Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s cozy ties to Washington’s powerful neocons have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton would pursue, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel’s interests.

In a Washington Post op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trump’s rise and then asked, “So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out.”

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Then referring to himself, he added, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

While many of Kagan’s observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.

The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented an aggressive “regime change” strategy against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line or that deviate from Israel’s goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.

Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and “liberal interventionists” who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.

Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton’s “regime change” strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of “income inequality” for which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a “single-issue candidate.” Whether Sanders has the will and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton’s status as the new neocon choice remains in doubt.

A Reagan Propagandist

Kagan, who I’ve known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan’s State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department’s chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton’s patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative “regime change” in Ukraine in 2014.

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had begun to call “liberal interventionist” would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration. The Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes” and quoted Kagan as saying:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.   If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Though Kagan’s Post op-ed is characteristically erudite with references to Greek mythology and the French Revolution, it presents a somewhat skewed account of how the Republican Party lost its way. In Kagan’s telling, the problem emerged from its blind hatred of Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, “a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified.”

The truth is that the Republican Party has harbored ugly tendencies for decades, including the red-baiting McCarthy era of the 1950s, Barry Goldwater’s hostility to civil rights laws in the 1960s, Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy” in 1968, Ronald Reagan’s appeal to racial bigotry in the 1980s, George H.W. Bush’s race-baiting “Willie Horton commercials” of 1988, and the GOP’s more recent support for a New Jim Crow era hostile to black voting and to social programs along with the party’s anti-Latino bigotry and hostility to immigrants.

As a Reagan apparatchik who continued to rise with the neocon tide in the 1990s and early 2000s, Kagan doesn’t take the Republican exploitation of American fears and prejudices back that far. Instead, he starts the clock with Obama’s election, writing, “there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers.

“Who began the attack on immigrants, legal and illegal, long before Trump arrived on the scene and made it his premier issue? Who was it who frightened Mitt Romney into selling his soul in 2012, talking of ‘self-deportation’ to get himself right with the party’s anti-immigrant forces?

“Who was it who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles, and his own immigration legislation, lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun?

“It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?”

In that sense, Kagan argues that “Trump is no fluke. Nor is he hijacking the Republican Party or the conservative movement, if there is such a thing. He is, rather, the party’s creation, its Frankenstein monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker.”

An Issue for Democrats

While Kagan’s op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison?

Will Clinton even follow the latest neocon dream of “regime change” in Moscow as the ultimate way of collapsing Israel’s lesser obstacles — Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance? Does Clinton have the wisdom to understand that neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember “the cakewalk” in Iraq) and that the risk of overthrowing Vladimir Putin in Moscow might lead not to some new pliable version of Boris Yeltsin but to a dangerous Russian nationalist ready to use the nuclear codes to defend Mother Russia? (For all Putin’s faults, he is a calculating adversary, not a crazy one.)

The fact that none of these life-and-death foreign policy questions has been thoroughly or intelligently explored during the Democratic presidential campaign is a failure of both the mainstream media moderators and the two candidates, Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom seems to want a serious or meaningful debate about these existential issues.

Perhaps Robert Kagan’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign.

[For more on the powerful Kagan family, see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Family Business of Perpetual War.“]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

image_pdfimage_print

48 comments for “Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton

  1. LJ
    February 25, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    The NeoCons will vote for Hillary against Trump. She’s one of theirs and Trump is not. Kagan was listed as an adviser during Clinton’s time in the Senate and she promoted Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland as one of her first acts a s Secretary of State. This is not a surprise in any way. William Kristol is next and all the others will follow suit as soon as Trump secures the Republican nomination.

    • February 26, 2016 at 8:11 am

      The bottomline is: The candidate running for President in America must have kosher sanction. Without this, he will never be considered a serious” candidate by the candidate makers of America and their minions, the MSM. All else is irrelevant!

      I was thinking from the start the hullabaloo about Donald Trump ticket is a repeat of the Sarah Palin fiasco, to get kosher candidate Hillary Clinton elected.

