Voici un premier article, ci-dessous apr\u00e8s notre pr\u00e9sentation-comment\u00e9e, qui n’est pas fait pour nous rassurer ; il est \u00e9crit en prenant en compte et justement \u00e0 propos de la prise en compte de l’hypoth\u00e8se de l’\u00e9lection de Clinton unanimement consid\u00e9r\u00e9e dans les milieux dirigeants-Syst\u00e8me et des \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me de l’ensemble dit-bloc-BAO, et par cons\u00e9quent dans une partie notable du public qui ne cherche pas \u00e0 enqu\u00eater ni \u00e0 agir au-del\u00e0 des limites qu’impose le Syst\u00e8me. Il s’agit d’une revue critique au ton tr\u00e8s alarmiste sur les \u00ab\u00a0grandes esp\u00e9rances\u00a0\u00bb des \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale \u00e0 Washington D.C. ; ces \u00e9lites envisagent avec l’arriv\u00e9e de Clinton \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche (point acquis) une extension consid\u00e9rable et un approfondissement notable de la politique belliciste des USA<\/strong>. Dans le texte qui nous occupe, de Michael Krieger dans LibertyBlitzkrieg.com <\/em>du 20 octobre<\/a>, il est question de l’article du-jour<\/a> (20 octobre) du Washington Post<\/em>, où l’on pr\u00e9cise que pour ces \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me « la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle furieuse de Donald Trump est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e simplement comme une distraction sans cons\u00e9quences<\/em> », – disons, un peu de cendre de cigarette qu’on glissera sous le tapis l’heure venue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Suit une description des ambitions de ces \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me, qui consid\u00e8rent non seulement que l’\u00e9lection de Clinton est acquise, mais encore que la premi\u00e8re pr\u00e9sidente des USA sera une \u00ab\u00a0pr\u00e9sidente de guerre\u00a0\u00bb, avec l’objectif de reconqu\u00e9rir une h\u00e9g\u00e9monie compl\u00e8te et sans partage que le pr\u00e9sident Obama a largement laiss\u00e9 en friche durant ces huit ann\u00e9es \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche<\/strong>. « Autant j’ai critiqu\u00e9 Obama pour ses diverses et coûteuses exp\u00e9ditions ext\u00e9rieures, autant il apparaît comme un pacifiste r\u00e9solu \u00e0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de Clinton<\/em> », observe Krieger, qui a d\u00e9j\u00e0 publi\u00e9 divers textes sur cet \u00e9tat d’esprit bellicistes r\u00e9gnant \u00e0 Washington dans les milieux de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale. On prendra donc connaissance de cette situation, sans scepticisme ni restriction tant il apparaît assez clairement qu’il s’agit bien de l’\u00e9tat d’esprit dominant \u00e0 Washington D.C.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L\u00e0-dessus, nous proposons la lecture de l’article de Justin Raimondo du 21 octobre<\/a> sur l’attitude et les d\u00e9clarations, durant le troisi\u00e8me d\u00e9bat (19 octobre), d’Hillary Clinton \u00e0 propos de cet \u00e9tat d’esprit guerrier, particuli\u00e8rement l’antagonisme avec la Russie. Clinton en a fait un th\u00e8me essentiel de sa campagne, introduisant dans son argumentaire le fait sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent d’accuser son concurrent d’\u00eatre un agent de la Russie (\u00ab\u00a0un agent d’un pays \u00e9tranger\u00a0\u00bb), ce qui implique une mobilisation de communication sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans une campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle US, \u00e0 la fois anti-Trump et antirusse : « Ce qui est vraiment sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent est ce fait qu’un candidat d’un deux grands partis accuse son adversaire d’\u00eatre, en effet, un agent d’une puissance \u00e9trang\u00e8re. Cela n’est jamais <\/strong>arriv\u00e9 <\/em>[durant une campagne \u00e9lectorale US], – non, vraiment jamais. Durant la Guerre froide, par exemple, il y eut bien quelques r\u00e9publicains qui accus\u00e8rent des d\u00e9mocrates d’\u00eatre \u00ab\u00a0conciliants\u00a0\u00bb sur le communisme mais ici, Mme Clinton accuse clairement Trump de permettre et d'\u00a0\u00bbencourager\u00a0\u00bb l'\u00a0\u00bbespionnage russe\u00a0\u00bb, pour utiliser ses propres mots. Mr. Trump, dit Hillary, est un traître \u00e0 son pays<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ce qui est \u00e9galement remarquable dans les d\u00e9clarations de Clinton durant le d\u00e9bat, selon le commentaire tr\u00e8s serr\u00e9 qu’en fait Raimondo, c’est que cette rh\u00e9torique furieuse devient beaucoup plus vague et insaisissable lorsqu’on oblige la candidate \u00e0 