STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Hillary’s Real Contribution to the Presidential Race Exposes National Security Lies
By Daily Bell Staff - August 05, 2016

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton … During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 … On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton.-New York Times/ Michael J. Morell

This editorial is a great example of how in politics the better and more willing liar can gain the most support.

Even when the lying is obvious.

The former director of the CIA has endorsed Hillary Clinton, but the reasons he gives for supporting her are certainly controversial and in some cases outright fabrications.

The main reason to vote for Hillary, we learn, is because she is far more knowledgeable about national security.

As it turns out, national security is a crux issue for many Hillary supporters, especially political ones.

The US’s massive fedgov is based on the need for national security. But as we’ve long pointed out, many national security issues are often a kind of  fiction. The Cold War itself looks increasingly doubtful when viewed in light of Internet revelations and it’s very clear that ISIS and Al Qaeda are Western inventions, HERE.

World War One was an outright fabrication HERE and Western bankers supported Hitler in World War Two.

National Security lies are created and supported by the military-industrial complex. Hillary is the better and more willing liar when it comes to these issues, and thus she is receiving support from CIA officials.

He states this outright. He is in favor of Hillary because she will “deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe.”

For this reason he is not going to support Donald J. Trump who “may well pose a threat to our national security.”

More:

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

He adds that she is committed to the US’s “nation’s security” and that she believes “America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world.”

Of course, to be a “leader,” the US politicians must be “willing and able to use force if necessary” – as he notes.

And he adds that Hillary has the capacity to “make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.”

This supports our previous contention HERE that Hillary’s main platform planks are pro-corporatist and pro-war.

He goes on to tell us that Hillary was an early proponent of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

And she was also a “strong proponent” of how to respond to the “Syrian Civil War.”

The trouble with these statements is 1) Bin Laden probably died in the early 2000s, HERE, and 2) there was no civil war in Syria until the West invented one by sponsoring ISIS, HERE.

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

Actually Trump has exhibited some skepticism over US foreign wars; that’s to his credit and should not be seen as a negative.

The article also criticizes Trump over not being negative enough regarding Russia and Putin. In fact, it is fairly obvious that the West is provoking Putin to create more military tension in the area.

He ends the article this way:

My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.

Not quite. With Hillary as president, America won’t be “much safer” but the military-industrial complex surely will. This becomes obvious with such endorsements.

Conclusion: The main advantage of Hillary’s candidacy begins to be the exposure of the political system’s falsity, as we previously pointed out HERE. That is her real contribution to the current presidential race, not the policies that she is enunciating or the “togetherness” that she is promoting.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • conjure

    If Hillary exposes the falsity of the system, that has to be a greater good. Since you believe the structure is collapsing, that should bring about the end “quicker.” Isn’t that what we want? Or we get Trump, who is ignorant and malleable, and would be led into whatever conflict his handlers take him into, as Bush was.

    As far as presidents I prefer the female touch, as we see emerging in the world, Germany, South Korea, Poland, England. Even as commander, the woman instinctively fosters nurturing over male aggression, and the feminine presence will soften the eventual collapse of the ship of state.

    • Bruce C.

      I disagree that “the end” will come quicker if Clinton gets power. If the exposure becomes an issue then the gov. will just lie about “fixing” things or whatever. (Like when the DNC promises to tighten their networking security so they won’t get hacked again – glossing over the REAL issue which is what they were communicating.)

      You don’t seem to understand the mentality of “ruling class elites” like Hillary Clinton. She is a power hungry narcissist and people like that will do just about anything to keep or expand their power including destroying this whole country and even the world. Just like central bankers are willing to destroy entire economies and monetary systems to maintain their control, government elites will do anything to keep theirs too.

      There’s a documantary out now called “Clinton Cash” that shows how the Clintons sold political favors to the highest bidders to advance various agendas. Basically, Bill Clinton brokered the deals and Hillary used her power as Secretary of State to allow them. Of course, the evidence is mostly circumstantial because the events seem to be coincidental (Like the US sending cash to Iran at the same time hostages are released. The gov says that was a coincidence and they had nothing to do with each other.) The Clintons, and I believe Hillary in particular, are ruthless and at least amoral and probably worse (again all such evidence is circumstantial). Many of the deals she enabled as Secretary of State were very environmentally destructive, for example, that violated her stated values, and many other deals supported graft and corruption for dictators in other countries. It’s actually mind-boggling how nefarious it is. If she becomes Pres. of the US she is going to be hugely dangerous not only to those around her, but to the citizens of this country and the world. That may sound extreme and paranoid but she has the personality traits of some of the worst tyrants the world has known. Because she is such a facile liar and is protected by so many others for their own vested interests she seems “normal”, but she’s not. She is a “new world order globalist” to be sure, and just as Angela Merkel is hell bent on bringing in as many Muslims to Germany as possible despite the citizens’ outcries and the obvious destruction of German culture, I have no doubt that Hillary will do similar things to create chaos and capitulation here in the US (e.g., Marshall law, confiscation of guns, open borders, higher minimum wages, escalation of wars, nationalization of the police, placing Supreme Court Justices who won’t defend and protect the US Constitution, etc.)

      I agree that Trump is a bit of a wild card and an unknown but I guarantee you he wouldn’t allow ANY of the things mentioned above. He might be completely fooled and but he won’t be willfully dangerous like Hillary would be.

