Hillary Clinton’s Hawkish Record

Surviving Iowa in a dead heat with Sen. Bernie Sanders, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now hopes her establishment-backed campaign will grind down her opposition and pave the way for her presidential nomination. But many Democrats remain leery of her hawkish foreign policy, writes Marjorie Cohn.

By Marjorie Cohn

Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as Secretary of State. She attaches herself to Barack Obama’s coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the President.

Like Obama, Clinton touts American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States is better than any other country. In his State of the Union addresses, Obama has proclaimed America “exceptional” and said the U.S. must “lead the world.” Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices that “America remains the ‘indispensable nation.’”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

It is this view that animates U.S. invasions, interventions, bombings and occupations of other countries. Under the pretense of protecting our national interest, the United States maintains some 800 military bases in other countries, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually. Often referred to as “enduring bases,” they enable us to mount attacks whenever and wherever our leaders see fit, whether with drones or manned aircraft.

Obama, who continues to prosecute the war in Afghanistan 15 years after it began, is poised to send ground troops back to Iraq and begin bombing Libya. His aggressive pursuit of regime change in Syria was met with pushback by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to Seymour Hersh.

The President has bombed some seven countries with drones. But besides moving toward normalization of relations with Cuba, his signature foreign policy achievement is brokering the agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Although Clinton supports the nuclear deal, she talks tough about Iran. In September 2015, she provocatively declared, “I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,” adding, “I will confront them across the board.” She said, “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton promised to “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Clinton was, in effect, pledging to commit genocide against the Iranian people.

In an August 2014 Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton maintained, “There is no such thing as a right to enrich.” Apparently, she has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Article IV of the treaty says, “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

One country that does possess nuclear weapons is Israel, which refuses to ratify the NPT. Clinton has consistently and uncritically supported the policies of the Israeli government. In the Atlantic interview, she placed the blame for Israel’s 2014 massacre in Gaza squarely with the Palestinians.

From July 8 to Aug. 27, 2014, Israel killed over 2,100 Palestinians, 80 percent of them civilians including more than 400 children. Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven Israeli civilians were killed.

When Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” She blamed only the Palestinians, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict.” Claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself,” she said, “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets.”

But Israel did not act in self-defense. In the first 10 days of June 2014, Israeli forces abducted 17 Palestinian teenage boys in the occupied West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the southern West Bank; Israel accused Hamas. After those three were found dead, a group of Israelis tortured and killed a Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem.

On July 7, Israel launched a large military operation in the Gaza Strip, dubbed Operation Protective Edge. The Israeli Defense Forces devastated Gaza. For 51 days, Israel bombarded Gaza with more than 6,000 airstrikes.

The United Nations Human Rights Council subsequently convened an independent, international commission of inquiry, which concluded that Israel, and to a lesser extent Palestinian armed groups, had likely committed violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, some constituting war crimes. “The scale of the devastation was unprecedented” in Gaza, according to the commission.

Yet Clinton was puzzled by what she calls “this enormous international reaction against Israel,” adding, “This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.” She attributed the “enormous international reaction” to “a number of factors” but only mentioned anti-Semitism, never citing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands or its periodic massacres in Gaza.

Indeed, in January 2016, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council it was an “indisputable truth” that “Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.” He noted that it was “human nature to react to occupation, which serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Clinton didn’t ponder why so many people around the world are participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli occupation. Representatives of Palestinian civil society launched BDS in 2005, calling upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel.”

In her November 2015 article titled “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu,” published in the Jewish newspaper Forward, Clinton vowed to continue to oppose BDS. “As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year,” she boasted, adding that she opposed “the biased Goldstone report,” explained below.

After Israel’s 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead, in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians (82 percent of whom were civilians) and 13 Israelis were killed, a U.N. Human Rights Council report by a commission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone concluded that “Disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy [by Israel].”

Israel responded to the report with threats and harassment against Goldstone, leading him to backtrack on one of the findings in the report that bears his name, namely, that Israel deliberately targeted civilians. But the other members of the commission stood fast on all of the report’s conclusions.

Clinton’s vote in favor of President George W. Bush’s illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq cost her the 2008 election. It also cost more than 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives. Yet Clinton cynically told corporate executives at a 2011 State Department roundtable on investment opportunities in Iraq, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.”

