Hillary Clintons War Record - 100% For GenocideBy Brandon Turbeville In addition to her history regarding the Syrian and Libyan crises, it should never be forgotten that Hillary Clinton has supported virtually every military conflict launched during and since her husbands own disastrous tenure as President. Remember, in 2002-2003, Hillary Clinton not only supported the push for war in Iraq, she voted for the invasion. In fact, she was fervent in her support for the war, delivering impassioned speeches on the Senate floor in order to convince members of Congress who might have been on the fence, as well as the general American population and a handful of Democrats and liberals who valued her opinion on the topic, that war was the right choice. Indeed, Hillarys speech promoting war in Iraq rivaled only George W. Bush who was campaigning night and day on American television. Hillary stated on the floor of the Senate: I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.[1] Clinton then began to detail not only why she believed the United States should begin its invasion, but also insinuated that the operation, if the first Gulf war was anything to go by, would not result in a long drawn out conflict but a war more like the first. Although Clinton did not state this directly, the implication was that it was time go in and finish the job. It was also insinuated that much of the work was already done.[2] In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations, she said.[3] Clinton stated that, after the first Gulf war, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work.[4] She then rushed to point out that international community (everyone) knew that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. She stated that The [U.N.] inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.[5] As the Washington Times stated, She expressed support for her husbands decision in 1998 to push for regime change, and ripped the U.N. for putting limits on its inspections. And she went on and on about Saddams WMD stockpile, saying he held so many secret sites that were huge compounds well-suited to hold weapons labs, stocks.[6] Clinton then went for broke by declaring that Hussein was on his way to developing a nuclear weapon that he would then use to destroy the Middle East and even the United States. She stated that Saddam, left unchecked will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.[7] Although Clinton now attempts to brush off her treasonous assistance to drum up an illegal and immoral war in Iraq as a mistake, the truth is that anyone with any political judgement knew that the war itself was the mistake. While she also attempts to blame the faulty intelligence of the Bush administration, it was Hillary Clinton herself who once referred to the intelligence as undisputed. [8] Clinton was also an avid supporter of an Afghanistan surge that was conducted by Obama during his first year in office. In fact she argued for an even greater surge and suggested that leaving too early would signal we were abandoning Afghanistan.[9] Interestingly enough, Clinton opposed the Bush surge in Iraq in 2007, voting against the plan during her tenure in the Senate.[10] This vote marks virtually the only Clinton vote that was opposed to greater use of the US military. However, it was later revealed that her opposition vote was nothing more than political grandstanding due to the fact that the Democratic Primaries were right around the corner. In fact, this much was revealed by former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates who wrote that he witnessed Clinton tell Barack Obama that she had opposed George W. Bushs last-ditch effort to salvage the Iraq war, the 2007 troop surge, because the politics of the 2008 Democratic primaries demanded it.[11] This cynical political maneuvering reveals two things: 1.) That Clinton truly supported increasing the number of US forces in Iraq and 2.) Clinton was willing to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women, the financial future of the country, and the countless lives of innocent people on the line for even a minor political strategic position. Still, Clinton was a staunch supporter of the war in Afghanistan, yet another in a long list of Clinton-supported wars based on lies, half-truths, and deceit. After all, despite the numerous facts and inconsistencies disproving the official story of 9/11, U.S. intelligence and military connections to al-Qaeda (which Clinton was well aware of), and the known pre-concert to go to war with Afghanistan prior to 9/11, Clinton was an avid supporter of the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan. Clinton even went so far as to bring in the gender issue a tactic which she is famous for. Clinton argued that an invasion would not only be a way to fight terrorism, but it would be a way to improve the lives and condition of women who suffered under Taliban leadership.[12] Thus, when it came time for an even more brazen war campaign based on lies and machinations of the ruling administration and its media mouthpieces, Clinton was on board again. Voting for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, Clinton vociferously promoted the cause for war and, once that war had taken place, she argued against leaving too soon.[13] Even on the question of Iran, Clinton has not only pushed the nonsensical line that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and presents a major threat to the world (meaning the United States and Israel) but she also suggested military action against the Persian nation.[14] As Steve Chapman for Reason.com writes, Anyone who thinks the only thing worse than a nuclear-armed Iran is a war with Iran will find no friend in Clinton. Going back to 2007, she has stressed the option of launching airstrikes to keep Tehran from getting the bomb. Like most in her camp, she acts as though a pre-emptive attack would be quick and easyinstead of being the opening round of a war that would not stick to her script any more than Iraq stuck to Bushs.[15] Michael Crowley of TIME writes, Clinton brought a hard-line background to the topic of Iran. In April 2008 she warned that the U.S. could totally obliterate[16] Iran in retaliation for a nuclear attack on Israelprompting Obama to chastise her for using language thats reflective of George Bush. Indeed, Clintons statements would (and probably did) make war-obsessed psychopaths like Lindsey Graham gleam with pride. In 2008, she stated to Good Morning America, I want the Iranians to know that if Im the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel). In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. Thats a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.[18] In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, she stated brashly, Ive always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think its important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out.