Hillary Clinton's outrageous comments about Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, as bizarre as they were, reflect an underlying rot in the party shaping its approach to the 2020 election. If it continues, it threatens to undermine a promising, positive shift initiated by President Trump, away from the unilateralism of London-directed American neocons, which has been responsible for two decades of American wars in the Middle East, wars which have been fully backed by Clinton and her allies. Her loss to Donald Trump in 2016 became the trigger for her increasingly unhealthy public obsession with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin, and his alleged control over Trump. But that obsession predated her election defeat, going back to her time as Secretary of State, when she engaged in open meddling in Russian elections in 2011, as well as her support for the bloody coup in Libya, also in 2011, and promotion of the violent civil war in Syria, both countries she described as assets of Russia. Further, it was her campaign which hired Fusion GPS to do "operation research" to use in the campaign against Trump, which produced the fabricated dossier of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele, the basis for claims that Russia "meddled" in the election on Trump's behalf.
Her continuing delusional obsession with alleged Russian meddling in U.S. elections surfaced during a podcast hosted by Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe on October 17. Clinton said, of alleged Russian involvement in the present campaign, "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've [the Russians] got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third- party candidate."
Obviously speaking of Gabbard, though not naming her, Clinton added, "She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far." She then threw in a reference to the 2016 Green Party candidate, saying "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she is also a Russian asset." This is based on her belief that her defeat by Trump was due to Russian interference, including Putin's supposed support for Stein's third party candidacy, which she believes drew votes from her.
Gabbard's response was immediate and straightforward, referring to Clinton as "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long...." She accused Clinton of directing a campaign against her, through her "proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine", and challenged her to come out openly and join the race for President, rather than firing shots from the sidelines.
President Trump responded to Clinton's charges as well, saying they show Clinton is "crazy." He told Fox News host Sean Hannity that, to Clinton, "Anybody that opposes her is a Russian agent," then added about those aligned with Clinton, "These people are sick. There's something wrong with them."
THE DEEPER UNDERLYING DANGER
That such foolishness has been a part of the political dialogue since the spring of 2016, when it became clear that Trump was riding an anti-establishment wave to victory in the Republican Party, is bad enough. What makes it worse is that it never stopped! The first two-plus years of Trump's presidency have been sabotaged by efforts of the anti-Trumpers, operating through special counsel Robert Mueller's fraudulent investigation, to find a "smoking gun," to overturn his election victory. While that ultimately went down in flames, the narrative that emerged was that every effort by Trump to break from the dangerous geopolitical doctrine of his predecessors—a doctrine which precipitated numerous wars, and placed the U.S. and Russia in danger of military confrontation—provided proof that he was repaying a debt to Putin.
The collapse of Russiagate gave Trump an opportunity to move ahead with his desire to cooperate with Putin, as well as with China's President Xi, in resolving, through dialogue, the post-Cold War hot spots, including Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Ukraine. The fruits of this approach are now being consolidated in Syria, where Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops opened the door for the Syrians, with Russian, Turkish and Iranian backing, to reclaim sovereignty over territory which had been in the hands of jihadist terrorists—terrorists which had been materially and diplomatically aided by President Obama's decision to arm "moderate rebels", to support regime change in Syria. Clinton was involved in the initial decision to use regime change against Assad, and has continued to play a major role in organizing for the overthrow of his government. It was U.S., British and French intervention on behalf of the so-called moderates which prolonged the civil war there, leading to hundreds of thousands of dead, destruction of the economy, and the flood of refugees which provoked political crises in Europe.
Trump's announcement was greeted with a new level of vicious attacks, this time from war hawk Republicans, as well as from pro-war Democrats. "Trump is selling out the Kurds", was one refrain, "this will lead to genocide" of the Kurds. Others chanted that this is giving a major gift to Putin and Erdogan, also to Assad and Iran. In a well-publicized public confrontation between House Speaker Pelosi and Trump, she is seen wagging a finger at him, protesting his decision by saying, "All roads lead to Putin"!
Where was this concern for the Kurds, one should ask, when Obama and the CIA were providing deadly weapons to those ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists who were killing them?
