Where are our advisers?

[ThePilgrim]

I don't like posting so many things on the forums today but things are happening so fast in today's world and many of the happenings are not told to us, the American people, by our media.  So I am posting this article because I believe the information to be true.  Most probably will just discount it as propaganda, but so be it.  Here it is:

 http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/04/26/washington-choreographing-all-out-war-with-russia.html

[1Timothy115]

I don't know how much credence I could put in anything from Finian Cunningham. I don't claim to be an expert on him but, he 'tongue-in-cheek' accuses Hillary as being anything but a liberal. He correctly labels her as a "puppet for sale" but...

"Therefore the only thing «liberal» about Clinton’s political record is liberal use of naked American state violence and lawlessness in pursuit of policy objectives." 

I can't find him saying anything good about the U.S. as a whole. However, that would be nothing new for anyone here.  

[John81]

Obama only accepts "yes men/women" as his advisers so it's not like he's going to get a balanced briefing on things or balanced options on matters.

Obama hates Putin, that much is known, but I doubt Obama is willing to risk war over that. Obama has wanted to be and continues to strive to be known as a "peace president". Obama wants to be able to say he got America out of the Bush wars, didn't start any new wars, and if possible to close Gitmo and make some kind of peace deal with someone (at the moment he's working on Iran) so he can claim as a major legacy him being an advocate for and bringer of peace.

The neo-cons in the Republican Party are much more inclined to risk war with Russia (or almost anyone else) than is Obama. Hillary may well be an unknown factor in such matters as the Clinton way is often to direct policy in accord with what would be favorable for them financially and/or politically. Hillary has come under at least a bit of fire for helping bring about a deal that was in Russia's favor. That may or may not be a clue as to how Hillary would lean.

While I don't agree with all of Bush the Seconds foreign affair policies, at least during his time in office post-9-11 his policies and agenda were pretty well known and followed. With Obama that's not been the case. Obama has been all over the place with his foreign policy while making it clear he's ashamed of America and considers America to always be the problem and he's been willing to risk American lives and American security to show that.

History indicates that affairs between nations, especially when involving matters of finance, power and war (which often all go together) are often dictated or moved along by wealthy power players and in more modern times, the press (media) have played a larger roll.

[ThePilgrim]

You know, sometimes I wonder if Obama is that much into running the foreign policy of his administration.  I wonder if it is not run almost totally by the State and (so-called) Defense Departments and he learns about it later in a briefing or watching the news.  Both Departments are in the hands of the Neocons and sometimes their sanity must be questioned.  Have you ever watched the State Department briefings?  Here is an example of their blatant obfuscations and lies that they dish out to the American people.  They never show remorse or shame for their blatant lies which they try to explain away by just shrugging it off.   The second video is the call in question.