Exclusive: The argument over whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon may have been settled by her hawkish debate performance on Thursday, which followed her Israel-pandering speech before AIPAC, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursday’s debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and – if she becomes President – Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons’ signature goal of “regime change” in countries that get in their way.
Beyond sharing this neocon “regime change” obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or “perception management” to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called “gluing white hats” on their side and “gluing black hats” on the other.
So, in defending her role in the Libyan “regime change,” Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “genocidal” though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafi’s efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a “Gaddafi apologist.”
Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a “Saddam apologist.”
Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.
She talks about the need for “safe zones” or “no-fly zones” for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe,” Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israel’s “mowing the grass” operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.
In Clinton’s (and the neocons’) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: “I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. …
“So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.”
Clinton ignored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the 1940s when Israeli terrorist organizations engaged in massacres to drive Palestinians from their ancestral lands and murdered British officials who were responsible for governing the territory. Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands has continued to the present day.
But Clinton framed the conflict entirely along the propaganda lines of the Israeli government: “Remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.”
So, Clinton made clear – both at the debate and in her recent AIPAC speech – that she is fully in line with the neocon reverence for Israel and eager to take out any government or group that Israel puts on its enemies list. While waxing rhapsodic about the U.S.-Israeli relationship – promising to take it “to the next level” – Clinton vows to challenge Syria, Iran, Russia and other countries that have resisted or obstructed the neocon/Israeli “wish list” for “regime change.”
In response to Clinton’s Israel-pandering, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who once worked on an Israeli kibbutz as a young man, did the unthinkable in American politics. He called out Clinton for her double standards on Israel-Palestine and suggested that Netanyahu may not be the greatest man on earth.
“You gave a major speech to AIPAC,” Sanders said, “and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. … All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue. … There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”
But in Hillary Clinton’s mind, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is essentially one-sided. During her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month, she depicted Israel as entirely an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts.
“As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever,” she declared.
“The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values. … This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. Families live in fear.”
Yet, Clinton made no reference to Palestinian parents who worry about their children walking down the street or playing on a beach and facing the possibility of sudden death from an Israeli drone or warplane. Instead, she scolded Palestinian adults. “Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families,” she said.
Then, Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the Israeli government. Clinton said, “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security.”
In selling her neocon policies to the American public, Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push “regime change,” following much the same course that she used to persuade a reluctant President Obama to invade Libya in 2011.
The Libyan operation was sold as a “humanitarian” mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi.
As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies.
In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc.
Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.
But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children.
With Americans fed a steady diet of such crude propaganda, there was little serious debate about the wisdom of Clinton’s Libyan “regime change.” Meanwhile, other emails show that Clinton’s advisers were contemplating how to exploit Gaddafi’s overthrow as the dramatic moment to declare a “Clinton Doctrine” built on using “smart power.”
On Oct. 20, 2011, when U.S.-backed rebels captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him, Secretary of State Clinton couldn’t contain her glee. Paraphrasing a famous Julius Caesar quote, she declared about Gaddafi, “we came, we saw, he died.”
But this U.S.-organized “regime change” quickly turned sour as old tribal rivalries, which Gaddafi had contained, were unleashed. Plus, it turned out that Gaddafi’s warnings that many of the rebels were Islamic militants turned out to be true. On Sept. 11, 2012, one extremist militia overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.Soon, Libya slid into anarchy and Western nations abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. President Obama now terms the Libyan fiasco the biggest mistake of his presidency. But Clinton refuses to be chastened by the debacle, much as she appeared to learn nothing from her support for the Iraq invasion in 2003.
The Libyan Mirage
During Thursday’s debate – instead of joining Obama in recognition of the Libyan failure – Clinton acted as if she had overseen some glowing success: “Well, let me say I think we did a great deal to help the Libyan people after Gaddafi’s demise. … We helped them hold two successful elections, something that is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent-up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship. I was very proud of that. …
“We also worked to help them set up their government. We sent a lot of American experts there. We offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military. They, at the end, when it came to security issues, … did not want troops from any other country, not just us, European or other countries, in Libya.
“And so we were caught in a very difficult position. They could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn’t want to have others helping to provide that security. And the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country.”
But that is exactly the point. Like the earlier neocon-driven “regime change” in Iraq, the “regime change” obsession blinds the neocons from recognizing that not only are these operations violations of basic international law regarding sovereignty of other nations but the invasions unleash powerful internal rivalries that neocons, who know little about the inner workings of these countries, soon find they can’t control.
Yet, America’s neocons are so arrogant and so influential that they simply move from one catastrophe to the next like a swarm of locust spreading chaos and death around the globe. They also adapt readily to changes in the political climate.
That’s why some savvy neocons, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, have endorsed Clinton, who The New York Times reported has become “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”
Kagan told the 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.”
Now with Clinton’s election seemingly within reach, the neocons are even more excited about how they can get back to work achieving Syrian “regime change,” overturning Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and – what is becoming their ultimate goal – destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and seeking “regime change” in Moscow.
After all, by helping Assad bring some stability to Syria and assisting Obama in securing the Iranian nuclear deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has become what the neocons view as the linchpin of resistance to their “regime change” goals. Pull Putin down, the thinking goes, and the neocons can resume checking off their to-do list of Israel’s adversaries: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.
And what could possibly go wrong by destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and forcing some disruptive “regime change”?
By making Russia’s economy scream and instigating a Maidan-style revolt in Moscow’s Red Square, the neocons see their geopolitical path being cleared, but what they don’t take into account is that the likely successor to Putin would not be some malleable drunk like the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin but, far more likely, a hardline nationalist who might be a lot more careless with the nuclear codes than Putin.
But, hey, when has a neocon “regime change” scheme veered off into a dangerous and unanticipated direction?
A Neocon True-Believer
In Thursday’s debate, Hillary Clinton showed how much she has become a neocon true-believer. Despite the catastrophic “regime changes” in Iraq and Libya, she vowed to invade Syria, although she dresses up that reality in pretty phrases like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” She also revived the idea of increasing the flow of weapons to “moderate” rebels although they, in reality, mostly fight under the command umbrella of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.
Clinton also suggested that the Syria mess can be blamed on President Obama’s rejection of her recommendations in 2011 to authorize a more direct U.S. military intervention. “Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him,” Clinton said, “and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya.”
In other words, Clinton still harbors the “regime change” goal in Syria. But the problem always was that the anti-Assad forces were penetrated by Al Qaeda and what is now called the Islamic State. The more likely result from Clinton’s goal of removing Assad would be the collapse of the Syrian security forces and a victory for Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and/or the Islamic State.
