Bernie Sanders as Commander-in-Chief

Exclusive: Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, stars in a stunning ad endorsing Bernie Sanders as “Commander-in-Chief,” a potential turning point in the Democratic race, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s landslide victories in Washington State, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday coincided with a long-awaited signal that he may finally be ready to challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the “Commander-in-Chief” question, which has been regarded as one of her key strengths.

In what may be the most striking campaign commercial of the presidential race, the Sanders campaign released an ad, entitled “The Cost of War” and featuring Hawaii’s Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who endorsed Sanders not just as her preference for President but as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

“Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War,” Gabbard says. “He understands the cost of war, that that cost is continued when our veterans come home. Bernie Sanders will defend our country and take the trillions of dollars that are spent on these interventionist, regime change, unnecessary wars and invest it here at home.”

Gabbard also counters another strong point of the Clinton campaign, its contention that Clinton’s plans for incremental change are more realistic than Sanders’s calls for sweeping reforms – or a “political revolution” – to reverse the nation’s steady drift toward a country of lavishly rewarded haves and increasingly desperate have-nots.

“The American people are not looking to settle for inches; they are looking for real change,” Gabbard says. But perhaps her most important statement comes at the end of the 90-second commercial when she says: “My name is Tulsi Gabbard and I support Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander-in-Chief.”

The phrase “Commander-in-Chief” is one that Sanders has largely sidestepped in the early phases of the Democratic presidential race, conceding Clinton’s superior qualifications on foreign policy though questioning her judgment when she voted for the Iraq War in 2002. Yet, what the Gabbard ad seems to recognize is that Sanders’s campaign could rally a substantial part of the Democratic “base” and win over many “regular” Democrats by challenging Clinton on her hawkish proclivity for “regime change” wars.

Though many political analysts argue that it is too late for Sanders to overcome Clinton’s substantial delegate lead – bolstered by the unelected “super-delegates” drawn from party politicians – Sanders’s recent string of landslide victories suggest that many Democrats are uncomfortable with or opposed to Clinton, whose “negatives” are among the highest of national political leaders (in a race to the bottom with Donald Trump).

Many Democrats have a deep distrust of Clinton who – though now highlighting her more “progressive” positions – seems eager to “pivot to the center” once she nails down the nomination, a hunger that was reflected in her pandering speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention last week.

A Neocon Favorite

Many neoconservatives and “liberal interventionists” now see Clinton as the vessel carrying their hopes for more “regime change” wars.

From 2002-2006, Clinton famously supported President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, which – beyond costing more than $1 trillion and killing hundreds of thousands of people (including nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers) – destabilized the Middle East and gave rise to “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” which has since morphed into the Islamic State.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Apparently having learned no lessons from the Iraq War, Clinton consistently took hawkish and interventionist positions as President Barack Obama’s first Secretary of State.

In 2009, Clinton backed a coup in Honduras that removed democratically elected (and progressive) President Manuel Zelaya and reaffirmed control by the Central American country’s oligarchy. Since then, Honduras’s human rights situation has worsened, driving thousands of children to flee northward seeking safety and leaving environmental and political activists at the mercy of death squads.

Also, in 2009, Clinton joined with Bush-holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon-favorite Gen. David Petraeus in pushing Obama into a major escalation of the Afghan War, a counter-insurgency “surge” that sent another 1,000 American troops to their deaths – and many more Afghans – but has since been abandoned as a failure.

In 2011, Clinton joined with “liberal interventionists” in again pushing Obama into a “regime change” war in Libya that led to the overthrow and torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi – which she gleefully welcomed with the quip, “We came, we saw, he died” – but has since turned the once relatively prosperous North African country into a failed state with the Islamic State gaining another foothold.

Both as Secretary of State and since her departure in 2013, Clinton has pressed to escalate the “regime change” war in Syria, seeking a “no-fly zone” that would require the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government’s air force and air defenses, apparently without regard to the risk that the U.S. intervention could pave the way for Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and/or the Islamic State to march into Damascus.

