McCain to Trump: Don’t You Dare Make Peace with Russia!

screen-shot-2016-11-17-at-3-48-41-pm

by DANIEL MCADAMS

Sit down. This is going to shock you. (Not).

We reported yesterday on the telephone call between US president-elect Trump and Russian president Putin, where the current and future presidents discussed the need to set aside differences and look to more constructive future relations. With serious observers of this past year’s increasing tensions between US and Russia openly worrying about a nuclear war breaking out, with some 300,000 NATO troops placed on Russia’s border, with sanctions hurting average businesspersons on both sides, a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ. 

In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin. 

Any claim by Putin that he wants to improve relations with the US must be vigorously opposed, writes McCain. He explains:

We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies, and attempted to undermine America’s elections. 

Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary’s claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie.

Why is Putin not to be trusted, according to McCain?

Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs. Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.

What McCain doesn’t say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years.

Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast…

Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (FULL INTERVIEW)

Published on Nov 5, 2016

Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.

Michael Mariner

I bet a billion to one you wont find this on BBC NEWS or CNN..Clinton for the electric chair!!

Possible Al-Qaeda attacks on Election Day? Anonymous report gets mixed reaction online

In what has become de rigueur days before American elections since the War on Terror was declared, a new report suggests a terrorist attack could occur in the US on the eve of Election Day. Americans took to social media to mock and fret over the news.
*

On Friday, four days before the November 8 elections, CBS News citedanonymous US authorities, including a senior FBI official, in reporting that US intelligence has warned joint terrorism task forces — made up of federal, state, and local law enforcement — that militant Islamic-fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda, the great bogeyman of US politics since the attacks of September 11, 2001, “could” attack targets in the US, particularly New York, Texas, and Virginia on Monday, November 7.

The CBS News report does not offer a specific rationale as to why those states could be targeted. The senior FBI official said that counterterrorism units in the US will “remain vigilant.”

capture

“The counterterrorism and homeland security communities remain vigilant and well-postured to defend against attacks here in the United States,” the official told CBS News. “The FBI, working with our federal, state and local counterparts, shares and assesses intelligence on a daily basis and will continue to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence community partners to identify and disrupt any potential threat to public safety.”

The New York Police Department said it is assessing the credibility of the report, but added that it “lacks specificity.”

“In every case, we take any intelligence reports regarding New York City seriously,” the NYPD said.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said his office is monitoring the situation, urging Texans to “remain vigilant over the next several days.”

capture

Social-media responses to the news included fear, dismissal, mockery, and charges of election fixing aimed at news outlets and the presidential candidates, especially Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 included similar reports — that Al-Qaeda or a similar or associated terror group was planning an “October Surprise” attack in the US — in the weeks prior to their respective Election Days. The 2006and 2010 midterm elections also came with Al-Qaeda-scaremongering by US authorities.

Prior to the 2012 elections, the Obama administration was criticized for its response to the attack on a US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012, and whether to call the event terrorism in what became a major issue in the campaign. Administration officials, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, suggested Al-Qaeda was responsible, but there has been no definitive evidence of such a link. With this backdrop in mind, no major reports of potential terrorism occurred prior to Election Day 2012.

*

Since then, the US has focused the bulk of its attention not on Al-Qaeda but the Islamic State, a separate militant group that was borne of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was formed to counter the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Islamic State has come to control large swaths of Syria and Iraq in recent years. Since 2014, a US-led military campaign against Islamic State has resulted in 15,959 strikes total in Iraq and Syria as of November 2, according to the Pentagon.

In fact, in Syria, the US is in league with Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra, supplying the group with weapons beginning as late as 2013. Furthermore, Gulf allies of the US — including Saudi Arabia and Qatar — are supplying weapons and funding to Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria.

US WARNS OF POSSIBLE AL-QAEDA TERRORIST ATTACK ON MONDAY TARGETING NY, TEXAS AND VIRGINIA

“Sources say U.S. intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces that al-Qeada could be planning attacks in three states for Monday.”

Zero Hedge – NOVEMBER 4, 2016

In an presidential election campaign that has had virtually every possible surprise, only one thing was missing: a terrorist attack. 

Alas, even that may be on the horizon because as CBS News reported moments ago, the news station has learned about a potential terror threat for the day before the election: “Sources say U.S. intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces that al-Qaeda could be planning attacks in three states for Monday.