The same year, Clinton led the campaign for forcible regime change in Libya, despite opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Responding to the gruesome sodomizing of President Muammar Gaddafi with a bayonet, Clinton laughed and said, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Both the Iraq War and regime change in Libya paved the way for the rise of Islamic State and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Obama is about to escalate his military involvement in Libya. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.” The New York Times reports that the expanded campaign is “expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.”

The Obama administration is reportedly changing the rules of engagement to allow more civilian casualties in the “war” against Islamic State. A senior military official told The Daily Beast, “Now I think you’ll see a little more willingness to tolerate civilian casualties in the interest of making progress.” But the Geneva Conventions prohibit the disproportionate killing of civilians.

Clinton has promised to escalate the wars in Syria and Iraq, including a no-fly zone in Syria. Since Islamic State doesn’t have an air force, her no-fly zone is likely to capture Russian planes flying over Syria.

Talking tough on ABC’s “This Week,” Clinton declared, “We have to fight in the air, fight on the ground and fight them on the Internet.” She said nothing about diplomacy or an arms embargo to stop sending weapons that end up in the hands of Islamic State.

Although the corporate media fans the flames of fear about Islamic State, only 38 people in the United States have died in terror-related incidents since 9/11, according to Politifact.com. The “war on terror” has cost us more than $1.5 trillion, in addition to U.S. lives and those of untold numbers in other countries.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would continue our “perpetual war.” She would do everything in her power to ensure the robust survival of the American empire.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary-general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her most recent book is “Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” See www.marjoriecohn. Follow her on Twitter at @marjoriecohn. [This article first appeared on Truthdig [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/want_endless_war_love_the_us_empire_hillary_clintons_your_choice_20160201]

23 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Hawkish Record

  1. Zachary Smith
    February 4, 2016 at 12:47

    I’ve just finished a disturbing piece at The Saker site about what the neocons are doing regarding Ukraine.

    That would explain the reports of swearing, whilst the alleged warnings of coming war and of plots to do away with the President look like garbled versions of warnings – or perhaps of threats – that the Russians had better be more accommodating because the time-window to do a deal is running out, with the US likely to have a more confrontational President (Hillary Clinton?) after the Presidential election.


    The author believes Nuland was threatening the Russians with war if they didn’t revise the Minsk agreement to suit the neocons. Given Hillary’s bloodthirsty history and recent statements, this seems to me to be a plausible conclusion. Of course most of the Republican candidates are even worse.

    I’d kind of hoped to get through my life without participating in a nuclear war.

  2. John XYZ
    February 4, 2016 at 10:18

    I think there’s a bit of an accountability problem here. Torture never really hurt Bush. Mass surveillance never really hurt Obama. If it turned out that Clinton did Libya just because she enjoyed watching public gang rape, I’m not sure if it would really hurt her in the eyes of her supporters.

    What’s hard to say is how much of these hawkish views are a cause and how much are an effect. Politicians are great dowsing rods for popular opinion, and right now, the entire GOP is full of hawks. So I don’t know if the hawkishness is just the way the public is right now, or if its a side-effect of pushing the necessity of a Clinton candidacy. One thing I’d love to ask all of the candidates is, if there was an insurrection of Mexican immigrant and Iranian-Americans in some place like Wyoming, would you as President support bombing Wyoming? If yes, then what if the same thing happened in northern Virginia or Maryland? Would it matter what percent were Mexican compared to Iranian? It applies to either side of the political spectrum, although the left tends to give answers with a more politically correct facade.

    I’m of the school of thought that if someone believes that they have the moral authority to decide the fate of some other unwilling nation, then they lack the moral authority to lead a nation. It’s really hard to say what’s going on in these politicians’ minds sometimes, but you’ll have to forgive the person sitting on the sideline who comes to the conclusion that maybe we’re seeing extensive privilege being mis-characterized as experience.

  3. J'hon Doe II
    February 3, 2016 at 13:53
  4. J'hon Doe II
    February 3, 2016 at 13:12

    Your statement is clearly correct, Citizen 4700.

    However, both Dominant Party’s are owned and controlled by the 1%
    – which will continue to mean doom&gloom reigned down on the so-called Middle Class.

    The Monied are Authoritarian Controllers — (Sanders, not withstanding their Power, will be a valiant afterthought, and like Thoreau will be seen as ‘a voice out of place&time’).