Though the Syrian “regime change” strategy that Clinton has advocated has failed to oust President Bashar al-Assad, it has transformed another reasonably functional Mideast state into a bloody killing field and driven millions of refugees into what is now a destabilized Europe.

In 2014, Clinton also embraced the neocon-backed coup in Ukraine that has touched off a new and costly Cold War with Russia. Again showing her “tough-gal” side, Clinton likened Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. Two years later, the Ukraine “regime change” has not only given the Ukrainians a corrupt and dysfunctional government – kept afloat with billions of dollars from the U.S. and Europe – but the heightened U.S. hostility toward Russia has impaired chances for big-power cooperation on a number of these other conflicts.

All of this may fit the neocon agenda of removing or punishing governments that are viewed as unfriendly to Israel, but these Clinton-embraced strategies have been highly destructive to a peaceful and prosperous world. There is also the increased danger that Clinton might represent as Commander-in-Chief when her most hawkish inclinations are not tempered or restrained by President Obama’s general resistance to interventionist wars.

For months, Clinton has been identified by top neocons as their best hope to maintain influence at the highest levels of Washington, especially if “America First” Republican Donald Trump secures the GOP nomination.

Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which drew up the Iraq War and other “regime change” plans in the 1990s, was among the influential neocons to abandon the Trump-dominated Republican Party and announce support for Hillary Clinton.

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik,

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik,

A month ago in a Washington Post op-ed, 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.” Then referring to himself, he added, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.” [See’s “Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton.”]

Kagan, whom Clinton appointed to a State Department advisory panel, is married to Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, a former senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who rose under Clinton and helped orchestrate the Ukraine coup which sabotaged Obama’s behind-the-scenes cooperation with Putin on touchy issues such as Iran and Syria.

The Ukraine coup also opened the U.S. military-spending spigot even wider to pay for a new Cold War. [See’s “A Family Business of Perpetual War.”]

Unpopular Warmongering

Though much of Clinton’s neocon-style warmongering is unpopular with the Democratic “base,” Sanders has treaded lightly in these areas during his primary challenge to her long-anticipated coronation as the Democratic presidential nominee.

When foreign policy comes up, Sanders contrasts his opposition to the Iraq War to Clinton’s support but returns as quickly as possible to his overriding theme of income inequality and his opposition to a political-economic system rigged for the One Percent.

Sanders’s hesitation to challenge Clinton on her perceived foreign-policy “strength” ignores a key football lesson often attributed to New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, who reversed a longstanding belief that teams should look for their opponents’ weaknesses. Belichick instead focused on taking away his opponents’ strengths and making them play to their weaknesses.

With the help of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sanders appears to have finally grasped that lesson. With Gabbard praising Sanders as her choice for “Commander-in-Chief,” she implicitly seeks to neutralize Clinton’s supposed strong suit – her foreign-policy experience – and transform it into a weakness.

The question now is whether Gabbard’s assistance to Sanders has come too late.

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

38 comments for “Bernie Sanders as Commander-in-Chief

  1. Peetie
    March 31, 2016 at 20:50

    Not sure Bernie actually shares Tulsi’s viewpoint, as he had signed onto the State Department narrative regarding Syria, and he had unkind words to say about Hugo Chavez. This puts him squarely within the neocon camp. While he properly diagnoses economic inequity, he does not really diagnose the problem but rather wants to put into place a program that has little to do with the causes of the problems he describes. It’s not about minimum wage, for example, but about dissolving the Federal Reserve, and stopping the system that allows the wealthy to loot the state and impoverish the Middle Class. The wars are also part of that process. It’s not about minimum wage. It is about stopping outright criminality.

  2. Kent Bott
    March 31, 2016 at 11:35

    If Shillary wins the nomination … she should choose Dick Cheney for VP since his world view is an excellent match for her own.

