Why only in skirt? Hillary Clinton often wears pants. The Secretary is a trouble of the U.S. foreign policy.
Her appointment, as we know, was a compromise, and was apparently the result of a decision made by the masters of the U.S. Democratic Party, with clear involvement of the key politicians of the Clinton administration. A similar compromise was reached when Joe Biden was selected for the post of vice-president.
The great three of the current administration, Obama, Biden and Clinton, are guided by different interests and policies of certain groups in the Democratic Party and their partners in the U.S. establishment. The members of the Great Three have been assigned to the most problematic regions and areas. Joe Biden mostly had to deal with the Middle East and other regions in Asia, Clinton was assigned to Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and Barack Obama is apparently assigned to the rest, that is global challenges.
With Biden everything was easy. Obama’s people quickly pushed him off the arena and he became vice-president. It is more difficult with Hillary Clinton, and she has actually become an “alternative” to the president. Relying on a huge group from the Democratic Party, including people who gathered in Brookings Institute, that is in the “brain” of the Democratic staff. Hillary Clinton has actually usurped the foreign policy, successfully failing it in all directions.
In fact, in all directions of global control of China’s expansion, one of the most important tracks of the U.S. foreign policy, there was a failure. China is successfully strengthening its foothold in Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia, and the most disappointing thing in the European direction. We should also add to this the failure of the U.S. to neutralize the China-Russia relations within Shenghai Cooperation Organization.
The new U.S. doctrinaire concept relating to “shift” of responsibility on Arab countries, though it seems a more or less “pretty image”, in reality, it is destined to failure very soon. In this region, it was impossible to fulfill sanctions on Iran effectively and reach its capitulation. Despite its wish to display its control on the Arab revolutions, the U.S. sealed the fact that these processes occurred and proceeded in accordance with concrete scenarios. What is happening in Egypt and Syria is a “nightmare” for the Obama administration. The region is increasingly escaping, and it is a challenge for the United States.
The American policy on Europe is based on the “benefits” gained thanks to the Bush administration. In addition, the European left and liberal forces, as well as the right and conservative ones, are disappointed for the same reasons - extremely deviant and palliative policies which demonstrate a “fundamental confusion and lack of discipline”.
Leading the U.S. to such a deadlock, the Obama administration, under the sensitive control of H. Clinton, chose an “after us, the deluge” policy in relation to Turkey, when Clinton’s people, instead of the policy of repression of Ankara, are conducting a policy of silly and meaningless compromises. At the same time, with each stage of establishment of relations with Turkey, the Obama administration increasingly understands that they have achieved nothing in fundamental aspects and doomed the U.S. policy on Turkey to fiasco.
It is not about the fact that the United States has no ideas or levers to conduct a policy on Turkey. The point is that the Department of State is doing it in an archaic and unprofessional way. This is natural because the staff of the State Department has not been formed yet. Has much attention been paid to the assessment and characteristics of the State Department functionaries in the U.S. political literature?
It is interesting that even the politicians and experts of the Republican Party, who express a radical position on the current policy of the U.S. in private talks, do not express it in a textual form. It may have some meaning but the presidential election campaign, one way or another, will evidence the vices of the U.S. foreign policy and will point out those guilty.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party failed or did not want to promote a more or less convincing presidential candidate. Presumably, it is done consciously since the Republicans are not eager to assume responsibility for the current economic situation of the country. If everything is really so, in historical terms, Obama is seen in the U.S. as a transitive “technical president”. This is a very unpleasant situation, and it is more unpleasant not for the Americans but for the rest of the world.
Since only the United States is able to resist specific global threats, and the U.S. opponents in every region understand it well. In this situation, an extremely ideological group has appeared at the wheel of the U.S. foreign policy whose ideology is a collection of ambiguous, unsystematic and dangerous thesis of deviatory character.
It was during this period when the task of removing Clinton from her post as Secretary of State was brought up before the end of Barack Obama’s first term as president. The task is to save the great country from a group of followers of “Brookings Institute” whose reputation was damaged by themselves (of course, keeping in mind not only this think tank but an extensive network of left-liberal intellectuals, expressing the interests of the great mass of middle class and the leaders of the bourgeoisie.)
Even if we accept the U.S. current policy on Turkey as something pragmatic being mindful that this policy will result in entirely different and complex problems, it will be clear that the Americans have lost a lot of precious time on this direction.
H. Clinton, jointly with “her” president, is not only trying to sabotage the recognition of the Armenian genocide but also to close this issue forever. No other administration, even Bill Clinton’s, has ever tried to do this which paved the way to the failure of the recognition. Besides, of all the Grand Ladies of the State Department – Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, only the acting Grand Lady has openly supported the recognition of the genocide during her election campaign.
Washington certainly understands that in order to parry efforts to recognize the genocide they have to make more effort, and the current problems did not exist previously. In this case, however, some personal hatred for the Armenians and their issue is felt, it is felt that somehow the Clinton team will attempt to recoup herself with Armenia. So here is a well- established Talaat Pasha in skirt.
During the next presidential campaign, the Armenian American voters will need to refrain from voting for the supporters of the genocide and vote against those who are against the recognition of the genocide. In addition, they will have to demonstrate their position not only on the voting day but also during the entire campaign, conducting counter-campaign in every ethnic and religious community. Talaat Pasha in skirt and “her” president should properly feel their disadvantaged state of hypocrites and dishonored politicians.
Comments