders campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton, he may have been killed over it.

However, when asked if Rich was a Wikileaks source, Assange refused to comment, merely saying they were investigating the circumstances surrounding his murder.


Wikileaks tweeted about the reward on Tuesday for information leading to the “conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”


Rich worked as voter expansion data director at the DNC before he was shot twice on his way home on July 10. He died later in hospital.

“If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,” his father Joel Rich told local TV station KMTV.

Assange made his comments on Dutch television show Nieuwsuur. When asked why he was commenting on Rich’s murder, he said, “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States.”

Wikileaks offers a secure upload submission option in which no identifying data about a source is recorded, according to the whistleblowing website.

Under these circumstances, Assange and Wikileaks staff would not know who sent them the DNC emails.


continued... (max media limit)

 

[flenser]

... continued

Last month's leaks revealed a fractured Democratic party with a pro-Hillary Clinton agenda, while her progressive opponent Bernie Sanders was still in the race for the party's nomination.

Wikileaks also claimed on Tuesday that Ecuador were being pressured to end Assange’s asylum in their London embassy over fears the leak could damage the country’s reputation with the US.


Social media ignited in reaction to the Wikileaks tweet with a range of jokes and conspiracy theories.

 

[kawilt]

Covert assasinations by OUR govenment?.....Thats ridiculous!

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Oops!

 

[flenser]

^^ I remember that. Back then Obama's (fake) antiwar positions were enough to gain my strong support. I was outraged the media let her get away with that shit. Considering her record, it's very possible she looked into having it arranged.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome: Diagnosing the real reason that so many Americans hate Hillary
Clinton Derangement Syndrome: Diagnosing the real reason that so many Americans hate Hillary

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

 

[kawilt]

Clinton Derangement Syndrome: Diagnosing the real reason that so many Americans hate Hillary
Clinton Derangement Syndrome: Diagnosing the real reason that so many Americans hate Hillary

Don't know who this "journalist" is my friend. But this is certainly a stretch.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Don't know who this "journalist" is my friend. But this is certainly a stretch.

I stopped reading at "She is experienced, she is qualified" because I thought it was satire.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Hillary Clinton Campaign Says She Would Reschedule Marijuana [Boom!!!]
Government officials (Team Hillary, too) respond to DEA’s pot rescheduling denial

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton plans to reschedule marijuana if she is elected in November, according to a statement issued by the campaign.

“We applaud the steps taken today by the Obama Administration to remove research barriers that have significantly limited the scientific study of marijuana,” Maya Harris, a senior policy advisor to Clinton’s campaign, said in a statement. “Marijuana is already being used for medical purposes in states across the country, and it has the potential for even further medical use. As Hillary Clinton has said throughout this campaign, we should make it easier to study marijuana so that we can better understand its potential benefits, as well as its side effects.

“As president, Hillary will build on the important steps announced today by rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. She will also ensure Colorado, and other states that have enacted marijuana laws, can continue to serve as laboratories of democracy.”

 

[kawilt]

Well my goodness...considering the Clintons and coke, maybe we can look foreward to being able to pick up a vial or two at the drug store someday

 

[flenser]

Man, this crap just never ends...

Justice Department Prevented FBI Probe Of Clinton Foundation; Reporters Slam State Department Stonewalling

Tyler Durden
Aug 11, 2016 10:04 PM

For an increasingly vocal group in this country - that sees 'the establishment' for what it is - it may not come as a total shock that CNN is reporting that The (Clinton-appointee-Loretta-Lynch-run) Department of Justice has "pushed back" against The FBI's desires to begin a probe to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure.

Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, a US official has told CNN...

At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official.

FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure.​

Makes perfect sense right? But before we go on, as a gentle reminder - it was then President Bill Clinton that gave Loretta Lynch her big break, nominating her in 1999 to serve as US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York... "probably nothing"

So with that said, guess what happened next?

The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.​

As so as a result...

DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year.

Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.​

For there to be criminal conflict of interest, there would have to be evidence showing a government employee received something of value in exchange, such as a job post-employment or money. But, as CNN points out,

There doesn't appear to be anything so far suggesting that in the newly released heavily redacted emails from Judicial Watch, but those emails do raise questions about whether the relationship between the State Department and Clinton Foundation was too cozy, particularly after Clinton pledged she would not be involved with the foundation when she became secretary of state in an effort to prevent an inappropriate relationship.

In a case where there's a possible conflict of interest that's not necessarily criminal, the inspector general can look into it and take an administrative remedy if necessary.

The State Department OIG has been looking into connections between the State Department and Clinton during her term as Secretary of State since earlier this year, but has not said anything about the matter.​

And it is this stonewalling in the face of clear evidence of the potential for 'inappropriate relationships' that has pushed a normaly docile press corps to its breaking point with The State Department. As Mediaite details, having refused to comment - other than the prepared party-line bullshit - when asked straightforward questions with regard the potential for conflicts of interest raised by the emails, reporters confronted State spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau...

Three separate reporters - starting with NBC’s Abigail Williams - asked Trudeau about whether there was any improper relationship between State and the Clinton Foundation.

Trudeau repeatedly downplayed the emails and said the department is “regularly in touch” with a wide range of people.

