Proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Green Party candidate Jill Stein said a President Hillary Clinton would likely drag the U.S. into war with Russia and Donald Trump is the only one of the two major party candidates who has pledged to pursue peace.
“It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no-fly zone,” Stein noted in an appearance on C-SPAN Wednesday. “We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been,” she said. “Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.”
“On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier.”
Stein explained that when it comes to foreign policy, hawkish Hillary is by far the biggest threat to the safety and security of Americans. “I sure won’t sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won’t sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected,” Stein said.
“On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia,” Stein continued. “He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow, not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.”
Unfortunately, Clinton has made it crystal clear throughout this campaign that she has little to no intention of seeking to work with Vladimir Putin and Russia. Indeed, no presidential candidate has been as outwardly and openly hostile to a sovereign nation since the Cold War.
In her speech about Trump and the alt-right in Reno, Nevada, in August, Clinton apparently forgot the last two decades of world history. “Trump … heaps praise on Putin and embraces pro-Russian policies. He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and of giving the Kremlin a free hand in Eastern Europe more generally,” Clinton said.
“American presidents from Truman to Reagan have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. We should, too.” Of course, American presidents from Truman to Reagan were dealing with the USSR, not the Russian Federation, and the rulers of the USSR were bloodthirsty Communists bent on worldwide revolution.
MORE NEWS: Cutting off Free Speech
[lz_third_party align=center includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OGPuqLe3mg”]
Moreover, Clinton’s analysis of the situation in Eastern Europe is pure propaganda, a one-sided analysis which ignores entirely Western provocation in Ukraine and the fact that NATO — which was founded specifically to combat the Soviet Union — has maintained a hostile, forward-leaning position against Russia in Eastern Europe, long after the Soviet Union disbanded.
But Putin, Clinton and the Obama administration tell us, is not just a new-age Nikita Khrushchev, but a Khrushchev, Boss Tweed, and Hitler all rolled into one. If the rhetoric of these hawkish liberals is to be believed, Putin is not only a military aggressor, but also an election-rigger and war criminal.
“Think of that picture we all saw of that four-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead because he’d been bombed by the Russian and Syrian air forces,” Clinton said during the second presidential debate. “There are children suffering in this catastrophic war, largely, I believe, because of Russian aggression,” she said.
The truth is that Russia is fighting a defensive war in Syria — they are defending their ally Bashar al-Assad, the head of the legitimate Syrian government. The U.S. even inadvertently allowed arms to fall into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups in a rush to support rebels seeking to to overthrow the sovereign government.
But Clinton wants us to think it’s the Russians interfering with foreign governments. “Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that,” Clinton claimed.
“What is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia,” Clinton said. “Russia has decided that it’s all-in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too — and it’s not me.” Officials in the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have made similar claims, of which there is absolutely zero conclusive evidence.
That relations between the U.S. and Russia are as bad as they have ever been and could quickly deteriorate into war is obvious, and if a President Clinton approaches Russia the way Candidate Clinton has approached it, a war of incalculable destruction and death could be inevitable.
In the last two weeks alone, both the Russian and U.S. militaries have threatened hostile action in the event of the other side’s aggression. The Obama administration has publicly accused Putin’s government of war crimes and interfering in the U.S. election. Russia has ordered its diplomats to fly home any family members in the West, and as of Wednesday has commenced long-range ballistic missile testing.
If Clinton is added to this mix — a woman as bent on regime change in Syria as the Obama administration and as fond of armed foreign intervention as the Bush administration — the results could truly be catastrophic.