      I pretty much assume that whoever “The Lobby” hires will be elected President in the forthcoming election. Nothing has really changed that much in America. And, when it comes to counting the votes, public opinion and the actual vote are really not necessarily the determining factors. Reliable housebroken kosher pets are the only certified candidates. Hillary Clinton has been long since secured deep in their pockets.

      Read Matt Taibbi below:This is a whitewashing and feeble attempt to “make excuses” and coverup the reality of what is hapening. Candidates are selected by a Comittee of Kosher Accreditors and if you ain’t got the accreditation, you donot run. It is that simple!

      The rest of this article below seems to be a parade of Red Herrings. I just cannot read much farther on without becoming sick, and I have just finished a good meal and do not want to lose it.

      How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable

      By Matt Taibbi – See : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44311.htm#sthash.

      He’s no ordinary con man. He’s way above average — and the American political system is his easiest mark ever

      • Bart
        February 26, 2016 at 4:26 pm

        I see voting machines across America hacked as Trump becomes ascendant.

    • Brad Benson
      February 28, 2016 at 7:35 pm

      …and anti-war progressives need to hold their noses and vote for Trump after they push Bernie out of the way and nominate the war criminal.

  2. Pablo Diablo
    February 25, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    No more Clintons.

  3. davehaze
    February 26, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Trump and Clinton two separate disasters with similar conclusion. And who is the worst? It is a toss-up. No one to vote for if it gets down to the two of them.

    • Nelswight
      February 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

      Well said, Dave, no haziness there.

    • Brad Benson
      February 28, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      These days, Presidents can do more internationally than they can domestically–especially these days. In Huntsville, Trump just said again that he would end our wars and stop intervening in places where we don’t belong. He also reiterated that he could work with Putin.

      I’d say the choice is pretty clear. One of the two is a war criminal and the other is not.

    • ed
      February 29, 2016 at 11:55 am

      Just another great American Presidential election: Which candidate is the least worst? Democracy?

  4. davehaze
    February 26, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Trump and Clinton two separate disasters with similar conclusion. And who is the worst? It is a toss-up. No one to vote for if it gets down to the two of them.

  5. davehaze
    February 26, 2016 at 1:33 am

    Trump and Clinton two separate disasters with similar conclusion. And who is the worst? It is a toss-up. No one to vote for if it gets down to the two of them.

    • Yuri
      February 26, 2016 at 1:47 am

      I think three separate disasters, blended in one, are you sticky fingers! Vote we must, and it is a straightforward honest Trump (cringe as I write this) is a lot less worse than the Clinton nightmare.

      • Gk0821
        February 26, 2016 at 4:00 am

        I’m with you. Trumps xenophobic rants are disgusting, and I hate that they encourage the people with vile opinions to openly and proudly share them.

        However, Trump might be doing this as a vanity project, and might be just as in line with the corporatist agenda. But he also may genuinely be against a filthy system he’s witnessed first hand. So it’s a toss up for him, but anyone who pays attention knows beyond a doubt that Hillary is incredibly corrupt.

        And when it comes to foreign policy, the most extreme Hawks of the pundit class have been the ones most apoplectic about Trump, like Kagan, the National Review, etc. which to me seems like he might actually be decent, and at the very least he won’t be fully owned by them and their ideology.

        I might vote actually vote for Trump if he’s on my ballot in the fall. And sadly I might force myself to vote for Killary if Cruz is the nominee and its close, because he truly frightens me as a religious zealot who might want to start WW3 to fulfill some biblical prophecy or something. Other than that I’m voting for a third party.

        I would love to vote for Sanders, but at this point it seems that Democratic voters seem to still be loyal to him.

        • dahoit
          February 26, 2016 at 10:43 am

          A vote for her? is an exercise in suicide.

        • Brad Benson
          February 28, 2016 at 7:44 pm

          At another site, in a much longer post, I mused that this might be the most amazing election in my lifetime since it may feature anti-war Progressives getting together with right wing gun-totin’ rednecks to save the world from Hillary by electing a blustering, preening one percenter!

