We don’t know who will win the 2016 presidential election. We do, however, have a pretty good idea about what the election outcome will mean for U.S. foreign policy if Hillary Clinton becomes president—it isn’t going to be pretty.
That’s because Clinton has spent her political career building relationships with the neocons and military-industrial cronies who stand to profit most from the continuation and intensification of U.S. perpetual war policies.
And Clinton’s hawkish stances against Russia on the campaign trail combined with her record of destabilization at the State Department mean we’re probably in for a big one if she takes over the Oval Office.
Here’s the thing. For months, mainstream Republican voters have scratched their heads as neocons and war hawks abandoned the GOP one by one to endorse a Clinton presidency.
The New American pointed this out months ago:
[F]eaturing prominently on the list are many of the neocons responsible for squandering trillions of tax dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives — if not millions — on undeclared, illegal wars based on lies. Chief among them is neocon Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the far-left globalist “think tank” Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the fringe Project for the New American Century that helped lead America into Iraq under Bush. Aside from his own non-stop warmongering seeking to send your children off to die in undeclared wars, Kagan is married to senior Obama official and fellow warmonger Victoria Nuland…
Another senior neocon globalist on the Hillary Train is Max Boot, a left-wing Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) operative who claims to have been a “lifelong Republican” despite his love for Big Government..
Others on the list of disgraced “Republican” neocons, globalists, and establishment insiders who are pushing a Clinton presidency include Bush globalist and leading Iraq war booster Richard Armitage; Ken Adelman, assistant to Iraq warmonger Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and later a senior disarmament bureaucrat; Tony Fratto, deputy propagandist for George W. Bush; former “regional EPA administrator” Alan Steinberg, also from the second Bush administration; Mark Salter, a “former speechwriter” for embattled neocon globalist Senator John McCain of Arizona; and more. Also listed are people with politically toxic titles like “Republican lobbyist,” “Republican strategist,” and a handful of mega-donors and crony capitalists.
Since the publication of that article, the list has only grown.
After all, Donald Trump has vowed to increase military spending massively. And many of his positions on ISIS and Islamic extremism suggest that the U.S. would expend considerable effort to eliminate Middle Eastern threats moving forward.
In other words, under a Trump administration the military-industrial complex would continue to profit.
But not in the same way it has for the past decade and a half under the Bush administration and Clinton-aided Obama White House.
You see, Americans have grown extremely weary of uncapped and unaccounted for military spending on projects that don’t get results.
A half billion dollars in improper Pentagon payments here…
Nearly a trillion to set up failed government programs in the Middle East there…
Or how about, some $8.5 trillion in Pentagon spending totally unaccounted for since it was supposed to implement a workable audit system under the original President Clinton’s administration.
Congress and the voting public are increasingly demanding answers, audits and action to correct the problem.
To continue losing and wasting that kind of money and eliminate the threat of serious taxpayer upheaval demands that the world remain in a state of total and perpetual chaos. The war profiteers need more chaos.
And that’s precisely what Trump’s running against… This is what he talks about when he mentions Clinton’s “bad experience” canceling out her ability to cite experience as her main qualification to serve as president.
But the neocons and warmongers know that “bad experience” is what helps them thrive.
It’s tempting to believe Clinton is an idiot for the way she handled U.S. policy in the Middle East—but for her friends, the chaos she created was nothing short of genius.
And she’ll continue to make really smart decisions if elected president… that is, where her decision-making concerns enriching her neocon buddies.
Where a Trump White House might demand that the Pentagon explain and correct its mistakes in the Middle East in the years moving forward, thereby giving Americans reason to again believe in its military’s ability to get things done— a Clinton White House is going to take a very different approach.
She’s going to give us all something to fear more than the ragtag terrorists groups we’ve been arming and fighting, rinse and repeat, for decades.
If you’ve been paying attention to her campaign at all, you know what we’re talking about: A brand new Cold War is on if Clinton is elected, and escalation is the name of her game.
Russia knows this— and its leaders are currently preparing for the worst.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has already told his top military commanders to prepare for war in the event that Clinton wins the upcoming election. And massive drills to prepare citizens in the country’s major population centers for nuclear attacks recently gained the attention of the international press.
After nearly three decades of neocon control of the nation’s foreign and domestic policy under the Clinton and Bush political dynasties, it’s kind of par for the course that the American population would be the last to know that the nation is in massive danger. And seriously, since 1989 there has been no time in the nation’s history that neither a person with the last name Clinton nor Bush was deeply involved in the nation’s highest levels of government.
In that time, the nation has experienced a massive exodus of industry and American jobs, the most devastating terror attack in U.S. history, crippling debt, unprecedented economic inequality, the housing bubble, Wall Street’s crash and massive bailout, extreme military spending and financial recklessness that baffles imagination.
And in every incidence listed above, average Americans were the very last people prepared. In hindsight, top government officials always like to say they eschewed warning to avoid panic. Of course, panic has been the outcome as millions of Americans witnessed their friends and neighbors lose their homes and livelihoods, or worse… their lives. What’s that say about or leaders? Maybe they’re really trying to do their best but, somehow, out of 300 million Americans, voters just prefer selecting very inept folks for positions of vast power.
Or maybe there’s something a little more sinister at work… some sort of vast conspiracy.
What’s sure is that Clinton’s (if it isn’t totally rigged) 50 percent probability of becoming president and her 100 percent likelihood of stirring conflict with Russia, means the threat that isn’t being discussed is far scarier than anything this nation has ever seen.
Russia is a nuclear superpower.
One step too far could mean civilization-destroying retaliation— lights out, infrastructure down, mass panic.
It sounds crazy, right?
Well, maybe not as crazy as you think. The IRS, after all, has had a plan for how to collect taxes in the event of a nuclear strike on the homeland since around 1989… So it probably isn’t too nuts for American citizens to think about how they might go about surviving one.
The post Planning for the consequences of a Clinton election appeared first on Personal Liberty®.