CBS adds that it is believed New York, Texas and Virginia are all possible targets, though no specific locations are mentioned.

A senior FBI official told CBS News, “The counterterrorism and homeland security communities remain vigilant and well-postured to defend against attacks here in the United States.  The FBI, working with our federal, state and local counterparts, shares and assesses intelligence on a daily basis and will continue to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence community partners to identify and disrupt any potential threat to public safety.” During holiday seasons and when big events are approaching, intelligence about potential threats always increases.

While CBS tried to moderate the warning by noting that the “sources stress the intelligence is still being assessed and its credibility hasn’t been confirmed, but counterterrorism officials were alerted to the threat out of abundance of caution”, such a threat may lead to a depressed turnout in these three states and potentially impact the outcome of the presidential election.

US will never separate its fighters from ‘Islamists’ because it depends on them

The big idea to herald a new era of US-Russian cooperation in Syria was to separate Western-backed ‘moderate rebels’ from groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, so they could be part of political negotiations while the others were targeted by the US and Russian military.
*

Russia and Syria managed to get the UN Security Council to agree to ban the funding, training and arming of foreign fighters joining such groups in September 2014, while the US-Russia ceasefire agreement this September reiterated that “separating moderate opposition forces from Nusra [Al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, now rebranded as Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham]” was “a key priority.”

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recalled at a news conference last week, “our agreements with the Americans linked this separation to a seven-day period of quiet. At the end of the period, the Americans undertook to show us on the map exactly where they believed there were terrorists and where there were none. On this basis, we should have jointly coordinated targets for effective engagement. To reiterate, they requested seven days for that, insisting that a seven-day pause should be a precondition. We announced this pause but it was violated with a strike against Syrian Army detachments three days later” – when, lest we forget, British and US bombers carried out a sustained attack on Syrian Army troops fighting ISIS in Deir al-Zour, killing 62 and wounding over 100, effectively burying the ceasefire.

Nevertheless, in response to Western demands, Syrian and Russian planes again suspended airstrikes on Aleppo two weeks ago, giving the US another chance to make good on its promises to ‘separate’ its favored rebel factions from the Al-Qaeda affiliate, the Nusra Front. A fortnight later, however – and fully ten months after his initial public call (at an International Syria Support Group meeting in February) for so-called ‘moderates’ to separate themselves from Al-Qaeda and co – Kerry was still pleading for them to have more time to do so.

*

Events on the ground, meanwhile, have been moving entirely in the other direction. More and more of the groups supposedly fighting under the West’s ‘Free Syrian Army’ banner (never much more than a fiction to which militias could pledge mythical allegiance in exchange for Western finance and weaponry) have been fighting with the Al-Nusra-led Jaysh Al-Fateh (Army of Conquest) alliance since it was launched in March last year. Indeed, so successful has this formation been – both in terms of capturing territory, mainly in Idlib province, and in establishing Nusra’s hegemony over the various insurgent factions – that its leader, Abu Mohammed al-Julani, apparently believes the ‘grand merger’ of rebel groups he has long dreamed of, fully integrated under a Nusra chain of command, is now a realistic possibility.

It is no surprise, then, that it is precisely this Nusra-led formation that has been leading the ‘rebel’ onslaught against government-held Western Aleppo launched last Friday, complete with car bombs, rockets and mortars directed against residential areas. These are thought to have killed at least 41 civilians, including 16 children, in “relentless and indiscriminate” raids that have “shocked and appalled” the UN Special Envoy to Syria Steffan de Mistura. The Independent’s Robert Fisk, reporting from the area following a rebel rocket attack, described “a younger boy [lying] on a hospital trolley, a doctor picking metal out of his face, all his limbs heavily bandaged. He was writhing in agony, moving his legs wildly, comforted by the director of the school.”

Will attacks like these, then, increase the urgency with which the US pursues its supposed desire to separate the groups in receipt of its largesse from their ‘Al-Qaeda lite’ allies?

This is highly unlikely: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem was probably correct when he stated last week that the US is unwilling to separate the factions its backs from Al-Nusra, despite its repeated commitments to do so, for two main reasons.

