Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Clinton's long history as a warhawk [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)66. That's just to 2007. She did wonders as Secretary of State for War Inc.
Now expanding War into Ukraine:
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Fri, Feb 7, 2014
By ORIENTAL REVIEW
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Yesterdays leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Batkyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as Yanukovychs project. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week to glue things together. Referring to the European role in managing Ukraines political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: Fuck the EU.
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: this is a new low in Russian tradecraft), Mrs. Nuland made her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washingtons repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the strategic Transatlantic partnership is more worthy of an apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nulands diplomatic collapse which was made public, it was unlikely an unfortunate misspelling. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago describing Mrs.Nulands blatant lack of professionalism and personal integrity. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian independent NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.
CONTINUED w/LINKS...
http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/07/what-about-apologizing-to-ukraine-mrs-nuland/
Lots of money to be made off war. A pantsuit load.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Must be a qualitative belief, because it's certainly not quantitatively as bad.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
May 2015
#6
Can't win for losing. If you object to a third wayer on grounds of political position, you're too
merrily
May 2015
#12
And you're buying that Hillary overrode the President and the Pentagon re: military action?
Buzz Clik
May 2015
#26
Bullshit. I don't doubt that there are sources, but I do doubt their accuracy on one issue.
Buzz Clik
May 2015
#53
If someone says something bad about Hillary, they become an "anti-Hillary source," apparently.
Comrade Grumpy
May 2015
#77
The dirty secret of the 2016 campaign will be how big defense issues will play.
Renew Deal
May 2015
#29
The 2002 vote giving GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is my #1 litmus test in a Democratic primary
Martin Eden
May 2015
#30
I hadn't discovered DU yet, I was immersed in scrambling to save my career
magical thyme
May 2015
#44
Interesting a post to show Hillary as a "war hawk" and it brings to light by Bernie backers
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#36
If Bernie has been in Congress for 25 years he has not shown he is willing to handle national
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#59
He's been in Congress long enough to staunchly support the U.S. bombing campaign in Kosovo
LanternWaste
May 2015
#87
His voting for the last couple of decades has proven he is not willing to handle national security.
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#60
What are you trying to say? He has voted countless times on national security issues.
Comrade Grumpy
May 2015
#83
Bernie voted against sending American men & women into a war even the UN refused to sanction
think
May 2015
#64
Yep, you have listed a vote by Bernie which brings to question his ability to handle national
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#65
Is this the only time a bill dealing with national security has come before Congress?
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#73
Please feel free to explain how this brings into question Sander's leadership on national security.
think
May 2015
#68
He has had several times in which he could have taken a stand on national security and I have yet to
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#72
I have responded more than once. If this is the only thing he has voted on in two
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#92
some here seem to think that her recent statement of regret over her Iraq war vote
magical thyme
May 2015
#96