l’appliquer \u00e0 des situations concr\u00e8tes. Ainsi, Clinton affirme souvent sa volont\u00e9 d’attaquer le r\u00e9gime Assad, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment d’\u00e9tablir une No-Fly-Zone<\/em> (NFZ) ; mais lorsqu’on insiste, lors du d\u00e9bat, en lui demandant si un tel projet (une NFZ) signifierait notamment qu’elle ferait abattre des avions russes, ce qui impliquerait le risque hautement probable de provoquer un conflit avec la Russie selon l’estimation officielle (d\u00e9position devant le Congr\u00e8s) du pr\u00e9sident du Comit\u00e9 des chefs d’État-major, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Dunford, la voil\u00e0 qui se perd dans des digressions verbeuses avant d’aboutir \u00e0 une conclusion retrouvant le sujet dans des termes fort incertains qui suscitent une ironie mordante de la part de Raimondo par leur caract\u00e8re compl\u00e8tement illusoire : « Apr\u00e8s avoir musard\u00e9 sur quelques centaines de mots, Madame Clinton en vient finalement au sujet pour dire ceci : \u00ab\u00a0Je pense que nous pourrions aboutir \u00e0 un accord et faire comprendre tr\u00e8s clairement aux Syriens et aux Russes qu’il s’agit <\/em>[la NFZ] d’une initiative dont nous croyons qu’elle est dans le meilleur int\u00e9r\u00eat des gens qui se trouvent au sol en Syrie, et cela qui nous aiderait beaucoup dans notre lutte contre <\/em>[Daesh<\/em>].\u00ab\u00a0Nous n’arrivons m\u00eame pas \u00e0 faire tenir un accord avec les Russes pour un cessez-le-feu ; avec madame Clinton \u00e0 la barre, peut-on imaginer qu’on arriverait \u00e0 convaincre les Russes d’accepter un tel arrangement ? Apr\u00e8s qu’elle ait fait toute sa campagne sur le th\u00e8me \u00ab\u00a0les Russes arrivent !\u00a0\u00bb, je serais surpris qu’ils ne d\u00e9cident pas de cesser compl\u00e8tement de nous parler<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ces divers constats et remarques nous conduisent \u00e0 observer qu’il existe sans nul doute une distance consid\u00e9rable entre narrative<\/em> et v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation<\/strong> ; entre d’une part une narrative<\/em> extraordinairement belliciste sur laquelle les \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me de Washington D.C. ne cessent de se faire les crocs, cette m\u00eame narrative<\/em> qui conduit Clinton \u00e0 accuser Trump d’\u00eatre un \u00ab\u00a0traître \u00e0 son pays\u00a0\u00bb et \u00e0 souscrire \u00e0 divers projets furieux sur tel ou tel th\u00e9\u00e2tre, et d’autre part la v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation qui se fait jour lorsqu’on se rapproche des faits concrets, des projets d\u00e9taill\u00e9s en fonction de la situation (justement) sur le terrain. Lorsqu’on lit Raimondo, on sent cela \u00e0 propos de Clinton, qui apparaît alors comme tr\u00e8s lunatique et confuse, avec une politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale extraordinairement furieuse et une soudaine incertitude du propos lorsqu’il s’agit d’en d\u00e9tailler les applications tactiques et militaires<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Cette sorte de situation n’est pas nouvelle \u00e0 Washington D.C. mais elle est pouss\u00e9e jusqu’\u00e0 un extr\u00eame jamais vu auparavant. Jamais l’agressivit\u00e9 antirusse n’a \u00e9t\u00e9 aussi forte dans la communication, \u00e0 un point d’exacerbation dont on voit difficilement comment il ne d\u00e9boucherait pas sous une forme ou l’autre de confrontation avec l’arriv\u00e9e d’une pr\u00e9sidente Clinton. A c\u00f4t\u00e9 de cela, les situations tactiques impliqu\u00e9es, notamment en Syrie, et m\u00eame en Europe, ne cessent de se durcir plut\u00f4t en faveur de la Russie, avec partout une pr\u00e9sence russe sous la forme d’un renforcement permanent et d’une militarisation constante, ce qui n’\u00e9tait absolument pas le cas dans les ann\u00e9es entre 2001 et 2014 ; face \u00e0 quoi, les USA n’ont aucune force suppl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mettre dans la balance, et m\u00eame sans doute moins que dans ces ann\u00e9es 2001-2014. C’est \u00e0 ce point que l’on sent que la candidate Clinton rencontre un obstacle inattendu, ou du moins qu’elle n’imaginait pas ; cela laisse beaucoup \u00e0 penser sur ce que fut r\u00e9ellement son travail lorsqu’elle fut secr\u00e9taire d’État, avec l’hypoth\u00e8se qu’elle a appris plus sur l’art d’obtenir des donations que sur celui d’\u00e9valuer et de comprendre les possibilit\u00e9s militaires efficaces contre un adversaire, – que ce soit Daesh<\/em> ou la Russie, au choix…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Bref et en d’autres mots : et si Hillary Clinton \u00e9tait v\u00e9ritablement