The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

Exclusive: If the U.S. election comes down to Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump, the American people will have to decide between two candidates who could risk the future of the planet, albeit for very different reasons, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.

In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing's Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing’s Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”

That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.

Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat.

In response, Russia is raising its alert levels and upgrading its strategic forces. Yet, Hillary Clinton believes the Russians have no reason to fear NATO’s military encirclement and no right to resist U.S.-supported coups in countries on Russia’s periphery. It is just such a contradiction of viewpoints that can turn a spark into an uncontrollable inferno.

What might happen, for instance, if Ukraine’s nationalist — and even neo-Nazi — militias, which wield increasing power over the corrupt and indecisive regime in Kiev, received modern weaponry from a tough-talking Clinton-45 administration and launched an offensive to exterminate ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and to reclaim Crimea, where 96 percent of the voters opted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia?

A President Hillary Clinton would have talked herself into a position of supporting this “liberation” of “Russian-occupied territory” and her clever propagandists would surely present this “heroic struggle” as a war of good against evil, much as they justified bloody U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya which Clinton supported as U.S. senator and Secretary of State, respectively.

What if the Ukrainian forces then fired missiles striking Russia’s naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, killing some of the 20,000 Russian troops stationed there and inflicting damage on Russia’s Black Sea fleet? What if Kremlin hardliners finally got their way and unleashed the Russian army to launch a real invasion of Ukraine, crushing its military, rumbling through to Kiev and accomplishing their own “regime change”?

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)

How would President Hillary Clinton respond? Would she put herself in the shoes of Russia’s leaders and search for some way to de-escalate or would she get high-and-mighty and escalate the crisis by activating NATO military forces to counter this “Russian aggression”?

Given what we know about Clinton’s tough-talking persona, the odds are good that she would opt for an escalation – and that could set the stage for nuclear war, possibly starting because the Russians would fear the imminence of a NATO first strike, made more possible by those ABM bases in Romania and Poland.

Clinton’s Non-Nuclear Wars

There are other areas in the world where a President Hillary Clinton would likely go to war albeit at a sub-nuclear level. During the campaign, she has made clear that she intends to invade Syria once she takes office, although she frames her invasions as humanitarian gestures, such as creating “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.”

In other words, although she condemns Russian “aggression,” she advocates aggressive war herself, seemingly incapable of recognizing her hypocrisies and only grudgingly acknowledging her “mistakes,” such as her support for the invasion of Iraq.

So, on Thursday, even as she made strong points about Trump’s mismatched temperament for becoming Commander-in-Chief, she flashed a harsh temperament of her own that also was unsettling, although in a different way.

Trump shoots from the lip and has a thin skin, while Clinton is tightly wound and also has a thin skin. Trump lets his emotions run wild while Clinton is excessively controlled. Trump engages in raucous give-and-take with his critics; Clinton tries to hide her decision-making (and emails) from her critics.

Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

It’s hard to say which set of behaviors is more dangerous. One can imagine Trump having free-form or chaotic diplomatic encounters with allies and adversaries alike, while Clinton would plot and scheme, insisting on cooperation from allies and demanding capitulation from adversaries.

Clinton sprinkled her speech denouncing Trump with gratuitous insults aimed at Putin and undiplomatic slaps at Russia, such as, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.”

In short, there is reason to fear the election of either of these candidates, one because of his unpredictability and the other because of her rigidity. How, one might wonder, did the two major political parties reach this juncture, putting two arguably unfit personalities within reach of the nuclear codes?

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon” and “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).

image_pdfimage_print

92 comments for “The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

  1. Ace
    June 12, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    That’s all you got? Trump is “unpredictable”?

    Pathetic.

  2. Mike Gaston
    June 9, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Trump goes to war for the addictive sense of achieving a business success.
    Hillary goes to war for the addictive sense of achieving an orgasm of regime change success and watching the peoples dying. Which powerful addiction is the more powerful and addictive? Whenever I watch that infamous video clip of Hillary cackling as she boasts, “We !CAME!, We saw, He died” and play it in super slow motion, I swear I can detect the little tremor of a sadistic orgasm gleaming in her eyes…

  3. Bill Cash
    June 7, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I am truly afraid of Clinton in foreign affairs but even more afraid of Trump. Howard Fineman said he has a conqueror’s mentality. He believe everyone should do as he tells them and when they don’t he gets very distraught. He could easily take a perceived insult or slight as an excuse to go to war.

    • Ace
      June 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

      Evidence for this? Zero.

  4. Jim Mooney
    June 7, 2016 at 10:26 am

    CA over. Clinton President. Learn to duck and cover because nuclear war is coming. She’s John McCain in a pants suit and is dying for war with Russia. Her regime changes and wars amount to millions of dead and displaced and she Hasn’t learned since she wanted a no-fly zone in Syria, after that Destroyed Libya, helping ISIS. But ISIS has no planes so the no-fly zone was to get Assad and maybe shoot down Russian planes since they’re actually attacking ISIS instead of faking it as the CIA, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia support them to get that “pipeline” regime change.

  5. Claire
    June 6, 2016 at 5:25 am

    I hear that she promoted fracking in Eastern Europe… Considering Russia is the biggest tank of natural gas in the world, I think the reason of her belligerent attitude towards Russia can only be understood in that light, and I think the woman is just sociopathic and dumb enough to view Russia as another business opportunity. Right after she’s taken care of Iran. I’m pretty much convinced that we’ve got WWIII coming soon if she’s elected. What a wonderful world.

