MSNBC War Pigs

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Willie Geist shamelessly promoted opposition to President Biden withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Joe and Mika Scarborough, Richard Haas, Jim Vandehi, Katty Kay, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Willie Geist all complain about Biden withdrawing from Afghanistan.
All these warmongering pigs warn, “…if we withdraw will have to go back in to squash the Taliban.”

These War Pigs still don’t understand that the U.S. has no business invading a foreign nation, bombing the crap out of that country, destroying that country, stealing their natural resources and then expecting a thank you note and permanent law and order American style. It’s no coincidence that these WAR PIGS also support the warmongering Israeli government and their six decade long illegal military occupation of the Palestinian territories.

These warmongering Ziopigs are the same set of warmongers who support more war against Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and Russia. These bastards can’t go a single day without promoting war in one or more of these countries. These Ziopigs live in an alternate reality wholly incongruent with the majority of Americans and the world community’s knowledge and position against U.S. military action around the globe.
A majority of American voters have repeatedly rejected MORE U.S. WARMONGERING, yet MSNBC stocks plenty of War Pigs on hand, ready to foment the war of their choice at a producer’s notice.

These warmongering white people, including Condi Rice, seem to have NO PROBLEM SUPPORTING OUR GOV’T SPENDING U.S. TAX DOLLARS ON BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF NON-WHITES ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT.

If our government stays true to historical form, our intel agencies will be pumping out 100% authentic warmongering disinformation and lies to the American people and Joe Biden’s brain cells to try to coax ole Joe into keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan. If Joe succeeds in withdrawing all U.S. forces from Afghanistan, how will U.S. defense contractors deplete their inventories so they can reorder and rebill the U.S. taxpayer for more bombs and bullets? BBBB – “Bombing Browns for Big Bucks”

And what about the Ziomedia’s obsession with some Russian dissident? I’ll tell you about that obsession: first of all, NO ONE is going to overthrow the Russian government this week or next week: believe that. Yes Putin is a murdering KGB thug who rules Russia with an iron fist – and there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of Navalny knocking a dent in Putin’s armour – yet our Ziomedia is promoting the living hell out of Navalny and his every move as if Putin’s government is about to fall any minute now.

This anti-Russian push by the U.S. ziomedia is the desire of the regular warmongering suspects sitting in Congress, especially in our foreign affairs committees. Hillary Clinton literally argued that yes, America can win a nuclear war with Russia. In fact, it was Hillary’s threats against Russia which drove Putin to support Hillary’s opposition in the first place.

The woman remains a human wrecking ball of hate, war and global destruction; yet that doesn’t stop MSNBC and Willie Geist from promoting Hillary wanting to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

In a speech last month Hillary Clinton called Russian President Vladimir Putin the godfather of right-wing, extreme nationalism. To Kremlin-watchers, those were not random epithets. Two years earlier, in the most famous address of his career, Putin accused the West of backing an armed seizure of power in Ukraine by “extremists, nationalists, and right-wingers.” Clinton had not merely insulted Russia’s president: She had done so in his own words.

Worse, they were words originally directed at neo-Nazis. In Moscow, this was seen as a reprise of Clinton’s comments comparing Putin to Hitler. It injected an element of personal animus into an already strained relationship — but, more importantly, it set up Putin as the representative of an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the United States.

Even as relations between Russia and the West have sunk to new lows in the wake of 2014’s revolution in Ukraine, the Kremlin has long contended that a Cold War II is impossible. That’s because, while there may be differences over, say, the fate of Donetsk, there is no longer a fundamental ideological struggle dividing East and West. To Russian ears, Clinton seemed determined in her speech to provide this missing ingredient for bipolar enmity, painting Moscow as the vanguard for racism, intolerance, and misogyny around the globe.

The nation Clinton described was unrecognizable to its citizens. Anti-woman? Putin’s government provides working mothers with three years of subsidized family leave. Intolerant? The president personally attended the opening of Moscow’s great mosque. Racist? Putin often touts Russia’s ethnic diversity. To Russians, it appeared that Clinton was straining to fabricate a rationale for hostilities.

I have been hard-pressed to offer a more comforting explanation for Clinton’s behavior — a task that has fallen to me as the sole Western researcher at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Better known by its native acronym, MGIMO, the institute is the crown jewel of Russia’s national-security brain trust, which Henry Kissinger dubbed the “Harvard of Russia.”

In practice, the institute is more like a hybrid of West Point and Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service: MGIMO prepares the elite of Russia’s diplomatic corps and houses the country’s most influential think tanks. There is no better vantage point to gauge Moscow’s perceptions of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.

Let’s not mince words: Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. Let’s not mince words: Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. The Russian foreign-policy experts I consulted did not harbor even grudging respect for Clinton. The most damaging chapter of her tenure was the NATO intervention in Libya, which Russia could have prevented with its veto in the U.N. Security Council. Moscow allowed the mission to go forward only because Clinton had promised that a no-fly zone would not be used as cover for regime change.

Russia’s leaders were understandably furious when, not only was former Libyan President Muammar al-Qaddafi ousted, but a cellphone recording of his last moments showed U.S.-backed rebels sodomizing him with a bayonet. They were even more enraged by Clinton’s videotaped response to the same news: “We came, we saw, he died,” the secretary of state quipped before bursting into laughter, cementing her reputation in Moscow as a duplicitous warmonger.