Firstly, rebel groups have openly targeted civilians since 2011, often on the basis of ethnicity, religion or political beliefs, and this has never bothered their Western backers before. Indeed, the rebels – then operating under the banner of the pro-Western Free Syrian Army – heralded their entry in Aleppo in 2012 with two massive car bombs in the city center and the burning down of the city’s centuries-old souks. This was followed up with a bomb attack on Aleppo University on January 15th 2013, killing 80, as part of the rebels’ ‘morale bombing’ campaign against those supporters of the government.

Two months later, one Syrian soldier and 19 civilians were killed in the village of Khan Al-Assal near Aleppo in a gas attack suspected by the UN Mission investigating it to have been carried out by the opposition. And as early as December 2012, Channel 4 News was reporting on suspected massacres of Alawite civilians by ‘Free Syrian Army’ fighters, massacres which have been a mainstay of rebel activities.

Far from dampening Western enthusiasm for the rebel cause, this particular report was followed up with calls by David Cameron to step up its assistance to the insurgency, who promised a doubling of British aid to the rebels within months. The targeting of civilians has never damaged Western support in the past, and is unlikely to do so now.

Secondly, aside from ISIS and the Syrian Army, Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham and Ahrar Al-Sham are clearly the most effective fighting groups on the ground, and the other rebel factions and its Western backers clearly understand this. And again, this is nothing new; sectarian Salafist groups have been the leading force in the insurgency since the start, as the West has always been fully aware.

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-10-33-04-am

The now notorious US Defense Intelligence Agency memo of 12th August 2012, for example – which was circulated to, among others, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI and Central Command – noted that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” And to prevent any ambiguity, DIA chief at the time, Michael Flynn, then confirmed in an interview with Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hassan, that the US government’s backing of such forces was not based on ignorance, or a mistake, but was rather a “willful decision.” Such groups have always been the ‘driving force’ of the West’s anti-Syria operation, and the US government understands well that its insurgency would soon fizzle out without them.

As the US’s primary aim remains regime change rather than the defeat of terrorism, therefore, they are unlikely to make any serious attempt to divide their proxies from the fighting forces of Al-Qaeda. We can, instead, expect more pleas for time from the likes of John Kerry, and more spurious rhetoric about the US commitment to fighting terrorism, combined with continued material support for the very groups now openly allied to Al-Qaeda. In other words: more of the sordid same

Al-Nusra ‘not priority’ , State Department says as terror group shells civilians in Syria

US military efforts in Syria are not directed against Al-Nusra, the State Department said, acknowledging that the terrorist group is a “spoiler” in the efforts to establish a humanitarian ceasefire in Aleppo and beyond.

*

Acknowledging that Nusra was a designated terrorist organization not included in the cessation of hostilities agreement between the US and Russia, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the US-led coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL or Daesh) has not hit Nusra targets apart from one or two occasions.

*

“Unilaterally, when we’ve had information that led us to take action, because of the plotting we knew that they were doing, we did that,” Kirby said.

The US strategy to deal with the group, however, was to establish a Joint Implementation Center with Russia under the terms of the September 9 cessation of hostilities agreement, “by which we would share information with the Russian military designed specifically to cooperate against Al-Nusra,” Kirby said.

This week, Russia paused its joint offensive with Syrian government troops on eastern Aleppo, which is held by an assortment of armed groups, including Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda offshoot. The goal is to allow people wishing to leave the city to do so, including both civilians and militants, who were offered separate corridors to leave Aleppo with their arms.

On Thursday, however, the militants opened fire on civilian evacuation routes, injuring three Russian officers at the El-Masharka government checkpoint, the Russian Center for Reconciliation said.

Kirby’s claim that the US wanted to set up the JIC to work with Russia against Al-Nusra contradicted his own words from September 16, when he said that the establishment of such a center would be contingent on humanitarian aid reaching Aleppo.

“We don’t have any intention of having an intelligence sharing agreement with the Russians,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, told the US Senate on September 20.

WikiLeaks: The two faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria

“People don’t trust Hillary Clinton, and no one can agree on why,” begins a sympathetic piece on the Democratic Party presidential candidate in Fast Company last July.
In a CNN poll that same month, only 30 percent of Americans believed Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy.”