  3. March 30, 2016 at 22:22

    2016 is the perfect time for America and the world to turn the page and begin a new, better, more highly-evolved, peaceful chapter of history.

  4. John XYZ
    March 30, 2016 at 14:25

    The way it looks to me right now, if you want a liberal President who supports things like feminism, equality, human rights, and compassion, then you pick Bernie Sanders without hesitation.

    If you want to pick a strong, competent female candidate, then you’d definitely go with Dr. Jill Stein.

    If you’re for Hillary because darn it, she’s a Clinton, then you’ll be very satisfied with President Donald Trump.

    If you’re interested in selecting an experienced pragmatist, Gary Johnson doesn’t seem like a bad choice.

    If you don’t believe in the smears directed at certain candidates saying that they’re right-wing hawks with a wishy-washy side, then John Kasich is your man.

    If you’re mad at the world and just want someone who will make life miserable for people you don’t like, Ted Cruz seems like a safe pick.

    If someone’s invested a great deal into your vote, and that means something for you, then by all means vote Hillary Clinton.

    Of course these could admittedly all just be silly generalizations.

  5. Oz
    March 29, 2016 at 19:11

    I am not persuaded that Obama needed to be “pushed” into all these wars. I think that was his own inclination.

  6. onno
    March 29, 2016 at 12:20

    What a refreshing comments, maybe there is still life in the future of the United States of America and NOT only WARS. The American people have a chance and opportunity to make America great again by investing in their own country instead of making wars overseas like the neocons and warmongers in Washington want. More American soldiers will return in bodybags or as invalids -mentally or physically – for the rest of their young lives just to make the defence industry and the MONEY ELITE happy.

    Can the American people take the initiative away from the brutal, corrupt and incompetent warmonger elite in Washington and get the delegates again on the people’s side.

  7. Ludmila
    March 29, 2016 at 06:16

    It seems now that Margaret Thatcher was a pigeon in comparison with HC. I wonder why EU politicians (American ones too) are so much afraid of Russia and Putin. Is it because they don’t know history at all? I don’t remember when Russia assailed anybody. During our long history it had to rebuff all the invasions.
    So try please to calm down the hawkish lady (if it is possible at all)
    thank you for your objectivity.


  8. MarkU
    March 29, 2016 at 05:29

    Sometimes I think that Americans just don’t ‘get’ democracy. “Commander in chief” honestly! The president (along with the rest of your government) is meant to be your elected spokesperson, not your boss. Why “commander in chief” anyway? If goggle eyed subservience is what you mean, surely fuehrer is more to the point. This whole “unitary executive” thing originated with the G. W. Bush presidency, why not leave it there rather than enshrining the concept for all eternity.

    • David Smith
      March 29, 2016 at 13:52

      Please read The United States Constitution. The President is The Commader in Chief of all armed forces of The United States, that is all CinC means. This is to ensure the ultimate command of the military is in civilian hands, the elected President, it is to protect YOU. Study Oliver Cromwell to see what can happen when the commander of a national army is not under civilian control, and imagine an incompetent like McArthur with Cromwell’s power.

  9. Adam Tyme
    March 29, 2016 at 03:58

    I have never met one poor person that has started a war. it cost millions of dollars. And you must feed and and clothe them.
    This is about inequality. Just think if you had almost a million people around the world fighting and they are not being paid fed or clothed it would make you think why.
    War is about the rich and control.
    Adame Tyme USMC

    • Steve Naidamast
      March 29, 2016 at 11:58

      Spartacus !

  10. March 29, 2016 at 03:26

    It has been obvious that the US corporate media has been ignoring Tulsi Gabbard for some time. Given its rightward leading stance that’s not surprising. What is surprising is how long Sanders team ignored her, when it seems clear the Clinton faction didn’t by the way she was carefully sidelined by placing her in the office of Vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee where her strong views against US foreign policy were effectively gagged. The position proscribed her from voicing her opinions in public.

    And if you don’t believe that take a look at a few of the interviews CNN anchorman Walter Blitzer conducted with her last year. Gabbard comes over as extremely well-informed on Syria and Iraq. Her opposition to U.S. military actions in Syria is straightforward and coherent. Though she doesn’t mention her by name, it soon becomes clear she holds no brief for Clinton whatsoever.

    Indeed, it maybe too late for Gabbard to make a difference, but that’s no excuse for her not to try. The U.S. is in dire need of someone who makes sense on foreign policy.

    You can read more on Tulsi Gabbard at my blog where I feature links to the Blitzer interviews:

    • David Smith
      March 29, 2016 at 14:32

      Read your blog. It only convinced me that Tulsi Gabbard is an artificial creation of the American Propertied Class, with a very sophisticated PR program out of Langley and Madison Ave that she does not control. The Tulsi shills come out of the woodwork on Consortium comments, National Review and American Enterprise Institute love her, Wolf Blitzer gives her respect, something creepy is going on.

  11. mark
    March 29, 2016 at 02:55

    The campaign is called the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, and it was conceived by two veteran investigative journalists who plan to take their findings to state attorneys general in jurisdictions in which the non-profit, tax-exempt Clinton Family Foundation does business.

    “The Clinton Family Foundation is effectively a criminal, money-laundering operation principally established to enrich the founders with political payoff money, including millions from foreign donors,” said Joseph Farah, founder and chief executive officer of WND. “It’s a racketeering enterprise protected by the Democratic Party dons – including the president of the United States and his attorney general.”

    Since the campaign was launched recently, hundreds of Americans have donated to the cause, says Farah.

    “It’s on fire,” he says. “I haven’t seen such enthusiasm since the campaign to dump John Boehner earlier this year. That campaign proved successful. I think this one will too.”

    Express your support in another way with this brand new bumper sticker – “Hillary for Prosecution, Not President”

    Farah and WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author, have teamed up with the express purpose of bringing the Clintons to justice. Farah and Corsi have been investigating and reporting on the Clintons for 23 years.


  12. Zachary Smith
    March 28, 2016 at 23:36

    Before turning in, I cleared my cookies as is my usual end-of-day drill, but at the last moment returned to this site to check on any new comments. Every single one of them had disappeared.

    If this is going to be the practice here, there really needs to be some kind of “log-in” procedure to permit people who practice minimal security with their computer to view comments. Oft-times they’re quite interesting.

  13. Treena
    March 28, 2016 at 23:01

    Democrat primary voters — PROTECT YOUR VOTE. While voting should be straightforward, it’s not. When you register to vote, declare a party affiliation or you can be left out of the primary. Even after you’ve registered to vote, party affiliations can arbitrarily change in the system, making you ineligible to vote on primary election day. Check your party affiliation often (takes two seconds online) and document it so you are prepared to give proof (when you arrive early) at your polling place. Don’t let anyone steal your vote. Check your status now at:

    • Kent Bott
      March 31, 2016 at 11:43

      I’m not sure of how many other states do as Washington and Oregon do … but we have vote by mail, which is the only rational way to be voting in the 21st century. No one should have to stand in a line to have a voice in a modern democracy.

  14. March 28, 2016 at 22:47

    nondelusional parasitosis, in re: Trump and Clinton

    sorry – I was off
    dreaming the rascals were gone
    alas – they are not

    * * *

    © Gregory V Driscoll 2016

  15. March 28, 2016 at 22:32

    the Empress’s new clothes:

    one more win for her,
    unarraigned war criminal –
    oh strange democracy
    that honors and loves villains
    and casts the peaceful aside

    * * *

    © Gregory V Driscoll 2016

    Amnesia – an appeal to supporters of Hillary Clinton:

    try to forget her claiming
    Kissinger as a mentor;
    or put aside her vote
    for war in Iraq; her refusal
    to admit she was wrong
    for eleven years [just in time
    to get ready to campaign];
    her phone call from Africa
    to President Bill urging him
    to bomb Serbia; her not making
    a sound as the genocidal sanctions
    insisted on by the lovable Bubba
    killed half a million Iraqi children;
    shut out her clamoring for bombs
    over Libya and the laugh as she said
    “We came, we saw, he died”
    about Ghadaffi’s torturous death;
    ignore that as a result of her efforts
    Libya is now a failed state, crawling
    with jihadist militias – including ISIS –
    Note: even Secretary Gates warned
    her Libya policy would end in chaos,
    but she prevailed with the President;
    her underlings’ actions in overthrowing
    a legal government in Ukraine
    using fascist militias and millions
    of our dollars, with her blaming it all
    on Vladimir Putin; once again
    put out of your mind her push
    for more and more aid for opponents
    of the legal Syrian government –
    most of the arms wound up
    in ISIS hands; her whole record
    is one for violence, not for diplomacy;
    last of all, why won’t she release
    the transcripts of her highly paid
    speeches before the bank barons
    and trade association moguls?

    if, post January 2017, all these
    become real to you in the form
    of further or wider wars,
    weakening of sensible controls
    on banks and other corporations,
    major changes to social safety nets
    and roiled health care under
    a new President Clinton, don’t forget
    I, and others, told you so…

    * * *

    © Gregory V Driscoll 2016

    • J'hon Doe II
      March 30, 2016 at 13:37

      I applaud, Gregory V Driscoll

  16. Zachary Smith
    March 28, 2016 at 22:20

    I hope that Clinton isn’t the nominee, but that’s not the way to bet at the moment. She has an awful lot of advantages, not the least of which is the unwavering support of many of the State Democratic party organizations.

    Also, she cheats. Voter fraud all over the place. As a side note, I had a devil of a time finding the story for which I’m making this post, and right after finding a crucial clue I was reminded by Google it was watching me. Up popped a message about how suspicious activity was happening at my web address – which they thoughtfully listed! – and told me I had to prove I wasn’t a robot. As we now know, Google was earlier exchanging emails with Hillary and offering support in her campaign to destroy Syria.

    Perhaps I’m not entirely nuts to suspect they’ve set their automated watchdogs to look out for anybody interested in derailing the wretched woman’s parade to the White House.

    Anyhow, this is what I was looking for:

    Interesting that one of Sander’s key people in Michigan was supposedly taking money from a Hillary Super-PAC. Also the claim that Sander’s win came despite of the “help” from this fellow.

    And in fact, Bernie won the Michigan primary largely on the strength of the vote in those counties where Hughes had no paid field staff on site and was forced to rely solely on volunteers, whom often disregarded his directives. Bernie lost the vote in those counties in the vicinity of Flint where Hughes’ was located, and where he had the most direct oversight over the actions of Bernie volunteers.

    This Hughes fellow is now in Pennsylvania ‘working’ for Sanders. Does the mean the story is nonsense? Or maybe they want to keep Hughes around so as to better watch him? Who knows?

    Unless Hillary is tarred and feathered for her inexcusable email behavior while Secretary of State, I don’t believe Sanders will be the nominee. Most likely he’s staying on to push the Stealth Republican and not-so-stealthy neocon warmonger Clinton into positions she’ll find difficult or impossible to alter should she move into the White House.

  17. W. R. Knight
    March 28, 2016 at 22:13

    If one reads the promises Hillary makes on her website, they sound really good for Americans. Many of these promises are taken right out of Bernie Sanders’ campaign book. That’s good. But what about her ability to follow through. Given her foreign policy record of supporting war, regime change and intervention in foreign countries, all of which cost lots and lots of money, and given that she is unlikely to change her foreign policies, the question arises, where will the money come from to fulfill all those promises? For the last 13 years we have been at war in numerous countries and have financed that war by borrowing trillions of dollars and sacrificing our own infrastructure. Accepting that “leopards do not change their spots”, Hillary is likely to continue supporting war and foreign intervention and will have to continue borrowing money to do so. As a result, there will be no money left to fulfill her promises.

  18. bobzz
    March 28, 2016 at 21:13

    Parry makes clear that Clinton does not have thirty years of experience; she has one year of experience thirty times. She can’t or won’t learn.

  19. Bill Bodden
    March 28, 2016 at 21:10

    George W. Bush gave signals he would be a problem as president, but surely only the most astute and perceptive of political observers could have anticipated how much of a disaster he and his administration would be, so the people have some sort of excuse for voting for him. The Gore-Lieberman ticket appeared to be the lesser evil but not by a considerable degree. Voters in 2016 have no excuses regarding Hillary Clinton. It should be obvious to anyone with just a modest degree of independent thought who is free of tribal/class loyalties as exhibited by Meryl Streep, George Clooney and their social set that the Clintons once again in the White House will create a disaster that will eclipse Dubya’s war on Iraq. The Clintons made it obvious they would sacrifice the lives of others when they returned to Arkansas to preside over the judicial murder of Rickey Ray Rector in 1992 to prove they were “tough on crime.” The scale changed to carnage when they presided over the sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives. That was followed by Hillary’s vote for war on Iraq, endorsements of Israeli massacres in Gaza, and regime changes in Honduras, Libya and Syria. Lady Macbeth was a saint compared with Hillary.

  20. Drew Hunkins
    March 28, 2016 at 20:37

    Tulsi Gabbard, beautiful, eloquent, and with a loving heart and conscience, could likely be President of the United States in the next 20 years.

    • David Smith
      March 29, 2016 at 13:07

      The National Review has a big crush on Tulsi, look it up. How is it that Sandernistas and the block headed National Review both shill for the phony Major Gabbard?????

      • Ethan Allen
        April 1, 2016 at 15:37

        Re: David Smith – March 29, 2016 at 1:07 pm
        Thank you for your erudite and thoughtful comment David. Will you provide a link to the National Review article that reflects their “crush on Tulsi” Gabbard?
        As Usual,

      • Ethan Allen
        April 1, 2016 at 16:43

        Is this “the phony Major Gabbard?????” you are referring to David?????

  21. rexw
    March 28, 2016 at 19:37

    Speaking as a more than interested observer of what I see as the American electoral circus, and based on this article in a publication that everyone should respect, Consortium, I would say that the brouhaha about Trump has overshadowed the careful examination by the media, (even for what that is worth in the USA), of the philosophies of Clinton, possible the single most dangerous person on the planet, subservient and controlled by Zionists, having taken her orders from Israel for so long. I mean, Senator for New York. Need I say more.?
    Nothing will change her and who would want to anyway. She’s yesterday’s aberration, unable to be resurrected.

    If this megalomaniac gets into the White House, we will see World War III in double quick time. Israel will say, ‘bomb Iran’ and that will be the start. As for Trump, he will fizzle out like a old fireworks display, a painful death by foot in the mouth.

    So you best find someone decent to carry the country out of a permanent war status, remove all the US-initiated teeth from NATO, close most of your expensive 900 military bases, start concentrating on economic reform and as a final project, introduce a bill on the identification and prosecution of all neocons, Zionists and Christian Zionists for un-American activities while at the same time, removing the legality of PAC’s and SupPAC’s, political donations limited to $5 per person.

    Then you can fill up your Congress and Senate with decent people, unaligned to foreign countries, truly representative of the people and who are AMERICANS in every way.
    Now that will get your country back. Nothing less.

    One last thing. Indict Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. If the ICC was able to do it for Karadzic, 40 years no less, based on crimes against humanity, what years for these three criminals? Deaths they have caused must be in the millions.

    That will be a good starting point and recover the respect of the world at the same time.

    • W. R. Knight
      March 28, 2016 at 23:42

      Let’s not just remove the U.S.-initiated teeth from NATO, let’s eliminate NATO, period. NATO has outlived its useful life by 26 years (if it ever had a useful life).

  22. George
    March 28, 2016 at 18:51

    or was it her ever over-filled non-hunger belching in her bellicose belligerent balistic brutal beastly bombardment speech to the american palestine public affairs committee–appeasing the neo-cons new wave copperheads in the democratic party as the ronald wilson reagen revolution took root and flight there supporting the 6 percent vs the 94 percent—-just further add the belching coming from the over-fed living in filthy riches mainstream media-is france or england to be told to give up-close all your factories-and fire all the workers and next generation-and move your plants overseas-to become more prosperous-while at same time deregulate your wall-street gambling casino’s where again the 6 percent become ever grossly richer and on top of that decrease taxes so the 6 percent become beastly richer and of course change the laws so can add seasoning and spices to control the government in unlimited corrupt hidden political contributions cash flow so the 6 percent become satanic richer while the 94 percent are left in quick-sand-rid of pensions, low paying dead end jobs that pay part time for full time work while schemes put in place such as come to work only when busy…–and … where as like growing tomatoes, – plant- growing tv’s or vacuum cleaners..plants…china and s.america should have own plants growing and reaping harvest for own people-not destroying what use to be the standard of living here which was good for average american….but now we have the 6 percent living and enjoying the best house or houses, best reastaurants wanting served best-nothing but best dishes, best vacations, best clothing (while people burned to death bangladesh clothing factories-father manufacturing samuel slater memorized textile factories and considered traitor to england brought here and clinton slapped slater and all the textile workers in u.s.)… and …—this is pure insanity—this is pure satanism

  23. bfearn
    March 28, 2016 at 18:15

    “Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan.”


  24. Pablo Diablo
    March 28, 2016 at 16:23

    No more Bushes AND NO MORE CLINTONS.

  25. Joe Tedesky
    March 28, 2016 at 16:15

    Everyday of my life here on earth I worry about my children and grandchildren’s future. Seeing these young people latch on to Bernie Sanders political values is certainly uplifting. What is even more uplifting is seeing new political faces emerge such as Representative Tulsi Gabbard. Miss Gabbard should be the type of woman to break the glass ceiling, and not Hillary Clinton, but so goes politics in this America we now live in. I would like to see Bernie Sanders ask Tulsi Gabbard to be his running mate. Imagine, his experience combined with her youth. I would also like to add how her youth could be the answer to his elder age concern that some voters may have.

    • Bob Van Noy
      March 28, 2016 at 18:31

      Thanks to Robert Parry for posting this. And JoeTedesky, you’re right; what a great team they would make. Once again, anything may be possible, and we (America) need that.

      • Joe Tedesky
        March 29, 2016 at 09:07

        Yes Bob it all seems very positive. Kind of like something my granddaughters and I could certainly relate to. Plus, would Hillary not only become our first woman president, but also become our first president to become impeached by the House and Senate? Seriously, would Hillary represent her gender proud? What would it say about the first woman president if she was a complete and utter failure? I’m not even sure that Hillary would survive anymore than four years. I mean she by herself has way to much luggage, and I’m not even counting in the Slick Willy equation. So, let’s go with the grandpap/granddaughter ticket. Not only that, but by having Gabbard (or another good woman) serve as VP then President, would that not shut up the critics who would say she didn’t earn it? What a resume Tulsi already has, but what a future awaits this fine young politician.

        • Bob Van Noy
          March 29, 2016 at 13:27

          I say absolutely to all of that. Should we get either Hillary or Trump, I would guess that the system will break in some way, whether it be economic or political, but one thing for sure, America has had its fill of warring, the neocons just don’t realize that because, They Don’t Fight, they just start the wars…

          • Joe Tedesky
            March 29, 2016 at 15:44

            It’s probably better the Neocons don’t arm up and fight for us, because I’m sure how under the heat of battle that they would just end up pissing themselves or more, and get so confused that they would forget who’s side their on.

Comments are closed.