  6. Bill Rood
    June 5, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    The only criticism I have of Mr. Parry’s article is his characterization of a Syria invasion/no-fly zone as a non-nuclear threat. If the US causes Russian casualties in Syria, there’s likely to be Hell to pay.

  7. Christopher Condon
    June 5, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    My guess is that neither Trump nor Clinton becomes the next president. It says here that Clinton will step aside because of her scandals and legal difficulties, Biden gets the Democratic nomination and defeats Trump in November to become the next president.

  8. Oladapo Odumosu
    June 4, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    This article is a hatchet job for the Trump campaign.

    While the writer is entitled to his own opinion, it is disingenuous for him to deliberately gloss over all the signs that Donald Trump had given and continues to give to show that he’s going to make a very dangerous president, if God forbids, he wins the presidency.

    His latest loose canon was the tirade against the judge overseeing the case against him over the fraudulent scheme called Trump University.

    Even his co-travelers in the Republican party are pretty embarrassed by his bombastic demeanor.
    No fellow Democrats have done the same against Hilary Clinton. The only world leaders who have voiced approval for Trump are Putin and Kim Jong-Un !!!

    Clinton certainly has her own faults, like all human beings. However, to compare the potential danger that the two candidates pose to the rest of the world is like comparing Mother Theresa to Osama Bin Laden.

    • Claire
      June 6, 2016 at 6:26 am

      And comparing Mother Teresa to HIllary Clinton is just like comparing Mother Teresa to Osama ben Laden.

  9. Oladapo Odumosu
    June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    This article is a hatchet job for the Trump campaign.

    While the writer is entitled to his own opinion, it is disingenuous for him to deliberately gloss over all the signs that Donald Trump had given and continues to give to show that he’s going to make a very dangerous president, if God forbids, he wins the presidency.

    His latest loose canon was the tirade against the judge overseeing the case against him over the fraudulent scheme called Trump University.

    Even his co-travelers in the Republican party are pretty embarrassed by his bombastic demeanor.
    No fellow Democrats have done the same against Hilary Clinton. The only world leaders who have voiced approval for Trump are Putin and Kim Jong-Un !!!

    Clinton certainly has her own faults, like all human beings. However, to compare the potential danger that the two candidates pose to the rest of the world is like comparing Mother Theresa to Osama Bin Laden.

    • Ace
      June 12, 2016 at 1:55 pm

      It wasn’t a tirade and Trump has brought to light the fact this judge is or was a member of an ultra-pro-Hispanic organization. According to Snopes, Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association. He has said that “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.” Also, on a radio show there was this exchange with him:

      Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

      Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.”

      Do you want a federal judge on your case with these associations if your not Hispanic?

      MALDEF is an aggressive organization that litigate in favor of Hispanic causes. La Raza is similarly focused on Hispanic issues. Trump has uncovered a rock for us when he raised the issue of the impartiality of this judge.

  10. Oladapo Odumosu
    June 4, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    This article is a hatchet job for the Trump campaign.

    While the writer is entitled to his own opinion, it is disingenuous for him to deliberately gloss over all the signs that Donald Trump had given and continues to give to show that he’s going to make a very dangerous president, if God forbids, he wins the presidency.

    His latest loose canon was the tirade against the judge overseeing the case against him over the fraudulent scheme called Trump University.

    Even his co-travelers in the Republican party are pretty embarrassed by his bombastic demeanor.
    No fellow Democrats have done the same against Hilary Clinton. The only world leaders who have voiced approval for Trump are Putin and Kim Jong-Un !!!

    Clinton certainly has her own faults, like all human beings. However, to compare the potential danger that the two candidates pose to the rest of the world is like comparing Mother Theresa to Osama Bin Laden.

  11. J.R.
    June 4, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Isn’t it obvious that none of us should even be considering this topic? That we have to, because the candidate selection is so poor, is very disturbing. Nuclear war? With a superpower? Why in the world would Americans even THINK about voting for a candidate that would not handle this correctly (as in – forgetaboutit). There is no need to dissemble about who would be the winner, the reality is we will all be losers. Why would Americans even have to consider this topic? Because the candidates are absolutely terrible. However, there is one candidate who isn’t: Bernie. War with Russia isn’t even on his talking points, he’s not going to engage the country in more wars or more invasions or more occupation. It’s a no brainer what America needs to do.

  12. Ol' Hippy
    June 4, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Both candidates are a damn joke, really. Trump would still end up being the puppet of the deep state as they all are. HRC just sounds more legitimate. The USA is faced with two choices; either collapse in the next few years in the final financial meltdown, or launch a war with Russia, due to their oil, and collapse shortly thereafter. This insane aggression must stop soon before global warming takes civilization down the dark hole of no return. Think how far along the country could have been if during the oil embargo of ’73 the US would have started transitioning away from oil. Then stopped military aggression made peace with the Soviet Union and pursued peaceful interests. OK so I dream too much but for 46 of my 62 years the US has been at war, sometimes two at the same time, the ‘Nam. Enough already, work on the existential threat faceing the world instead of fattening wallets that’ll be worthless when everything fails. Please

  13. Truthster
    June 4, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    The article is about 90% correct, the part about Clinton. It relies on her past POLICIES, although the chilling part of her character pertinent to and clearly demonstrated in foreign policy figures into it.
    But the 10% dealing with Trump has NOTHING to say about his policy prescriptions which challenge the whole rotten imperial edifice!!! Instead it deals only with an impression of his personality! That does not seem a fair or adequate way to compare the two candidates.
    It is true that Trump on the stump is emotional and provocative – by cool design, I would say. But Trump in an extended two part interview with the NYT on the front page is very measured and thoughtful – as he is reputed to be in his business dealings.
    Based on policies, Trump wins hands down. Based on character, nothing could be more dangerous than Hillary.
    And it may even be that President Trump will lead us to a world where the West is only one among equals. In the end we may be very proud of him!It is true that Trump on the stump is emotional and provocative – by cool design, I would say. But Trump in an extended two part interview with the NYT on the front page is very measured and thoughtful – as he is reputed to be in his business dealings.
    Based on policies, Trump wins hands down. Based on character, nothing could be more dangerous than Hillary.
    And it may even be that President Trump will lead us to a world where the West is only one among equals. In the end we may be very proud of him!

    • Truthster
      June 4, 2016 at 12:23 pm

      Sorry that parts of the above repeated. The editing program was disobedient.

    • J.R.
      June 4, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      Did repeating your point twice make you think it would have double the impact? Or double the readers? You do not know anything about how Trump makes his deals. He’s ruthless and all about himself. He’s ruthless and all about himself. Get it?

  14. Abe
    June 4, 2016 at 11:33 am

    The Romanian missile base is positioned less than 400 miles from Russia’s main Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea. AEGIS is able to fire short and long-range missiles. Neither Romania nor Poland will have any say over its use, even though their territory will be the target of any pre-emptive Russian reaction.

    Commenting on the event, the New York Times openly acknowledged, “The launch-pad violates a 1987 treaty intended to take the superpowers off their hair-trigger nuclear alter, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, by banning land-based cruise and medium-range missiles with a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.”

    US and NATO officials insist that AEGIS is directed against Iran and other small states viewed by Washington as “rogue states,” and poses no threat to Russia or China, something absurd on the surface.

    The reality, that Russia is the target of the Romanian Aegis system was made plain by the remarks at the opening ceremony by Romanian President Klaus Ioannis. Ioannis made clear that the new installation is part of broader plans to use his country as a staging area for NATO activities throughout Eastern Europe and the Black Sea.

    Of course the Black Sea is home to Russia’s naval Black Sea Fleet in Russian Crimea. Admitting that the real target of the missiles is the Russian Federation, Ioannis called on NATO leaders to maintain a “permanent naval presence” in the Black Sea, as part of a military buildup aimed at making a “credible and predictable presence of Allied forces on the eastern flank.” A glance at the map shows that the only nation bordering the Black Sea not either in NATO or controlled by pro-NATO regimes is the Russian Federation.

    During his swearing in some days before the Aegis opening US Army General and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Curtis Scaparrotti, warned that Russia “is striving to project itself as a world power.” He declared that US forces in Europe must “enhance our levels of readiness and our agility in the spirit of being able to fight tonight if deterrence fails.” That sounds pretty “hair-trigger” to me.

    Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad
    By F. William Engdahl
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/04/washington-military-planners-have-gone-mad-2/

    • elmerfudzie
      June 7, 2016 at 11:15 am

      Abe, excellent remarks! I concur fully. Engdahl has the best historical perspective(s) in relation to current politics.

  15. Rob89
    June 4, 2016 at 4:31 am

    That the 2016 US presidential elections could turn out to be a Hobson’s Choice between a warmonger (Hillary) and a loud mouth, snake-oil seller (Trump) shows that the US has lost its way and is the greatest threat to world peace. When Hillary is indicted for the Federal email criminal violations, Bernie Sander could clinch the nomination and beat Trump. Just wait and see.

  16. Jackson
    June 4, 2016 at 2:52 am

    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) produces regular reports on infrastructure needs that are not being met while we throw money at the military and the problems they invent.

  17. Karen
    June 4, 2016 at 1:58 am

    Both presumptive candidates are so flawed. This is why we must all get behind Bernie Sanders!

  18. Archie1954
    June 4, 2016 at 1:39 am

    How dd the two major parties get to this point? It was actually quite easy when you have an electorate that is grossly ignorant and uninvolved. I believe you would have to go to some forsaken hinterland away from civilization to find an electorate as foolish as Americans. They are actually totally responsible for the complete mess the country is in right now. In a democracy you get the government you deserve!

    • J.R.
      June 4, 2016 at 6:54 pm

      Here! Here! As accurate as anything I’ve seen anywhere.

  19. JRGJRG
    June 4, 2016 at 12:42 am

    Reports of US Navy Seal teams being war gamed in Bulgaria to storm Crimea.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160525/1040251198/navy-seals-bulgaria-training.html

    Is this nuts or what?

    I am betting that there are already new 9/11 false flag attacks being drafted for when Hillary gets elected. Far worse than 2001. Wake up and watch carefully people.

    Hillary wants to “bring it on.” She laughed, “the best thing that could happen is for someone to attack us.”

    https://youtu.be/BLrUZSS8-gI

  20. June 3, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    There´s hardly a bigger risk for the world than a Clinton-Administration!
    See: “US Elections: No Illusions, Deadly Politics Will be Increased!”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/us-elections-no-illusions-deadly-politics-will-be-increased/
    & “US Power Elite Declared War on the Southern Hemisphere, East Asia and all Non-Western Countries in September 2000”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/us-power-elite-declared-war-on-the-southern-hemisphere-east-asia-and-all-non-western-countries-in-september-2000/
    Andreas Schlüter
    Sociologist
    Berlin, Germany