    • dahoit
      February 26, 2016 at 10:41 am

      Dave is lost in a haze of his own devise.Zionism?
      Americans like Trump,anti Americans don’t.

      • Brad Owen
        February 26, 2016 at 3:37 pm

        Il Duce couldn’t have said it any better.

      • Brad Owen
        February 26, 2016 at 4:07 pm

        Trying to pick T or H is like the serfs rooting for Harold or William to become king in 1066AD. The serfs are still screwed in the end, regardless; and NEITHER is acceptable to We The People(Serfs). The ruling Oligarchy are only concerned with HOW they will control Mr T. This billionaire closet Crime Lord will be brought-to-heel by them, he’ll be their man (Ms H is already their woman).
        What’s more important is the Renaissance occurring in Eurasia (Russia, India, China, BRICS) and how that will save the collapsing Western Empire of The City and The Street (main partners in the Synarchist Movement for Empire and a New Feudalism).

    • Secret Agent
      February 26, 2016 at 9:00 pm

      Trump is fine. You have to remember that he has been been trashed in the biggest smear campaign since the demonisation of Vlad Putin. There is his brand and there is his personality which above all else is not arrogant. Hillary is at best a narcissist. She destroyed Libya and sent a terrorist army into Syria to build street cred with the neocons for her presidential run. That carnage has paid off big time. She has basically tried to murder her way into office. What do you think she will be capable of if she assumes the reins of power?

  6. incontinent reader
    February 26, 2016 at 1:54 am

    SEE:

    Clinton to Donor: In Next War, I�ll Let Israel Kill 200,000, Not Just 2,000, Gazans
    by Boaz Bulbulovitz

    http://www.themideastbeast.com/clinton-to-donor-in-next-war-i-will-let-israel-kill-200000-not-just-2000-gazans/

    ” Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has penned a controversial letter to a major Jewish donor vowing to offer Israel “total” support in its next confrontation with the Gaza Strip’s Islamist rulers.
    The leaked letter, sent last week to Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban, promises to allow Israel carte blanche in any future war with Hamas, including a presidential green light to kill nearly 10% of the enclave’s population.
    “Quite frankly, Israel didn’t teach Hamas a harsh enough lesson last year. True to form, Obama was too hard on our democratic ally, and too soft on our Islamofascist foe,” reads the letter, obtained by the Guardian. “As president, I will give the Jewish state all the necessary military, diplomatic, economic and moral support it needs to truly vanquish Hamas – and if that means killing 200,000 Gazans, then so be it.”

    RELATED: Clinton: If Elected President, Bill Will Be Kept Away from the Semitic Interns

    “We realist Democrats understand that collateral damage is an unavoidable byproduct of the War on Terror,” Clinton writes, “and me being a mother, grandmother and tireless children’s rights advocate does not mean that I will flinch even one iota in allowing Israel to obliterate every last school-cum-rocket launching pad in Gaza. Those who allow their children to be used as human shields for terrorists deserve to see them buried under one-ton bombs.”
    According to the Guardian, the letter was sent together with another letter – which, in contrast, was willingly released to the press – seeking billionaire Saban’s advice on how best to fight the global anti-Israel boycott movement.
    In response to outrage among liberal Democrats and human rights groups following the release of the second letter, the Clinton campaign blamed a typo: “Hillary meant to write 20,000, not 200,000.”

    The woman and her handlers are homicidal maniacs and must be stopped.

    • Joe L.
      February 26, 2016 at 3:15 am

      I was wondering if you have a link to the Guardian article which shows Hillary Clinton writing this? If that is true there is no way that she should lead a country, that’s genocide in my eyes. I already thought that Hillary Clinton was psychotic after exclaiming – “We came, we saw, he died – ha, ha, ha” about to the brutal murder of Ghaddafi but if she truly wrote this then she is in a league of her own in evil. How is someone so truly twisted even a consideration for the leader of the United States?