If that were to happen, the horrific situation in Syria would become cataclysmic. Millions of Syrians – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, secularists and other “infidels” – would have to flee the beheading swords of these terror groups. That might well force a full-scale U.S. and European invasion of Syria with the bloody outcome probably similar to the disastrous Iraq War.
The only reasonable hope for Syria is for the Assad regime and the less radical Sunni oppositionists to work out some power-sharing agreement, stabilize most of the country, neutralize to some degree the jihadists, and then hold elections, letting the Syrian people decide whether “Assad must go!” – not the U.S. government. But that’s not what Clinton wants.
Perhaps even more dangerous, Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric suggests that she would eagerly move into a dangerous Cold War confrontation with Russia under the upside-down propaganda theme blaming tensions in Eastern Europe on “Russian aggression,” not NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 which ousted an elected president and touched off a civil war.
That coup, which followed neocon fury at Putin for his helping Obama avert U.S. bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran, was largely orchestrated by neocons associated with the U.S. government, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife), Sen. John McCain and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman.
After the violent coup, when the people of Crimea voted by 96 percent to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the U.S. government and Western media deemed that a “Russian invasion” and when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine rose up in resistance to the new authorities in Kiev that became “Russian aggression.”
NATO on the Move
Though President Obama should know better – and I’m told that he does know better – he has succumbed this time to pressure to go along with what he calls the Washington “playbook” of saber-rattling and militarism. NATO is moving more and more combat troops up to the Russian border while Washington has organized punishing economic sanctions aimed at disrupting the Russian economy.
Hillary Clinton appears fully onboard with the neocon goal of grabbing the Big Enchilada, “regime change” in Moscow. Rather than seeing the world as it is, she continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope in line with all the anti-Russian propaganda and the demonization of Putin, whom Clinton has compared to Hitler.
Supporting NATO’s military buildup on Russia’s border, Clinton said, “With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests [to reduce U.S. support for NATO]. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”
Though Clinton’s anti-Russian delusions are shared by many powerful people in Official Washington, they are no more accurate than the other claims about Iraq’s WMD, Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops, the humanitarian need to invade Syria, the craziness about Iran being the principal source of terrorism (when it is the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks and other Sunni powers that have bred Al Qaeda and the Islamic State), and the notion that the Palestinians are the ones picking on the Israelis, not the other way around.
However, Clinton’s buying into the neocon propaganda about Russia may be the most dangerous – arguably existential – threat that a Clinton presidency would present to the world. Yes, she may launch U.S. military strikes against the Syrian government (which could open the gates of Damascus to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State); yes, she might push Iran into renouncing the nuclear agreement (and putting the Israeli/neocon goal to bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran back on the table); yes, she might make Obama’s progressive critics long for his more temperate presidency.
But Clinton’s potential escalation of the new Cold War with Russia could be both the most costly and conceivably the most suicidal feature of a Clinton-45 presidency. Unlike her times as Secretary of State, when Obama could block her militaristic schemes, there will be no one to stop her if she is elected President, surrounded by likeminded neocon advisers.
[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?’]
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).
Here are 2 key points that affect all of the prior comments;
1, The creation of Israel was an illegal act, so Israelis have no ‘right to defend’. They shouldn’t be there at all as a govt.. The UN, with support from France and Truman/USA, had no authority to create a new nation. Sure the Jews once lived there, but that applies to nearly every part of the world that has been invaded and taken over , including the USA . How about deeding a few states back to the ‘Indians/native americans’ who lived there before the Europeans invaded?? The Palestinians have the law and morality on their side. They are defending their homeland from invaders. Truman (on his own, no Congress); 1, wanted Jewish support for his 1948 election and 2, did NOT want any of the some 400, 000 displaced Jews wandering in Europe to come as refugees to the USA
2, Gaddafi did 2 things that are a USA death sentence; 1, he had 20, 000 Chinese in Libya helping develop their oil resources (USA wants to starve China of oil, same for our hassle with IRAN which supplies 20% of China’s oil), and 2, He was promoting that African nations only sell oil for gold (not USD). Iran has its own multi-currency bourse and Saddam H. sold in other than. USD)!
These are among the REAL reasons we invaded and killed in the mid east, and continue with Syria (who is helping Russia block an oil pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, then Europe so they are less dependent on Russian oil)
Any analysis of the mid east and the USA invasions should include these issues. There are others also (Like building Empire-USA).
Regards, Dave Redick,
WI USA, blog http://www.Forward-USA.org (click all 8 parts in left margin of Home page)
In 2011, Hillary Clinton has taken full credit for creating the mess in Libya, when she appeared on a CBS TV show and bragged: “we came; we saw; he died!”
In the past, she once declared, that to defend Israel, “If I’m President, we will attack Iran… We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
She talks like a psychopath.
Sad American record of manipulating terrorist tragedy brought upon civilians, like terrorist acts in 1992 and 1994 in Argentina with more than one hundred dead. There were public threats by Saddam Hussein on this course of action on any country supporting Desert Storm. The official story of Israel, America, and Argentina’s government and judicial system laid blame from day one on the best friend of Saddam… Iran
You, I, and a small percentage of the U.S. population know she is a neocon, but it all seems hopeless, because this knowledge doesn’t seem to matter, given the results of the Democratic primary. The majority of the electorate either doesn’t know or care about Clinton’s, neo con foreign policy. It is not just Clinton the entire foreign policy establishment has been hijacked by the neocons. It is hopeless.
Why should we not insist that every military intervention that is planned by the neocons and the US military be honestly funded by defined budgets, the money of which is raised by taxation. At the moment all our wars are being funded with borrowed money from China, the Oil barons of the Middle East and American pension plans. Let the people vote on providing the funds to accomplish the neocon aims.
More proof Hillary is a neoCON … they LOVE MURDERING people … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U
I have a question. Given our political system where no one ever gets elected without bowing to AIPAC, and where we have many neocon political campaign donors and a Deep State full of neocons, how can we get non-neocon officials elected?
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government Hardcover – January 5, 2016
by Mike Lofgren
Don’t know, but I hope it doesn’t take Civil War II to accomplish the Mission. That’s not off the table though. America has had to make the hard choices in its’ history. The Puritans (my ancestors) know this Mission, and they don’t flinch. Crowns will be struck down, and Empires abolished, man will have humble governments of republican form and the “Natural Government” of the Creator will prevail.
Everyone in the presidential race is probably a neocon except Bernie.