  21. elmerfudzie
    June 3, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    The alleged opinions or behaviors of one presidential candidate or another distracts voters from the real issue. That issue remains as always, the Military Industrial Complexes (MIC) of the Western Occident Nations, this includes the USA and Israel. Jan Oberg of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden outlined the actual problem here; THE WEST CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT ENEMIES! A bogey-man must always be found and Putin, much like the last few Russian presidents are making every effort to deprive the West of an enemy. An “enemy” that will justify NATO’s existence and continued massive expenditures for arms. When a senior military figure such as, Swedish Major General Anders Brännström, publicly announces that his country is destined for a two year war with Russia, it turned a few heads and prompted a quick response by Mr Oberg, details of which can be viewed here @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwkqroxjw7w Since WW II this economic predation(s) of the MIC has an unstoppable? momentum. It has managed to gradually smother or suffocate funding(s) towards infrastructure (roads and bridges), maintenance programs (government lands), social services (safety nets), education (debts instead of grants), destruction of middle class wealth (crush all unionized activity), unbridled migrations of whole populations (fleeing the chaos of war) and above all, robbed us of the intended purpose of keeping the MIC, peace and security!!, where the hell is it?

  22. Andrew Nichols
    June 3, 2016 at 4:09 am

    “Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared.

    Imagine this in 63

    “Washington has taken aggressive military action in Cubae, right on the Warssaw Pact’s doorstep,”

    Terrifying woman

  23. Joe Tedesky
    June 3, 2016 at 1:49 am

    I would like to call upon President Obama, and all responsible leaders within the Democrate Party to demand that Hillary Clinton step down from her run for President of the United States. I base my request on the pure fact of Hillary’s pass actions, proving beyond a doubt that she is throughly unfit for the job of Commander and Chief of this nation. HIllary has comprised herself beyond recognition. Hillary’s list of destruction; Libya, Syria, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, are just a few failed projects of hers to mention. Hillary and Bill, through their Clinton Foundation is nothing short of being deemed a racketeering center, and self profit center for selling arms to dangerous nations, such as Saudi Arabia. Hillary is more concerned about Israel’s dominance over Palestintian’s, than she is concerned within her native nations deteriorating borders. Hillary’s disrespect of this nations security processes, is treasonous law breaking by any standard set before any other government employee heretofore. It is time to put a stop to this Clinton machine, that brings nothing but shame and disgrace to this country of ours.

    Here is a link that describes just some of her failed foreign policy decisions;

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 3, 2016 at 10:47 am

      Hillary is compromised beyond recognition.

      Sorry for the misspelling above…here is an article by Diania Johnstone (Queen of Chaos author)

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/hillary-and-the-military-industrial-complex/

    • Bill Bodden
      June 3, 2016 at 11:11 am

      … and all responsible leaders within the Democrate Party …

      Name one responsible leader in the un-Democratic Party. It’s a toss up which party of our menacing duopoly has the more irresponsible leadership.

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 3, 2016 at 11:27 am

        Thanks for the correction, you are right.

  24. F. G. Sanford
    June 3, 2016 at 1:21 am

    If Mrs. Clinton were actually elected, the question of her proclivity for triggering nuclear annihilation might be moot. The real question would become, “Who’s in charge?” Let me try to explain the real significance of her email scandal, as it seems nobody in the mainstream media has really done an adequate job:

    [CONTENT REDACTED]

    If that someone were to get caught, they would face YEARS in prison. Which brings us to Brian Pagliano. His ONLY possible defense would be a plea of, “I was just following orders.” That plea got him an immunity deal. Now, lets look at reality. The NSA can never again trust Mrs. Clinton. The CIA can never again trust Mrs. Clinton. The DIA can never again trust Mrs. Clinton. The Joint Chiefs of Staff can never again trust Mrs. Clinton. The FBI will certainly never again trust Mrs. Clinton. And, the Department of State KNOWS they can never trust Mrs. Clinton. We’re looking at a potential “Seven Days in May” situation here. Doesn’t anybody remember Alexander Haig announcing, “I’m in charge here at the White House”? Suppose Mrs. Clinton were to escalate a situation with potential nuclear ramifications. Does anybody really believe that Mrs. Clinton, and not the combined horsepower of those agencies, would be in charge? Or, how about an unforeseen situation which escalated to the point of nuclear brinkmanship. Could it be diffused by sheer trust in her Presidential leadership? Could she command the credibility needed to hold those dogs at bay? Jack Kennedy did it. I don’t think Mrs. Clinton could. She wouldn’t really be in charge.

    • Zachary Smith
      June 3, 2016 at 9:56 am

      Suppose Mrs. Clinton were to escalate a situation with potential nuclear ramifications. Does anybody really believe that Mrs. Clinton, and not the combined horsepower of those agencies, would be in charge?

      That’s a viewpoint which nobody I read has presented before. I do seem to recall that during Nixon’s last days in the White House quiet steps were taken to prevent him from pulling off a “Samson Destroying The Temple” Götterdämmerung with nukes.

      Frightening!

    • Monte George Jr
      June 4, 2016 at 7:29 pm

      Appears that the most interesting part of your post was (REDACTED). Have you posted this information elsewhere?

      From where I sit, it appears that the “combined horsepower of those agencies” was long ago preempted by the infiltration of Zionist/Neocons into those (and most other) US institutions (Govt. & otherwise). There is, as you suggest, recent precedence for the deep state sidelining the President. This occurred when the IDF was slaughtering the residents of Gaza like fish in a barrel and nearly exhausted their stores of ammunition. Israel issued an emergency plea to the US for resupply, but Obama did not oblige them. But someone else did! The supplies were delivered from US stockpiles without Obama’s OK. He was not even informed until after the fact. The moral of this story is that their is no daylight between our Full Spectrum Dominatrix presidential candidate and the forces you would rely on to intervene. She will be in charge, because they will back her (even push her!) to the hilt.