      • ECJ_LA
        March 7, 2016 at 11:48 pm

        I clicked on the links. Fortunately the posting is a spoof (Onion-type satire). But it rings semi-plausible due to Hillary’s abominable actual record of vassalage to the fondest wishes of the MIC for endless war and related profiteering. See generally: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2015/11/292011.php

    • Joe L.
      February 26, 2016 at 3:16 am

      I was wondering if you have a link to the Guardian article which shows Hillary Clinton writing this? If that is true there is no way that she should lead a country, that’s genocide in my eyes. I already thought that Hillary Clinton was psychotic after exclaiming – “We came, we saw, he died – ha, ha, ha” about to the brutal murder of Ghaddafi but if she truly wrote this then she is in a league of her own in evil. How is someone so truly twisted even a consideration for the leader of the United States?

    • dahoit
      February 26, 2016 at 10:45 am

      Yes,traitors all.

    • Abe
      February 26, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      The article appeared in the Mideast Beast, a comedy news site
      http://www.themideastbeast.com/clinton-to-donor-in-next-war-i-will-let-israel-kill-200000-not-just-2000-gazans/

      According to its about page, the Mideast Beast (TMB) “produces spoof articles about or connected to the entire Middle East for comedic and entertainment purposes. We poke at anyone and everyone.”

      TMB explicitly states that what it publishes “is totally fictitious and you should not take us seriously in any way, shape, or form. Clear? Good. Moving on…” — a statement that should appear on most news websites other than Consortium News.

      • Abe
        February 26, 2016 at 1:27 pm

        The Onion has long spoofed the tired tropes of the newspaper industry, but more recently it has turned its efforts toward new-media practitioners ripe for parody. Now VICE News, Rupert Murdoch’s 70 million dollar Gen Y-targeted online media sockpuppet, is the latest to get the Onion treatment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvrirXi5Ds

        Highly recommended: “EDGE: What’s Up With This Big Hole?”

      • Joe L.
        February 26, 2016 at 1:41 pm

        Abe, well I am glad that I asked. When seeing that supposedly the information was in the Guardian then I wanted to see the Guardian source article to clarify since I was unfamiliar with The Mideast Beast. Also, I don’t find anything “comedic” about this spoof article. Overall, though I still think Hillary Clinton is psychotic and not just bad for the US but the world in general. Cheers.

        • Abe
          February 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

          Galgenhumor, gallows humor, is a form of laughter in the face of evil and stupidity.

          Sigmund Freud in his 1927 essay Humour (Der Humor) puts forth the following theory: “The ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality, to let itself be compelled to suffer. It insists that it cannot be affected by the traumas of the external world; it shows, in fact, that such traumas are no more than occasions for it to gain pleasure.”

          Sociologists have elaborated this concept. Paul Lewis warns that the “relieving” aspect of gallows jokes depends on the context of the joke: whether the joke is being told by the threatened or oppressed person themselves or by someone else.

        • Abe
          February 26, 2016 at 3:27 pm

          Galgenhumor, gallows humor, is a form of laughter in the face of evil and stupidity.

          Sigmund Freud in his 1927 essay Humour (Der Humor) puts forth the following theory: “The ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality, to let itself be compelled to suffer. It insists that it cannot be affected by the traumas of the external world; it shows, in fact, that such traumas are no more than occasions for it to gain pleasure.”

          Sociologists have elaborated this concept. Paul Lewis warns that the “relieving” aspect of gallows jokes depends on the context of the joke: whether the joke is being told by the threatened or oppressed person themselves or by someone else.

          Rush Limbaugh’s “Club Gitmo” gags and Hillary’s little “We came, we saw, he died” chuckle aren’t gallows humor… they’re psychopathy.

      • Joe L.
        February 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm

        I also think sometimes that I don’t think that I would spoof the news but if I was to do something then I think what I would do is take mainstream media stories and invert them. By this I mean when demonizing Putin or Iran or North Korea etc. then instead I would put Obama or Canada or the US etc. I think I would show the original story and then the inverted version just to get people trying to walk in someone else’s shoes – such as for instance the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders (I don’t know how people can advocate for this – all that I have to do is think of how would we feel). Anyway, I am blabbing but “inverted news” should be a thing, if anyone knows of a site I would be curious to see.