If voters don’t know what to make of Clinton or how to read her, the blame may lie directly with the candidate herself. In an April 2013 speech made public by WikiLeaks last week, Clinton confided:

“Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

That last ‘public vs. private’ comment quickly made the media rounds, and confirmed – for her critics – Clinton’s deliberate duplicity on a number of policy positions.

WikiLeaks has provided an opportunity to delve into some of these, so let’s take a look at one very prominent feature of Clinton’s foreign policy agenda: Syria, a country that stands at the center of a potential global confrontation today.

Not a Syrian uprising; a regime change plan

A 2012 email released by WikiLeaks last year shows that, behind the scenes, Clinton’s State Department was calculating its Syria policy using entirely different metrics than its publicly-stated narrative of supporting reforms and rejecting violence:

“It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.”

The email, written by an unidentified person and included within the WikiLeaks ‘Clinton archive,’ lays out a plan:

“Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, US diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition… Arming the Syrian rebels and using Western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

Arming a Syrian rebellion from outside the country was already a consideration “from the very beginning,” according to a recent WikiLeaks release of a June 2013 speech by Clinton:

“So, the problem for the US and the Europeans has been from the very beginning: What is it you – who is it you are going to try to arm. And you probably read in the papers my view was we should try to find some of the groups that were there that we thought we could build relationships with and develop some covert connections that might then at least give us some insight into what is going on inside Syria.”

Certainly, we know that by early 2012, the Obama and Erdogan administrations had struck a deal to establish a rat-line transporting weapons and ammunition from Libya to Syria – via the CIA and MI6, and funded by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

READ MORE: Podesta files: Top 10 revelations from leaked Clinton campaign emails

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi which killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was only a temporary setback. Weapons and financial assistance to militants in Syria, however, continued to flow from America’s regional allies without any US pushback, even though Washington clearly knew arms were being siphoned to extremists.

A declassified DIA document from August 2012 circulated to Clinton’s State Department states plainly that “the Salafist, Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” and that “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition.” 

But if US Special Forces were involved in driving arms and fighters into Syria in early 2012, the groundwork would have had to have begun many, many months before. The US military’s unconventional warfare (UW) strategy requires that target-state population perceptions are first ‘groomed’ into accepting an armed insurrection, using “propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government”…creating “local and national ‘agitation’”…helping organize “boycotts, strikes and other efforts to suggest public discontent”…before beginning the “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda, material, money, weapons and equipment.”

You get an idea of how this ‘propaganda’ and ‘grooming’ works in a June 2011 email from Clinton’s recently-departed Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, who openly calls for fabricating sectarian narratives to incite Syrian protestors:

“This suggests US should be making much more of the ways in which Syrian regime is simulating violence. Can’t we call for a meeting of the UNSC where we do not call for action but simply present information along the lines of what is recounted below so as to ‘bring it to the attention of the Council’ in a way that then has greater credibility globally? Making the point repeatedly that the regime wants this to look like/turn into sectarian violence? At the very least that can be broadcast back into Syria in various ways that will encourage protestors. There is an information war going on; we can do much more to elevate and legitimate the truth.”

This is business as usual for a US State Department well-versed in sowing sectarian discord in the Middle East – all while publicly denouncing sectarian strife. A WikiLeaks email from 2006 shows that this thinking was already well-entrenched in Foggy Bottom, with a focus on “exploiting vulnerabilities” – particularly “sectarian” ones – inside Syria.

Fueling the sectarian Jihad

By late 2011, US intelligence had assessed that Al-Qaeda was operating inside Syria. This information was public, but not widely disseminated. Instead, Clinton’s team focused heavily on flogging the narrative that “Assad must go” because of his government’s widespread human rights violations.

Clinton liberally used the humanitarian pretext to advance a regime change agenda – pushing, behind the scenes, for increased assistance to militants and direct US military intervention, while publicly decrying the escalating violence inside Syria.

But did she give a toss about keeping Syrians safe? The evidence suggests otherwise. In this new WikiLeaks release of a speech to the Jewish United Fund in August 2013 – flagged,” incidentally, by her staffers who worried about its content – Clinton outlines one possible Syria policy option:

One way is a very hands off, step back, we don’t have a dog in this hunt, let them kill themselves until they get exhausted, and then we’ll figure out how to deal with what the remnants are. That’s a position held by people who believe there is no way, not just for the United States but others, to stop the killing before the people doing the killing and the return killing are tired of killing each other. So it’s a very hands off approach.”