Feel the Bern.
Hey great link about warrior queen hillary! That’s why the feminism of privilege stuff freaks them out, it shows their true side in a way that resonates.
For the never heard Palestinian perspective: https://electronicintifada.net
Ms. Clinton the “Warrior Queen”
Ms Clinton the “Warrior Queen”
Another funny side to the Clinton camp and her time at State with Anne-Marie Slaughter is the almost perfect match between the diplomatic and military underpinnings of the AfPak surge and an article by Prince Turki in the Washington Post from 2008:
That “To Do List for Afghanistan” perfectly ticks all the boxes for American conservatives and progressives in that it cleverly co-opts some of their pet issues in a way that also protects the Taliban as a proxy force for the Saudis within Afghanistan, just as the Saudis insist their proxies should sit at the table in Syria.
Yet progressives missed it because the didn’t understand how their narratives on South Asia had been coopted during the Cold War. I missed it for a long time too which is inexcusable given my own diaspora narratives/history.
It’s as if official Washington just followed that list line by line, and progressives and conservatives bought select parts of it too.
Another in the circle of those who seem to support Michele Fluornoy is Rosa Brooks, the daughter of Barbara Ehrenreich and married to a retired SOF officer:
I don’t know if she still supports Fluornoy but Brooks’ husband seems to be of that type of SOF officer that views NATO as a kind of peace keeping force out of area, or has written articles that seem to suggest that:
“There is robust internal capacity at the tactical level within NATO; missing are the operational and strategic headquarters necessary to leverage that Special Operations capability to conduct unilateral or combined operations across all levels of war. Without the effort to create such an organization within NATO, the alliance will be unable to respond effectively to asymmetric threats originating from outside North America”
I hope I’ve got those connections right, sometimes it feels weird to think about things in this way because I know there are good people in the system, it’s just that they become involved in a kind of group think because they only interact with a limited group of people and don’t really see that their group think is a kind of intellectual bubble (I think I stole that idea from some of your books and Mike Lofgren’s book).
I also get bad flashbacks to the time when I’d try and convince progressive friends that the situation in South Asia was more complicated than American progressive or conservative narratives, or activisms. I wasn’t the right kind of ethnic, not from one of the groups fashionable with activists.
This article at the military/policy themed site War on the Rocks has a link to a talk that makes many important critiques, especially the way in which women’s issues are being used as cover for other agendas. The site is edited by a former Human Terrain Team member with ties to CNAS:
“There are many that remain unconvinced. Two weeks ago, for example, at the London School of Economics launch of the program on Women, Peace, and Security these critiques took center stage. A keynote speech by Dr. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin cited the “real risks” and “dangers“ of addressing gender within the P/CVE space and called on policymakers to “be wary” of any engagement.”
WOMEN AND PREVENTING VIOLENT EXTREMISM AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL
I think the critics are correct. Links don’t quite work.
This article at War on the Rocks has a link to a talk that makes the perfect criticism on how women’s issues are being used by others with agendas. The site is edited by a former Human Terrain Team member with ties to CNAS:
“There are many that remain unconvinced. Two weeks ago, for example, at the London School of Economics launch of the program on Women, Peace, and Security these critiques took center stage. A keynote speech by Dr. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin cited the “real risks” and “dangers“ of addressing gender within the P/CVE space and called on policymakers to “be wary” of any engagement.”
Women in International Security expands Mike Lofgren’s argument about Washington (the Deep State) into the world of international law, feminist advocacy and human rights law.
One of my comments at SWJ disappeared–perhaps in a glitch–because I wondered about the connections to European Union lobbying in the States and the desire to “educate the savages” so to speak and present the European model as a model to the world. There are many excellent things about the European Union but as the Atlantic Alliance has strange bedfellows with personal agendas, so too to international advocacy organizations organized around women’s rights carry strange bedfellows.
At War on the Rocks, a site whose editor was a part of the Human Terrain Team system working with the British in Helmand and with ties to CNAS, there is an article that links to a critic of this behavior. I think the critic is correct that women’s issues are being militarized in this way:
There are many that remain unconvinced. Two weeks ago, for example, at the London School of Economics launch of the program on Women, Peace, and Security these critiques took center stage. A keynote speech by Dr. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin cited the “real risks” and “dangers“ of addressing gender within the P/CVE space and called on policymakers to “be wary” of any engagement.”
That talk is worth listening to, it really is. Some are interested in women’s issues only as cover for other agendas. If you criticize, then like some in Clinton’s camp, they pull themselves up and say, “how dare you? Don’t you support women?”
If women are equal to men, why can’t they also be careerists, ideologues and propagandists?
The so-called “coindinistas” seem also to have found a way into the Clinton camp, if Hillary Clinton chooses Michele Fluornoy to be Secretary of Defense.
There is Fluornoy’s connection to the CNAS think tank (whose current President has ties to John McCain and McCain’s previous Presidential campaign), Women in International Security (WiiS) and the Boston Consulting Group. Andrew Exum, who helped sell the Afghan surge through his “Abu Muqawama” blog is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy (and once worked for Boston Consulting Group, I believe).
Years ago, naively and not understanding what I had wandered into, I commented on Exum’s old CNAS blog and the military site SWJ which was another “coindinista” conduit of information. I simply had no idea how Washington or the military worked and thought I was dealing with neutral academics presenting a best case. I didn’t buy it on so-called AfPak and COIN but I didn’t quite realize the whole story, either.
Strangely, I really should have known better because I am of that generation of South Asian-American that understood–as diaspora from afar– the the Saudis and other Cold War patrons of Pakistan cultivated Pakistani elites by presenting their case on Kashmir and Afghanistan to the world. (“If we solve Kashmir, Pakistan is an insecure state, Afghans must get close to Pakistan, etc.)
This ties into the previous articles here about fellow travelers with progressive movements as many in the West did not understand what was happening and inadvertently supported propaganda on Kashmir, cross-border terrorism and the rest of it. Not that their concerns weren’t correct, just that the Saudis and Cold Warriors piggy backed on the human rights organizations without many realizing what was happening and that narratives were being skewed in one way. This perception management took hold in both conservative and liberal camps in the US, to the point that if you were from an ethnic group not favored by Progressives, no one was interested in your point of view. You must be some conservative Indian-American with no legitimacy at all, because how could you know anything compared to a Progressive human rights activist or conservative Cold Warrior?