  25. June 3, 2016 at 1:12 am

    How morally and intellectually bankrupt our politicos have become. Be weary fellow bloggers for a financial reset is going to happen either by hook or by crook hence what options do these oligarchs have r only three and one of them is war so be weary don’t buy into their fear for thats what they want. Remember Eisenhower’s speech . Beware of the military industrial complex its all about money and nufin else. Lets defeat these anglo=zionist/cabalist and not give them what they want. Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish

  26. Sylvia Werner
    June 2, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    Hillary Clinton has vested oil shale interests in Ukraine and that is why she doesn’t what Russia to get it! Plain and simple – it is all about energy and wealth that the control of it brings! If Russia controls Ukraine, Hillary will loose her assets.

    • Monte George Jr
      June 4, 2016 at 6:35 pm

      The value of oil shale deposits in Ukraine are minor compared to the value of the vast expanse of rich farmland there. Oil is a minor consideration in Ukraine, big Agribusiness (growing GMO crops) would be the real winner here.

      But neither of these are what motivates Our Lady of Full Spectrum Dominance; her mission is unipolar one-world domination. She will start a war with Russia , China and Iran. There is no effective defense against Russia’s strategic nuclear missile fleet – absolutely none. The USA and her NATO/5-Eyes allies will be totally destroyed in the space of a single hour. This is going to happen and there is no safe place on Earth to run to. Anything you want to say to your loved ones before you die, say it now.

  27. Kiza
    June 2, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    For the first time I totally disagree with Mr. Parry. This article is not a valid comparison between two candidates and the main problem appears that Mr Parry may not have known many top businessman close hand (I may be wrong about this, but his write up makes little sense).

    Trump is a prototypical businessman and a businessman is an ultimate egotist (thin-skinned) and an ultimate pragmatist (always after a profit making deal). There is no way in this Universe that Mr Trump would ever start or even bring conditions for a nuclear war. I could imagine him talk the tough talk, blackmail, threaten and so on. But to use nuclear weapons, not a chance. But, Trump will not challenge the US MIC, because so many (unproductive but politically important) US jobs already depend on it. Trump will also not turn down the shake-down of the allies and associates that the USraeli empire is currently doing, which is forcing the allies and associates to spend close to $2T more (than current military budgets) over the next 10 years on “defense”. The empire wants the pivot to Russia and to Asia/China to be paid in a greater proportion by its allies and associates, part of which will be the purchases of US advanced weapons. No matter how isolationist Trump is, he is not going to turn this jobs bonanza down.

    Opposite to this, Clinton is a US and Israel supremacist and a crusader, ideologically imbued, border-line nutty and even asylum-ready (remember the cackle after “we came, we saw, he died”), just like her chief owner Nutty Yahoo. She has an ax to grind against anyone and everyone who does not follow her dictate and she has already called Putin a Hitler (not only Putin, of course). She will wage many, many wars under the R2P, humanitarianism and so on. This is pure ideology, void of pragmatism, extremely dangerous. I also believe that she may take the approach – “I am too crazy, you better not oppose me”: I take Syria or we all die, I take Siberia or we all die and similar game of nuclear chicken.

    In other words, whilst Trump’s mission would be the US, Clinton’s mission would be “making the World safe for democracy”, spreading her ideology around the World, similar to now just crazier. Therefore, Clinton is at least 1,000 times more dangerous than Trump, and their level of danger is totally non-comparable.

    • June 3, 2016 at 6:35 am

      I usually agree with Robert Parry but I totally disagree with him on his assessment of this situation. His article leaves us with the conclusion that Donald Trump is a better choice for President. The man is a Narcissist (Trump) and the mainstream media is shying away from reporting on this fact. Watching his attitudes toward minorities and all other aspects of his demeanor makes me fear for this country and the fact that so many people agree with him. I haven’t met any one who will admit that they are voting for him, but many I know probably will. The Republican Party fears him because he espouses their “hidden” agenda, but now are falling in line supporting
      him.

      • Kiza
        June 3, 2016 at 10:01 am

        Trump a narcissist, really! Is that the best that the Hillary’s biggest election chest can buy? Nobody paid me and I do not even vote but I justified my point of view clearly, whilst yours is simply a narcissist (and which politician is not power hungry and narcissistic?).

        Mr Parry has attacked the strongest and maybe the only point in favor of Trump – that he would not start a nuclear war, thus promoting Hillary in this article. It is a true shame that he had to hedge his bets in case Hillary wins, after writing a previous article which was so clear on how much of a disaster HRC is.

      • dahoit
        June 3, 2016 at 11:40 am

        Holy moly,all the MSM does is attack Trump,his character,his temper and his business skills.When have you ever seen in Wapoo or the Lying times a good article re Trump?
        What hidden agenda does the rep party represent that the demoncrats don’t?They are both outsourcing israeli toad warmongering idiots,and both are loved by Zion,and its crud media.

    • Ace
      June 12, 2016 at 1:44 pm

      Where in the world do you get this absurd noting that a “businessman is an ultimate egotist (thin-skinned)”?

  28. Zachary Smith
    June 2, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    How, one might wonder, did the two major political parties reach this juncture, putting two arguably unfit personalities within reach of the nuclear codes?

    Excellent remark in an excellent essay.

    Russia is not going to abandon the Russians in Ukraine.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/lavrov-warns-nato-back/ri14582

    This is a “Go-To-War” issue, and a President Hillary would escalate. I can’t imagine it ending with conventional weapons if Hillary is at the helm.

    Finally, an essay by three Russian expatriates.

    hXXp://thesaker.is/a-russian-warning/

    If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
    will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.

    I happen to agree with that conclusion.

  29. Bill Payne
    June 2, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    What became of the promise we made to the Russians, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that NATO would expand no further east than Germany? By breaking that promise the west is playing a very dangerous game. I doubt if Clinton is smart enough to back away from a confrontation with the Russians, but I suggest that her advisors should read to her a bit of Russian history. They will fight when threatened with annihilation – ask Napoleon, ask Hitler – after all, they’re the people who really won World War II. As a member of a nation who has no idea what hardships war on our own soil can bring, I fervently hope Clinton doesn’t become the president, or I fear we’ll find out soon enough.

    • Elizabeth
      June 3, 2016 at 4:08 am

      You are absolutely right in everything you stated.By far the sanest candidate is Bernie.

    • Peter Loeb
      June 3, 2016 at 7:07 am

      ….” they’re the people who really won World War II. …’ —Bill Payne above

      22 million casualties, more than 4 times all the other Allies in WW Two
      combined, attest to this. W. Churchill begged and pleaded for USSR
      support with dates etc in correspondence with “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

      (See Gabriel Kolko, THE POLITICS OF WAR.)

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 3, 2016 at 9:34 am

      Thank you Bill Payne. Accurate knowledge of this dynamic is the key to a good outcome; and my fear is that we get very little real history these days. In the best scenario it is difficult to separate out reality from the propaganda. At least Robert Parry is giving us the opportunity to try before it is too late…
      I absolutely hate to admit this but I just began watching season 2 of “Madam Secretary” and that show, with the highest quality of production, acting and writing, gets our American position on Russia so completely wrong that I can hardly stand to watch. Is it slick American propaganda or naïveté? I see and hear Stephen Cohen occasionally and completely trust his Russian analysis; yet mention of his name usually brings out the opposition.
      We could desperately use some real and unfiltered education in our tattered society.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 3, 2016 at 11:33 am

      What became of the promise we made to the Russians, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that NATO would expand no further east than Germany?

      That promise was broken like countless other promises before it. The Native Americans recognized it generations ago when they said the great (sic) white father speaks with a forked tongue. The great (sic) African-American father and our potential great (sic) white mother continue lying to the people who are apparently willing to be lied to.

  30. akech
    June 2, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    (a) Before the destruction of Libya, the citizens of that country had safe zones in their own homes and neighborhoods. Gaddafi had provided a very high standard of living for his people using the oil revenue: –> establishment of a system that provided free education, free healthcare and a good supply of water system from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System. Libya also provided the migrant workers from the neighboring countries with steady jobs, enabling them to educate and feed the families back home.

    For some reasons, Hillary and her PAC of think tanks war mongers thought that Libya needed a regime change and converted that rich nation into a failed state, infested with tribal and religious killing machines. Why is this okay and what is the rationale behind this kind of behavior towards foreign nations?

    (b) Syrian citizens live in a relatively very stable nation that did not need Hillary and her advisors to establish a no-fly-zone in any particular area to guarantee their safety. They were happy and very secure in their respective homes, cooked their own food and went on with their daily lives! An attempted regime change that the ordinary Syrian citizens did not ask for has changed all that and the Syrians are dying by the thousands because someone does not like the Assad’s rule!

    The same story has taken place in Honduras, South Sudan, Rwanda and Ukraine, to name only a few countries. Why does Hillary, or any group of people who are professed in her school of thought, assume the right to dramatically alter the daily lives of other people in any corner of the world without their consent?

    Every living thing on earth knows how to survive without control. I do not believe Hillary, or anybody who looks at citizens of other countries with the same contemptuous lenses, would like to live in any filthy no-fly-zone refugee camp generated by regime changes!

    • Praedor
      June 3, 2016 at 6:08 am

      THE reason for taking out Libya was Gaddafi was just about to fire up his All-Africa development bank that was independent of the US dollar. He would have frozen the USA and its neoliberal looter IMF out of a new target rich environment.

    • incontinent reader
      June 3, 2016 at 10:39 am

      Absolutely true. Though Hillary and her think tanks not only demanded regime change (e.g., to seize the resources and real estate of those countries for the benefit of their handlers), but felt it necessary to deep six the truth about these countries, and instead to peddle disinformation about them to justify to the public our intervention (sic., aggressive wars).

      People need to know the history of the region, and there are enough credible sources (UN reports, World Bank reports (some of which are, indeed, admissions against the interests of those organizations) to show what really happened.

      When Hillary and her ‘apparachicks’ attack Assad for human rights violations and Syria’s humanitarian crisis, it is easy to forget that we caused Syria’s crisis not only with our clandestine and not so clandestine war in Syria, but also starting earlier with our war against Iraq, or that during the Iraq War the Syrians took in 900,000 Iraqi refugees and fed them, housed them, clothed them, gave them health care and educated their children, all without Western aid, while the U.S. took in no more than a few hundred.

      Hillary and her people don’t want the American people to know the truth, because they fear the public might be offended by their lack of decency, injustice and rank incompetence, and might demand something better, including a peacetime diplomacy with a different economic focus and direction, that is why they keep peddling their lies.