  7. Zachary Smith
    February 26, 2016 at 2:07 am

    Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton

    In a rational world this would represent a fatal wound to Hillary, but we’re not living in a rational world.

    GWB – aka the Codpiece Commander – had a long-lasting bunch of defenders (BushBots) who stuck with his idiocy for ages. Hillary may have a similar group – the PUMAs. At any rate the legend of her die-hard fans will serve as a plausible excuse for any shenanigans.

    You see, South Carolina is 100% electronic.

    All 46 South Carolina counties use direct recording electronic voting machines.The voter makes his/her selections by pressing a button beside a party, candidate or issue displayed on the direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machine. After all selections have been made, the voter presses a VOTE button to cast his/her ballot.

    Back in 2010 an unemployed black guy who spent virtually no money soundly defeated Former Circuit Court Judge Vic Rawl in the Senate Primary. That was in June. In August news surfaced that Alvin Greene had been indicted on a porn charge.

    Who did it? Hard to tell, but the incumbent Republican Sen. Jim DeMint won by a margin of 61.46% to 27.65%.

    This is the state of affairs in South Carolina. Unless somebody outbids Hillary’s billionaires, I predict Sanders is going to be trounced in South Carolina.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7896

    Israel obviously wants the dishonest & incompetent warmonger even more than I thought, and that counts for a lot. Wall Street has paid her more money for a couple or three speeches than Joe Sixpack will make in a lifetime. I can’t even guess who will be working harder for her in the coming months.

    • Abe
      February 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

      Israel obviously wants the entire pack of dishonest & incompetent warmongers.

      That includes “Bernie the Realist Bomber”, who is ready to drop “humanitarian” bombs like Bill Clinton (just call it “genocide” or “a new Auschwitz”) and then feel bad about it. Really. He might even cry.

      Of course, “Hillary the Neocon Bomber” and the GOP Shock Troops for Zion won’t feel bad at all. Really. They’ll laugh (like Hillary did).

      After the coming election, Israel will have a total green light for its actions in the occupied territories and beyond.

      So barring an actual revolution in the United States (ain’t gonna happen), we’re in for hell on the foreign policy front.

      If you want to cast your vote based on domestic policy proposals, go for Bernie. At least he makes an effort to sound like he cares about the misery index.

  8. Erik
    February 26, 2016 at 8:38 am

    This is great news. The transition of oligarchs from the discredited Repub party to the Dems is hilarious. Even the oligarchy cannot credibly propagandize for the Repubs any longer. It must find the most hypocritical opportunist warmonger among the Dems to set up more wars for the military industry and Israel.

    This is an indictment of Hillary that gives me great relief. I need no longer search for or attempt to construct rationales for her conduct. Those wishing a glimpse of her prompt Iraq II sell-out to the boys with medals may find it in Woodward’s The War Within on the Obama admin groundless “surge” in 2008. Hillary never opposes the Mil demands, while Obama demands evidence that it would solve the problem, is stonewalled, and soon gives them what they want anyway.

    It would be fun to pick apart her rationales if she had any, but clearly she doesn’t. For a woman to vote for her on grounds of feminism is insanity, although likely among uneducated women here in Maine, a Dem state with two female Repub senators who invariably ignore the views of their “constituents” and vote for money power and wars. Never underestimate the power of stupidity and the power of money to manipulate stupid people.

    • Abe
      February 26, 2016 at 4:17 pm

      As POTUS, Hillary would never oppose the Mil demands, while Sanders would demand evidence that it would solve the problem, be stonewalled, give them what they want anyway, and kvetch about it.

  9. Bob Van Noy
    February 26, 2016 at 9:08 am

    “they are going to call it something else.”

    Thank you Robert Parry. I’m going to call it, shining a light on The Deep State, Revealed. These are the ideological workers deeply imbedded by our failed politicians, who never leave the bureaucracy, and provide a continuity of neocon ideology. Not only are they deeply flawed intellectually, they look mean, to a one, they have never actually served in a military unit, never actually fought for their beliefs, and, in fact, rarely even talk to the American public about their closely held views. I’m convinced they are classic bullies. Out with them, and out with the Clinton/Bush/Obama political philosophy, such as it is.

