Guest Column: Root of Hillary’s Would-Be Armageddon

Who is behind Hillary Clinton’s Hostility for Russia and Why it Matters
By Christopher Bollyn [Excerpt from source column here]

hillary_warmongerThe Jerusalem conference (Netanyahu Institute, 1979) also helped to revive the anti-Soviet alliance between Israel and the United States by charging the Soviets with responsibility for “funding, training, and equipping international terrorism.” This new charge helped keep the United States and the Soviet Union at each other’s throats, thus preventing them from agreeing on a diplomatic solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.
“International Terrorism”:  The Propaganda War, Philip Paull, 1982

Palestinian refugees in Yarmouk camp near Damascus, Syria, have been victims of the U.S.-led war of terror imposed on Syria since 2011.

Criminality Exposed – Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in 2012 that “the best way to help Israel” is to “use force” to overthrow the government in Syria. What nation was she working for, anyway?

Concerning matters of war and peace, the relationship between the United States and Russia is certainly the most important foreign policy issue facing American voters in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Because the two leading presidential candidates have such different positions on Russia, the outcome of the U.S. election will have profound consequences for the entire world.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, is openly hostile to Russia and advocates reckless policies, such as no-fly zones over Syria, which could lead to a military conflict between the two super-powers.

Donald Trump, the Republican, on the other hand, offers a much more common-sense and friendly approach to Russia. Compared to Clinton, Trump’s positive posture vis-à-vis Russia is certainly one of the most important reasons why Americans concerned about world peace will cast their votes for him.

The last thing Americans need or want is hostility with Russia, so why is Hillary Clinton fomenting the one thing that nobody wants? And, why is the controlled media in the United States supporting Clinton and the reckless anti-Russian policies she advocates?

The answer is fairly obvious:  Clinton is advocating anti-Russian policies because that is what she has been told to do by the people who control her, which would seem to be the same people who control the media.

There are two things about Russia that the controlled media in the United States constantly misrepresent to the American public:  the Russian annexation of the Crimea and the Russian intervention in Syria.

The controlled media portrays the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula as illegal and aggression, while it clearly is neither.  The media, in fact, turns the matter completely around.  What happened in the Ukraine is that the U.S. State Department, under the leadership of Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (Mrs. Robert Kagan) financed and arranged the violent coup d’état that overthrew the elected government in Kiev, in effect stealing the whole nation of Ukraine. This is the crime that changed Ukraine from being an ally of Russia to becoming a client state of the U.S.

The population of Crimea, which is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking, voted not to join the U.S.-installed government in Kiev and chose to re-join Russia. This was a given that could have easily been predicted. To say that this was aggression on the part of Russia is absolutely false, but that remains the core lie about Russia the controlled media repeats constantly.

The situation is the same with the Russian intervention in Syria.  The Russians were asked by the legal and elected government of Syria to assist in the struggle to put down the terrorist “rebels” that have been armed, trained, and funded by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel since 2011.

The legal situation in Syria is actually very simple:  the Russian intervention in Syria is legal; the U.S. intervention is not. In Syria, the U.S. and its allies are blatantly violating international law and committing war crimes on a daily basis. U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding the terrorist extremists seeking to overthrow the democratically elected leader, Bashar al Assad.

Hillary Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State from January 2009 until February 2013. Victoria Nuland (Kagan) was Clinton’s spokesperson at the State Department from May 2011 through the remainder of Clinton’s term in office. This means that Clinton and Nuland-Kagan saw eye-to-eye and were reading from the same script regarding U.S. foreign policy.

Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, one of the founders of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Zionist and Neo-Con organization that lobbied for the war in Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq. The Kagans have been a driving force for criminal military interventions since the 1990s and seem to have a permanent family fiefdom at the State Department.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton supported the illegal U.S. involvement in Syria, writing that “the best way to help Israel” is to use force to overthrow the elected government in Damascus. Since 2011, the Obama administration has authorized and funded the C.I.A. to work to that end in Syria.

The Russian intervention in Syria threatens to bring to an end the U.S.-led criminal terrorist activity in Syria and leave the coalition of the killing exposed for the criminals that they are. This is the only reason the conflict in Syria drags on and on. The Obama administration and its allies cannot accept defeat in Syria because it would result in the tables in the Middle East being turned completely around against them.

But, why are the Zionist Neo-Cons and the Clinton gang stirring up fear and hostility against Russia?

To understand why Clinton is so hostile to Russia it is worth recalling the U.S. election in 1980 in which Ronald Reagan was elected. During his first press conference in January 1981, Alexander Haig, the new Secretary of State, announced a new focus for U.S. foreign policy, saying “international terrorism will take the place of human rights” and went on to blame the Soviet Union for “training, funding, and equipping” international terrorism.

Haig’s charges against the Soviet Union were very serious, just as Clinton’s are against Russia, but in both cases they are utterly spurious and false.  So, why did such high-level officials make such allegations in the first place?

The Reagan administration was profoundly influenced by Claire Sterling’s 1981 book The Terror Network:  The Secret of International Terrorism, which was often cited by Haig and others to support the administration’s charges about Soviet support for international terrorism.

Philip Paull, author of the thesis “International Terrorism:  The Propaganda War” (1982) analyzed Sterling’s sources and references in her book and found “a trail of deception and misinformation was laid bare.”

Paull found that Sterling’s misquotes were “exact replicas of the misquotes published by the Jonathan (Netanyahu) Institute” in conjunction with the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism arranged by Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu and his father Benzion, and the chiefs of Israeli military intelligence in July 1979.

“There, a coalition had been organized, and a consensus achieved, that would put international terrorism at the top of the Reagan administration’s foreign policy agenda when it assumed office in January 1981,” Paull wrote, adding, “It appeared that Washington’s concern about Soviet support for international terrorism in the winter of 1981 had been created in Jerusalem in the summer of 1979.”

Paull’s thesis proves “that the heightened global media coverage of ‘international terrorism’ during 1980-81 was for the most part a result of a deliberate, well-financed, international propaganda campaign initiated by the Israeli government, and carried out by its overseas allies.”

“This ‘anti-terrorist’ propaganda campaign was and is being conducted in a style reminiscent of wartime ‘psychological warfare’ by journalists serving as conduits and spreaders of misinformation originating in Jerusalem,” Paull found.

Paull explains why Menachem Begin and his faction of Zionist terrorists in the Likud coalition needed to connect the Soviet Union to international terrorism:

The Jackson group (Sen. Henry M. Jackson), virtually an Israeli lobby in the United States, used the Israelis to support the anti-Soviet campaign in Washington…

The Israeli conference organizers, in turn, could use Jackson and the Commentary group around Podhoretz to help prevent a pro-Arab tilt in Washington, keep United States armaments flowing to Israel, and most important, maintain anti-Soviet hostility in Washington.  Relaxation of superpower hostility could trigger a thaw in U.S.-Soviet relations, and a settlement in the Middle East which would include the Palestinians would then be conceivable. This was a development the Begin administration wished to avoid at all costs.

So, Menachem Begin and the Likud party of Zionist terrorists were behind the propaganda offensive launched in Jerusalem in 1979 at the Netanyahu Institute to smear the Palestinians as terrorists and the Soviet Union as being behind ‘international terrorism’. This message became the new political theme and was vigorously pushed in controlled media outlets around the world.

Full column here.

Source:  “International Terrorism”:  The Propaganda War, Philip Paull, Thesis for M.A. International Relations, San Francisco State Univ., May 1982







This post has been read 910 times!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *