Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

Special Report: Savvy neocons see Hillary Clinton as their Trojan Horse to be pulled into the White House by Democratic voters, raising the question: would a Clinton-45 presidency mean more wars, asks Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Democratic Party establishment seems determined to drag Hillary Clinton’s listless campaign across the finish line of her race with Bernie Sanders and then count on Republican divisions to give her a path to the White House. But – if she gets there – the world should hold its breath.

If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its “regime change” strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

If Bashar al-Assad is still president of Syria, there will be demands that she finally go for the knock-out blow; there will be pressure, too, for her to ratchet up sanctions on Iran pushing Tehran toward renouncing the nuclear agreement; there are already calls for deploying more U.S. troops on Russia’s border and integrating Ukraine into the NATO military structure.

President Clinton-45 would hear the clever talking points justifying these moves, the swaggering tough-guy/gal rhetoric, and the tear-jerking propaganda about evil enemies throwing babies off incubators, giving Viagra to soldiers to rape more women, and committing horrific crimes (some real but many imagined) against defenseless innocents.

Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton has the wisdom to resist these siren songs of confrontation and war, even if she were inclined to?

President Barack Obama, who – for all his faults – has a much deeper and subtler intellect than Hillary Clinton, found himself so battered by these pressures from the militaristic Washington “playbook” that he whined about his predicament to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, himself a neocon war hawk.

The Washington foreign policy establishment is now so profoundly in the hands of the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks that the sitting President presumably couldn’t find anyone but a neocon to give those interviews to, even as he complained about how the U.S. capital is in the hands of warmongers.

Given this neocon domination of U.S. foreign policy – especially in the State Department bureaucracy, the major media and the big think tanks – Clinton will be buffeted by hawkish demands and plans both from outside of her administration and from within.

Already key neocons, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, are signaling that they expect to have substantial influence over Clinton’s foreign policy. Kagan, who has repackaged himself as a “liberal interventionist,” threw his support to Clinton, who put him on a State Department advisory board.

There is also talk in Washington that Kagan’s neocon wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, another Clinton favorite and the architect of the “regime change” in Ukraine, would be in line for a top foreign policy job in a Clinton-45 administration.

Neocons Back in Charge

So, Clinton’s election could mean that some of the most dangerous people in American foreign policy would be whispering their schemes for war and more war directly into her ear – and her record shows that she is very susceptible to such guidance.

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)

At every turn, as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton has opted for “regime change” solutions – from the Iraq invasion in 2003 to the Honduras coup in 2009 to the Libyan air war in 2011 to the Syria civil war since 2011 – or she has advocated for the escalation of conflicts, such as in Afghanistan and with Iran, rather than engaging in reasonable give-and-take negotiations.

Though her backers tout her experience as Secretary of State, the reality was that she repeatedly disdained genuine diplomacy and was constantly hectoring President Obama into adopting the most violent and confrontational options.

He sometimes did (the Afghan “surge,” the Libyan war, the Iran nuclear stand-off) but he sometimes didn’t (reversing the Afghan escalation, finally negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran after Clinton left, rejecting a direct U.S. military assault on the Syrian government, and working at times with the Russians on Iran and Syria).

In other words, Obama acted as a register or brake restraining Clinton’s hawkishness. With Clinton as the President, however, she would have no such restraints. One could expect her to endorse many if not all the harebrained neocon schemes, much as President George W. Bush did when his neocon advisers exploited his fear and fury over 9/11 to guide him into their “regime change” agenda for the Middle East.

The neocons have never given up their dreams of overthrowing Mideast governments that Israel has put on its enemies list. Iraq was only the first. To follow were Syria and Iran with the idea that by installing pro-Israeli leaders in those countries, Israel’s close-in enemies – Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups – could be isolated and crushed.

After Bush’s Iraq invasion in 2003, Washington’s neocons were joking about whether Iran or Syria should come next, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran!” But the Iraq War wasn’t the “cakewalk” that the neocons had predicted. Instead of throwing flowers at the U.S. troops, Iraqis planted IEDs.

As it turned out, a lot of “real men” and “real women” – as well as “real children” – died in Iraq, including nearly 4,500 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

So the neocon timetable took a hit but, in their view, only because of Bush’s incompetent follow-through on Iraq. If not for the botched occupation, the neocons felt they could have continued rolling up other troublesome regimes, one after another.

Professionally, the neocons also escaped the Iraq disaster largely unscathed, continuing to dominate Washington’s think tanks and the op-ed pages of major American news outlets such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Barely missing a beat, they set about planning for the longer haul.

An Obama Mistake

Although they lost the White House in 2008, the neocons caught a break when President-elect Obama opted for a Lincoln-esque “team of rivals” on foreign policy. Instead of reaching out to Washington’s marginalized (and aging) foreign policy “realists,” Obama looked to the roster of the neocon-dominated establishment.

Obama recruited his hawkish Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, to be Secretary of State and kept Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Obama also left in place most of Bush’s military high command, including neocon favorite, General David Petraeus.

Obama’s naïve management strategy let the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” pals consolidate their bureaucratic control of Washington’s foreign policy bureaucracy, even though the President favored a more “realist” approach that would use America’s power more judiciously — and he was less enthralled to Israel’s right-wing government.

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)

The behind-the-scenes neocon influence became especially pronounced at Clinton’s State Department where she tapped the likes of Nuland, a neocon ideologue and an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, to become the department’s spokesperson and put her on track to become Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (although the appointment wasn’t finalized until after Clinton left in 2013).

The neocon/liberal-hawk bias is now so strong inside the State Department that officials I know who have gone there reemerge as kind of “pod people” spouting arrogant talking points in support of U.S. intervention all over the world. By contrast, I find the CIA and the Pentagon to be places of relative realism and restraint.

Perhaps the best example of this “pod people” phenomenon was Sen. John Kerry, who replaced Clinton as Secretary of State and suddenly became the mouthpiece for the bureaucracy’s most extreme war-like rhetoric.

For instance, Kerry advocated a retaliatory bombing campaign against Syria’s military in August 2013, ignoring the intelligence community’s doubts about whether President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was responsible for a sarin-gas attack outside Damascus.

Instead of listening to the intelligence analysts, Kerry joined the neocon-driven “group think” pinning the blame on Assad, the perfect excuse for implementing the neocons’ long-delayed Syrian “regime change.” The neocons didn’t care what the facts were — and Kerry fell in line. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What’s the Matter with John Kerry?”]

But Obama didn’t fall in line. He listened when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told him that there was no “slam dunk” evidence implicating the Syrian military. (Ultimately, the evidence would point to a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening in the war on their side.)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Obama also got help from Russian President Vladimir Putin who persuaded President Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons (while Assad still denied any role in the sarin-gas attack). Putin’s assistance infuriated the neocons who soon recognized that the Obama-Putin cooperation was a profound threat to their “regime change” enterprise.

Targeting Ukraine

Some of the smarter neocons quickly identified Ukraine as a potential wedge that could be driven between Obama and Putin. Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and a potential first step toward driving Putin from power in Russia.

It fell to Assistant Secretary of State Nuland to shepherd the Ukraine operation to fulfillment as she plotted with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how to remove Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Nuland and Pyatt were caught in an intercepted phone call discussing who should take over.

“Yats is the guy,” Nuland said referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who indeed would become the new prime minister. Nuland and Pyatt then exchanged ideas how to “glue this thing” and how to “midwife this thing.” This “thing” became the bloody Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting elected President Yanukovych and touching off a civil war between Ukrainian “nationalists” from the west and Ukraine’s ethnic Russians in the east.

As the “nationalists,” some of them openly neo-Nazis, inflicted atrocities on ethnic Russians, Crimea voted by 96 percent to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Resistance to the new Kiev regime also arose in the eastern Donbas region.

