…by Jonas E. Alexis
Hillary Clinton continues to undermine her own mine by positing extraordinary claims with very little or no evidence whatsoever. She is obviously familiar with the scholarly method. As a lawyer, she knows that one has to present serious evidence and rigorous testing when making serious charges. She knows that no thinking person would accept a case without evidential confirmation.
But Hillary continues to violate the principles of the legal system by making claims like this:
“Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election.”
Our intelligence community? Didn’t George W. Bush say something very similar? Didn’t he propagate the categorical lie that the intelligence community said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Didn’t the intelligence community actually say the opposite? Didn’t Bush end up fooling a lot of people with a complete hoax and fabrication?
Hillary has to do more than just saying that “Our intelligence community just came out and said” this or that. She has to present serious cases as a lawyer would do. In fact, many cyberwarfare experts such as Jeffrey Carr have declared that no one knows who really hacked the Democratic National Committee.
Does Hillary know something that the experts don’t know? And if so, why can’t she present the evidence in a logical fashion so that people of reason can examine it? Why is she following the Powers That Be in saying that Russia is actually an enemy of the West? Why is she willing to go head to head with a country that is actually obliterating ISIS in Syria?
Does Hillary really want to tell us all that Russia is worse than Saudi Arabia, a terrorist regime that America has been backing since time immemorial? How about targeting civilians in Yemen?
As Jim W. Dean has recently pointed out on Press TV, Saudi Arabia has made a joke out of the UN by violating a ceasefire in Yemen, and no US official has said a damn thing about this. Why can Hillary say something meaningful about that?
Moreover, if Hillary is going to summon “our intelligence community,” then why can’t she cite a study that was just done by the FBI, which basically concludes that US military operations are the primary reasons for homegrown terrorism?
You see, there is no way that Hillary would be able to win a debate with Vladimir Putin at all because her political calculus is morally and intellectually vacuous. Even Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg, who declares that he is “an anti-Putin Russian,” has recently had to admit that “Clinton makes me nervous.”
As our friend Vladislav Krasnov has recently pointed out, there is no need for Obama or Hillary to get into a real confrontation with Russia at all. Obama, says Krasnov, got a Nobel Peace Prize, and his time in the White House has obviously come to an end. Wouldn’t it be nice for him to “make peace with Russia and earn your Nobel Prize”? Krasnov certainly has a point here:
“Therefore, I say, Mr. President, take a breath of fresh air and do whatever it takes to make your Nobel Peace Prize count: Leave the legacy of peace-seeking dialog with Russia from which your successor will not deviate lest he or she is called an abominable warmonger.
“More than any other two countries, Russia and the United States are called upon to jointly safeguard Peace, Freedom and Commerce not just from San Francisco to Vladivostok, but on the entire Planet Earth. So help us God!”
 Thomas Fox-Brewster, “Clinton Claims Putin’s Hackers Are Punting For Trump,” Forbes, October 10, 2016.
 For further studies on this, see Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John M. Schuessler, Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy (New York: Cornell University Press, 2015); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2007); Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Vanguard Press, 2008).
 See for example Glenn Greenwald, “U.S. and U.K. Continue to Participate in War Crimes, Targeting of Yemeni Civilians,” The Intercept, October 11, 2016.
 Murtaza Hussain and Cora Currier, “US Military Operations Are Biggest Motivation for Homegrown Terrorists, FBI Study Finds,” The Intercept, October 11, 2016.
 Leonid Bershidsky, “I’m an Anti-Putin Russian and Clinton Makes Me Nervous,” Bloomberg, October 11, 2016.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.