She’s not an asset. She’s a low-IQ aging bimbo who’s getting overheated unnecessarily. Unfortunately, there are many of them around. This happens to childless post-menopausal women a lot. Not always, mind you, but it’s a definite and real danger.
She used to be quite normal but human biology is relentless and unkind.
Clarissa's Blog 
Yeah, we’re in the middle of the MAGA Bimbo Era (MBE). From neurotics, like Loomer and MTG, to aging hotties like Gabbard and Boebert, they seem to have lost touch with reality.
LikeLike
Have you heard of Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Kamala Harris, to name only a few?
LikeLike
Well, those are far-left bimbos, which by definition, includes nuttery. The right always advocated for pragmatism, higher standards of education, etc.
LikeLike
The original video doesn’t even mention Russia. Bear in mind that Gabbard is a Hindu, and India and Pakistan just had a short war brought on by a terrorist provocation in Kashmir, of a kind that Pakistan has carried out ever since it got its own nuclear umbrella.
So she may be doing more than tag-teaming with Vladimir Solovyov, so to speak. It may actually be a generic anti-nuke statement, made on the occasion of a visit to Hiroshima (again, see the original video).
But it’s still a bit odd for someone who is now ostensibly the chief of the entire US intelligence community, to be making such a statement at all, even if it’s on her personal account. Trump himself has always had a Reagan-like attraction to the idea of a zero-nuke world, does this suggest they’re going to attempt a major disarmament initiative at some point?
LikeLike
Yes, good luck getting to persuade anybody to give up nukes after the US got Ukraine to do that under a promise of defending it if Russia invades. After seeing the complete betrayal of Ukraine, nobody in their right mind would consider giving up their nukes. Ukraine will definitely seek to re-arm with its own nukes because all other options disappeared.
LikeLike
Also, I didn’t watch the video beyond the first 5 seconds. The view of her earnestly puckered forehead and the extreme effort she makes to speak in complete sentences are painful to watch.
LikeLike
I think we now know who she was talking about, at least in the short term – Iran! In her video, she talked about elites who were provoking nuclear-armed powers because they thought they were safe in their bunkers. I think it’s clear now that those were Iranian elites, provoking Israel by refusing to make a deal.
LikeLike
Amazing Talmudic knowledge lol.
LikeLike
oops I meant logic.
LikeLike
SA gave up nukes, but that because the cold war enemy had disappeared and nobody in their right mind would trust the ANC with nukes.
LikeLike
Clinton trusted Russia with nukes, which was as dumb.
God, I want to see that evil dick pay for his many crimes but of course this will never happen.
LikeLike
Well, De Klerk had the authority to dismantle SA’s nukes. I just don’t think Clinton or anyone could have forced Russia to give up their nukes even if they had to starve to keep them.
LikeLike
They didn’t even try and, besides, they didn’t have to make Ukraine transfer its nukes to Russia. What the thinking was behind that one is a mystery.
LikeLike
Owning a nuke isn’t that important compared to being able to build one. SA miners can still mass produce uranium. The problem is they kicked out all the white scientists who could use it to build a bomb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😁😁😁
LikeLike
Reduction of nuclear proliferation, I would think. Great powers only support nuclear proliferation if they think it will be strategically favorable, e.g. China is happy to have Pakistan and North Korea as thorns in the side of India and Japan. Otherwise it just makes the strategic situation more dangerous and complicated. In 1991-1992 and for years thereafter, almost no one in the West was worried about an expansionist Russia. Gorbachev’s USSR was viewed as a diplomatic partner that was putting out the fires of the Cold War and adopting western ways. The main strategic worry about Yeltsin’s Russia was that ex-superpower technologies and knowledge would leak out into the wider world in unpredictable ways (e.g. to terrorist organizations like Japan’s Aum cult).
Leaving nukes on Ukrainian territory under the control of a newly sovereign Ukraine would be like… if the command structure of NATO authority suddenly vanished, and American nukes on German or Turkish territory potentially became the property of those nations. Maybe the Ukrainian military-industrial complex played a part in developing and maintaining Soviet nuclear weapons, but e.g. Russia was the legal successor to the USSR on the UN Security Council (and the big five there, are the only legitimate possessors of nuclear weapons according to the NNPT treaty). No one would have wanted to create a new geopolitical actor with unknown inclinations and that degree of empowerment, unless they were already thinking of nuclear containment of post-communist Russia.
LikeLike
It was extremely clear to everybody who was willing to notice that Russia did not consider the Cold War over and was going to keep re-fighting it forever. Giving it more nukes as a reward for all the horrible stuff it had done during the Cold War was an insane decision.
Bill Clinton is a clinical moron. The idea that he’s some sort of an intellectual is a myth. He’s a low-IQ idjit.
LikeLike