  10. Joe Tedesky
    February 26, 2016 at 9:28 am

    The Neocons are returning home to their roots with Kagan’s endorsement of Hillary. Back in 1972 Irving Kristol began the Neocon movement by his rejecting the McGovern peace platform. This was when the Democratic Party installed the Super Delegates. So, Hillary is just bringing it all back home. I have a question; may Americans vote in the Israeli elections? Possibly this is where our votes could do some good. George Washington warned us against entanglements like this, but who listening to him? Just think of all the changes which have occurred in America over the last few years, and then ask yourself is this all worth it. Before anything can change for the better, Israel will need a good overhaul. Now, how do we do this?

    • Bob Van Noy
      February 26, 2016 at 10:34 am

      Thanks for the thoughts Joe. I guess that we use the system, vote for Bernie, force him to perform, insist on Change, make government reveal itself, turn it all over, expose them in court, find out who killed our President and Why?…

  11. Secret Agent
    February 26, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    Trump is fine. You have to remember that he has been been trashed in the biggest smear campaign since the demonisation of Vlad Putin. There is his brand and there is his personality which above all else is not arrogant. Hillary is at best a narcissist but is probably something much more sinister. She destroyed Libya and sent a terrorist army into Syria to build street cred with the neocons for her presidential run. That carnage has paid off big time. She has basically tried to murder her way into office. What do you think she will be capable of if she assumes the reins of power?

  12. Cal
    February 26, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Here’s a speech for Trump when Rubio, Cruz and Hillary go after him on his neutrality on I/P.

    Trump:

    ”Well everyone knows I have said I support the existence of Israel–but that’s not enough for my opponents like Rubio, Cruz and Hillary.

    Folks, this is what the founders of this nation said about how we should deal with other nations.

    {Trump reads aloud the pertinent part of Geo Washington’s address to the nation}

    “So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”

    Now my opponents accuse of me of being anti semitic or anti israel because I said I would be neutral in trying for a settlement and end to the Israel conflict. Well, I believe in being fair to all——they dont believe in being fair. If you cant be fair what are you?…you’re nothing.

    Who out there wants to be treated unfairly?—how many of you want the US to be seen as unfair and the pocket of and a servant to a foreign nation? Come on folks raise your hands if that is what you want.

    Well where are hands???….I dont see any hands raised.

    That’s because Americans do believe in fairness–at least that what this poll says—and this poll group is the gold standard among polling.

    {holds up the Univ. of Maryland Kenney Center poll on Israel and Palestine—}

    It says 70% of the American public believes that the US should be EVEN HANDED—let me repeat that folks —70% of Americans want the US to be EVEN HANDED—FAIR to both sides of this conflict and in all our affairs.
    How many of you would like to go to court in some dispute to get justice if you know the judge is on the other side from the git go? HUH?….would you think that is fair?

    Let me tell you something folks, if they wont be fair and neutral in one thing–they sure as hell wont be fair and neutral in any thing else—-if you arent on “their side” they will sure as hell screw us American citizens just as fast as they do anyone else in any other issue.
    So if you want a US president that will run America as a dishonest broker and rigged court system vote for Rubio, Cruz, or Hilary. Just remember they will treat every problem in America the same way —dishonestly and with the court rigged against you before you even have a chance to present your side.

    Well tell you what folks —-that is not the AMERICAN WAY..we are better people than that and we deserve better than that.
    If Rubio, Cruz and Hillary dont like that concept of neutrality and fairness to all and they want to go AGAINST the values of 70% of Americans—–maybe they should change their country of residence and their citizenship because democracy and the idea of WE THE PEOPLE isnt anything they believe it. They sure as hell arent doing anything for America or Americans by declaring they not going to be neutral and fair if they are elected President.

    America needs to be RESPECTED for it’s fairness and for it’s principles as much as for its power….that’s part of being GREAT.

    Make America Great again !!!!