At any rate, Women in International Security has many members, the vast majority sincere obviously, but with a core near the leadership that has an expansionist militarist attitude toward US international affairs and close ties to those that pushed the Afghan surge and big expeditionary COIN. There are also contractors with an interest in Big Data, logistics contracts, and “MegaCities”, the Army’s answer to COIN (Megacities and Hybrid warfare ensure big budgets).
As a feminists of color, I don’t see why those strange connections, or the attitudes of white feminists of privilege, should be beyond study or discussion.
And Hillary Clinton, Anne Marie Slaughter, Women in International Security definitely represent feminists (overwhelmingly white) of privilege. I don’t judge people on gender and race and find their use of feminism to grab power to be anti-feminist. They are sensitive to critics who are feminists of color, I think, because it undercuts some of the sales pitch.
Some can dish it out, but can’t take it. That’s been my experience with some feminists of privilege. They don’t want to think about their relationships to power.
Of course she’s neoconservative but first she is neoliberal. I maintain neocons have now shifted their conception of The Nation. Shifted from the abstract idea of The Nation as it’s people, who need protection to The Nation of powerful corporate/banking/financial institutions which seek to range unfettered around the globe so as to bring the good graces of The Market to all.
The Market has no nation or nationality. It is just from the Neoliberal and now Neoconservative point of view that it is up to America to protect and nurture markets. Perhaps this is quibble since the great neocon project was to fight communism which one can suppose is the same thing as bringing the wonders of The Market to all. Still I think there has been a shift in that for neocons the American government, the state, was understood to be the sovereign. Now I think they have come on board with the neoliberal idea that corporations should be sovereign.
Not coincidentally, but essentially, many of the worlds great corporations are based in the US or operate here and that is especially true of the banking/financial ones. Goldman Sachs thus isn’t The Nation so much as the new sovereign that embodies America and its ideals. So why shouldn’t Hillary address them. Not to lecture them but to show deference to them.
Going back to the creation of Israel, terrorism would not be an out of place description of the zionist militias who engaged in the struggle with the British authorities in 1947/48. These irregular units, the Hagganah, the Stern Group, the Irgun Zvei Leumi were created and given the military training by the British Army and organized into the Jewish Brigade which served with the allies in Italy during 1943/45. After 1945, however they returned to Palestine, and the erstwhile leaders of these groups including Menacham Begin, Isaac Stern, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres carried out terrorist ‘operations’ against both the British including the blowing up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem killing over 90 people, as well as notorious massacres of Palestinian arabs such as occurred in the village of Deir Yassin – these were the more notorious of an ongoing offensive to ‘transfer’ arab populations in an illegal zionist land-grab. Less headline outrages were also a feature of this whole period and still continue today. In short Israel was a state founded on terrorism, and is still maintained by state terrorism of the IDF with unwavering support of the US.
You might have included in the militaristic designs of the ineffable Mrs Clinton, the continuing confrontation with China which can only get worse.
With the exception of C’s and (esp.) Fergus H’s, I appreciate all these comments. My head and heart are with jo6pac’s “Vote Green.” Dr. Jill Stein is a non-Zionist — unlike all the rest, including Sanders — and many votes for her will send a message to the people of this country; they lost their independence when the Zionists cleverly maneuvered and manipulated us into the USrael “entangling alliance.”
Viva Palestine! Palestine Is Still The Issue (thanks forever, John Pilger)! I, too, am a Palestinian!
MUD BECOMES (A KIND OF) CLARITY
“People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”, according
to an old proverb. As is clear from the above, Israeli’s have
a divine superiority and a consequent impunity in everything it
If nothing else, Bernie Sanders has challenged this view.
How this will play in the State of New York we will see on 19 March
(primary in presidential race).
True as this is, Mr. Sanders has not been a fighter of defence contractors.
Wile this writer feels this is a salient point in the slimy demise of
the United States over the long term, few leaders or pols get far
by advocating job losses for defence contractors in the hundreds
of thousands. As many sources have made clear, “American as
apple pie” (patriotic etc etc.) is to be involved in bIgger and better
killing machines. And even that is but a respite. It will not, as the saying
goes, “save jobs”. Profits and a few jobs are on life support as
as more and more agreements with foreign entities depend on
COPRODUCTION.(sharing training and job with the buyer to be
placed there —not here—and used for God knows what!
The major points in Robert Parry’s comparison of Israeli and
United States interlocking policies usually is unpersuasive in the
United States, All Jews have suffered especially the very
wealthy Jews who make up the economic backbone of AIPAC.
Many thanks for his analysis above.
—-Peter Loeb, Boston, M, USA
1936 —2016 PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER
In 1936 an African-American poet, Sterling A. Brown (1901-1989)
published a book of poetry entitled SOUTHERN ROAD. i have been
unable to locate this book in a public library. No one remembers
Sterling A Brown who taught at Howard University from 1929 to
his retirement forty years later.)
Some of his poems of that era can be found in anthologies of American
poetry. Among them:
BITTER FRUIT OF THE TREE
The said to my grandmother: “Please do not be bitter,”
When they sold her first-born son and let the second die.
When they drove her husband till he took to the swamplands,
And brought him home bloody and beaten at last.
They told her , “It is better you should not be bitter,
Some must work and suffer so that we, who must, can live,
Forgiving is noble, you must not be heathen bitter;
These are your orders: you ARE not to be bitter.”
They said to my father: “Please do not be bitter,”
when he ploughed and planted a crop not his,
When he weatherstrapped a house he would not enter,
And stored away a harvest he could not enjoy.
They answered his questions: “It does not concern you,
it is not for you to know, it is past your understanding,
All you need to know is: you must not be bitter.
Today, after 8 decades, many blacks and others are shot
on the streets of the USA. And thousands of miles away,
Palestinians are shot because they are Palestinians.
Shall we all say” You must not be bitter.”
—–Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
If neocon is a polite way of describing a dangerous psychopath then Hillary Clinton is a neocon. I have my own words to describe her.
From a response to a previous excellent article by Robert Parry on 10th April on a similar subject, “Would a Clinton win mean more wars”, such an article being topical with the impending disaster in November, (whoever wins the Presidential lottery), it does seem timely to add a paragraph or two from a comment made at that time……..
“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.” Yes even the world.
So if Mr. Parry can state is such a forthright fashion that “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon” and who can argue, it should follow if we are keenly analytical, that in the above description of the makeup of a “neocon”, 93% stated remember, then consider this. Clinton is half-Jewish on her mother’s side so she states often when it suits her; she is probably not an Israeli, although no doubt having a visa as a loyal friend for entry any time into Israel …….(or perhaps she may even be a dual citizen); who knows about her being being a Christian Zionists but certainly supports them at any opportunity; definitely is an Israeli fellow-traveller; undoubtedly a fifth columnist for Israel; and certainly, condemned by her own statements, is an Israeli sycophant, and then some.