incomp\u00e9tente face \u00e0 cette terrible situation internationale, et si son entrain belliciste n’\u00e9tait d’abord qu’une n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de communication dont elle n’a pas encore d\u00e9termin\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment ce qu’elle en ferait si elle devenait pr\u00e9sidente ? La situation ne serait pas alors celle de l’hypoth\u00e8se privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e du lancement imm\u00e9diat d’une grande croisade guerri\u00e8re mais plut\u00f4t de la poursuite d’une rh\u00e9torique guerri\u00e8re n\u00e9cessairement tr\u00e8s puissante sans possibilit\u00e9 d’envisager de mettre en œuvre son application imm\u00e9diate<\/strong>. Clinton apparaîtrait alors comme bien plus belliciste qu’Obama du point de vue de la communication, et au moins aussi ind\u00e9cis que lui sur la fa\u00e7on d’agir et de transcrire dans les faits cette rh\u00e9torique. Mais la situation autour d’elle, tant dans son \u00e9quipe où se trouveraient s\u00e9lectionn\u00e9es les voix les plus furieuses (notamment f\u00e9minines) qu’on puisse imaginer, que dans les milieux de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale chauff\u00e9s \u00e0 blanc pour un affrontement avec la Russie, l’emprisonneraient encore plus dans des dilemmes impossibles \u00e0 r\u00e9soudre<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ainsi existe la possibilit\u00e9, avec l’option de l’\u00e9lection de Clinton, d’une situation encore plus potentiellement conflictuelle \u00e0 Washington m\u00eame que dans les diverses aventures ext\u00e9rieures qui sont envisag\u00e9es. Ce serait une situation de d\u00e9sordre comme il existe actuellement en cette fin de pr\u00e9sidence Obama, multipli\u00e9e, dans l’attente de la nouvelle pr\u00e9sidente, par l’intransigeance que les bellicistes ont mis dans leur perspective d’une pr\u00e9sidence guerri\u00e8re et imm\u00e9diatement va-t-en-guerre<\/strong>. On pourrait ajoute \u00e0 cela le d\u00e9sordre personnel et interne, puisque ces conditions d’affrontement \u00e0 Washington impliqueraient imm\u00e9diatement une pr\u00e9sidence Clinton affaiblie qui sugg\u00e9rerait aux nombreux adversaires de la nouvelle pr\u00e9sidente, – il n’en manque pas, – de tenter de relancer les affaires dont on l’a prot\u00e9g\u00e9e durant toute la campagne pour interdire \u00e0 Trump la pr\u00e9sidence<\/strong>. Cela implique de vastes territoires de trouble et de d\u00e9sordre que nous laissons inexplor\u00e9s pour cette occasion, puisqu’on a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 cette analyse en choisissant de ne tenir compte que du point de vue de la pouss\u00e9e belliciste des \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Comme le note Krieger dans un de ses tweets du 20 octobre qu’il cite \u00e0 la fin de son article : « Nous sommes dans un moment tr\u00e8s dangereux. L’empire US est virtuellement fini mais les empereurs n’ont pas encore compris le m\u00e9mo \u00e0 ce sujet<\/em>. » La question laiss\u00e9e ouverte est bien qu’on ne sait pas pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment pour qui ce moment est le plus \u00ab\u00a0tr\u00e8s dangereux\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Ci-dessous les deux articles successifs : d’abord celui de de Michael Krieger dans LibertyBlitzkrieg.com <\/em>du 20 octobre<\/a>, dont le titre U.S. « Foreign Policy ‘Elite’ Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton <\/em>» sera r\u00e9duit, pour des raisons techniques, \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0Awaiting an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb … Ensuite, celui de Justin Raimondo, d’Antiwar.com<\/em>, du 21 octobre 2016<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n _______________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Your average American Hillary Clinton supporter will smugly head to the polls on November 8th, entirely self-assured of his or her vital role in the defeat of fascism in these United States. It won’t take long for such childish delusions to be vanquished by the horror of subsequent reckless and unnecessary imperial conflagrations that will be inevitably unleashed by their savior throughout the world.