In reality, Trump's actions led to an agreement between Turkish President Erdogan and Putin, which defends both Syrian sovereignty and the Kurds, and lays the basis for an end of the "endless wars". For the anti-Trumpers, will they now support the efforts of the Astana process, led by Russia, Turkey and Iran, to draft a new constitution for Syria, while beginning the rebuilding process? Will they support an extension of China's Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) into the region, so that this region torn by wars caused by 19th-century British imperial geopolitics, can finally become a thriving bridge between Asia, Europe and Africa?
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Instead, the Democrats will continue with their latest fraud, the Ukrainian phone call impeachment gambit, to try to remove Trump. Part of their strategy is the cynical attempt to use Republican opposition to an emerging Trump-Putin collaboration to win over some Russophobic GOP Senators to their side, such at Utah Senator Romney, to convict the President, assuming the House does eventually act to impeach him. Note that the attempt to nail Trump using the charge that he was trying to bribe the new Zelensky government in Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election was launched when it became evident that the investigation by Attorney General Barr, into the origins of Russiagate, included an investigation into the previous Ukrainian government's role in launching the phony attack on Trump in 2016!
IS LAROUCHE'S FOUR POWER AGREEMENT COMING?
Despite the inclination to assume that Hillary Clinton's flight forward assault on Tulsi Gabbard is simply a matter of her losing touch with reality, there is a deeper concern on the part of her controllers among London/Wall Street imperial interests which it reflects. As the financial system is speedily unraveling, they fear that Trump may pivot on economic matters away from his defense of the present economy, to a bold move presented by Lyndon LaRouche: to negotiate with Russia, China and India for a Four Power agreement, to establish a New Bretton Woods (NBW), returning to a fixed-exchange rate system which rejects the failed "free market, free trade", speculative system imposed by the central banks, which is now disintegrating. Such an multilateral treaty could draw on the success of China's BRI, which has engaged more than 130 nations into agreements on major infrastructure projects. Already, many nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America are on board with this, and the Russians and Chinese are collaborating closely, including in the development of infrastructure and nuclear power in Africa.
The fear that such an agreement is now possible is what is driving desperate bankers and financial operatives to pull the strings of puppet politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, Pelosi and Adam Schiff, to escalate against Trump. Instead of greeting the unfolding success in ending the war in Syria as a major accomplishment, Trump's enemies are proving that he is right, that they are mouthpieces for what President Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex." For them, war is a necessary part of sustaining their power; any moves toward agreements by sovereign nations states, which LaRouche famously identified as the goal of a NBW, is viewed as an existential threat.
Thus, the Democrats running for their Party's presidential nomination, with the exception of one inadequate statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, are silent on the new Federal Reserve Super-bailout underway, with nightly injections of tens of billions of dollars and the impending return of Quantitative Easing, to prevent a systemic chain-reaction blowout of the financial system. With nothing but canned and ineffective blather about fairness, and groveling before the mass media's insistence that "identity politics" is the path to victory—which is mostly falling on deaf ears—the candidates are crawling over each other to claim the mantle of being the most anti-Trump, and the most capable of beating him.
If Trump succeeds, however, in ending these permanent wars, and is able to turn his attention back to his economic promises of the 2016 campaign, which included significant elements of LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, their only hope is to remove him through the impeachment process. That is why Clinton has been so visible in the last days, despite her failure in 2016. On the same podcast when she slandered Gabbard, she repeatedly returned to the theme of the discredited Russiagate. "I don't know what Putin has on him," she said of Trump, "whether it's both personal and financial...I assume it is."
She followed this with an appearance on PBS on October 22, claiming that Trump is "obsessed with me." Mooting the prospect that she might jump into the 2020 race, which some, including Democrats are now beginning to take seriously, she said, "So maybe there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again."
If she, and her fellow Democrats, continue to fawn over Obama, who supported both the post-2008 bailouts which are now imploding, and the regime change wars which Trump is ending, while vilifying Putin, who is bringing stability to the Mideast in an alliance with President Trump, it is highly unlikely that American voters will back them. And any Republican Senator who foolishly allies with the Democrats against Trump will find they have made a career-ending decision.