    …”there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
    Henry David Thoreau

    Root of the problem is the love of money.
    Unbridled money is as a wild-west horse stampede or a running of the bulls in Spain.
    Unbridled War(s) for dominion&control is a ‘True Collectivist’ Scheme.

    Authoritarian Controllers have always been collectivist as exhibited in the international slave trade that enriched and empowered the EURO/US-NATO – UN- IMF economic conglomerate Chamber of Commerce/Military Industrial Complex Ownership of the World.

    So, clearly, the monied people behind Clinton and the money behind Republicans is vast. There’s no-real-difference there — So how does our vote count in a rigged system?
    – and if that’s! the case, when&how can we organize the resistance to this tyranny??? !

  5. Citizen 4700
    February 3, 2016 at 12:11

    “…like the Wall St. Journal’s report that of the $25 million one of the super PACs supporting Clinton raised in the last six months of 2015, $15 million came from Wall St. sources.”
    (San Francisco Chronicle 2-3-16)

    I guess we know who Wall St. is betting on. That being said, if as expected, Ms. Clinton is nominated, this citizen will vote for her unenthusiastically. The Supreme Court, the ACA, a women’s right to choose, and other critical domestic issues will be at risk once again under any Republican administration. People in other countries will most likely be bombed, as under Bush and Clinton before him. That goes for ANY candidate except perhaps Sanders. A rotten, rotten empire we are.

  6. Joe Tedesky
    February 3, 2016 at 02:23

    Hillary by calling herself a progressive shows how easy it is to dupe the average American voter. If nothing more, at least how easy it is for her to get over on the over sixty crowd. Seriously what liberal policies has this woman ever produced? My guess is that she will be crowned the Democrates 2016 Presidential candidate, but will she have the support of the Sanders youth, and minority voters? I doubt that very much. Things are going to get very ugly, as this years campaign for the White House continues on. I’m putting my money on, by the time November 4 comes around, that Hillary will be an even dirtier word than it has ever been to date. If she does enter the Oval Office it won’t be through the door of honest straight democracy, but due to other means. DieBolt voting machines, Supreme Court rulings, or some sleazy maneuver none of us are speculating about, but by some other means. When there are so many other worthy women, why this one?

    • Bill Bodden
      February 3, 2016 at 13:22

      Hillary by calling herself a progressive shows how easy it is to dupe the average American voter.

      Hillary will say anything to dupe the average American voter. The tragedy is that so many American voters are dupable.

  7. Bill Bodden
    February 3, 2016 at 00:24

    Marjorie Cohn has provided a convincing indictment of Hillary Clinton. Now consider this alarming portrait of Donald Trump from Der Spiegel: “America’s Agitator: Donald Trump Is the World’s Most Dangerous Man: Donald Trump is the leader of a new, hate-filled authoritarian movement. Nothing would be more harmful to the idea of the West and world peace than if he were to be elected president. George W. Bush’s America would seem like a place of logic and reason in comparison.” By Markus Feldenkirchen, Veit Medick and Holger Stark – http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world-a-1075060.html

    Now consider Clinton and Trump as the two candidates for president in November with one of them likely to hold the office of commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military. If that doesn’t bode to be the worst possible choice for the United States and the rest of the world, the worst would be beyond contemplation.

  8. ltr
    February 2, 2016 at 22:09

    The Obama administration after vilifying Russia repeatedly has set the stage for now set troops and heavy weapons on the Russian border, as though Russia were going to be sending troops to Paris. I am appalled. We have fully recreated a Cold War.

    China will be coming next.

  9. ltr
    February 2, 2016 at 21:14


    February 1, 2016

    U.S. to Send Heavy Weapons to Europe to Deter Putin

    The move by President Obama is intended to signal to President
    Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that the West remains deeply suspicious of
    his motives.

  10. J'hon Doe II
    February 2, 2016 at 20:47

    By Wendell Berry
    c. 1994

    A people in the throes of national prosperity, who
    breathe poisoned air, drink poisoned water, eat
    poisoned food,
    who take poisoned medicines to heal them of the poisons
    that they breathe, drink, and eat,
    such a people crave the further poison of official
    reassurance. It is not logical,
    but it is understandable, perhaps, that they adore
    their President who tells them that all is well,
    all is better than ever.