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The extreme dangers faced by the planet as a result of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton becoming President have been apparent for a very long time. Oliver Stone and many others have vocally warned about it, and I’ve covered the topic on many occasions; including in the following posts:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0We’re Going to War\u00a0\u00bb – Oliver Stone Opines on the Dangerous Extremism of Neocon Hillary Clinton<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n More Troubling Evidence That Hillary Clinton Will Start WW3<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n More Troubling Evidence That Hillary Clinton Will Start WW3 – Part 2<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lifelong Democrat and Former RFK Speechwriter Comes Out For Trump<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Now, courtesy of a newly published article at The Washington Post<\/em><\/a>, we are once again forced to confront this very uncomfortable reality. Here are a few of the more disturbing excerpts from today’s piece:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflect a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. \u00ab\u00a0There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,\u00a0\u00bb said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. \u00ab\u00a0So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The studies, which reflect Clinton’s stated views and the direction she is likely to take if she is elected, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria. Virtually all these efforts, including a report that will be released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress, call for stepped up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Russian forces in Syria.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is what passes off as \u00ab\u00a0liberal\u00a0\u00bb these days.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The proposed military measures include calls for safe zones to protect moderate rebels from Syrian and Russian forces. Most of the studies propose limited American airstrikes with cruise missiles to punish Assad if he continues to attack civilians with barrel bombs, as is currently happening in besieged Aleppo. So far, Obama has staunchly resisted any military action against the Assad regime.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even pinprick cruise missile strikes designed to hobble the Syrian air force or punish Assad would risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces, which are scattered throughout the key Syrian military bases that would be targeted.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/strong> said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Inside the White House, senior administration officials regularly dismissed calls for military force from the foreign policy establishment as the product of \u00ab\u00a0too much college, not enough knowledge,\u00a0\u00bb writes Derek Chollet, a former top Obama administration official, in his new book \u00ab\u00a0The Long Game<\/a>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Other White House officials derisively referred to Washington’s foreign policy experts as \u00ab\u00a0the Blob.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n As much as I’ve criticized Obama for his many costly foreign adventures, he is an absolute peacenik compared to Clinton. Let’s never forget that the biggest foreign policy disaster of his Presidency, the destruction of Libya<\/strong><\/a>, was the brainchild of his then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Everyone has kind of given up on the Middle East. We have been at it for 15 years, and a lot of Americans think it is hopeless,\u00a0\u00bb Hadley said. \u00ab\u00a0We think it is not.\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n What would we do without people like Hadley around to screw things up?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago\u00a0\u00bb when Democratic and Republican elites were feuding over the invasion of Iraq, said Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst at the Center for American Progress. Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding a more muscular and more \u00ab\u00a0centrist internationalism,\u00a0\u00bb he said.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. As I tweeted earlier today: \u00ab\u00a0We stand at a very dangerous moment. The U.S. empire is virtually over, but the emperors haven’t get the memo.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Is the Iraqi city of Mosul on the border with Syria, as Mrs. Clinton averred during the third presidential debate<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n No way<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Exactly no one has called her out on this. I guess you have to be Gary Johnson, rather than a former Secretary of State, for the mainstream media to start mocking you over your lack of geographical knowledge. And this was no inconsequential error: it’s supposedly key to her strategy that after \u00ab\u00a0we\u00a0\u00bb take Mosul we’re going to \u00ab\u00a0press into Syria.