And a person like that who we have seen identified with more connections to Israel by her deeds and statements in thiis campaign than to America, is totally submissive to the Zionist lobbies. Such a person as a President of the United States?????????
Surely, this must be a piece of Machiavellien theatre, nothing less.
I agree that Hillary Clinton is a neocon and I concur with your hostility to neocons. HOWEVER you seem to imply that only neocons could support Israel against the Palestinians.
I disagree with that implication. .
I am a liberal socialist and I harbor great misgivings about Islam because I consider it a reactionary and Fascistoid ideology. I am extremely well read on both Fascism and Islam.
Palestinians may have rightful claims.
However any political victory by Palestinians is necessarily a victory for militant Islam. Palestinians are Fascists. Look at these figures from Pew Global Research:
• 88% of Palestinians want sharia to be the law of the land. That is the highest percentage of any Muslim country polled. On this issue Palestine is tied with Afghanistan, one of the most backward countries on earth. Sharia law decrees death to atheists and polytheists.
• 62% of Palestinians support suicide bombing against civilians in defence of Islam (2013). This is by far the highest percentage of any country polled.
• In Palestine, Osama bin Laden had a popularity rate of 73% in 2002 (right after 9-11). But by 2011 he had slipped to a mere 34%.
• 42% of Palestinians support Hamas; 28% support al Qaeda (2011).
• 56% of Palestinian men think that women should have no choice on whether to wear the veil or not.
• 55% of Palestinians approve of honour killings
• 86% of Palestinians would oppose their sons marrying a Christian, and 95% would oppose their daughters marrying a Christian
• 52% of Palestinians have a favourable view of Saudi Arabia (2013)
It’s crazy to let such people acquire any power.
Israel is the only barrier keeping those lunatics at bay.
My support for Israel is inspired by my instinct for survival, not by ideology.
You sound like a belligerent neocon seeking to disguise yourself as a liberal.
For a time I gave ample space to allow your forms of “perception management” to circulate in my mind, to see if there was integrity to your arguments.
I recall reading the letters of Rachel Corrie, too.
She stated, in stark contrast to you, that most of the Palestinians she met were the kindest, warmest, and most considerate people she had ever known.
Her testimonies, as to the high moral character and decency of the Palestinians, expose your arguments for what they are….The bogus claptrap of a sinister fraud.
If anything betrays a brutal fascistic ideology hell bent on criminal extermination, it is the occupying forces that the brutalized Palestinians families have to contend with, on a daily basis.
This is the real truth your concocted ideological parlor tricks will spare no expense to obscure.
I also recall listening to interviews with her parents, who underscored the outstanding humanity of the Palestinian people and their steadfastness in seeking to endure the sadistic, barbaric, and profoundly fascistic behavior of the occupying forces.
If there should be resistance to a brutal fascism, it should come, first and foremost, in pulling back the wool from our eyes, and recognizing the Nazi like behavior of the occupiers, and hold them to account for their venal crimes against humanity.
The Palestinians are struggling for their right to live,and be free, as every single American would do, given the exact same circumstances.
How shameful of you, to allow your rhetorical devices, to mask the ongoing extermination of Palestine, and the unconscionable behavior of their exterminators.
Alexander, thank you from the bottom of my “I, too, am a Palestinian” heart.
Alexander, the Hasbara propagandists have a knack for picking up all kinds of nicks and handles. For example, those attacking their critic Philip Giraldi like Italian names, when attacking critics of Irish background they take Irish names and so on. Although Hisminoto is a common surname in Japan and there is a number of Hashimotos in the US, I am not sure that the Japanese WW2 Admiral Shintar Hashimoto would be terribly pleased that some Hasbara Internet troll is abusing his surname.
I believe that handle cloaking is the Standard Operating Practice in the Hasbara manual.
Alexander, his choice of surnames is a reflection of what he was smoking.
“Israel is the only barrier keeping those lunatics at bay”
I believe, or suspect, that this is the entire point of the “Israel project”; Cecil Rhodes wanted a “barricade” across the narrow Middle East Isthmus, with a situation of permanent war, failed states, and chaos, destruction, to block any passage into Africa from Asian Nations to the East, From Iran, all the way to India, China, and so on. It’s an Imperial Project conducted over the heads of Sovereign Nations (which are mere colonies/provinces in a stealthy Empire). The Empire found willing players in the Israeli settlers. Africa is intended to be the “colonial” resource bank for a newly revived “Roman Empire”. No Muslim Empire will be allowed to revive in Northern Africa (like what happened in the past, after the Western Roman Empire collapsed). People see a World-wide Jewish Plot. I think they’ve got the colonial tail wagging the Imperial Dog. It makes for good cover to conceal the REAL perps. I think George Orwell gave a better description of what’s really going on, World-wide. I think it’s the RoundTable Group, the Synarchy Movement for Empire (PanEuropa from the Atlantic-to-the-Urals) and some Asian grouping arising from a mighty and powerful China/Japan (and a developing India too). That’s the Imperial Game George Orwell wrote about (it doesn’t have to be this way, though).
We cannot judge an oppressed people by their response to oppression, nor their effort to remove oppression. Without looking at your sources, I should note that when a group is severely oppressed, it usually falls back upon religious organization and perspectives. That does not make the group or their religion oppressive: for example, Naziism was an aberration of a generally liberal and educated Germany both before and after. Can we judge Cuba or the US by the bloodshed of their revolutions, and pretend that the other group’s history is without disturbances.
The Jews were oppressed when they flocked to Israel, and many wished to help them as an oppressed group. But as you note, oppression led to the predominance of right wing ideology, the tyrants of whom Aristotle warned, who must create a foreign enemy to demand domestic power as false protectors and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. And so the oppressed people were made into oppressors by their own right wing element, just as usual throughout history.
These situations are relieved only by removing the right wing from power and addressing the real grievances of all groups. Unfortunately that it usually impossible because the moral superiors do not sway the people as well as the bully-boy right wingers. So the right wing leads their own people from oppression to oppressor to destruction. And so the cycle continues, due to ignorance of the population.
I would suggest careful study of these phenomena, and work against the Israeli right wing, as the last hope for Israel. They are now oppressed primarily by their own right wing tyrants, who will probably be their destruction. Same old tragedy.