    The President reassures the farmer and his wife who
    have exhausted their farm to pay for it, and have
    exhausted themselves to pay for it,
    and have not paid for it, and have gone bankrupt for
    the sake of the free market, foreign trade, and the
    prosperity of corporations;
    he consoles the Navahos, who have been exiled from their
    place of exile, because the poor land contained
    something required for the national prosperity,
    after all;
    he consoles the young woman dying of cancer caused by a
    substance used in the normal course of national
    prosperity to make red apples redder;
    he consoles the couple in the Kentucky coalfields, who
    sit watching TV in their mobile home on the mud of
    the floor of a mined-out stripmine;
    from his smile they understand that the fortunate have
    a right to their fortunes, that the unfortunate have
    a right to their misfortunes, and that these are
    equal rights.

    The President smiles with the disarming smile of a man
    who has seen God, and found Him a true American,
    not overbearingly smart.

    The President reassures the Chairman of the Board of the
    Humane Health for Profit Corporation of America,
    who knows in his replaceable heart that health, if
    it came, would bring financial ruin;
    he reassures the Chairman of the Board of the Victory
    and Honor for Profit Corporation of America, who
    has been wakened in the night by a dream of the
    calamity of peace.

  11. Bill Bodden
    February 2, 2016 at 17:28

    Both Clintons have appalling records, but a sizable portion of the American people, about half of Democrats, still support them. Is this because these likely voters don’t know or don’t care? Or both?

    • Andrew Nichols
      February 4, 2016 at 06:47

      She’s got a vag. It suspends all judgement.

  12. Hillary
    February 2, 2016 at 15:58

    Hillary on Gaddafi – “we came, we saw, he died.”?

    Says it all ! !


  13. Abe
    February 2, 2016 at 15:56

    Up to 6,000 troops are being sent to invade and occupy Libya, seizing oilfields allegedly threatened by terrorists NATO armed and put into power in 2011 […]

    As has been explained by geopolitical analysts since 2011, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and their various rebrandings are far from being the West’s true adversaries. Besides being funded, armed, and backed by the West’s closest and oldest Middle Eastern allies – particularly the Saudis and Qataris – these terrorist organizations serve a two-fold purpose. First, they serve as a mercenary army with which the West fights targeted nations by proxy. Second, they serve as a pretext for direct Western military intervention when proxy war fails or is not an option.

    This was first illustrated with the very inception of Al Qaeda in the 1980’s where it was used as a proxy force by the US and Saudis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In 2001, the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was used as a pretext for a US invasion and occupation that endures to this very day.

    As of 2011, literally these very same terrorists were organized, armed, funded, and provided with NATO aircover to overthrow the government of Libya. From there, they were rearmed and shipped to NATO-member Turkey where they then invaded northern Syria, and more specifically Idlib and the pivotal city of Aleppo […]

    It is clear that the West is not fighting ISIS, but instead, has clearly both created it and is intentionally perpetuating it to help justify its military and geopolitical maneuvering across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and advance its aspirations toward regional and global political, military, and economic hegemony.

    The very same technicals – armed trucks used in combat – bearing the Libyan “rebel” insignia, have literally just been painted over by images of ISIS’ flag, like props on a Hollywood set being used in a bad sequel. With the US-British and European intervention in a destroyed Libya overrun by terrorists – a Libya we were promised by NATO was bringing brought peace, stability, “freedom,” and “democracy” with its 2011 intervention, we see fully the danger of entrusting other nations to a similar fate wrought by Western intervention – most notably Syria.

    US-NATO Invade Libya to Fight Terrorists of Own Creation
    By Tony Cartalucci

  14. Abe
    February 2, 2016 at 15:18

    Noam Chomsky on American exceptionalism

    […] if the United States ends up being almost universally isolated on Iran, that won’t be anything particularly new, and in fact there are quite a few other cases. Well, in the case of Iran, the reasons for U.S. concerns are very clearly and repeatedly articulated: Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. We hear that regularly from high places—government officials, commentators, others—in the United States. There also happens to be a world out there, and it has its own opinions. It’s quite easy to find these out from standard sources, like the main U.S. polling agency. Gallup polls takes regular polls of international opinion. And one of the questions it posed—it’s posed is: Which country do you think is the gravest threat to world peace? The answer is unequivocal: the United States by a huge margin. Way behind in second place is Pakistan—it’s inflated, surely, by the Indian vote—and then a couple of others. Iran is mentioned, but along with Israel and a few others, way down. That’s one of the things that it wouldn’t do to say, and in fact the results that are found by the leading U.S. polling agency didn’t make it through the portals of what we call the free press. But it doesn’t go away for that reason.

