By Michael Collins

(Washington, DC 7/11/12) Hillary Clinton has a very serious problem. She thinks that she runs the world and that those who disobey her must be punished, China and Russia in particular. Our chief diplomat behaves like a drunken bully, makes rash demands, and spoils for a fight with countries that can do some serious damage. (Image: Sascha W)

Over what? Regime change in Syria. Clinton is the tip of the spear for the project to control the Arab Spring movement. Her efforts have little to do with democracy. It is about controlling the agenda in the oil rich Middle East and the effort to prop up the decadent Saudis royals and other oil rich leaders hiding behind a nebulous organization called the Gulf Cooperation Council.

In a statement to the Friends of Syria group on Friday, July 6, Clinton insisted that others observe the "norm of international law and human decency."

She also made this bold assertion, laying bare the goals of the Obama administration: "We are focused on determining what we can do to try to hasten the end of this regime and to provide the circumstances for an effective process of transition and reconciliation." Hillary Clinton, July 6, 2012

How does that fit into the norms of international law? The United States helped set those norms at the Nuremberg trial. They couldn't be more precise. "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" is a war crime as is a "common plan or conspiracy" involving any of those efforts (ICRC).

Through the support of the terrorist Free Syria Army and the very international coordination Clinton is leading at gatherings throughout the world, she shames the United States by her very public "conspiracy for the accomplishment of" a "war of aggression." Clinton demands regime change in Syria though that nation has not waged war against another, plans for that change openly at the fête diplomatique she attends so often, and facilitates financial assistance to the rebels.

Did we all miss something? Has Syria attacked the United States?

In addition to threatening regime change in Syria, Clinton is fuming at Russia and China for defying her will. At the June 6 conference, it was off with their heads: "The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price, because they are holding up progress -- blockading it – that is no longer tolerable."

What "price" will Russia and China pay for "holding up progress"? Will we stop allowing China to buy U.S. Treasury bonds? Will the Europeans stop taking ample natural gas supplies from Russia?

And how might we expect Clinton to describe "progress" for the people of Syria and the previous beneficiaries of the NATO - gulf monarchy version of the Arab Spring?

Is progress the anarchy in Libya where, as Amnesty International describes it, "Entire towns and villages were deliberately rendered uninhabitable by the militias"?

Is progress the ethnic cleansing of black Libyans, particularly the 30,000 residents of Tawergha who have been dispersed, beaten, and killed to exact revenge for siding with Gaddafi?

Is progress the recent presidential election in Egypt with the top two candidates eliminated from the final ballot by court decisions and the winner selected by the 20% to 30% of Egyptians who bothered to vote?

U.S. and European brand democracy is the Trojan horse that lets loose the ravages of death and destruction and leaves nations in shambles, prey to shameless financial cabals like the International Monetary Fund. (Image)

Democracy here is the vulgar rhetoric of Secretary of State Clinton who demands endless war abroad as the people tell this administration and Congress that they've had enough of this type of violence in their name.

In March the people spoke. Did anyone in power listen? Over 60% oppose any intervention in Syria, more than 50% want immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and nearly half want troops called back from Europe.

If Secretary Clinton cared one bit about democracy, she would do the will of the people rather than serve the big money interests of the national security state and the demands of her own ego.

END

Also see, Collins: Clinton's Threat to "Obliterate" Iran, Is that Tough Enough? April 29, 2008

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to his article.

The Money Party