To the State Department – and the mainstream U.S. news media – this conflict was all explained as “Russian aggression” against Ukraine and a “Russian invasion” of Crimea (although Russian troops were already in Crimea as part of the Sevastopol naval base agreement). But All the Important People agreed that the Crimean referendum was a “sham” (although many polls have since confirmed the results).

When citizen Clinton weighed in on the Ukraine crisis, she compared Russian President Putin to Hitler.

So, today the neocon/liberal-hawk Washington “playbook” – as Obama would call it – calls for massing more and more U.S. troops and NATO weapons systems on Russia’s border to deter Putin’s “aggression.”

A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

A scene from “Dr. Strangelove,” in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

These tough guys and gals also vow to ignore Russia’s warnings against what it views as military threats to its existence. Apparently “real, real men” go to Moscow (perhaps riding a nuclear bomb like the famous seen from “Dr. Strangelove.”).

Ian Joseph Brzezinski, a State Department official under President George W. Bush and now a foreign policy expert for the Atlantic Council, a NATO think tank, has co-authored an article urging NATO to incorporate Ukrainian army units into its expansion of military operations along Russia’s border.

“High-level Ukrainian national security officials have urged the international community to be bolder in its response to Russia’s provocative military actions,” wrote Brzezinski (son of old Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski) and Ukrainian co-author Markian Bilynskyj.

“The deployment of a battle tested, Ukrainian infantry company or larger unit to reinforce the defense of NATO territory in Central Europe would be a positive contribution to the Alliance force posture in the region.”

Following the Playbook

This kind of tough-talking jargon is what the next President, whoever he or she is, can expect from Official Washington. From Obama’s interview in The Atlantic, it’s clear that he feels surrounded and embattled by these warmongering forces but takes some pride in resisting – from time to time – the Washington “playbook.”

But how would President Hillary Clinton respond? When she appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on March 21 – at a moment when it appeared she had all but nailed down the Democratic nomination – Clinton showed what you might call her true colors, fawning over how loyal she would be to Israel and promising to take the very cozy relationship between the U.S. and Israel “to the next level” (a phrase that usually applies to couples deciding to move in together).

By reviewing Clinton’s public record, one could reasonably conclude that she is herself a neocon, both in her devotion to Israel and her proclivity toward “regime change” solutions. She also follows the neocon lead in demonizing any foreign leader who gets in their way. But even if she isn’t a full-fledged neocon, she often bends to their demands.

The one possible deviation from this pattern is Clinton’s personal friendship with longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal, who was an early critic of the neoconservatives as they emerged as a powerful force during the Reagan administration. Blumenthal and his son Max have also dared criticize Israel’s abusive treatment of the Palestinians.

However, the Israel Lobby appears to be taking no chances that Sidney Blumenthal’s voice might be heard during a Clinton-45 administration. Last month, a pro-Zionist group, The World Values Network, bought a full-page ad in The New York Times to attack Blumenthal and his son and declared that “Hillary Clinton must disavow her anti-Israel advisors.”

A graphic from The World Values Network's attack on Sidney and Max Blumenthal.

A graphic from The World Values Network’s attack on Sidney and Max Blumenthal.

Though Clinton might not publicly disassociate herself from Sidney Blumenthal, the preemptive strike pushed him further toward the margins and helped clear the path for the Kagan/Nuland faction to rush to the center of Clinton’s foreign policy.

Indeed, Clinton’s primary focus if she gets elected is likely to be ensuring that she gets reelected. As a traditional politician, she would think that the way to achieve reelection is to stay on the good side of the Israeli leadership. Along those lines, she promised AIPAC that, as President, she would immediately invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.

So, what would happen if Clinton takes the U.S.-Israeli relationship “to the next level”? Presumably that would mean taking a super-hard line against Iran over last year’s nuclear deal. Yet, already Iran is questioning whether its acceptance of extraordinary constraints on its nuclear program was worth it, given the U.S. unwillingness to grant meaningful relief on economic sanctions.

A belligerent Clinton approach – decrying Iran’s behavior and imposing new sanctions – would strengthen Iran’s hard-line faction internally and might well lead to Iran renouncing the agreement on the grounds of American bad faith. That, of course, would please the neocons and Netanyahu by putting the “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran” option back in play.

A Stunning Reversal

Clinton may have viewed her AIPAC speech as the beginning of her long-awaited “pivot to the center” — finally freed from having to pander to progressives — but afterwards she suffered a string of primary and caucus defeats at the hands of Sen. Bernie Sanders, most by landslide margins.

Besides those stunning defeats, Clinton’s campaign clearly has an “enthusiasm gap.” Sanders, the 74-year-old “democratic socialist” from Vermont, draws huge and excited crowds and wins younger voters by staggering percentages. Meanwhile, Clinton confronts polls showing high negatives and extraordinary public distrust.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

If she gets the Democratic nomination, she may have little choice but to engage in a fiercely negative campaign since — faced with the lack of voter enthusiasm — her best chance of winning is to so demonize her Republican opponent that Democrats and independents will be driven to the polls out of fear of what the crazy GOP madman might do.

Right now, many Clinton supporters see her as the “safe” — not exciting — choice, a politician whose long résumé gives them comfort that she must know what’s she’s doing. African-American voters, who have been her most loyal constituency, apparently feel more comfortable with someone they’ve known (who has also served in the Obama administration) than Sanders who is unknown to many and is seen as someone whose ambitious programs appear less practical than Clinton’s small-bore ideas.

But a look behind Clinton’s résumé, especially her reliance on “regime change” and other interventionist schemes in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, might give all peace-loving voters pause. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Hillary Clinton ‘Qualified’?”]

Savvy neocons, like Robert Kagan, have long understood that Clinton could be their Trojan Horse, pulled into the White House by Democratic voters. Kagan told The New York Times, “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.”

The same Times article noted that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.” However, if she is that “vessel” carrying a neocon foreign policy back into the White House, this “safe” choice might prove dangerous to America and the world.

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).

77 comments for “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

  1. April 15, 2016 at 04:38
  2. Bruce
    April 13, 2016 at 20:14


  3. alan
    April 13, 2016 at 18:49

    As above

    “Obama would have struck Syria (to what extent we won’t know but at least with cruise missiles and the like) if it weren’t for the UK Parliament vote against intervening in”

    Correct me if I am wrong but there was also a Russian involvement in the removal of the Obama threat in Syria. Don’t forget that.
    They had warships in place not too far away and they weren’t there for a joint exercise, believe me.

    As a matter of fact, it was their presence and active participation in this disgraceful, convoluted “war” that has allowed some buildings in Syria to be still intact by routing ISIS and all the US funded and supported rebels. As we speak, the US is shipping arms into those people who choose to bring down Assad. Look closely and you will see the “sarin” culprits in there as well.

    One should ask Netanyahu where the rebels got those chemicals. Don’t bother asking. It is well known.

  4. April 13, 2016 at 07:47

    Excellent piece, Bob!:

    Only thing I would have added about Obama and Syria is that Obama would have struck Syria (to what extent we won’t know but at least with cruise missiles and the like) if it weren’t for the UK Parliament vote against intervening in Syria which then had Obama hand it over to the Congress.? What I said in following RT ‘Cross Talk’ appearance from 2012 was basically spot on:


    Fits with Hillary Clinton emails pushing Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria as well:


    Following are latest Press TV interviews if interested further:



    ?Mentioned following about McCain charity taking 1 million from Saudis:


    Also mentioned USS Liberty as well in that latest Press TV interview:


    Following by Phil Giraldi was good too (scroll to comments as well):

    Rating the Candidates
    Who wants war?

    Philip Giraldi


    With kindest regards,


  5. Bill Rood
    April 12, 2016 at 22:35

    Clinton scares the living daylights out of me. How any sane person could want her to be President after Iraq, Libya and Syria is a mystery. No Republican scares me more than Hillary, and Trump considerably less.