  13. Bill Bodden
    February 27, 2016 at 12:10 am

    Neocons, neoliberals, Republican leaders, Democrat leaders, conservatives, corporatists, plutocrats, and oligarchs. They all have one thing in common. They are predators using government in pursuit of more power and wealth willing to sacrifice the citizenry and the integrity of the nation to achieve their ends.

    • Bill Bodden
      February 27, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      To paraphrase a well-known saying about the two major parties, “Neocons, neoliberals, Republican oligarchs, Democrat oligarchs, conservatives, corporatists, plutocrats, and the mainstream corporate media are the feathers that adorn the American Empire’s bird of prey.”

  14. Chet Roman
    February 27, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    “neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember “the cakewalk” in Iraq)”

    I’m not so sure that the neocon/zionist’s plans were necessarily “half-baked”. The neocon’s strategies are essentially a reflection of the Israeli plan to destabilize the Middle East. The Israeli Yinon plan is a strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It states that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment by the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker warring states providing the supremacist religious fanatics in Israel an opportunity to create a “Greater Israel”. The neocons may not want to admit that they are purposely destroying secular Muslim countries and creating chaos, however, it’s clearly part of their plan.

    In March 2007 the Pentagon had a plan to “take out” seven countries in 5 years, which included Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and eventually Iran. This is not original thinking but a reflection of the fact that the neocons infested many senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House.

  15. RamboDave
    February 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    This is the fourth time the Neo-cons have switched parties since the late 1970’s. Remember, they all started out as Democrats. Note, they are only called Neo-cons when they are aligned with Republicans.

    1980 …. they didn’t like the fact that President Carter was demanding that Prime Minister Begin stop the settlements, which, after all, was part of the Camp David Agreement he had agreed to two years earlier. They switched to Ronald Reagan.

    1992 …. they didn’t like President HW Bush’s attempt to limit military aid to Israel based on their continued settlement building. Remember Bush’s on T.V. saying “it’s just little ole me against all of them” , referring to the Israeli Lobby. Well, they all switched back over to support Bill Clinton.

    2000 …. they switched back to W. Bush, because Clinton’s peace initiative had just failed, and what better way to prolong any settlement than to start over with a brand new President and another 8 years. And Republican’s, realizing the formula that Clinton used in 1992, got back in the Israeli Lobby pandering game big time, outdoing the Democrats at their own game. They switched back to Republicans and got George W. elected.

    2016 …. they switched back to Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, when it looked like Trump would get the Republican nomination. And, … to make sure that Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination.

    The fix is in !

    • Abe
      February 29, 2016 at 6:17 pm

      The Zionist power configuration requires a periodic change of occupancy in the White House so that the non-“supporters of Israel” don’t take notice and get upset.

      Obama has been in flagrante delicto with the neocons. There never was any housecleaning.

      In fact, key neocons were elevated in the Obama administration.

      Par exemple, Victoria Nuland was Obama’s Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State before she became Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

  16. Steve Lane
    February 28, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    Whilst I don’t advocate violence or causing harm to other human beings, there are obviously countless people in the world that are less tolerant of that fundamental principle. So I have to ask, why these neo-con creatures and there supporters are not done away with by angry mobs or individuals? The world will only tolerate so much, and the pendulum of causality will certainly swing back their way sooner or later.

  17. Antonio
    March 3, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Goldwater had principled reasons why he opposed the Civil Rights program of the 60s – he thought it too far-reaching and intrusive. His opposition wasn’t because he was a racist!

    He was right, and you lumping him in with unprincipled characters makes me wonder what other flaws of reasoning you possess.

  18. Taylor
    March 7, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    I don’t like that big fat slob Robert Kagan. He loves to send goyim to fight wars for his tribe. That fat pig should don a uniform, toss a rifle over his shoulder, put on a helmut and go out to fight the damn wars himself. In the process, he ought to lose about a hundred pounds of softy blubber! I also do not care for his girly-voiced wife.

  19. prisonguard
    March 9, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Chelsea married a super Jew, the Clintons are in bed with the Israelis

Comments are closed.