​

One reporter pointed out that Clinton had “made a pledge” not to involve herself with the foundation while she was Secretary of State. Trudeau shot back that the agreement did not preclude others from talking to foundation staff.

At one point, as another reporter - the AP’s Matt Lee - was getting frustrated with the lack of answers, he said this: “I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.”​

Enjoy...


So - to summarize - we have hard evidence of the potential for an inappropriate relationship between Hillary Clinton's State Department and The Clinton Foundation - after she had pledged that this would not occur. We have The Justice Department - led by Clinton appointee Loretta Lynch - implicitly blocking The FBI's probe of The Clinton Foundation's dealings (for, among other reasons, the timing could be viewed as "politically motivated." We have a State Department Inspector General who is silent.. and a State Department public relations person who has stonewalled so much, even the American press corps has grown frustrated... and the mainstream media on TV will be running stories on Trump's poll numbers, his apparent 'resignation' to losing, and his "friends and family" economic plan.

Is it any wonder an increasingly frustrated majority of Americans do not trust Hillary, the establishment, and the status quo's American Dream? Simply put, the lengths by which strings are being pulled to ensure a Clinton presidency may well turn out to the straw that broke the camel's back of public restraint... especially if GDP, productivity, US corporate revenues, and construction spending is a more accurate picture of economic reality than the goal-seeked narrative-confirming payrolls data.

 

[flenser]

Moving Away from Hillary
Bionic Mosquito (Jonathan Goodwin)
Friday, August 12, 2016

If you have not yet read the recent post by Charles Hugh Smith at LRC, I encourage you to do so (and found in its entirety http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.rs/2016/08/could-deep-state-be-sabotaging-hillary.html). I agree with it virtually entirely, and Smith does a thorough job on a topic that I have written about for several years – but instead of my writing it again, I will cite Smith. The title of his post offers a big clue: “Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary?”

…I suspect it's overly simplistic. I suspect major power centers in the Deep State are actively sabotaging Hillary because they've concluded she is a poisoned chalice who would severely damage the interests of the Deep State and the U.S.A. (Emphasis in original)
​

While I grant that there are powerful interests who back Hillary (including most of the visible, and therefore less important, of the elite), there are important elements of the elite that do not want to see Clinton as president. Smith lists several reasons in his post – all accurate, in my view. The most important one in my mind has been and remains – well, I will again cite Smith:

…Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the elements of the Deep State that have concluded the U.S. must move beyond the neo-con strategic failures to secure the nation's core interests.
​

I will summarize my reasons as to why I have felt this way for the last several years.

First and foremost, the elite fear nuclear war as much as you and I do. Ever since Clinton I (another reason they don’t want Clinton II), the US has pushed further and further toward antagonizing the one great power that can annihilate not only the US but the world; add to this the antagonism toward nuclear-capable China (I recall Hillary threatening to act against China regarding the South China Sea on more than one occasion – the South China Sea being adjacent to…China).

Was there antagonism and risk of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War? Certainly. But there were also buffer zones between the reach of the United States and Soviet (and now Russian) borders; there were mechanism to avert and diffuse tension. Today there are none – even former Soviet Republics are now within NATO.

Second: why did Hillary lose in 2008? The election was clear path for a Democrat, after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years. Why was an almost unknown, completely inexperienced senator chosen in place of her? Even McCain would seemingly have been an acceptable candidate if the simple narrative of “the elite” is accepted.

Was it spontaneous combustion that turned Obama into the media favorite almost overnight?

I have long felt that Obama was chosen because he was the relative hawk in the bunch. Despite the continuation and expansion of wars throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, I remain of the view that the destruction would have been worse under Clinton: Iran, Ukraine, Syria (even worse than now, with Assad destroyed) – all leading to confrontation with Russia.

Third: significant individuals have written against the US policies of war, expansion, and antagonism toward Russia. Here is my write-up based on commentary from Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (the post begins with a lamentation of Rand Paul’s switch to neocon – a few years ago I felt Rand was the selected vessel for this alternative-elite path, except that he couldn’t read the tea leaves at all). A small sample, from Gelb:

Russians, Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians plunge on toward the all-time foreign policy record for venality, lying, hypocrisy and self-destructive maneuvers. They show no shame and scant regard for consequences.

Last but not least are our very own American heroes. Hillary Clinton, of course, hit the jackpot with her comparison of Putin to Hitler (never mind her clarification the next day).
​

How about John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, writing in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations? Again, a small sample:

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression…But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis.

For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw.

Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics.
​

Not a big enough name for you? What about Henry Kissinger, listing one after another the failings of US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War?

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis.

To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination.
​

Kissinger has written and spoken often on his disappointment with the direction US foreign policy has taken with respect to Russia and China over the last decades.

Conclusion

Hillary, like many tools, is a wind-up doll: playing the game she was trained to play and unable to consider other issues. Unfortunately, there are many like her. This is the risk to those who have created the monster (the US government) that they may not be able now to control.

It seems to me the "deep-state" prefers the Kissinger / Nixon model - enough tension to keep fear in the population, but behind the scenes (and sometimes in public view) a working relationship that involves communication and cooperation in order to minimize the risks.

Clinton offers no hope in this regard; Trump says “Let’s make a deal.”

There is a meaningful subset of the Anglo-elite that prefers “Let’s make a deal.”