[19] Of course, there is a right to enrich.[20] There is a right to enrich up to the levels that would indeed allow for the capability to create a nuclear weapon but stopping short of actually doing so. In other words, since Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is entitled all avenues of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment. Clintons warmongering does not end with the Middle East, however. Although not (at least officially) a policy maker herself during her husbands administration, it is no secret that Hillary was fully supportive of both Bill Clintons tragic bombing of Iraq as well as his war in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.[21] [22] As Gary Leupp wrote in his article The Warmongering Rhetoric of Hillary Clinton published by Counterpunch in February, 2015, *She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslaviain Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. Shes stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. I urged him to bomb, she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the worlds savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATOdesigned in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battleshould deal with the Balkan crises. The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the Dayton Accord on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europes heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albrights outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescencedesigned, as she gleefully conceded, to set the bar too high for Belgrade and Moscows acceptanceof NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbias traditional ally Russia. They need some bombing, and thats what they are going to get, Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.[23] Leupp also wrote about Clintons support for the horrific sanctions that resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of innocent Iraqis during her husbands tenure as President. He wrote, Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Husseins (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, We think it was worth it. Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 Operation Desert Fox (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraqs military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.[24] Webster Griffin Tarpley sums up Hillarys war record succinctly in his article Hillary Clinton: The International Neocon Warmonger, when he writes, As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason. Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clintons career reveals the empirical evidence of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe. Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention, claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent. This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: We came, we saw, he died. As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state conducive for exporting radicals through ratlines to the conflict against Assad in Syria. Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads. Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved behind the scenes in Irans failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a snap-back in policy by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this article? Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back. This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario. Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husbands hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: I urged him to bomb, even if it was a unilateral action. While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government. When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenkos proto-fascist rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putins actions like what Hitler did in the 30s. As a leader of the bumbled reset policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine. Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive response to what she called the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America. This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil. It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillarys clumsy faade comes directly from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillarys term as Secretary of State. He claimed in the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the mainstream by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted. Kagan stated: If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursueits something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else. What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.[25] Indeed, her support for war and military confrontation is perhaps the only thing Hillary Clinton is honest about. Notes: [1] Curl, Joseph. Hillary Clinton Supported Iraq War Before She Opposed It. Washington Times. May 17, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/joseph-curl-hillary-clinton-supported-iraq-war-bef/?page=all Accessed on August 28, 2015. Brandon Turbeville article archive here is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelors Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbevilles podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. Hillary and Mad Maddie Albright have a pile of dead Iraqi children bodies trailing after them, ten miles long.. Every sentient being in the galaxy knows shes a miscreant. She is indeed a most vile creature. Clinton, Obama, Bush, Reagan, all nothing but actors directed by the financial mafia to fool the masses. We have known criminals as leaders. Im sure the american people will think the progressive act of selecting a woman for president will magically correct all these issues just like we thought that of obama because he is black. The criminal cabal in government and big business sees our weakness and preys upon it, and we never disappoint even in the face of past failures. In closing, I cant help thinking of a quote from Einstein. I agree 100% Yep.. Sadly, you are right. Hmmm When it comes to war in the Middle East for Israel (the 1991 gulf war did not serve Israel because there was no regime change or total destruction of infrastructure throughout the country) Hillary and Bernie have been in lock step pretty all the way. I see that activist post cannot resist pushing the propaganda line that Bernie voted no in 2002 and therefore opposed the war. What utter nonsense. That vote was purely symbolic. Why? because a few months later Bernie voted to grant President Bush essentially unlimited power to wage war in the Middle East without Congressional approval. Bernie Sanders voted YES to war when it counted. And he continued to vote yes for war by approving just about every military appropriations bill which either