  31. incontinent reader
    June 2, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Right on, Bob. And nice to see so many people on this site recognizing the existential danger posed by this pathological woman, but will the Democratic leadership come to its senses and replace her before it is too late, or if it doesn’t will the American public get it at the polls?

    As for Comey, I sincerely hope he comes through, but I am not so sure with the politics of the country so byzantine. What is encouraging is that he is still remembered for drawing an ethical line in the sand to keep Alberto Gonzalez from extracting an agreement from his bed-ridden boss John Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush’s surveillance program (which as it turned out was no more than a temporary postponement of it). Will he have the courage to step in again and take a stand? I can well imagine the Clinton people putting out a myriad of signals that if he holds his powder he will be retained as FBI director and otherwise well rewarded, but that if he doesn’t, HRC will wreak her revenge in any number of visible and unseen ways. If so, maybe such threats would be enough to convince him to go the distance against her and her family money laundering operation, and then let the wrath of the public be visited upon the Justice Department if it pulls its punches. If he does come through, then expect the one ending up in the public’s crosshairs to be Loretta Lynch, especially with her conflicts of interest in her relationship with the Clintons.

  32. ltr
    June 2, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    I am grateful for this essay, since reading the speech today was an awful experience. Clinton was an impossibly antagonistic or belligerent Secretary of State and will make for a worse president. I am not interested in staying at war forever as the attitude of Clinton promises.

  33. bobzz
    June 2, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Bernie should have and should be pounding Hillary on the points Robert raised. Her entire speech said nothing about her foreign policy but much about how bad Trump is. She is touting her foreign policy experience, and that is precisely what disqualifies her. It remains to be seen whether Trump will offer substantive rebuttals. He has much material with which to work. That said, I would vote for neither.

  34. ltr
    June 2, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    I looked at the setting of the speech, read the transcript and found Hillary Clinton as wildly and dangerously militaristic as I can imagine. I am afraid to have such a person as president.

    I will assuredly not vote for Clinton.

  35. Evangelista
    June 2, 2016 at 8:23 pm

    “Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea”…

    On the other hand, Donald Trump made a stronger case why handing nuclear codes over to a President Trump would be a better idea. The stronger Trump made derives from his response to the U.S. MSM allegtions of Russian near fly-bys of U.S. military vessels encroaching, if not violating, recognized Russian national waters “aggressions”. Trump asserted that the first thing to do was to call Putin to ask his reasons.

    Has anyone seen, or heard of, Hillary Clinton, or anyone in the Obama Whitehouse, or the U.S. State Department suggesting anything that “pedestrian”, “normal”, “sane”, or rational and reasonable?

    Of course, what the U.S. MSM picked up on was Trump’s remark that “When you got to shoot, you got to shoot.” Which remark could have very reasonably been Putin’s very reasonable reply to a reasonable U.S., Whitehouse or State Department telephone call query asking his reasons for the in-you-face and threatening fly-bys: When some dumb-bunny bully pushes into your envelope, whether on a playground, on a city street, or on your international border, you have to let them know you are not putting up with being pushed. That if you gotta shoot, you are going to shoot.

    The Clinton, Whitehouse, State Department, U.S. responses did not indicate any recognition of reason; they were hysterical squawks and aggressive assertions that if the U.S.’s aggressions and “shirt-frontings” were not responded to with awe (and maybe shock), that was legal and legitimate causus belli, giving the U.S. a “right” to push more and declare war, or, as is more popular for the current non-republican U.S. government, to declare a “cause for police action” and engage in assassinating and terrorizing.

    Someone whose first instinct is to call a potential opponent, to discover first-hand and to discuss the facts and factors underlying issues is a way more sane and safe person to have holding ‘nuclear codes’ than a mindlessly aggressive martinet-marionette automaton for an infiltrator third nation whose leadership and infiltrated gangster-elite on-site controllers may at any instigation order, assign, pull the strings of or otherwise activate their puppet to order it, again, not a first time, to engage in nation-destroying nuclear*, or even non-nuclear vicious and violent actions.

    * Bear in mind that the current United States government has already engaged in nuclear warfare, on the “Tactical” level, twice officially, or three times if the two-part assault against Iraq is counted as two separate aggressions: Iraq, Bosnia and Iraq, where resulting increased levels of “environmental” and local radiations and radiation effects (over previous levels and over surrounding area levels) are measurable.

    It is almost a certainty that future nuclear wars are going to produce Iraq-style nuclear contaminated battle-areas, containing ‘hot’ destroyed armor, volumes of “nuclear-fallout” laden smoke immediately and dust for centuries, and salvageable ‘unignited’ spent ammunition, findable with Geiger-counters and re-loadable for re-shooting, or other re-use (tactical nuclear rounds have to hit metal to have fuel to burn their burn-controlling matrix away, so any that have not hit metal remain predominantly intact and still combustible, even if not still serviceable [bullet-shaped]).

    It is a new era in warfare that the current United States introduced with its “testing” of tactical nuclear kinetic penetrator munitions in the first Iraq invasion-action. Probably a new era in terrorization, too; a sort of next step up from the dynamite bomb, which stepped up from gunpowder, which stepped up from greek-fire.

  36. Lois Gagnon
    June 2, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    Hillary has internalized “The Washington Consensus” into every fiber of her being. I doubt
    Donald even knows what it is, but should he wind up as president I’m sure he’ll be told in no uncertain terms what he may and may not do.

    Our only safe choice is Bernie. He’s not a progressive’s dream on foreign policy, but he’s not a psychopath. There’s something to be said for that given the bizarre circumstances we find ourselves in.

