I am very closely the Democratic primary campaign in the U.S., thanks to this that said AJM, A2N , and KamerunScoop who comment daily.
One thing bothers me terribly in this country is racism oozing from Hillary to try to stop the march of Obama.
Similarly, the indulgence of the media vis-à-vis the missteps and false notes campaigns of Hillary (and also McCain), and their severity vis-à-vis those of Obama speaks volumes .
Seen from my chair, with the info I have here is what emerges:
Obama who voted against the war in Iraq, which holds the least militaristic discourse of this campaign (unlike McCain and Clinton who play it will be the most warlike, who best embodies the national war leader, in a rhetoric that not not deny a future German Chancellor in the field), is ultimately the candidate most consistent and who has committed the fewest fouls in this campaign. So much to look really far, and inflate really blame him for something.
Because it is far from genocide and calls the Zionist crusade pastors McCain. It is far from the threat of annihilation from Iran of candidate Hillary. It is far allusions thinly veiled racist that Obama must pass.
Personally when I see a picture of Hillary, chills run through my spine.
His smile was cold and inhuman great lengths to hide the feelings that inhabit it, including the hatred she seems to feel for Obama. Hillary Clinton: McCain as an opportunist willing to do anything (including the genocide of the Iranians) to satisfy their pathetic ambitions.
This woman is clearly an opportunist of the worst kind: one to exploit anything and everything for her private life into a film and media to give a certain image supposed to promote it in the media.
Example: at the time it was frowned upon not to be belligerent (because of accusations of anti-patriotism of Bush), she passed all the appropriations for the war in Iraq, giving Bush carte blanche.
Today, still in the same vein, it calls for strike on Iran off the map.
can understand such a speech from McCain, who as a Republican candidate and heir to the Bush doctrine, can not afford to talk of breaking and disown the actions of the government without discrediting the little credit it remains the official discourse neo-conservative. Namely that war was necessary, it is good, and that the U.S. is trying to win. McCain even said he was prepared to stay in Iraq another 100 years if necessary, that may be used against him in a campaign video. At this point, McCain was a prisoner from the Bush record: he is prohibited from recognizing the mistakes of the president still in office. On the other hand, he faces the huge unpopularity of the war among American voters.
It's hard to understand, however, that Hillary, who in principle did not take the decisions of the Bush administration (even if she has all voted, it would not the first time a candidate lied about his past votes), insists on this line hawkish and anti-Islam.
Obama is the one of the 3 has the least hawkish speech, even if to please the lobbyists, he is obliged to make concessions.
But back a little behind in my blog a few months ago I published the names of advisers who were hiding behind each candidate.
Gold in American democracy (and now in French democracy is the same), candidates are only the media relays to those who put them on stage and tell them what to say.
This also explains how a Former HYPP 70s, anti-militarist and anti-Vietnam War and is now transforming into standard-bearer of the clash of civilizations and the war against Iran: as would happen, Hillary has married all causes currently popular: when anti-militarist opinion is, when Islamophobic and hawkish opinion is. If tomorrow the American public becomes anti-Semitic after seeing the ruin of their economy and the American place in the world because of the wars Israel has managed to sell it (Iraq, Syria, Iran can ...), imagine that Clinton will become the worst anti-Semites in America. There is still room before get there.
behind the presidential candidates?
So who are the consultants behind the candidates?
To name a few, representative: Kissinger is very close to McCain. Yet Kissinger, although it is often passed from darkness to light and vice versa, is part of the cornerstones of American foreign policy planners of the war in Viet Nam, sexton of it after all hope of win or lose (the Nobel committee will even hutzpah to award the Nobel Peace Prize for that! Just as if we had given a Nobel peace with Hitler for having signed the armistice!) great organizer (or disorganizing all depends on your point of view) of political life in South America, this pure representative of the American-Zionist Mafia will no doubt guide the McCain's political choices.
Kissinger has often been opposed to the neocons, but it is a token opposition: Kissinger had his Iraq has him in Viet Nam, and since he is a supporter of illegal shenanigans (such as support for dictators south america, false attacks attributed to his ideological enemies etc..) than by direct intervention. But in reality, Kissinger neocons or the same vein: imperialists, Zionists, not shrinking from no method, no genocide. That the massacres were committed by U.S. military or mercenaries paid in U.S. dollars after all ... Besides McCain has recovered its share of "thinkers" neoconservatives.
Indeed, neoconservatives, to be sure not to lose the hand, were scattered across the American political spectrum. Normally, they come from extreme left, are former Trotskyist (which just reinforces all the documentation linking the Trotskyists to the CIA, and imperialism Zionist, something too often ignored by the militant leftist base who really believe in his cause when it is often a screen). They are returned to the left, and some are behind the Democrats. As good
Pharisees, they even have the hutzpah to acknowledge the defeat of Bush and the stalemate in Iraq, while it is they who have done everything to provoke this war!
They decidedly lacking a nerve! Who found
-you one behind Clinton? Always the same damned soul: Albright. This little old lady with false air is a terrible criminal harmless against humanity, which wash hands with the blood of 1 million 500 thousand Iraqis killed because of the embargo it has imposed, including over 500,000 children under 5 years (UN figures).
Undoubtedly more Zionist than Kissinger, Albright feels ready to continue its work in the shade. It should be remembered that at the time of Bill Clinton, his government and cabinet was considered as one comprising most of the Zionists. They have retained their influence in the Bush administration, and thus seem prepared to stay with the future government, whether Democrat or Republican.