      • conjure

        Hmmm. A power hungry narcissist liar tyrant, a dictator akin to a psychopath, are actually rare traits to attribute to women. Yet, you sound like a misogynist, and a Trump supporter. Nothing personal, it’s just that I have seen this exact kind of language used in reference to Clinton since the 1990s! Can you explain that? Perception is not such a static thing.

        • Bruce C.

          The Clintons have been heavily involved in politics since the 1990s. How do you explain them having essentially no money after Bill Clinton was impeached and now are worth several hundred million all by running a non-profit “charity” organization (The Clinton Foundation)? Hint: Extortion and the selling of political favors at the highest levels, offers that can’t be refused, etc.

          Such extreme personality traits are rare in any one, fortunately. I think Hillary is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and her being female makes the whole situation even more treacherous because accusations of gender bias and misogyny are being used to whitewash her, just as those who vetted Obama were called racists.

          • Lynn Carroll

            As Americans, free and independent, we cannot use certain words or phrases anymore. WTF? Hillary is a BITCH! Anyone who disputes that must first explain to me why it is that everywhere she goes, people die. Her lawyer, Foster, the soldiers and civilians and the Ambassador at Bengazi, the Iranian Nuclear Physicist.

        • john d

          you must be kidding

        • Lynn Carroll

          The Clintons have obviously used their position to enhance their own wealth. Remember when they left the White House? They stole the silverware and plates, the valuable historical relics, and sabotaged the computers out of pure stupid meaness? And we who hate these slick carpetbaggers are mysogynists and Trump supporters? Wherever this woman goes, people die. Can you explain why we wouldn’t use this exact language used to describe the Clintons since the 1990’s???

    • Lynn Carroll

      Who decided that Trump is ignorant and malleable? Do you not notice that wherever Hillary, “the female touch” goes, death seems to follow her everywhere? Let’s start with her lawyer, Foster, a close confidant and lawyer found dead in a D. C. park. Apparently it was suicide. Problem, the pistol was in his left hand. The fatal wound entered the right side of his head and the man was not a leftie! We don’t know about other people in her inner circle who seem to have disappeared, but the Bengazi debacle is just another example of people dying because of her presence, and the latest one about the Iranian Physicist whose name was leaked because of her careless and wanton disregard for classified information. He ended up being hung as a spy when he went back to his family in Iran. What did she say? “Well, it was his choice to go back. He was free to stay or leave.” Jesus, talk about cold hearted and clueless.

  • michaelrivero

    And don’t forget Hillary can blackmail the CIA over the CIA’s gun and drug running operation out of Arkansas while Bill was governor, which became the Iran-Contra scandal.

    • Good point.

    • Lynn Carroll

      This isn’t the only thing Hillary and Bill have over the inner circle of government: Remember the FBI file scandal when all those files came up missing and it was a minor secretary of Hillary’s that ended up the culprit. What happened to those files and who was it exactly that she ended up knowing all about??? Is this why she is in the dubious position of “front-running” presidential candidate? Please people, if this female Al Capone gets elected, we might as well take the advice that we were given during the “Cold War.” That is, “Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.”

  • rahrog

    This endorsement makes perfect sense; one mass murdering war criminal endorsing another mass murdering war criminal.

  • JosephConrad

    CIA BOYS’ CLUB KILLED SEN. FRANK CHURCH OF IDAHO FOR LOOKING
    TO CLOSELY UNDER ITS DRESS. THE CIA IS SELF-SERVING PSYCHOTICS WITH NO SCRUPLES OR HONOR – JUST KILLER BLOOD LUST WITH AN OATH.

  • Lynn Carroll

    Anyone with a B.S. radar who listens and sees Hillary for five minutes knows that there is something not quite right about this woman. Anyone who would support her has problems that I can’t quite put my finger on. I’m just a Joe Six-Pack American who wants nothing to do with Washington D. C. if it can be at all helped. Those elite bastards are all out for one thing . . . to enhance their wallets and pocketbooks. The inner city is a first class shithole. The schools are the worst of the entire country. The mayor, a coke-head has been reelected several times even though he has spent time in prison for drugs. And they want to become a state. Wow! This would make Jessie Jackson and his ilk Senators and Representatives with the power to vote!!! That’s just what we need more of.
    We need someone like Trump to step up and shake this whole system down top to bottom. That is why some (Republicans and Democrats) are so scared that he might be elected. He might upset the apple cart so to speak.

  • timothy price

    Great article.
    In the USA, the Nation Intelligence Agency controls all information, collecting, and disseminating it. It controls the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Dept. and the media; it is subjected only to Obama for oversight… in all practicality, it is a rogue agency with near total control over information. The key to the Hillary affair lies with the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. If you will read The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 < https://www.nctc.gov/docs/pl10… it is clear that NIA must have known everything that Hillary was doing with her private servers and the unguarded access to them. She must have done it all with the full knowledge and assistance of NIA. The monitoring of information to and from the State Dept. is one of their principle functions. That is why she is not being indicted. "When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    And Congress is completely complicit, lying to the public in support of a foreign policy that is entirely based upon lies. To expose the lies is to threaten "national security". Truth is the larger enemy to US policy now.
    We are seeing the split between the Constitutional USA, and the globalist empire which has taken control over our government. They are traitors in our midst.
    This is why I think that the people must now take an active part in resistance… or else… and the "or else" is not pretty.
    This link is an example of why I think that the US has had enough.

loading