This stuff was obviously cut/pasted, but from where? Possibly from here.
Is the information reliable. Probably not – I checked this claim: “• 88% of Palestinians want sharia to be the law of the land. That is the highest percentage of any Muslim country polled”
Not according to this link to the Pew Forum.
ISLAMOPHILIA WATCH looks like a standard Israel astroturf operation to me. Israel is portrayed as being right about everything, opponents wrong about everything.
For a slightly different slant on the issue, google “Jewish Sharia”. Israel is very hard at work converting their stolen property into a place where only certain types of Jews will thrive. Muslims and Christians are a blight on the “holy land”.
“I am extremely well read on both Fascism and Islam.”
I know that you have only read what fits into your fascist ideology. Therefore your “knowledge” is worthless.
Fascism was always the melding of political and economic power into building weapons of war.The Arabs,and Muslims build almost none,and only their corrupt leaders buy them from US and others.
Islam fundamentalism is just the mattress of conservative reaction to Western and Israeli provocation,we cared not one iota until they started striking back at their enemy,US and our master Zion.
It seems hilary clinton is so daft! she will cause more wars and woes to mankind ,if elected as president of the united state. isn’t it?
Bob, I never understood why you insisted on calling HRC “neocon lite.” There was never anything “lite” about it, and I’ve left a few comments to that effect. I’m glad to see you drop the modifier. In any case, you are right about the debate. I doubt her performance will cost her any of her supporters, but I can only hope that those considering voting for her were as disturbed by what they heard as others commenting here. I watched the whole debate, and even though I’m very familiar with her past, I was staring wide-eyed at the TV when she went off on her militaristic and downright arrogant tirades. How could anyone possibly not see what she is? And how could any Democrat even consider voting for someone more hawkish than George Bush? Effing unbelievable.
People believe she is their friend and champion, despite what they see with their own eyes. Perhaps we all suffer from some degree of this blindness. But she was out of control at the debate – a shameless liar and frightening warmonger.
God help us all! With the US being “the leaders of the free world”; a choice that appears to be between Clinton and Trump to be its leader; the neocons calling the shots openly with a demented antagonistic and immoral foreign policy; and an inability to address its own internal divisions and weaknesses; where do they think they are leading the “free world”?
The most pressing need for regime change, is at home in the USA – followed by Israel.
Actually Trump may be a good choice. He has not sold out to the establishment and that’s why he scares the crap out of them. That’s why they have their corporate media smear him dozens of times a day. There is no precident for the assault on Turmp. If the Oligarchy hates him that’s probably because he will serve you.
From Psychology Today, some of the signs of a sociopath:
Superficial charm and good intelligence
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
An amusing definition worth some thought. Like all personality theory it is necessarily speculation, primarily used to make quasi-scientific accusations, and should not be confused with science.
This definition primarily distinguishes a common state from obviously-abnormal ones, limiting the abnormality to “untruthfulness…lack of remorse…Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior…failure to learn” which is equivalent to selfishness and dishonesty. Those traits are taught as an essential life skill in unregulated economies.
In Repub areas, recreational/social club activity is energetically suppressed by those who believe that interpersonal competition and efforts to beat other such clubs are the sole legitimate grounds for group interaction. Either you are here to beat others or you are a quitter, loser, or member of the lower class. Children are marshaled into races and competitive sports on the false rational that it develops necessary life skills. It does not do that: it develops selfishness and dishonesty, and suppresses moral and intellectual discourse, and that is the intent of the bully-boys who organize such activities, because that is their worldview and the world in which they can prevail. In vain does one explain that the most competent people in every profession are there to do the best work possible because they enjoy that, and are in fact reluctant to compare themselves or denigrate others. Such small democratic clubs are taken over by the competitive faction, who are simple bully-boys intimidating a majority to reject all but the bully’s value system, which is simply to lie, cheat, and steal to screw everyone and claim the result to be an honor.
There is a science of the anti-social or sociopathic, but it is ancient knowledge of the bully-boy. Aristotle warned of the demagogue or tyrant who controls democracies by fearmongering and usually warmongering so as to pose falsely as a protector and accuse his moral superiors of disloyalty. Works every time. Often their best representative in modern societies is a woman who fools women to vote for them. But she must give them whatever they want, like Hillary.
That’s Hillary. She is so full of shit. She will say and do anything to get power. She has no vision for America. She doesn’t care about you or your family. She will serve powerful interests in her quest for power. That’s why she was chosen by the Oligarchy. She will serve them.
Unless I’m very much mistaken there appears already to have been a significant election in Syria, just the other day.
When I first read this I thought it was some kind of propaganda, because it has received no mention that I can find in the BBC or any main stream media here in the UK.
It’s difficult to know what to believe.
Thanks Mr Parry for your website and your work.
This is great and thanks for answering the comment above but please when it becomes election time and it’s against hillabillie and a repug don’t wreak (not missed spelled) amend the less evil. Vote Green
Splendid though disturbing article.
Thanks for another fine article, Mr Parry.
( And thanks for the refreshing disclosures on the Pan Am tragedy.)
We were lied into war by the Neocons.
I don’t want “apologizes”.
I want my money back.
Nearly everyone of them should be arrested on “war fraud” charges and their assets clawed back to the taxpayer to pay down the humongous debt their fraud created.
I would think we should all feel this way, but I guess I am a majority of one.
Not many here would object to such prosecutions. Add high crimes prosecutions for warmonger politicians and secret war presidents. Add dumping treasonous SupremeCourt judges who approved Citizens United, and most federal and state judges below them. Add invalidating elections of most Congress persons for bribe-level contributions, and prosecution of corporate bribery officials for the treason of economic war against the US.
I suggest giving Bush palace properties to the likes of Snowden, Manning, and Sterling. Give property seized from other oligarchs to lesser heroes of the resistance to tyranny. Rename every place named for a neocon.
Actually many people feel like you do Alexander. And I’m speaking about having these people arrested and brought to trial. I can think of people in some 50 nations that probably feel that way. One thing is certain, they will have their day in court. The judge of the whole earth is keeping score.
Victoria – According to former prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, any attorney general of any state in the U.S. that had at least one American service member die in Iraq (or any county’s DA that had a service member from that county die in Iraq) could bring murder charges against Bush et alii, based on the illegal nature of the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The only thing missing is the political will to do so. Just like the lack of political will on Mr. Obama’s part; he was more interested in “looking forward” – I guess to his use of drones to kill people (even some U. S. citizens) in a continuation of his predecessor’s lawlessness.