expanded the military and/or supported war in the Middle East. Sanders is not only a hypocrite and a fraud with regard to war and the military industrial complex he continues to so faithfully support (think F35, Lockheed Martin etc.) But his claims of being a civil rights champion is also a sham. Apparently if you are Muslim, Particularly Palestinian, or until very recently a person of color, you didnt qualify for Bernies attention. And finally the notion that a man who has essentially done nothing but hold political office his entire life, including a quarter century in Congress is not a career politician or an Washington Insider is laughable. More to the point, is simply isnt true. He is just another professional politician posturing for the National media while busily talking out of both sides of his mouth. the CLINTON FOUNDATION-for-laundering-bribes-for-CLINTON-enrichment has collected over $400MILLION . TAKE ALL of it, all $400million is LAUNDERED BRIBE MONEY. EVERY PENNY.TAKE it, TAKE it and give it to Americas FOOD BANKS. Poor Women and Children need food NOW. The Clintons CLAIM the Fund is to help People HELP THEM RIGHT NOW! FEED THEM ! Seeing ALL that money immediately going to the POOR should fill the CLINTONS hearts with JOY and HAPPINESS. In Article IV of the NPT treaty it states: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. Clinton claims that the right to enrichment is not mentioned and that only development and research are guaranteed, ignoring that there is no way to produce and use nuclear energy without enrichment. She knows this, and this makes her a cynical liar. She voted to invade Iraq with the 97% of Republicans and against the 58% of Democrats in Congress who voted against it. She believed Bushs lies. That alone disqualifies her for the Presidency. I am supporting Bernie, and if Clinton wins, I will vote for the Green Party of California, where Democrats win by millions. At this point even calling them Bushs lies is inaccurate. Clinton told the same lies using the same intel to justify Operation Desert Fox when he bombed Iraq in 1998 and nobody protested. Clinton withdrew inspectors and Scott Ritter revealed it was under false pretense. Saddam, at that time had no choice but to realize he could never please the US. War was inevitable after that, which is why Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. I hope no one is stupid enough to say I am blaming Clinton pointing out that Clinton and Bush are guilty of the same crimes is hardly blaming Clinton. But the fact remains that anyone can see Bush was just a symptom of a larger evil neocon/neoliberal agenda that the Clintons are just as much a part of. Bush and Clinton both repeated the lies of a powermad globalist elite. It was Bushs lies, for which he said he said he had solid evidence(tho he knew the intelligence agencies disputed this claim),which led to war authorization and an attack which has killed one million,mostly civilians. Clinton was not President at this time. There were widespread protests against Operation Desert Fox. Also, not a million but at most thousands according to the Iraqis in an operation which lasted 4 days, not 10 years. I also condemn Clinton for his economic sanctions which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children. But the criminal invasion of 2003, which has killed nearly a million civilians, was a Republican war (58% of Dems voted against; 97% of Repubs for), justified by the lies about solid evidence of WMD and links to al Quada, promoted by Bush,Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld,and Powell. It was Bushs war,one for he could not wait for the UN weapons inspection team to complete its investigations (it asked for 1 or 2 months,with zero evidence of WMD) and which,lacking UN approval, was called by the head of the UN an illegal war. It was a criminal war based on lies promoted by the Bush administration. Those Democrats who believed the lies and voted against their own party (Clinton, Kerry, Feinstein) should be denounced and rejected by all parties along with the 97% of Republicans who promoted the lies which led to a slaughter of a Hitlerian scale. To denounce Clinton for his crimes is not to excuse Bush for lying to the public,Congress,and the world about solid evidence of Iraqi WMD and links to 9/11. This was Bushs war,a war he wanted and was willing to lie top justify. Thats a simple fact. The criminals who have stolen power got your number. All designed to divide and conquer. Vote on war authorization in 2003: The claim that voting for war and against war is a false paradigm is idiotic. I am not a Republican or Democrat but support progressive values and policies. The easiest way to divide conquer is to suppress citizen participation. Oppositon to war and oligarchy will use all means available from marches to voting,etc. Bushs war was supported by a majority of Repubs and a minority of Dems. Your denial and cynicism only benefit the hawks. Hillary has gotten a pass on this highly important issue. One thatto mein and of itself disqualifies her to continue her career and put a capstone on her resume with the presidency. Her canned response now to references to her support of the illegal invasion of Iraq is toalmost impatientlyremind the questioner that I said it was a mistake. Not so much that it was a mistakeand a huge, expensive, deadly onebut that Hey, Ive already addressed that can we move on now? She regurgitates what her advisors tell her to do, for damage control, nothing more. She is a purely political creature, and most of her supporters accept her on that basis, and gush over the image her machine spins out to wrap her up in PR silk and hopes for a brighter future. Debates mean little in this context, for they are largely performances, which lawyers are well-suited to produce. There is one substantive measure for a candidate for high office and one only: what is the track record of their careers? Insofar as garnering wide-scale public support for her candidacy Hillary loses that one to Bernie and she knows it. The main thrust of her advocacy as Ive listened these past months is to put her in as the lesser of two evils. That doesnt play to the millennials. Not when youve got a man of Bernie Sanders integrity and guts. As strong, citizen-powered movements spring up and gather steam for constitutional action by the people against Citizens United, and for term limits in Congress, it is clear that the man has ignited a true political upheaval in this country. Im very glad Im around to see it, and to take part. Obama and Hillery both support eugenics by forcing us to live in a toxic environment. i.e. toxic air, toxic water, toxic food, and toxic vaccines. The financial mafia has already chosen/selected this woman, ( I use that term loosely ) to be the next president. Im afraid we will go down in history as the worlds most advanced idiots 