You should think twice before getting in Hillary Clinton’s way to the Oval Office. Literally overnight, you could find yourself converted into a Kremlin stooge. It appears that Clinton’s campaign slogan actually reads:
Whoever isn’t with me is a Russian agent.
The Clinton camp is obviously following Joseph McCarthy’s example by branding anyone who stands in their way a “Russian agent”. Thus, unsurprisingly, they recently branded Donald Trump (Hillary Clinton’s major competitor in the 2016 US Presidential race) as a “Kremlin stooge”. An eerie McCarthy-styled new ad, released by Clinton campaigners, manipulates viewers into believing that Russia may be backing Donald Trump, which “is trying to influence” the US presidential election.
“McCarthyism” is a term used to describe the practice of making accusations of subversion without any regard for evidence. Likewise, the Clinton camp doesn’t bother to find any evidence to confirm their allegations. British political analyst (and regular contributor to Sputnik) Finian Cunningham noted in one of his latest articles:
Donald Trump has entered a political kill zone. The American establishment is lining up to take him out. We’re talking here in virtual terms… at least, thus far.
However, according to Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, Trump isn’t the only target of Democrats:
This smear tactic extends far beyond Trump. They now use it to vilify anyone perceived to be an impediment to Clinton’s victory. When WikiLeaks published thousands of DNC emails, voices instantly emerged claiming that the Russians organised the leak. Democrats not only treated this evidence-free conspiracy theory as Truth, but… following the Clinton campaign… proceeded to smear WikiLeaks as a Kremlin operation. They turned a deaf ear to the US intelligence community statement, “We haven’t drawn any evidentiary connection to any Russian intelligence service and WikiLeaks”.
That isn’t all… the Democrats went even further and branded media outlets and journalists who shed light on the leaked DNC emails’ content as “Kremlin weapons”, including The Intercept. One would be surprised to know that they found yet another “Russian agent” … inside the Democratic Party. When Bernie Sanders looked earlier this year to be the one who was standing in Clinton’s way, slimy suggestions began emerging of his dark connections to Russia, revealing that Sanders was “linked to Communists” by pro-Clinton media pundits who cited his decades-old praise of Castro and the Sandinistas.
As if that wasn’t enough, Clinton supporters also called Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate) a “Kremlin tool” after she rose in the polls. On Saturday, the pro-Clinton AMERICAblog alleged that the Green Party candidate joined the dark side. Last year, Stein attended a conference organized by Russia Today in Moscow. However, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog highlighted that’s only half the story:
Vladimir Putin himself joined Stein and other attendees for dinner.
Aravosis claimed that Stein lambasted the USA and remained mute on Russia’s “horrific lack of respect for human rights”, referring to her anti-war video message. That was enough for Aravosis to label the Stein as a Russian “propaganda tool”. Glenn Greenwald tweeted:
Was only a matter of time before Jill Stein was smeared as a disloyal Kremlin-sympathiser (tweet is 100% false).
However, Greenwald pointed up that one could hardly call Stein a Russian apologist. Although she called upon Moscow and Washington to team up in Syria to settle the crisis and criticised the USA for embarking on a 1 trillion USD (64.8 trillion Roubles, 6.65 trillion Renminbi. 67 trillion INR. 1.296 trillion CAD. 1.308 trillion AUD. 896 million Euros. 774 million UK Pounds) programme to update its nuclear weapons, she likewise criticised Russia for “diverting scarce resources into military spending while its people suffered”. Nevertheless, who in the Clinton camp cares what Stein really meant? Pro-Clinton journalists and media pundits rushed to accuse the Green party politician of being an “agent of the Kremlin”.
Interestingly enough, after Sputnik turned the spotlight on Aravosis’ opinion piece, Aravosis journalist presented it as yet more “proof” of Stein’s coöperation with Russia:
The Kremlin is now defending Stein, and attacking me, because of this article. That speaks volumes about just how important a tool Putin finds Stein for both his propaganda war and for helping Trump this election.
That’s the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2016 election. They vilify those who question, criticise, or are perceived to impede Hillary Clinton’s smooth entitled path to the White House as stooges, sympathisers, and/or agents of Russia… Trump, WikiLeaks, Sanders, The Intercept, Jill Stein. Other than loyal Clinton supporters, is there anyone left who isn’t covertly controlled by or in service to The Russkies? Following the Democrats’ flawed logic, one might begin suspecting Hillary Clinton or even Barack Obama of covertly collaborating with the Kremlin.
Citing a New York Times 2015 report, Greenwald recalled:
The Clintons were at the centre of a deal that gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the USA. Furthermore, Mr Clinton received 500,000 USD (32.4 million Roubles, 3.325 million Renminbi. 34 million INR. 648,000 CAD. 654,000 AUD. 448,000 Euros. 387,000 UK Pounds) for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
As for Barack Obama, he repeatedly opposed US hawks’ plan to unleash an all-out war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and to deliver lethal weapons to the Ukrainian government. Moreover, back in 2012, Obama mocked Mitt Romney, who branded Russia as the USA’s “biggest geopolitical threat” by saying:
The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.
It is worth mentioning that while Romney was beating the war drums about a non-existent “Russian threat”, the New York Times wrote in November 2012:
His son Matt Romney travelled to Moscow seeking Russian investors for his California-based real estate firm just days before his father was to wrap up a campaign in which he vowed to take a tougher stance with the Kremlin.
Whilst the US media evokes the spectre of McCarthyism, it remains silent on more-sordid stories, which it should tell. It’s ironic really, given that there are so many more sordid stories on Clinton, given her involvement in warmongering, clandestine régime-change operations, and abuse of state secrecy for her own self-aggrandisement with foreign sources of money.
10 August 2016