Mr. Obama is the most articulate mealy-mouthed person we’ve had in the office of the President since Bill Clinton; Mrs. Clinton would surely be in that select group as well if we are unfortunate enough to have her as our next “Commander-in-Chief” — heaven forbid!. (But I don’t see any lightning bolts zinging through the ether at the murderers of hundreds of thousands, let alone millions…)
Its interesting that you suggest it was the lack of “political will” to prosecute on war fraud charges.
Rather, I think the majority of Americans, quite like myself, were a little dazed and confused about everything that happened.
Thanks to the incessant, perceptual “cloaking” of our Main Stream Media, it became very hard to get a fix , on what was done,( in our name), and what wasn’t.
There could never emerge a clear mandate to prosecute, from the people, because many of the people were still in a haze about what was what.
They probably still are.
I don’t doubt that much of the media obfuscations were specifically designed to keep us that way,…. “dazed and confused”..
Hey, we were the good guys, right ?
Looking back, perhaps the CEO of every mainstream media enterprise, should be in the docket,too, for carrying water and participating in “war fraud”.
It seemed beyond belief to me,at the time, that our media as well as our representatives ,could betray our most sacred ideals and defraud the American people into initiating the supreme international crime,”war of aggression”.
How could we, the United States of America, become guilty of the exact same crime as the Nazi’s ?
Its still a hard pill to swallow, for us all.
The U S courts are about to judge Saudi Arabia as liable for 9-11.
The world will laugh,and put America in the dock for Vietnam,Iraq,Libya,Syria,Ukraine and all points east west north and south.
Of course we(neolibcon scum:) won’t let it happen wo a fight.
Remember, “regime change” makes money for the military/industrial complex, whether they win or lose a war. Serves corporate interests.
We’ the people of America finally decided to buy our own president, we have more money in combine than they can (1%) dream of .please send Bernie Sanders few dollars, this will be the last time anyone will be able to buy a president in this country. when Bernie Sanders is a president, he will over turn the Citizens United just to begin with and will force campaign finance reform and it will pass with our backing of Bernie. please few dollars, $10-20-30 anything you can effort ,he buys adds , unfortunately it has to be this way for now, l beg all of you ,for our children( 88% voting for their Grandpa )and for their future . l , this grandpa will vote with my kids and with my grandchildren, they are wanting a political revolution . after all this is more of their future than ours, Bernie Sanders American president. who is with me give me thumbs up if you agree and lets show them he can be elected, Write a latter to CNN feedback and let them know CNN became Clinton News Network -Time Warner- owns CNN and they are the 7th biggest contributors to Hillary campaign, BOYCOTT CNN -AND TIME WARNER COMPANIES -Turn it off , stop reading their news in Internet, copy post this massage in every site let Bernie supporters get involved .lets show CNN this is going to cost them money.watch out for GANGS OF NEW YORK they will try to steal Votes from BERNIE.
I’m taking the liberty of modifying part of what Mr. Parry wrote.
Mr. Parry’s excellent essay has really rattled me, but this bit in particular makes me want to rage. I knew Hillary Clinton was an awful person, but I didn’t understand until reading this how utterly dishonest the wretched woman is. The Israelis left Gaza because it was too expensive to protect the lunatic Israelis who had moved into the place. So they left, and turned it into an open-air prison where they conduct their periodic murder sprees. But even when they’re not “mowing the grass”, their slow starvation campaign of Gaza continues. It works this way – they calculate the absolute minimum of nutrition needed for the Palestinians there to survive. That number gets published, then they make very sure all the shipments don’t arrive. Murder By Malnutrition. Exactly the way the Germans behaved in the occupied areas of the USSR during WW2 where they weren’t denying the Russians access to any food at all.
I’ve really got to rethink my resistance to voting for Trump (assuming the nomination isn’t stolen from him). The man is an arrogant and ignorant blowhard with a very long record of sleazy dealing. With his well-known fascist leanings he’d make a perfectly awful president, but so far as I know his hands aren’t covered with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
That alone is a big contrast with Hillary.
I understand your concern but I don’t think Trump will get the nomination. They are trying hard to put the fix in for Paul Ryan as he stands above the fray telling everyone he doesn’t want it. Believe me, he wants it and I’m sure he’s making all kinds of deals to get it.
I’d like to comment about another topic, gun control. Clinton has repeatedly savaged Mr Sanders, who has a D-minus NRA rating, over one vote to protect gun manufacturers and dealers who sell guns legally from liability if they are misused. She has even implied that he does not support the families of Sandy Hook victims. He should have made a couple of important points. First, Mrs Clinton sat for years on the board of WalMart, the US’s leading firearms dealer. Second, in her presidential campaign in 2008 she said, “I respect the 2nd Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people.” And third, she has raked in tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and arms manufacturers while approving weapons exports as Secretary of State.
Can someone please tell me how Bernie Sanders responded to Hillary’s hawk talk in the debates? I could not watch it and have only heard excerpts on Democracy Now!
BLITZER: Senator, let’s talk about the US relationship with Israel. Senator Sanders, you maintained that Israel’s response in Gaza in 2014 was, quote, “disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life.”
What do you say to those who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit?
SANDERS: Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack. That is not a debate.
But — but what you just read, yeah, I do believe that. Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. But we had in the Gaza area — not a very large area — some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1,500 who were killed.
Now, if you’re asking not just me, but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is that I believe it was, and let me say something else.
And, let me say something else. As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run — and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.
So what is not to say — to say that right now in Gaza, right now in Gaza unemployment is s somewhere around 40%. You got a lot of that area continues, it hasn’t been built, decimated, houses decimated health care decimated, schools decimated. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people.
That does not make me anti-Israel. That paves the way, I think…
BLITZER: … Thank you, Senator…
SANDERS: …to an approach that works in the Middle East.
BLITZER: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks, and that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must, quote, end its disproportionate responses?
CLINTON: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages.
They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn’t find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that.
So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.
That does not mean — that does not mean that you don’t take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there’s always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and…
BLITZER: … Thank you…
CLINTON: … just let me finish. The rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the Late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister Barak put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator, go ahead — go ahead, Senator.
SANDERS: I don’t think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.
And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That’s not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?
I believe that it was, you have not answered that.
CLINTON: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.
I’m not saying it’s anything other than terrible. It would be great — remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.
So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.
BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary. Senator?
SANDERS: I read Secretary Clinton’s statement speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people. Almost none in that speech.
So here is the issue: of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long term there will never be peace in that region unless the United States plays a role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.