    Well, given the reigning doctrine about the gravity of the Iranian threat, we can understand the virtually unanimous stand that the United States is entitled to react with military force—unilaterally, of course—if it claims to detect some Iranian departure from the terms of the agreement. So, again, picking an example virtually at random from the national press, consider the lead editorial last Sunday in The Washington Post. It calls on Congress—I’ll quote—to “make clear that Mr. Obama or his successor will have support for immediate U.S. military action if an Iranian attempt to build a bomb is detected”—meaning by the United States. So the editors, again, make it clear that the United States is exceptional. It’s a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will. But the editors can’t be faulted for that stand, because it’s almost universal among the political class in this exceptional nation, though what it means is, again, one of those things that it wouldn’t do to say.

    Sometimes the doctrine takes quite a remarkable form, and not just on the right, by any means. So take, for example, the Clinton Doctrine—namely, the United States is free to resort to unilateral use of military power, even for such purposes as to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources—let alone security or alleged humanitarian concerns. And adherence to this doctrine is very well confirmed and practiced, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history.

    Well, The Washington Post editors also make clear why the United States should be prepared to take such extreme steps in its role of international primacy. If the United States is not prepared to resort to military force, they explain, then Iran may—I’m quoting—Iran may “escalate its attempt to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force.” That’s what the president, President Obama, calls Iran’s aggression, which we have to contain. For those who are unaware of how Iran has been attempting to establish hegemony over the Middle East by force—or might even dream of doing so—the editors do give examples, two examples: its support for the Assad regime and for Hezbollah. Well, I won’t insult your intelligence by discussing this demonstration that Iran has been seeking to establish hegemony over the region by force; however, on Iranian aggression, there is an example—I think one in the last several hundred years—namely, Iranian conquest of two Arab islands in the Gulf under the U.S.-backed regime of the Shah in the 1970s.

    Well, these shocking Iranian efforts to establish regional hegemony by force can be contrasted with the actions of U.S. allies—for example, NATO ally Turkey, which is actively supporting the jihadi forces in Syria. The support is so strong that it appears that Turkey helped its allies in the al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, to kill and capture the few dozen fighters that were introduced into Syria by the Pentagon a few weeks ago. It’s the result of several years and who knows how many billions of dollars of training. They did enter and were immediately captured or killed, apparently with the aid of Turkish intelligence. Well, more important than that is the central role of the leading U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, for the jihadi rebels in Syria and Iraq, and, more generally, for Saudi Arabia having been—I’m quoting—”a major source of financing to rebel and terrorist organizations since the 1980s.” That’s from a study, recent study, by the European Parliament, repeating what’s well known. And still more generally, the missionary zeal with which Saudi Arabia promulgates its radical, extremist, Wahhabi-Safafi doctrines by establishing Qur’anic schools, mosques, sending radical clerics throughout the Muslim world, with enormous impact. One of the closest observers of the region, Patrick Cockburn, writes that the “Wahhabisation” by Saudi Arabia—”The ‘Wahhabisation’ of mainstream Sunni Islam is one of the most dangerous developments of our era”—always with strong U.S. support. These are all things that wouldn’t do to mention, along with the fact that these pernicious developments are a direct outgrowth of the long-term tendency of the United States, picking up from Britain before it, to support radical Islam in opposition to secular nationalism. These are long-standing commitments.

    There are others, like U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who condemn Iran’s destabilization of the region. Destabilization is an interesting concept of political discourse. So, for example, when Iran comes to the aid of the government of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan in defense against the assault of ISIS, that’s destabilization, and we have to prevent it, if not aggression, perhaps. In contrast, when the United States invades Iraq and kills a couple hundred thousand people, generates millions of refugees, destroys the country and sets off a sectarian conflict that’s tearing Iraq and, by now, the whole region to shreds, and, on the side, increases terrorism worldwide by a factor of seven, just in the first year, that’s stabilization, part of our mission that we must continue for the benefit of the world. Actually, the exceptionalism of U.S. doctrinal institutions is quite wondrous to behold.