To any observer of the foreign-fueled Syrian war of attrition, it looks very much like Clinton opted for this course of action.

And given that Washington’s allies in the Syrian fight consisted mainly of head-chopping, jihadist foot soldiers, Clinton’s scenario of a killing field to keep all sides “exhausted” may have even been the starting plan.

These fighters came equipped with a militant, sectarian mindset courtesy of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar – under the supervision, of course, of a CIA that cut its teeth doing the exact same thing with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

A WikiLeaks email sent from Hillary Clinton to her now-campaign chief John Podesta in August 2014 shows that the former Secretary of State is fully aware that her allies were partial to supporting terrorists:

“While this military/paramilitary operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are, of course, two staunch US allies in the region that host American military bases and, apparently, also support ISIL.

Another October 2013 Clinton speech ‘flagged’ by her campaign staff, and released by WikiLeaks this week, has her saying:

“The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

The State Department knows all too well that both fighters and weapons are fungible in the Syrian militant marketplace. It is a key reason the US has always resisted naming those groups it considers “moderate” rebels. Arms and supplies to US-backed groups have often found their way to ISIL and Al-Qaeda, with photo evidence aplenty making the social media rounds.

Despite these loaded disclosures, Clinton and other US policymakers still flog outdated narratives about an ‘evil Syrian regime killing innocent civilians’ while ignoring the narrative they know to be true: bloodthirsty jihadists armed to the teeth by ideologically-aligned US allies.

This Syrian conflict – privately, at least – is about regime change at all costs for the hawkish side of the policy establishment which includes the CIA, Pentagon brass and Clinton. Publicly, however, it’s still about “crimes against humanity” – whatever that means today.

Earlier this month, Clinton began to publicly reveal that truth in advance of the November presidential election. Reuters reports Clinton as saying “removing President Bashar al-Assad is the top priority in Syria.” 

She is also once again touting a “no-fly zone” over Syria – much as she did with Libya. In yet another speech ‘flagged’ by her campaign and released by WikiLeaks – this one delivered to Goldman Sachs at their CEO conference in June 2013 – Clinton explains:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk – you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”

So Clinton is advocating for a no-fly zone despite the fact that she recognizes she’s “going to kill a lot of Syrians.” Which then puts that other speech of hers about letting Syrians “kill themselves until they get exhausted” into context.

Her only regional allies in this endeavor will be the Saudis and Qataris, who we now know support ISIL and other terrorists inside Syria. We also know that Clinton will continue to ignore this indiscretion – not because of what she says, but because of what she does:

Her public-versus-private position on the Saudis, after all, has been bandied about since the 2010 WikiLeaks State Department cables were released.

In 2009, a secret WikiLeaks cable signed off by then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reads, in part: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide…Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Laskhar-e Taiba), and other terrorist groups…It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” 

*

Yet by 2011, Clinton was ushering through the biggest weapons sale to Saudi Arabia in US history – a massive $67 Billion arms dump into the epicenter of global terror.

Clinton is not averse to cashing in on Saudi riches for her and her family’s foundation either. The Clinton Foundation hasreceived millions of dollars from Saudi, Qatari and other Gulf sources, despite the role their governments have played in funding global Jihad. And her campaign manager’s brother, Tony Podesta, just signed on to furnish the Saudi government with very expensive public relations services earlier this year.

There is something schizophrenic about Hillary Clinton’s compartmentalization of issues that speaks to the very competence of her judgment. Her whole private-versus-public-positions shtick is antithetical to the transparency, process and accountability demanded by democracy.

She speaks of her Iraq “mistake,” yet we have still not heard what lessons she has learned. And it grates, because we can see she has repeated them again and again, in Libya and in Syria.

The ‘public’ Hillary Clinton supports self-determination, freedom and human rights for Syrians. The ‘private’ Hillary Clinton supports the wholesale massacre of Syrians by a closely allied network of depraved sectarian terrorists – in order to weaken Iran and strengthen Israel.

If you’re one of those Americans who don’t trust her, you have good reason. At this point it is hard to ascertain if Clinton herself knows what her truth is anymore.