  6. Don G.
    April 12, 2016 at 14:40

    O.k. then Helmut, forget Sanders. There are no good choices if you like it that way. And by far the biggest factor in preventing more US led wars in the ME is Putin, Putin’s Russia, and China to a lesser degree. No need to resurrect the Soviet Union, Russia is doing the job well enough and it’s a lot harder to demonize Russia than it was to demonize the Soviet Union.

    Why Helmut! European countries are even starting to side with Russia a little bit. This could get contagious!

  7. Don G.
    April 12, 2016 at 12:33

    Yes, Clinton is a hawk and is fully onside with the completion of the PNAC agenda. But would electing her mean more wars? Not necessarily because the remaining planned wars are with Syria and Iran and now that Russia and China have stood up to assert their interests and MAD deterrent to further US wars, all bets are off for the foreseeable future.

    However, one thing that Clinton would represent, and Trump would represent in spades, is the danger of trying to force Russia’s hand. It’s a pretty sure bet that Putin has found safe ground now and is not going to back down. Oh, and Cruz likewise. Maybe have a look at Bernie Sanders?

    • Helmut e
      April 12, 2016 at 12:47

      So, sanders will drop all sanctions agains Russia? Hav any of you ever worked for a government? Perhaps, we should all rekindle the Soviet Union of emperor Putin? Diplomacy keeps this planet from exploding. senator Sanders? Colonel Sanders knows more about China and Russia

  8. MrK
    April 12, 2016 at 07:13

    Hillary Clinton, on “America’s Pacific Century” at Foreign Policy Magazine:

    Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward — we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these “come home” debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

    Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America’s intentions — our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make — and keep — credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.

    • Helmut e
      April 12, 2016 at 12:37

      Rome was not built in a day.. It takes time, education, communication. Vote for sanity and patience, not rhetoric…I have yet to hear any solutions from Bernie, “the second coming of Christ from Brooklyn”??? Or media inspired rhetoric from republicans. Easy to bitch, hard to unite with the same goal. The economy will always rule until it chokes on itself. The solution is a consortium of people taking action .

  9. Christopher Condon
    April 12, 2016 at 06:48

    This is all speculation that should be taken with a grain of salt. The foreign policy of a new president is very difficult to predict. When Nixon became president, for example, people predicted that he would be a huge hawk and bomb everybody back to the Stone Age. It didn’t happen. Then again, the government in Washington will eventually run out of money. That will stop the foreign intervention.

    • J'hon Doe II
      April 12, 2016 at 12:37

      Dear Christopher,

      I read somewhere that banality is ‘a failure to think.’ — so, let me remind you of Nixon’s secret bombing campaigns in Indo-China that massacred and displaced hundreds of thousands of humans in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam slaughter (war).

      Ms. Clinton is clearly an established War Hawk, so what makes you imagine that she’d suddenly adopt a Bush 41 (fictitious) “kinder, gentler” approach to foreign policy? Did you hear her kiss up to our war partners at the recent AIPIC gathering?

      Furthermore, her refusal to accept Central American refugees escaping raging violence is an undeniable sign of a cold,cold heart. Specially in light of ongoing military and police rampant murder of civilians.

      Please see below excerpt of US complicity in unremitting political terrorism again Honduran people.

      US Counterinsurgency Policing Tactics Ravage Honduras
      By: Annie Bird
      12 April 2016

      The U.S. is pushing a counterinsurgency policing model for Honduras, while ignoring state corruption, impunity and violence. Meanwhile, corpses pile up.Honduran media is ablaze with the latest in the constant stream of police corruption crises.

      In May 2015 the U.S. Embassy announced FUSINA received training from the U.S. Marines. While the U.S. State Department has maintained that the controversial PMOP does not receive U.S. training, on the ground reports claim it does, and given that PMOP forms part of FUSINA, the Marine training of FUSINA would seem to lend credence to local sources. In April 2015 it was announced that 300 specialists were arriving in Honduras to train FUSINA, including FBI agents.

      ATIC’s public profile is quickly growing. In addition to the DIECP raids, along with its twin National Police intelligence agency SERCAA, it is leading the investigation into Berta Caceres’ murder. Both are known for their close relationship to the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, and Department of Justice advisors accompany the agencies in their investigations.

      TIGRES, PMOP, ATIC, SERCAA are all elements of a counterinsurgency policing model the U.S. implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to apply to Central America. The problem is there is no insurgency, and the criminal networks that run the state make Indigenous and campesinos who defend land and resource rights into enemies of the state.

      Even the scandal following Berta Caceres’ murder has built up the figure of ATIC and SERCAA, as the State Department prioritizes making space for this as its newest project, over lending support to her family and her organization COPINH’s demands that the Honduran government allow the Inter American Commission for Human Rights to support and independent group of international experts to investigate the crime, following the model established for the investigation into the disappearance of 43 Ayotzinapa students in Mexico.

      There is no doubt that this latest police scandal marks another surge in the militarized counterinsurgency policing model promoted by the U.S., in the guise of police reform. The question is what impact will it have on security in Honduras. Violence in security forces, not just the police but also the military, is chronic, and the public sees the security forces as a principal source of violence against the population. State involvement in Berta Caceres’ murder, and the murder of other human rights advocates, is widely suspected.

      The public is tired of the dizzying parade of changing acronyms that only reconfigure power relations between organized crime networks. Police reform is meaningless, no more than a reconfiguration of criminal structures, without changes in the political structure. Yet, the U.S. has always prioritized stable relations with the corrupt network of political and economic elites over real security for the Honduran population, wasting public money on lucrative contracts for security firms in an endless cycle corruption and violence.

      The kind of investigation demanded by COPINH and Berta’s family could begin to uncover the political economic structures that manage violence in Honduras, but Honduran politicians, long the beneficiaries and participants in criminal actions, are refusing to allow independent investigators into the country. But the U.S. Embassy is more interested in using the scandals to push through the counterinsurgency policing model than challenging the criminal networks that run Honduras.


      • Christopher Condon
        April 12, 2016 at 13:11

        Nixon’s early presidency was certainly regrettable, but that can be chalked up to inexperience. The presidency is not like any other job, and no one is really prepared for it. So whenever you have a new president, you have someone in the White House who really does not know what he is doing. As time passed, however, Nixon got his bearings and his policies improved. In the end Nixon got us out of Vietnam, and made an honest effort to improve relations with Russia. There was also the opening to China, the volunteer army, and a substantial reduction in the Pentagon budget. It would have been better if he had gotten us out of Vietnam right away, but his presidency was hardly the worst in American history so far as foreign policy was concerned.

        You might compare Franklin Roosevelt. Germany in general and Hitler in particular had legitimate grievances concerning the treatment of Germans now living under Polish jurisdiction. Hitler wanted a negotiated agreement with Poland to settle his legitimate grievances, but President Roosevelt repeatedly interfered with these negotiations and brought on a German attack on Poland, which was the last thing Hitler wanted. Hitler had to be dragged into the attack on Poland kicking and screaming. Roosevelt’s motive in preventing a negotiated settlement of the Polish question? To bring on a German military attack on Poland to justify another war against Germany. Roosevelt shed crocodile tears over the attack on Poland, then used this as a pretext to start another war.

        As for Nixon, he got us out of Vietnam, a war that he did not start. Too slowly, but at least he got us out. Roosevelt started a war that killed fifty million persons. Your comment?

        • J'hon Doe II
          April 12, 2016 at 13:43

          Nixon kept the war going via contrived trickery and Kissinger hocus pocus at the Paris peace conference.– Nixon knew to Washington – he was Ikes vice-president.. .

          FDR did not start WW2 — In fact, the American fascists sided with Hitler and did all they could to prevent our participation.

          • J'hon Doe II
            April 12, 2016 at 13:54

            Please excuse typo — Nixon knew Washington – he was Ikes vice-president.. .

      • Christopher Condon
        April 12, 2016 at 20:38

        It is apparent that you missed the main point of my post. My post was not really about Nixon at all. I was just using Nixon as one example to prove the difficulty of predicting an incoming president’s foreign policy. If you don’t like the example of Nixon, fine. I can give you 10 more. My point is that Mr. Parry’s prognostications with regard to Hillary’s foreign policy are not worth much, and neither are yours. Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so if Parry and you turn out to be correct, don’t let it get to your heads.

        • J'hon Doe II
          April 13, 2016 at 09:21


          Two Election Scandals That CNN Won’t Touch
          April 11, 2016

          In 1968, Richard Nixon’s operatives derailed President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks which could have brought that bloody conflict to an end that year – rather than four years later and saved millions of lives – but peace might have meant Nixon’s defeat. A sordid tale described in declassified U.S. government records.

  10. J'hon Doe II
    April 11, 2016 at 16:05

    “Savvy neocons, like Robert Kagan, have long understood that Clinton could be their Trojan Horse, pulled into the White House by Democratic voters”– Mr. Parry
    Warfare over Welfare; Neoliberalism, Globalization – Profits over People; The War Machine Prevails.

    How Not to Audit the Pentagon
    Five Decades Later, the Military Waste Machine Is Running Full Speed Ahead
    By William D. Hartung

    From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades. Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represents chump change in the Pentagon’s wastage sweepstakes and in the context of its $600-billion-plus budget, but think of it as indicative of the absurd lengths the Department of Defense will go to when what’s at stake is throwing away taxpayer dollars.

    Keep in mind that the above examples are just the tip of the tip of a titanic iceberg of military waste. In a recent report I did for the Center for International Policy, I identified 27 recent examples of such wasteful spending totaling over $33 billion. And that was no more than a sampling of everyday life in the twenty-first-century world of the Pentagon.

    The staggering persistence and profusion of such cases suggests that it’s time to rethink what exactly they represent. Far from being aberrations in need of correction to make the Pentagon run more efficiently, wasting vast sums of taxpayer dollars should be seen as a way of life for the Department of Defense. And with that in mind, let’s take a little tour through the highlights of Pentagon waste from the 1960s to the present.

    Copyright 2016 William D. Hartung


  11. Anne
    April 11, 2016 at 14:20

    If Hillary is installed, Nuland will become SOS. That’s why she is number two now..to position her for the top job. Honestly Trump cannot be wrose than the unleashed neocons…and he might be better. Overseas wars are planned of course, but so is bringing their victims here until we look like the ME and Europe ourselves. I believe the idea is to divide the globe into green and red zones. Most of us are slated for the red. The neocon idea is make the ME a broken state mess which then cannot threaten the powers that be..but that’s the plan for Europe and the U.S. as well

  12. Adam Coleman
    April 11, 2016 at 13:37

    Would a Clinton win mean more war? Does a bear take a Reader’s Digest into the woods with him? What I have to say about Hilary Criminalinton is by no means appropriate for this venue but I will say this. I watched part of a David Icke interview earlier today and when he was asked about HER, he said, “If I had to describe Hilary Clinton in a word I would use the word EVIL but I cannot because of the likelihood of EVIL ITSELF suing me for defamation of character.” I would add to that that Satan himself would watch with tears in his eyes as she sailed past hell to a place way hotter where Satan can’t worship HER. Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power can the world have and know peace. Jimi Hendrix said that. It so thoroughy disgusting that the politicriminals in Washington, DECEIT are STILL keeping the masses brainwashed with their shame stream, criminal, corporate, zionnazi media PRO-PAGAN-DUH and people STILL gobble it up like a buzzard on a carcas which is exactly what Net&Yahoo want. Take a good look at the CFR and PNAC and you will find a list of some of the most despicable whale manure to ever commit treasaon. I can only hope that the families of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dougherty see the justice they deserve for the loss of their sons and with that justice would come a short stay for Hitlery Criminalinton AND OBAMA BEFORE the go to the GALLOWS! All that witch ever does when her lips move is tell lies and in my humble…I feel she was bullfrogging Chris Stevens IN the Oral Office at any given time perhaps while her husband wasn’t having sexual relations with that woman under his desk, Miss Lewinsky. Wonder why nobody has asked her about whether I’m FOS or she got some special memory on her dress too. Oh. That’s right. She can’t wear dresses or her hooves may show

  13. J'hon Doe II
    April 11, 2016 at 13:03

    “ They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel…” Hillary Clinton 1996

    “We came, we saw, he died.” Hillary Clinton 2011

    These are words of a cold hearted politician void of a modicum of humanitarian consideration. .

    The Clinton Crime Bill, established after CIA Contra War funding via cocaine and weapon influx into inner-cities fueled the radical increase of criminality in poverty strapped minority communities. The ensuing mass incarceration and drug addiction became a debilitating WMD in inner-city America.

    Proclaiming Qadhafi an “Evil Dictator” and a murderer of his own people as justification for decimating Libya is literally not different than the dissipation of minority cities in America where inhabitants were looked upon as and deemed “Super-Predators.”

    Moreover, The Clinton Foundation is a high level sham that is long past time for serious criminal investigation. The Oligarchs, the true predators, must be pulled down, one election at a time. Our so-called democracy is seriously imperiled. If our ‘elected’ officials can condone mass incarceration of it’s own citizens, we’re all doomed.. .

  14. April 11, 2016 at 08:01

    This article should be REQUIRED READING for anyone calling themselves a peace activist and for Democratic Party loyalists who are SO terrified of Trump that they are (already) DEMANDING we capitulate and support Clinton. This should also be REQUIRED READING for every woman who calls herself a “feminist” and accuses those of us who oppose Clinton of sexism (or being “Bernie Bros” a FAKE meme)—such self-proclaimed “feminists” need to study the history of First Wave (1850s to 1920 getting the vote) feminism and Second Wave (1960s/70s) feminism: being ANTI-WAR was a key value for feminists after the Civil War, during WWI and again, in the 1950s anti-nuclear weapons movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement.There are MANY reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for president. but, her PRO-WAR foreign policy views and actions ALONE are enough reason to reject her. REALITY CHECK: WAR is NOT a feminist value!

  15. Peter Loeb
    April 11, 2016 at 05:06


    Personally I could never ever support(=”vote for”) Hillary Clinton.

    (I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2012 and am proud of that
    choice. It didn’t “change the world” but it reflected my
    own best judgements.)

    Based on those working for Donald Trump behind the scenes,
    I cannot say that he would guarantee any peace. The same
    goes for other contenders in the GOP.

    For many of us in the US, our task should be less
    on who to vote FOR (there are no good options)
    but on how to survive during the regime of the
    next President.

    While political realities are very relevant, I prefer to
    read those analysts whose focus is on diplomatic
    history. Many are regularly published in

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA. USA

  16. Andrew Nichols
    April 11, 2016 at 04:34

    Yes without a doubt. She’s is highly likely to start WW3 with Russia. There is something unhinged about her attitude to foreign leaders that is seriously frightening. Is she trying to out male the men?

  17. rexw
    April 11, 2016 at 02:32

    This article should be mandatory reading for every American of voting age. Just 15 minutes will do it and a little more to see the often erudite comments for those people sufficiently interested in the future of America to read this article and to make a comment.

    But it really is time to correct one glaring misnomer, used every day. Not a fanciful suggestion at all but based on the identification of all those criminals by association back in the days leading up to the evil and inhumanely engineered Iraq war. Yes, another initiated action by an arrogant US President. Yes, we all know it was based on lies and for that there has never been any blame directed at the perpetrators, still walking the streets, still attending public functions, still revered, walking on palm leaves as saviours. The likes of Bush , Cheney and Rumsfeld, all of whom should be languishing in cell as criminals in some maximum security prison, at least 350,000 dead, to their everlasting shame.

    But they aren’t either shamed or in prison. They’re free, no criminal charges, not even an investigation. Such is America today. Do they feel shame for any minute in any day? Sanctions on Iraq alone……..600,000 children died from the inability to provide medications. Do they care?
    Think on the USS Liberty, JFK’s assassination and 9/11. By now, any ten year old knows of the cover ups involved in these three perfidious acts and can make a safe guess as to why they happened.

    So here is my request to all those writers who are credible, who are honest and who have the ability to influence the apathetic people with their writings.

    A NEOCON is either Jewish, an Israeli, a Zionist, a Christian Zionist, an Israeli fellow-traveller, a fifth columnist for Israel, a member of a Jewish lobby group or an Israeli sycophant. If “neocons” are the problem……and they undoubtedly are, then when you see one or read about their self-serving, foreign-controlled activities in the media, then remember, they fit into one of the categories. above.

    93% of all people identified in print as “neocons” are as listed above. 93%. Think on that for a minute. Then think on Clinton. The #1 Israeli sycophant, née “neocon”…..and all that means for America.

    What aren’t they? They are not American patriots, regardless of convenient passport status. They care little for Americans or America. They are controlled and subservient to Israel, a foreign state.

    They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a “benevolent global hegemon,” the world’s #1 dictator, ………..just so long as Israel is pulling the strings.

    So please. We all know what a neocon is. From here on, tell it as it is, everyone.

    • Brad Benson
      April 11, 2016 at 06:53

      Excellent post. If this were one of the larger sites, you would be slammed with charges of anti-Semitism by the AIPAC Trolls. At “Salon” or “The Guardian”, you might very likely be banned from their threads.

      A while back, a group of self-proclaimed “foreign policy experts” issued an “open letter” about Trump’s alleged lack of foreign policy acumen. The letter was trumpeted in the press for a few days before they moved on to the next new attack on Trump. In any case, I looked into that letter and some of the signatories. My article on the subject can be read here.

      Election Analysis—11 Why the Washington Power Elite fears Trump

    • Truth
      April 11, 2016 at 20:34

      Bravo. Even if you mention the name of a prominent Zionist Jew on MSM message boards, your post is censored by the “moderators.” Regarding the Iraq War, 10 of 13 Liberal commentators that were mentioned pimping the war in a book I read turned out to be Jewish when I looked them up.

      Over the course of the 20th Century, Jewish Zionists have done their own ethnic cleansing campaigns of Jews who opposed them, under the guise of “Gentile Anti-Semitism”, pursuing a “You’re either with us or against us policy.” Let’s visit some unsavory quotes about Jewish Zionist using “Anti-Semitism” as a tool and warnings issued by them against their opposition within Jewry circa 1900.

      “It would be an excellent idea to call in respected, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. To the people, they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first, they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as “stooges of the Jews.” Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as a respected people.”
      – The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Page 83, Late 1890s

      “Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word – which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly – it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today l would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”
      – Theodor Herzl, 1898, Complete Diaries

      “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl; the Zionist Congress; the English Uganda proposition; the future world war; the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”
      – Max Nordau, Co-Founder of Modern Zionism, 1903, 6th World Zionist Congress, Excerpt from “When Prophets Speak”, by Litman Rosenthal, American Jewish News, New York, Vol. 4, No. 2, September 19, 1919. p. 464

      “A day will come on which Zionism will be needed by you, you proud Germans, as by those wretched Ostjuden (Eastern European Jews), who you fear and hate! A day will come on which you too will beg our help and be suppliants for asylum in that land (Palestine) which you now scorn!…I warn you of the future!”
      – Max Nordau, early 1900s, attacking German Jews against Zionism

      “How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress. … Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war. … But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war …”
      – Max Nordau, 1911 World Zionist Congress, Biography of Max Nordau but his wife and daughter

      “Organize, organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted—counted with us or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people”
      – US Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis

      Quotes on a Pure Race far before the Nazis:
      “…it is enough for us to know that the Jews have always felt themselves as a separate race, sharply marked off from the rest of mankind. Anyone who denies the racial conception of Judaism on the part of the Jews in the past is either ignorant of the facts of Jewish history, or intentionally misrepresents them.”
      – Israel Friedlander

      “It is no answer to this evidence of nationality to declare that the Jews are not an absolutely pure race. There has, of course, been some intermixture of foreign blood in the three thousand years which constitute out historic period. But, owing to persecution and prejudice, the intermarriages with non-Jews which have occurred have resulted merely in taking away many from the Jewish community. Intermarriage has brought few additions. Therefore the percentage of foreign blood in the Jews of today is very low. Probably no important European race is as pure. But common race is only one of the elements that determine our nationality.”
      – Louis Dembitz Brandeis

      • Helmut e
        April 12, 2016 at 12:20

        Excellent quotes… Logic and detail. … Time for solutions…

      • rhys
        April 12, 2016 at 20:28

        Well said, Truth and very relevant quotes.

        It does appear that the future of the world does rely on the ability of the average American to eventually insist on a form of Anti-American analysis, perhaps even a properly constituted legal Committee, as in the Joseph McCarthy days in the 1950’s.

        McCarthy wasn’t so wrong you know. One should be able to live in a country and be expected to have a level of loyalty to that same country and I don’t mean just flag-waving. He just did it wrongly, the guidelines were of his making.
        Communists? My God, how harmless were they compared to our collection of Jewish owned lobbies, the foreign-controlled AIPAC, probably funded indirectly by the same monies dished out annually in the billions gifted to the Jewish state, voted on by corrupted politicians
        Vote billions to Israel…money comes back to the USA…goes to AIPAC…to be used against the USA. How’s that for a scenario?

        Don’t dismiss it.

        It is something of a sad joke that the average American is not able to see what is happening to their country. While they work to stay alive, raise a family, educate their children for jobs that are disappearing by the thousands, their elected political parasites pass on their taxpayer’s money to the most disliked foreign state, REPRESENTED, AS LARGE AS LIFE, in a big office in their own country, subverting as many people as they can to act against America, because that is what is happening every day of every year. YOU KNOW IT. Add to that the Israeli foreign owned media, a biased film industry, newspapers that stopped telling it as it really is decades ago and financial institutions designed to control key positions in your country to manipulate the financial system against the interests of the people.

        70% of these of these politicians are literally owned by Israel, they do their bidding, attend all the AIPAC Command Performances, vote on the billions sent to Israel year after year, tolerate the 300+ nuclear weapons held by that pariah state and don’t give a damn that Israel gives the NonProliferation Treaty the big finger. All with US approval in the toothless United Nations with over 60 UN resolutions over time vetoed that has allowed Israel to become what it has now become….the ‘mad dog’ of the world, their words, not mine.

        So until the US wakes to the realisation of having a parasitic cancer in their guts, continues to allow subversive actions to occur against the public interest, votes in politicians that are US first and last (with Israel just another middle east country, no better- no worse than any other country), insists on the control of all Israel’s nuclear ambitions and starts to show some impartial leadership to other countries and in the process perhaps, just perhaps, recover some respect, then this current situation will continue, to the detriment of your country until WWIII comes to pass. Very close now.

        While you are at it, remove all the warlike NATO missile bases from the encirclement of Russia. Get rid of “doughnut dolly” Nuland and her Israeli-owned diplomats (with apologies to decent diplomats everywhere)

        PROOF for the above. Just look at Clinton, who owns her, who she works for. Need one say more?

  18. April 10, 2016 at 22:06

    It seems to me that everyone (except the Republican leadership) is focussed on the presidential race. But thinking upon different scenarios for the Democrats, there is no way Bernie Sanders, even if he wins the nomination, can be an effective president, because he will be thwarted [as has Obama] at almost every turn by the likely continued control by Republicans in the Senate and House. The Republican leadership has much fear, however, that a Trump presidency will cause their loss of control at least in the Senate – so they probably would support having Hillary in the White House since, as Robert Perry shows in this and other articles, she is more of a neocon than many Republicans and also more of a neoliberal than the handful of remaining real Democrats. She’ll ditch the “progressive” facade when she walks to the White House after being sworn in on the Capitol steps. My personal view on Trump is that his good friends, the Clintons, encouraged him to enter the Republican race but once he found that the strategy of pushing every reprehensible issue “button” assured him of a significant following, his narcissism and megalomania really kicked in, and the original plan solely to disrupt the GOP stalwarts fell to the wayside, and he underwent an “epiphany” of really being able to put TRUMP across the frieze on the front and back of the Executive Mansion. What his following doesn’t yet realize is that he and other real estate wheeler-dealers prevailed on politicians to change the IRS tax code whereby their ilk essentially pay little or no Federal tax – that’s essentially how he keeps his large wealth (but it’s not so large as he says), and the followers’ belief that he doesn’t accept money and is just a new type of politician misses the point that it is their tax obligations that indirectly provide him the wherewithal to run without raising enormous funds from corporate or other affluent sources. That’s why he has yet to release his full tax returns. The other factor, of course, is his not having to pay enormous funds for the publicity he gets from the “scandal and bemusement” non-journalism of the corporate media. Even a high executive in CBS said Trump was the best source lately of their profits.

    • Bill Bodden
      April 10, 2016 at 22:55

      … because he (Sanders) will be thwarted [as has Obama] at almost every turn by the likely continued control by Republicans in the Senate and House.

      Not only will the Republicans gang up Sanders, so too will the oligarchs in the un-Democratic Party just as they did against Jimmy Carter. However, Sanders will be in a position to veto any insanity or disaster that might come out of Congress.

      • Drew Hunkins
        April 10, 2016 at 23:17

        If (IF) Sanders becomes Prez he’ll also very effectively and shrewdly seize the bully pulpit every chance he gets to directly call out the Senators, Reps, bureaucrats, media moguls, etc. who thwart and distort every progressive-populist proposal.

        Obviously the position of President of the United States gets more media attention than any single politician can dream of. Sanders at the bully pulpit, having the media at his beck and call is the reason I’m heartily voting for him. For example, Bernie will take the fight directly to a particular Rep’s constituency (and their local media outlets) and calmly and rationally explain to them how they’d benefit (Medicare for All, family supporting minimum wage, etc.) and how it’s their Rep who’s directly standing in the way. Sanders having this perch will more easily subvert the distortion and confusion the Rush Limbaughs and others peddle.

        • Bill Bodden
          April 13, 2016 at 22:14

          It would be a good bet that Sanders will use (or try to use) the bully pulpit more than Jimmy Carter did, but there is also the possibility, if not the probability, that the media will also gang up on Sanders. Plutocrats, oligarchs, lobbyists, mainstream media – they are the cabal forming the current gang of elites opposed to genuine democracy. Nothing new there. John Adams and his co-founders looked forward to the day when they wouldn’t need Thomas Paine and his compatriots so they could be gotten rid of.

    • Zachary Smith
      April 10, 2016 at 23:12

      We share the same suspicions about Trump possibly being in cahoots with the Clintons, but letting his ego and ambition take over.

      But thinking upon different scenarios for the Democrats, there is no way Bernie Sanders, even if he wins the nomination, can be an effective president, because he will be thwarted [as has Obama] at almost every turn by the likely continued control by Republicans in the Senate and House.

      This assumes that Sanders wouldn’t be able to carry along any Democrats with his coattails. But even if that’s the case, the man would have the Veto. And the Oval Office Bullhorn. Assuming again that he wasn’t a voter backstabber like Obama who ditched every campaign promise he had made, the 2018 election would be a dilly. At that time I’d expect he’d get both houses of Congress, assuming he wasn’t like Obama and didn’t win either or both houses in 2016.

      People around here are getting desperate, and I sense they’re nursing a growing sense of rage. My part of Indiana is simply collapsing, yet I doubt if we’re as bad off as many other places.

      If Trump gets the nomination jerked away from him, watch out! And if Hillary limps across the finish line with the SuperDelegates, watch out. If the 2016 election is settled by the Congress this year instead of by the Supreme Court as in 2000, watch out!

      • April 11, 2016 at 00:08

        Zachary Smith, I would like to think you are right – but at this point, there really is no great movement afoot to change the overall direction and tenor of politics in the USA. It will take years – from the bottom up, not from the top down – to educate and organize enough citizens to really transform American politics, especially in view of the massive propaganda machine of the Deep State, the corporate media, the military and its contractors, the public education system and universities, and the shared mind-set of those who are now in control of the levers of power at all levels of government (Federal, state and local). As far as the veto goes, of course it is a tool but it is only effective if there is no two-thirds majority to override it. As far as the Bully Pulpit is concerned, you forget there is no legal obligation on the corporate media’s part to cover the President and you can be sure they will find some clever way not to cover a President Sanders, or to undermine anything he may say – as we know from their coverage of war, they are not above lying, concealing the truth, or distorting facts. I hate to sound so negative but I’ve been a voter since 1965, a war veteran, and have been sadly disappointed too many times to believe in “great man” savior-ism; you have to have the numbers in educated, committed, actively participating men and women – not just at election times but on an almost constant basis because to topple the present system that favors the rich, it will literally be a 24/7/365 effort to counteract and subvert the seemingly endless chicanery of those at the top of the heap, their minions and their hangers-on. Rage, yes but Americans don’t have – yet – the patience, courage AND perseverance needed, unlike some other peoples, such as the Vietnamese, the Cubans, and even the Chinese who struggled for generations before finally overturning the external forces that oppressed them.

  19. Truth
    April 10, 2016 at 22:00

    It doesn’t matter who wins, under any Democratic candidate, wars will be waged under the guise of “Humanitarian Intervention” as Obama and Clinton showed. Under any Republican candidate, wars will be waged to “Combat Terror”. The reality is the US has been and is currently a puppet state of the Rothschilds to wage wars against free people and nations all over the world who resist their banking dictatorship. Let’s go back to some history:

    Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws * * * (Mayer Anselm Rothschild, 1790).

    “A great industrial nation Is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of
    credit Is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities
    are In the hands of a few men * * *. We have come to he one of the worst
    ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the
    civilized world-no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government
    by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and
    duress of small groups of dominant men.”
    – Woodrow Wilson, 1916, recognizing he had been duped into passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

    Under the Federal Reserve Act panics are scientifically created; the present
    panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical
    – Charles A Lindbergh Sr

  20. reason1984
    April 10, 2016 at 20:41

    Short answer


  21. Bill Bodden
    April 10, 2016 at 20:28

    There is also talk in Washington that Kagan’s neocon wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, another Clinton favorite and the architect of the “regime change” in Ukraine, would be in line for a top foreign policy job in a Clinton-45 administration

    Apparently Nuland’s Yats is no longer the guy: Ukraine PM resigns after losing majority: Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who survived a no-confidence vote in February, bows out after coalition partners walk away. – http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/ukraine-pm-resigns-losing-majority-160410141515162.html

  22. Jill
    April 10, 2016 at 20:12

    I hope Bernie wins. If he doesn’t win, I hope he will lead the movement and the mass demonstrations to hold Hillary’s feet to the fire to act as a progressive, not a neocon. If elected, she owes it to voters to act like a Democrat– to act like a progressive, not to act Right Wing or neo-con.

    • Truth
      April 10, 2016 at 22:04

      What’s stopping the so-called progressives from holding Obama’s feet to the fire? There will be more false flags, “humanitarian interventions”, and the like and the progressives will go along with it. Sanders is a huge Trojan Horse if there ever was one. People who don’t play by the establishment’s (Rothschilds) rule don’t become lifers in Congress. See Nader, Paul, McKinney, and the like.

      • FreeSociety
        April 11, 2016 at 23:25

        I partly agree with you, but you are vastly underestimating Bernie Sanders. His voting record and policy positions have been amazingly and remarkably consistent. There is no bait and switch at all with him. He is not a faux-progressive like Obama. As soon as Obama was elected he immediately created a corrupt Cabinet composed of Wall Street hacks, Goldman Sachs/JPMorgan/Chase cronies, and Neocon War Planners. “Change you can believe in” was tossed right into the garbage can. No hope and no change.

        But Bernie Sanders won’t do this. Sanders is very explicit in publicly calling these people out, and says publicly: “I don’t want their support”. He is serious about policy reform, and using the Presidency to create a very different and honest political dialog. He is not taking ANY money from the Elite Robber Barons. He owes them nothing, and is calling them out by name. We’ve never had a clean candidate like this before. No bribery. No pay to play. No money exchanging hands.

        Sanders owes nothing to the Oligarchs. They didn’t make him.

        Vermonters did at first, and now 6 Million individual working-class small donors are currently funding this Campaign. And his track record for his whole life has been completely consistent. He really wants Medicare For All, College For All, Ending the War on Drugs, Stopping the de-Industrialization of American Industries and wage depression, and not getting involved in “regime change” quagmires and War atrocities overseas. He really wants to crack down on the Federal Reserve. He voted against The Patriot Act.

        This is the guy who can’t be bought. I say we do everything possible to vote him into office.

        • filosofoeduardo
          April 12, 2016 at 11:52

          Don’t bother taking too much time to respond. Truth is very determined to push one singular interpretation of matters which revolves around one family name, not in being involved in a discussion.

          • Truth
            April 12, 2016 at 22:16

            Yup. You can remain focused on the puppets and I’ll keep my line of sight trained on the puppeteers. That “one family name” came up in US Senate hearings before WW2 about controlling countries via control of their currency and their role in forcing England to outlaw scrip currency in the colonies causing the Revolutionary War, so yeah, they are really just irrelevant. Keep believing fairy tales about a whole country rebelling over a small tax on tea.

        • Truth
          April 12, 2016 at 22:19

          We have had MANY clean candidates before, but the media blacked them out and people forgot about them. The media has not blacked out Bernie though. For most, seeing is believing. No one believed Obama was a fraud until they saw the fraud for themselves, and then it was too late. Same will go for Bernie and the whole system that people get to vote for “power”.

  23. Erik
    April 10, 2016 at 20:11

    Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. But many very liberal women have fallen for the women-first narrative rather than wait for a woman who will represent them. Hillary says “There is a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women” and I think the idea argues well that women should vote for the man who helps other women better than she.

    • reason1984
      April 10, 2016 at 20:45

      That was a Madeline Albright’s contribution, but your point is well-taken.

  24. Fergus Hashimoto
    April 10, 2016 at 20:08

    Both parents of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted assistant, are or were high-ranking officials in the worldwide network of the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps Huma would intercede with Hillary to forestall excessive neo-connery.

    • Brad Benson
      April 11, 2016 at 05:56

      That won’t happen.

  25. Bill Bodden
    April 10, 2016 at 20:01

    Is it possible that President Obama might see the writing on the wall translated above by Robert Parry and decide it is time to clean up his act by getting rid of his neocon termites and letting the justice department do what it can to thwart Hillary’s access to the Armageddon button? Who would have thought the Second Coming to save the world might have come in the form of a Jew born in Brooklyn?

    • April 11, 2016 at 15:14

      We will never see a free and honest man in office anywhere in America until the entire election campaign funding program has been reformed to get BIG MONEY out of the arena, and limit campaign funding to money which comes exclusively from the electoral district which the campaigner represents… in other words, you do not need New York money buying elections and politicians in California, or Californian money buying elections and politicians in Iowa and Arizona.

      Nor Israeli money buying elections and politicians in Washington, DC.

      • Curious
        April 11, 2016 at 21:55

        A suggestion Debbie: why stop at Big Money? The US should rid itself of the Electoral College, the delegate fiascos (ala Cruz getting delegates without Colorado voting), and the very non-democratic Super Delegates who want to vote for Clinton despite the vote count. This list of three elements of the US political sphere negates the very ‘virtues’ the US tries to espouse, and it certainly makes the scolding of other elections in the world a ‘crows-pie’ of hypocrisy. Also, we can throw in a little gerrymandering, election fraud, and hackable voting machines for spice, which makes mockery of the entire equation. Many people in the world understand the US political system is not to be copied, despite all of the politicians who feel we are the shining example to the world. There really must be no mirrors left in Washington, or these mirrors are set to such a shallow reference that they only reflect ones clothing and glam. Yes, big money is a huge problem but there is more an attentive electorate can do if it wants, but it will take a lot of people getting informed. One can only hope.

        • April 11, 2016 at 23:55

          Exactly! Curious. What is wrong with the American people ? Isn’t it so obvious ?

          A few people at the top, backed by money, call them Neocons or better still Zioncons, control the USG and the US News media, that allows them to control the masses – who they consider to be somewhat comparable to “cattle on a ranch”.

          • Bill Bodden
            April 13, 2016 at 22:00

            What is wrong with the American people ?

            In one of Michael Moore’s movies someone made a comment. In France the government fears the people. In the United States the people fear the government. Related to that was a comment I read yesterday putting the Democracy Spring protest at the US capitol in context. The blogger contrasted the few hundred people involved in the protest in Washington with a hundred thousand in Paris.

            ‘Up All Night’ Protests Sweep France as 100,000 Join Pro-Democracy Movement: ‘This movement was not born and will not die in Paris…It has no limit, no border and it belongs to all of those who wish to be part of it.’ By Lauren McCauley, staff writer – http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/11/all-night-protests-sweep-france-100000-join-pro-democracy-movement

      • rhys
        April 13, 2016 at 18:34

        Now there the big problem, Debbie

        As I have said before, somewhere in Consortium, ….

        -billions of taxpayers dollars voted by the elected stooges (Senators and Congress members) and given to Israel
        -change direction 180 degrees and send it back……AIPAC is there to manage it
        -pass it on to their stooges, spies and Clinton-type operatives or Adelson-type sponsors
        -use it against America for power and control as it suits.

        Result…American taxpayers are paying for their own country’s downfall

        It works. Follow the money trail.

    • April 12, 2016 at 00:35

      Bill, The President of the United states does not need permission or precedent from anyone before he does or can do anything.

      Barack Obama is one of the most intelligent and educated Presidents the United States has had in a long time and ever will have.

      If there is something which he has not done in the past year in office, it is not simply because it is something which he “cannot” do, it is something which he has not chosen to do.

      People frequently render causes and reasons for many of the things they and others do or do not do. Very seldom do those “reasons” or “causes” serve as adequate excuses.

  26. Pablo Diablo
    April 10, 2016 at 19:41

    Hump the TRUMP
    Vote for THE DONALD
    And get the USA over with now.

    • Truth
      April 10, 2016 at 22:09

      Trump is not going to win because the world would no longer fall for the illusion that the US is a free democracy (as it did under Obama), which it hasn’t been for over 100 years. Finally people are just starting to wake up to it.

      • Helmut
        April 11, 2016 at 13:10

        So, where is there true democracy? Russia? Disneyland?

      • akech
        April 11, 2016 at 15:54

        With US State Department and Foreign policy in the hands of the same group of people who are relentless and hell bent on bloody REGIME CHANGES worldwide since 2003 (13years), voters, majority of whom are brainwashed by mainstream media and selected/elected president who is eager to pull the trigger, this is a unique DEMOCRACY money can buy!

  27. Joe Tedesky
    April 10, 2016 at 19:33

    There is no doubt in my mine, that a President Hillary will drive America into more wars. Hillary will delve further into destroying the world, because war will derail any investigation (e-mail server) that may come her way, and war will get her reelected for another four more years. Americans who support her better wake up, because Hillary is not only an opportunist of the worst kind, she is also evil. She is the kind of evil who will do anything to stay on top. Her kind of evil doesn’t consider the innocents, because her kind of evil never answers to any serious consequences for her actions. She will serve her Israeli Neocon Wall Street masters well, and giggle herself all the way into the history books she sees herself being remembered in. Trust me, she will give us all something too never forget.

  28. Vollin
    April 10, 2016 at 19:27

    Neo cons are bullies who only attack weak opponents. After the recent demonstration of Russian military might in Syia, the neo cons will have to think long and hard before risking a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine even if their darling Hillary is elected.

    • reason1984
      April 10, 2016 at 20:48


      “Smart Power!”

    • Helmut
      April 11, 2016 at 13:05

      So, Syrian villages and hospitals are strong opponents? … ISIL did the same thing… What proof do you have that Hillary would bomb villages, hospitals and babies with superior military might? Do you honestly believe the western alliance would allow that? All the suggestions in this article are well written , probably fictional possibilities that defy normal logic, unless you all feel that any president of a civilized country has a death wish. I agree , American diplomacy is not worthy of a Nobel prize, but Putin being a bully on a air-defenseless country proves nothing. What did he do when the Turks shoot his plane down? Stop importing tomatoes and olives. Sanders “talks the talk” of a anti government socialist, but what are his solutions when he deals with Wall Street , neo cons, etc. the planet is a paradise for a child until it hits the first wall… Trump and Sanders should run for president of Disneyland

      • April 11, 2016 at 14:42

        Any fool can become President of America, one did :

        “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

        ? George W. Bush?
        Former President of United States

        The whole world knows George Bush was a fool, Iraq War was based on appalling lies.

        Read : http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-lies-about-the-iraq-war/5327386

        Has America actually achieved anything positive for its 7 trillion dollars of expenditure and decades of war ???

        The BRIC (Russia/ India/ China) countries are waking up to US and Nato bullshit and are not going to take it anymore. There’s going to be no “regime change” in the future.

        Bring ’em on!

        • Zahid Kramet
          April 16, 2016 at 10:04

          For me, I am happy to see the US and Russia battle it out. Who will win is of no consequence. The world will lose in either case. The US dollar has the edge for the moment, but if BRICS manages to bring in an alternative international currency, World War III will be America’a only option.That’s for sure.

  29. Shirley Smith
    April 10, 2016 at 19:04

    What is wrong with people to put Clintons up again. I have said before, all they care about is power and the money that comes with it. Power, politics, and profits.

    • Regina Schulte
      April 10, 2016 at 21:06

      It is long past time for us to vote the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton duo off the U.S. stage. They have sorely worn out their welcome in our government and should now ride their weary horses “out of Dodge.”

      That alone–despite the fact that she has all the characteristics of a very dangerous president–is reason enough to spare us any more of their shenanigans. Counting her 4 years as Secretary, they’ve now had 12 years in the presidency. Granting them 4 or 8 more is akin to masochism.

      • Helmut e
        April 12, 2016 at 11:53

        Perhaps we should elect you?

    • April 11, 2016 at 23:51

      Exactly! Shirley. What is wrong with the American people ? Isn’t it so obvious ?

      A few people at the top, backed by money, call them Neocons or Ziocons control the USG and the US News media, that allows
      them to control the masses – who they consider to be somewhat comparable to “cattle on a ranch”.

  30. Raymond G Wilson
    April 10, 2016 at 17:57

    After 53 years teaching about nuclear war and peace, in 2014 I put the important things together in this book, Nuclear War: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and A Workable Moral Strategy for Achieving and Preserving World Peace.
    Amazon dot com carries it (price a bit high, but worth it) and I like a book in my hands, BUT the book as PDF is downloadable AT NO COST from the link below.
    Chapter 5 contains a workable moral strategy for achieving and preserving world peace.
    There is a “Caution” on the cover. Here is the link to the PDF book, http://sun.iwu.edu/~rwilson/PNDclass.html

    Mister Parry, I believe Chapter 5 contains a significant “New Way of Thinking” about securing a peaceful world. James C. Warf, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, USC, thought so also, and included an early version in his excellent book, ALL THINGS NUCLEAR. Warf was a section leader in the Manhattan Project and a plutonium specialist.

    Raymond G. Wilson, Emeritus Associate Professor of Physics, Illinois Wesleyan University

    • Zachary Smith
      April 10, 2016 at 22:10

      Thank you for the download offer, one which I promptly took. My first impression is that you understood that things were darned complicated in Japan during the war, and especially towards the end.

      On a more negative note, I went to Chapter 5 as requested, and found it to be painful reading. IMO you made the error of assuming most US Leaders are intelligent and decent people. Ditto for the assumption that Israel – which holds the whip hand in the lands it stole – is willing to even recognize the Palestinians as being human. Sweet reason isn’t going to work with murderous fanatics who have the entire US Congress backing their every move.

      Some random skipping around found this on page 34:

      “Many cases have been found that diseases developed on account of residual radiation even though they had not been exposed to initial radiation, some even dying because of this.”

      Since the Hiroshima explosion was a rather small air-burst, the chances of fallout being responsible are remote. Nobody seems to know how much neutron activation played a part. Still, comparing the Japanese bombs with the later ground bursts in the Marshals seems unreasonable to me. Those were much, much larger weapons, and as I said, exploded at ground level.

      In any event, people get cancer from other things besides nuclear weapons. If x-ray usage was as irresponsible in Japan as it was in the US, that alone could be a huge factor.

    • Gerome Torribio
      April 11, 2016 at 05:05

      Dr. Wilson, I have downloaded your book and look forward to reading it. As a child born in the late 1940s, I was immersed in the U.S. postwar culture celebrating our victory in the “good” war against fascism, and accepting the new Cold War stoically as a task forced on our peace-loving nation by the evils of Communism. The first cracks in my perfect worldview were caused by reading John Hersey’s “Hiroshima” in high school. That was undoubtedly behind my urge to visit Nagasaki when I visited Japan in 1973. What I saw at the museum there shattered my certainty that our first atomic war was a regrettable “lesser of two evils.” Thank you for your efforts to open our eyes.

    • Zachary Smith
      April 16, 2016 at 01:11

      A quick note to Professor Wilson – I just skimmed the book and noticed a couple of minor errors. On page 6 the text states “only 1.176 kilograms was converted to energy”. That’s likely an unnoticed typo, for actually about 1 gram of Plutonium was converted to energy.

      On page 235 you state that Bismuth 209 is stable. By a very odd chance, a few weeks ago I was chasing a will-o’-wisp of a search and ran into the fact that Bismuth 209 was recently discovered to be a radioisotope. One with the unimaginably long half-life of 10^19 years. That’s more than a billion times the age of the universe! How they actually made that measurement would doubtless make some interesting reading.

  31. April 10, 2016 at 17:54

    Dear Bob,
    Excellent assessment. I just hope Bernie stays strong and fit. You may not knwo it but we have a mutual friend, Alex Sabbeth. We met Alex and Carol here in Asheville when were we making and selling a chocolate treat that contained spent craft brewer’s yeast. And I know I need to send you a check.
    Best regards,

    Robert W. “Rusty” Bryant, Ph. D.
    103 Timber Dr.,
    Asheville, NC 28804

  32. Drew Hunkins
    April 10, 2016 at 17:42

    Hillary ensconced in the White House is more of a threat to global tranquility than if Trump were to win the presidency, and it’s not even close. Hillary is totally in bed with the Zionist power configuration in America. Haim Saban says jump and Hillary barks out a ‘how high’ faster than the Israeli Defense [sic] Forces can blitzkrieg Gaza. She’s much more likely to genuflect to the dictates of Netanyahu and other Likudnik reactionaries, the Conference of Presidents of Major America Jewish Organizations (a rabidly pro-Israel hawkish group), and creepy Dr. Strangeloves who dominate the opinion page of the Washington Post.

Comments are closed.