    Well, going on with The Washington Post editors, they join Obama’s negotiator, Obama’s Clinton negotiator, Dennis Ross, Thomas Friedman, other notables, in calling on Washington to provide Israel with B-52 bombers, and perhaps even the more advanced B-2 bombers, and also huge, what are called massive ordnance penetrators—bunker busters, informally. There’s a problem: They don’t have airstrips for huge planes like that. But they can use maybe Turkey’s airstrips. And none of this is for defense. These are not defensive weapons, remember. All of these weapons are offensive weapons for Israel to use to bomb Iran, if it chooses to do so. And, you know, since Israel is a U.S. client, it inherits from the master the freedom from international law, so nothing surprising about giving it vast supplies of offensive weapons to use when it chooses.

    Well, the violation of international law goes well beyond threat; goes to action, including acts of war, which are proudly proclaimed, presumably, because that’s our right—as an exceptional nation again.

  15. February 2, 2016 at 14:41

    I have never liked Hillary..

    She was the force behind Bill’s rise to power, and most involved in covering up his worst excesses as Governor and President.

    But are any of her opponents any better?

    I would be happy to vote for Bernie without holding my nose if his policies on national security are any better, and he still had any real chance of getting elected.

    Bernie portrays Isis as a serious threat to the USA which must be stopped.

    And the leading Republican candidates are even worse.

    And I don’t feel comfortable about sitting out voting.

    • Chris Jonsson
      February 7, 2016 at 02:46

      Bernie is a very good choice. Please read up on him. The media doesn’t support him and the DNC doesn’t either. That is part of his appeal. Bernie is honest, smart, strong, and no patsy. Bernie is too much of a gentleman, I guess, to attack Hillary where she is most vulnerable, yet she has her attack machine trying to destroy an honest, hard working, ethical representative of the people with vigor. Bernie has surprised me with his drive to win. Unless the election is stolen, I think he will. Bernie is the best chance we have to remove the vultures and parasites parading as good Christians. Please get out and vote in your own best interests. Vote for Bernie Sanders. And you won’t have to hold your nose when you vote know, because Bernie Sanders is the best thing to happen to progressives in 40 years.

      • Chris Jonsson
        February 7, 2016 at 02:55

        Hillary is a hawk. She in bed with Wall Street, she voted for the Iraq war, she promotes fracking all over this world. Bernie is extremely restrained, trying not to be negative and take advantage of Hillary’s obvious neoconic actions, pro-capitalistic/plutocratic decisions, and corporate kisses to billionaire CEOs. Health care providers and drug companies love Hillary. So the not so affordable ACA is secure with Hillary. Not to mention the TPP. Let’s not even get into the Clinton Foundation which receives huge donations from international wealthy people and global companies. Many US companies are relocating to low tax countries to avoid US taxes. We are all poorer for it. Bill and Hill certainly didn’t help.

  16. Al Renneisen
    February 2, 2016 at 13:50

    I suggest a rereading of Martin Luther King’s 1967 speech at Riverside Baptist Church. Then a quick review of Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Follow that with Chomsky leading a discussion on American exceptionalism.

  17. Abe
    February 2, 2016 at 13:12

    in the first Democratic debate, [Bernie Sanders] prevented the other candidates from ganging up on Hillary to demand some straight talk about her handling of classified information in the form of her emails. The real issue behind this formalism of handling classified information is that Hillary was one of the prime movers and organizers of that catastrophic series of destabilizations now known among the dupes and gulls as the Arab Spring. Hillary was running the Arab spring when it started in Tunisia, when it broke out in Egypt and toppled the elected President Mubarak, and when it spread to Libya, including with the death of Colonel Qaddafi. There is every reason to believe that Hillary personally superintended the transfer of thousands of jihadi butchers from Libya to Turkey, and thence to Syria, as a means of ginning up the Syrian civil war. Then there is the matter of the incalculable folly of the Maidan destabilization of Ukraine. Voters have the right to know the full details of her crimes.

    In Iowa and New Hampshire Hold Your Nose and Vote for Bernie
    By Webster Tarpley

  18. Abe
    February 2, 2016 at 13:05

    New Emails Expose Hillary’s Dirty War in Libya

    The New Year’s Eve release of over 3000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzz […]

    But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.

    New Hillary Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold
    By Brad Hoff

Comments are closed.