My view of Hillary Clinton says nothing about my view of Trump, or of the Russians – – just want to make that clear. Those are totally separate conversations.
– – – – – –
RE: why it is necessary to convince people that Hillary is the enemy in order to (protect whistleblowers)? – – actually Assange is the PUBLISHER, not the whistleblower)
(invert your question: In order to protect Assange, why is it necessary to convince people that Hillary is the enemy?)
You are saying that I used a despicable tactic – – disparaging one person – – in order to protect another.
That is not what I did.
Hillary Clinton is VERY connected to Assange because of the leak of the DNC emails. And because of her time as Foreign Secretary (State Dept) for the US. Assange reminds people about her role in the bombing of Libya. And makes connections between multi-million dollar contributions by Foreign people and Foreign Governments to the Clinton Foundation and favour in the State Dept. One example of media coverage of the relationship between Hillary Clinton and Assange, from the Sydney Morning Herald – – appended.
– – –
I tried to made sense of what I regard as false statements in the Guardian (Assange and Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign manager, met three times).
I have no need to convince anyone that Hillary is an enemy.
I think we would be in agreement: her sex is totally irrelevant in the question of conduct (behavior).
A crime committed by a man is still a crime when it’s committed by a woman.
– – –
The questions are:
- does Assange construct lies? And
- what other information is there upon which to form an opinion about Clinton’s conduct?
Re 1. Through the years I’ve listened to a number of interviews of Assange – – not everything, by any means. When he was vilified, I listened to original interviews of him, to try & sort out truth from fiction, to the extent that is possible. To me Assange is credible, very astute, and always has been. The interviews are very interesting, nothing hackneyed. He is an exemplary publisher; would be that other publishers performed their roles to the same standard. The corruption would not be as deep as it is.
So, does Assange construct lies? Not as far as I know. (I don’t know everything.)
Re 2. what other information is there upon which to form an opinion about Clinton’s conduct?
The acts of Hillary Clinton, described by Assange, are consistent with her conduct in the role of Foreign Secretary. We’ve gone over that before: She was the one who wanted to bomb Libya, not Obama. I’ve described to you her gleeful reaction (captured on video) when the news came that the bombs had started falling. The revulsion that arose in the centre of my being almost made me sick. Bad enough that Libya has no defence against the might of the US, bad enough that Libya poses no real threat to the US, Hillary Clinton orchestrated and was gleeful when bombs started falling on innocent women and children, utterly destroying the environment and their lives in their communities. Let’s call that what it is – – it’s evil. It’s the stupid bully who has no imagination beyond bombs. There’s lots of intelligent ways to deal with conflict. You’re hitting the bottom of the barrel when your single response is “bomb them”.
The Rattansi interview of Assange confirmed the opinion I had formed when I saw the war videos. Hillary Clinton is accountable for her actions, not me. Bush is equally accountable for the bombing of Iraq. As far as I’m concerned, they both belong in the same jail cell.
Hillary vis-à-vis Libya and vis-à-vis Assange is only part of the whole picture. There is more in the Rattsansi interview.
The Clinton Foundation is no sweet thing, either.
Question answered?!
/Sandra
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, INTERVIEW OF HILLARY CLINTON
In a wide-ranging interview granted in support of her new book What Happened, Mrs Clinton attacked Assange for playing a key role in undermining her bid to become president by colluding with Vladimir Putin and the Trump campaign.
She claimed Wikileaks didn’t merely release sensitive information, it played an active role in ensuring that information did maximum damage.
As I (Sandra) view it, the American public SHOULD know about the persons they might be voting for, to be their President. ONE of the reasons the information was DAMAGING, is because it revealed things being done by the DNC, in support of Hillary – – unlawful with respect to Bernie Sanders. Hillary was part of it.
“If all you did was publish it, that would be one thing,” she told the program. “But there was a concerted operation between Wikileaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to, as I say, weaponise that information, to make up stories – outlandish, often terrible stories that had no basis in fact.”
Hillary’s credibility is shot. She’s smart; she’s a good word-smith. “Weaponise” the emails? Made up stories? Wikileaks’ modus operandi is to provide full data sets to the media outlets it works with. Different newspapers might have different focuses. But by providing access to original material to a number of media, there’s built-in safeguards against outlandish, often terrible stories that had no basis in fact.
Assange, she said, was “very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And he has done their bidding. You don’t see damaging, negative information coming out about the Kremlin on Wikileaks.
“I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.”
Smear campaign? Where is the evidence? What’s the line by Goering? the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Maybe I will be proven wrong about the motivator of the statements in The Guardian. It seems evident to me, from what Assange revealed about Clinton – – that the smearing, the discrediting, the pronouncements that Assange is a tool of Russian intelligence – – the statements made in The Guardian are an extension of that agenda. You use scare tactics – – “the enemy”, the Russians, to bring the people to the bidding of the leaders. In this case, to draw attention away from the actions of the would-be leader.