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Did seventeen US intelligence agencies say that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee’s server and John Podesta’s inbox, as Hillary Clinton asserted Wednesday night?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nope<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mrs. Clinton’s claim here is worth going into in some depth. It came in the context of a question from Chris Wallace about her speech to a gaggle of bankers in which she said \u00ab\u00a0My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.\u00a0\u00bb She defended herself, not very convincingly, by saying that she was only talking about energy, but this seems disingenuous at best. In any case, what’s interesting about this is that in order to change the subject quickly she pivoted to one of the most disturbing diatribes ever uttered in the course of a presidential contest:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We’ve never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0WALLACE: [to Trump] Well?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n How indeed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The mainstream media, playing out its role as Hillary’s cheering squad<\/a>, is bloviating about how \u00ab\u00a0unprecedented\u00a0\u00bb this election is, and they don’t mean that in a good way. Their latest tack is solemnly lecturing us that it’s an \u00ab\u00a0existential threat to our democracy\u00a0\u00bb for a candidate of a major party to call the integrity of our elections into question – a bit of overreaching, since all Trump said was that he’d wait until the votes are counted before committing to accept the alleged result. And please recall that, after the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush and not Al Gore was the duly elected President, Hillary said the former had been \u00ab\u00a0selected, not elected<\/a>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n What’s really unprecedented, however, is how a major party candidate has accused her opponent of being, in effect, an agent of a foreign power. This has never<\/em> happened – no, not ever. During the cold war, to be sure, there were some Republicans who accused the Democrats of being \u00ab\u00a0soft\u00a0\u00bb on Communism, but here Mrs. Clinton is clearly accusing Trump of enabling and \u00ab\u00a0encouraging\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0Russian espionage,\u00a0\u00bb to use her phrase. Mr. Trump, says Hillary, is a traitor to his country. And our \u00ab\u00a0fact-checking\u00a0\u00bb media is silent, except for this guy<\/a> – who, at any rate, has few compunctions about \u00ab\u00a0going down that road.\u00a0\u00bb I doubt he’ll like what he finds at the end of it. But by then, of course, it will be too late.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This whole nonsensical and very dangerous campaign theme of Hillary’s – that the Russians are behind the alleged hacking of the DNC and Podesta, and that therefore Trump is their conscious agent – is based on the scientific equivalent of vaporware. The reality is that no one knows<\/a> a) How WikiLeaks obtained the documents it is publishing and b) How they were procured in the first place. That’s because, in spite of the \u00ab\u00a0scientific\u00a0\u00bb pretensions of the cyber-warfare industry, there is no way for anyone to know<\/a> for sure if it was hackers (as opposed to insiders) or, if it was<\/em> hackers, who they are – not unless the perpetrators come out and admit it, or unless they are caught in the act by someone looking over their shoulder.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But that hasn’t stopped some US intelligence officials from straining their already dubious credibility by repeating nonsense in the interests of pushing Hillary over the finish line.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This debate was really a low point for Mrs. Clinton, who, at the very nadir of the evening, started screeching that Trump is a \u00ab\u00a0puppet\u00a0\u00bb – of Putin, naturally.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is crazy enough – but what’s even worse is that the media is backing her up on this. Hardly a day goes by without some new \u00ab\u00a0revelation\u00a0\u00bb of an alleged Russian plot to undermine US national security, infiltrate Europe, or otherwise subvert our precious bodily fluids.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Awaiting an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Michael Krieger<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
President Strangelove?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n