Who you one behind Obama? Zbigniew Brezinsky (sorry for spelling). He too is a perfectly cynical eminence grise. Under Carter, he had laid the foundations of the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, and helped (with the help of Bush's father) to establish Al Qaeda. He is a convinced imperialist, and is extremely wary of Russia and China, the main rivals of the USA on the world stage.
By cons, it was one of the few policies of his level to accuse the Bush administration and the neocons to manipulate public opinion around September 11 and the war against terrorism. Normal: it is well placed to know what lies behind Al Qaeda ...
And he also knows very well that the current wars in which bogged the U.S. will only accelerate its ruin and destruction. Not that he is against intervention, but Brezinsky has always been an advocate of soft power: rather than intervening directly, are appealing to the manipulation, scheming, terrorism, put up traps.
is less expensive, and officially the U.S. keep hands clean.
Brezinsky has been one of the architects of the coming to power of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran to topple the Shah who showed an inclination independence on its oil. The U.S. government thought it would be easier to manipulate than a clan of Islamists like the Shah. Big mistake on their part, the Islamists have cleverly used the asylum provided by the West (Khomeini was hosted in France, Neaufles-le-Chateau near Paris, and during his military service, the young Nicolas Sarkozy himself will even served as a guard). Then once in power, they still rejected the flange smarter than trying to impose American imperialist power ...
And yes: the Iranian revolution of 1979 would have to be made a false revolution, since that the real U.S. outsourcers to continuing to lead in sub-hands.
This proves also the hypocrisy of American discourse on Iran's Ayatollahs: Iran if the Islamists had agreed to cooperate with the CIA, they would now be best friends the Americans. All
will not go as planned, and then the Americans will do another puppet of the time, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war. Which finally gonna make the Israeli agenda. They are strong anyway! Saddam, who will once again roll in flour in 1990 by throwing himself on the agreement with Kuwait tacit U.S.. Decidedly he took the time to understand who the real enemies!
the least worst scenario for the U.S. and the world?
I summarizes the situation thus: if win McCain or Clinton, there is a big risk that the war in Iraq continue and even expand into Iran.
In Iran if it happens, this will be in the form of bombing: first because the U.S. military can not afford to lead a third invasion. On the other hand, because it is the preferred approach of Kissinger and Albright. It Albright who was behind the embargo and bombings Iraqi civilians in the period of the 90s, not to mention the bombing against Yugoslavia.
Bombing is clean and tidy, it is cheap in U.S. troops, it began not too much political capital within the USA.
Kissinger is too dumb to send the army on the ground either.
Or should imagine a huge coalition, a real that one, to go into Iran.
should therefore be a huge reason, as a major terrorist attack or a deadly clash with Israel (even purely staged), for such a coalition could short-circuiting the world opinion that would be obviously against the war (despite years of propaganda against Iran).
If Obama wins cons, it would return to clandestine methods (indeed the only ones that go against terrorist groups, but the war on terror is a huge hypocrisy).
Presumably with Obama, the prestige of the USA is a small health redo, with the end of direct armed intervention, while at the same time, all former U.S. barbouzards networks in the Middle East are reactivated in nbtamment Iran.
This obviously would result in deaths, there escape not by U.S. friendly dictatorships, or democracies U.S. puppet and friends, so in the end by a larger imperialism.
must recognize the consequence to the U.S. military interventionism in recent years: it has a lot of deaths (more than one million Iraqis have died), he also ruined, and especially the U.S. economy and international standing of this country who no longer represents freedom, but barbarism. If they continue on this path, it will soon collapse.
While they adopt a smarter tactic, it takes even for decades of imperialism sneaky!
So what is the least worst candidate?
all depends on perspective.
If we want to avoid direct wars, it's probably Obama. But at the cost of restoring a certain American imperialism is in decline since Bush.
by cons can count on McCain or Clinton for going to war in place of Israel, which has immediate implications dramatic: hundreds of thousands (even millions) of innocent dead.
But on the other side without doubt the ultimate ruin of the former American power.
Another question must be asked: how Obama as a president you it will oppose the U.S. Zionist lobby?
A president who opposes it does not weigh much, and this explains why Obama like others, tries to please them, increasing goodwill gestures.
You can see a simple calculation, not acted upon if they win ...
Hard to know if Obama is as corruptible as the others, despite his good head to keep his place if he needs to nuke Iran, that will decide on?
and if he chooses the path of humanity and denies the wicked war, is what he will still be allowed to continue to chair, or even live?
After all, a scandal can easily get out! Besides, you can bet that no perfect candidate can reach that level: the mafia who pull the strings must always keep an ace up their sleeve to blackmail.
And if that does not, there remains the option of 2 IQ of extreme American right, which organizes an attack worthy of the best secret service in the world, beating all the protections, all fonts, all services to accommodate shot in the head of his target, or to plant a bomb in his vehicle. 2 of IQ will be killed or murdered in turn by a citizen in love with vengeance. Figure
ultra classic erases all traces, and occupy the media for months!
One final note though: I wrote all that ignores the massive fraud which is anticipated in the presidential election. Not to mention all the arrangements and scheming behind the scenes imaginable (electors, Supreme Court ...). All
may well be only a stage for holding the audience spellbound into believing that democracy is on.
As if that is the choice of the next president is already ...