That is what I believe the world wants to us do and that’s the kind of leadership that we have got to exercise.
CLINTON: Well, if I — I want to add, you know, again describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it. And I have been involved, both as first lady with my husband’s efforts, as a senator supporting the efforts that even the Bush administration was undertaking, and as secretary of state for President Obama, I’m the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel.
There were only four of us in the room, Netanyahu, Abbas, George Mitchell, and me. Three long meetings. And I was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians.
I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel’s security.
BLITZER: A final word, Senator, go ahead.
SANDERS: There comes a time — there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.
CLINTON: … you know, I have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations I’ve had with him and other Israeli leaders. Nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position.
If you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in Gaza that does not want to see you exist, that is a very difficult challenge.
BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.
SANDERS: You gave a major speech to AIPAC, which obviously deals with the Middle East crisis, and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. And I think, again, it is a complicated issue and God knows for decades presidents, including President Clinton and others, Jimmy Carter and others have tried to do the right thing.
All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Secretary.
David Duke vs Isreali agent Wolf Blitzer – YouTube … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zorcissSsU
You are seriously deluded. Muammar Gaddafi admitted responsibility for the downing of Pam Am flight 103, and that is no ‘gross exaggeration.’
Whoa! Don’t you remember how Gaddafi made nice with the West and gave up his nuclear weapons program? Part of that deal ended the Pan Am controversy, which is probably where the admittance of responsibility came from. Furthermore, that incident was in 1988, a long ago and things change; also, killing 270 people does not quantify as ‘genocide’. How is Pan Am 103 even relevant to a discussion how the West destroyed LIbya for selfish reasons?
You ask a very crucial question, one that strikes straight to the foundation of why Americans are predisposed to approving of illegal wars.
David Swanson dissects these reasons, The habit of thought that made the US #1 in prisons and war.
Quadiffi was punished, he was a proper villain because he had a black hat affixed to his head in American propaganda, of course it is reasonable that he be raped with a knife and murdered, his nation sent into chaos where militias and warlords control the landscape.
No Americans care if he was stockpiling tons of gold to back a proposed pan African currency thus helping poor African nations get free of French banks, that is just Russian propaganda and even mentioning this is unpatriotic!
From Robert Parry: Commenter, you are simply wrong. Gaddafi never admitted that Libya downed Pan Am 103. He took “responsibility” for it because of economic coercion from the West which would not lift harsh sanctions on the Libyan people without that agreement. But the Libyans consistently denied any role in the Pan Am 103 bombing. And the accused bomber Megrahi denied any personal role even on his death bed. You should check your facts before you make such foolish comments.
Mr. Parry, thanks for responding to the comment above, so I didn’t have to. I’d have been a lot less polite than you were. I’d have pointed out that the delusion is completely the commenter’s own placid acceptance of generations of misinformation no doubt encapsulated originally by one or two starched-and-ironed press releases from any number of the countless established Washington house organs of neo-conism. The truth never seeps through that mental quagmire, and likely won’t surface in that commenter’s mind in the future, as he/she believes everything he/she reads, except for the truth.
I appreciate this reply deeply. Truth is critical but can be hard to come by.
Sock it to him Mr. Parry. That was an excellent article. I would add that we should all stop beating around the bush on Hillary Clinton and just call it what it is: War Crimes. She has engaged in aggressive war–the most serious of all the War Crimes.
As for Colonel Wilkerson, his admission of guilt after the fact does not excuse him from his very important role in providing some of the propaganda that was used to incite an aggressive war that has killed over a million people and has spread war, murder and torture across the Mideast.
I have the same suggestion for Colonel Wilkerson as I do for Eric Fair, the former torturer, who has now written a tell-all confession book to assuage his guilt. Both of these regretful War Criminals should now show their remorse by voluntarily presenting themselves before the International Criminal Court in the Hague and petitioning the court to try them for their war crimes. This would bring world wide attention upon the real criminals and the trial would be spectacular.
They could then receive reduced sentences for turning over evidence on the real thugs. Of course, we all know that Wilkerson will never do this, out of loyalty to his boss, another slimy War Criminal, General Colin Powell. Wilkerson knew he was committing a War Crime for his boss and he also knew that the “I was only following orders” argument would be no excuse. However many crocodile tears the Colonel may cry about his participation, he is and will remain a War Criminal for the rest of his life.
Qaddafi had long since given up his WMD and had made Libya the most prosperous country in Africa, with excellent free education and healthcare for all. Whatever his flaws might have been, Libyans were far better off under him than now.
Exactly. It’s kind of like Iran making a nuclear agreement to end the US economic sanctions war against false accusations of NUKES they were not even working on. Qaddafi’s GREEN BOOK shows he was a good man who cared about the people in Libya. Sadly, he was unjustly attacked by the USA after an Israel FALSE FLAG operation planted a transmitter in Tripoli that broadcast FALSE INFORMATION that tricked the CIA and Reagan into trying to kill him. After that, years of demonizing Qaddafi caused Hillary (and Obama) to MURDER him and laugh about it … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U This is a sad testament to the power the neoCONs have in the USA.
This is off topic, but what about the Gander, Newfoundland airplane crash of many years ago. Do we know who was behind that?
I love how people come into a thoroughly researched piece (yes, you ‘C’) and start slinging the aspersions. No Mr. C., Muammar Gadaffi had nothing to do with the downing of the Pan Am commercial airplane. But since Mr. Parry already spent the time to explain, you deserve no more time from anyone else. Try doing a bit of research yourself.
Ignorance is bliss!
From what I’ve read it seems quite clear Iran was behind Pan Am flight 103 as retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655 which was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. Some say he was just a loose cannon with several aggressive episodes in the Gulf. He remained in his command and was later given the Legion of Merit by George H.W. Bush.
At the time there was nothing to gain by accusing Iran and it would only bring US own act of terrorism back into public view. Instead they used it to go after Gaddafi. Like Saddam, he had been both friend and enemy of the west several times over the years. US even blocked an indictment of Gaddafi for War Crimes at the Hauge in connection with the trial of Charles Taylor (Liberia/Sierra Leone). In this case Gaddafi was guilty as charged but again US interests at the time lay somewhere else..
“America has no permanent friends or enemies (or morals or principles), only interests.” – Kissinger
After shooting down the plane Bush Senior gave the Iranians iron will for revenge with the inhumanly arrogant phrase “America doesn’t do apologies”. And all the victims, both sides, get used as political pawns. But Libya was better for a shakedown so they got the blame. I am constantly amazed why some people wonder why others don’t like them.