  37. Bill Bodden
    June 2, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    There are differences between Clinton and Trump. Hillary has hands-on experience supporting wars from The Balkans through Iraq and Libya and has made it clear she is capable of waging more wars. Trump, so far, is mostly just talk; although, there is no telling exactly what he might do in the situation room with absolute power.

    In her speech today in San Diego, Hillary assured her pro-Israel donors and supporters she is willing to go to war against Iran.

    • Peter Loeb
      June 3, 2016 at 6:57 am

      OF COURSE

      Pick Netanyahu’s favorite enemy and offer to sacrifice
      American lives and money (for weapons etc.) for
      it.

      I assume HRC’s Jewish donors’ sons and daughters will
      be first to join the US services , deploy to Iran, and
      die as “heroes” in the US and Israel.

      I hope HRC intends to implement the Iran deal
      complete with meaningful removal of sanctions .
      That was an agreement we agreed to. If Netanyahu opposed
      it than one can only assume that all major decisions mujst
      go through the Israeli government first in the future.

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Bill Bodden
        June 3, 2016 at 2:22 pm

        I understand Hillary’s son-in-law is forming a brigade of neocons to parachute into Tehran as soon as hostilities break out.

  38. Bob Van Noy
    June 2, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    Thanks for taking a stand Robert Parry. I agree, and shortly I’ll get a chance to vote for Bernie; the best of the rest….

  39. Gregory Kruse
    June 2, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    I think this is a fair assessment.

  40. Joe Lauria
    June 2, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    “I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strong men who have no love for America,” Mrs. Clinton said, pointing to the praise for Mr. Trump from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the North Korean government of Kim Jong-un.

    I DO. HE DOESN’T WANT TO GO TO WAR WITH THEM AND WOULD RATHER HAVE GOOD RELATIONS YOU DANGEROUS WOMAN.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 2, 2016 at 10:18 pm

      “I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strong men who have no love for America,”

      That must have been one of the more preposterous statements to come out of Hillary’s mouth in a long time. There is a long list of dictators and strong men that Hillary can claim as accomplices. Netanyahu clearly deserves to be at the top of that list having enough power to insult President Obama and the office of the president of the United States after which he extorted more military aid to dominate that large concentration camp known as Gaza. Then there was President Mubarak with whom she stuck until it was obvious he was a lost cause. As a replacement, Hillary recommended General Suleiman to replace Mubarak. Suleiman’s portfolio included administration of Egypt’s notorious torture facilities and the vile employees who worked in them.

      • Peter Loeb
        June 3, 2016 at 6:49 am

        THE NEXT LEVEL

        As HRC points out, she wants to go “to the the next level” with
        murderers and criminals of her choosing such as Netanyahu.

        I doubt there is any opportunity for Mr. Putin to get to “the
        next level.” Perhaps a cozy and “productive” meeting at the
        White House and an address to Congress might help.
        He could address the demand for civil and human rights in
        the US and abroad.

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

        • Joe Tedesky
          June 3, 2016 at 11:24 am

          Peter, I always get an education with your intelligent comments. Maybe we Americans should be voting for elected offices in Israel?

  41. Knomore
    June 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    The woman is crazy. NATO’s doorstep? She’s nuts. How did it happen that we got a lunatic occupying the State Department who in turn settled herself comfortably there among the other fringe lunatics, the neos, many left over from Crazy George’s reign. The whole idiotic bunch is now running the government and obviously, if Clinton’s words carry any weight, believes they are unquestionably entitled to rule the world.

    This is a scenario so scary that one doesn’t wonder that the MSM constantly lies to distort the message and send only propaganda to the American people.

    Hillary Clinton should be sent up for a psych exam and then interned in a mental hospital. And I blame Obama for helping to empower this twisted and very sick woman.

    There’s little doubt in my mind that Donald is the safer choice. He knows the world is watching him whereas Hillary has convinced herself, in the fashion of most paranoid schizophrenics, that everyone is out to get her. And she apparently believes, that being the case, that lying constantly is the only “sane” way to proceed.

    • Stephen Sivonda
      June 2, 2016 at 7:19 pm

      Sugar….let’s hope that the FBI gets an indictment about her servers and she gets some jail time. There they could check her for psycho tendencies …and the best part is she’ll be in jail. I’ve never so strongly disliked ,to the point of borderline hate…any candidate running for any office, and I’m 72 yo. I’ve been a registered Independent for almost 50 years , as early on there was points about some candidates for state offices and even in primaries for Fed offices that I thought were good but weren’t Dems. We were able to split our ticket as they called it. So I’ve been on both sides of the aisle in elections. I’m voting Bernie…and if he’s not available then Trump. Fuk’it.

      • Brad Benson
        June 2, 2016 at 8:52 pm

        Amen to that. I’m 65 and have basically the same outlook and history.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 2, 2016 at 9:51 pm

        ….let’s hope that the FBI gets an indictment about her servers and she gets some jail time.

        Hope, but don’t bet on it.

        • SFOMARCO
          June 3, 2016 at 7:46 am

          If FBI gets an indictment about Hillbillious’ servers, she will be found Not Guilty, by reason of insanity.

          • Bill Bodden
            June 3, 2016 at 11:21 am

            Hillary is not insane. She may be a psychopath in accordance with the average layperson’s understanding of the term, but professionals would probably disagree. She knows perfectly well what she is doing. She is following the playbook she and Bill used to gin up the war in The Balkans and the Bush administration used for the Iraq war; that is, feed red meat to those who share her views and the gullible who have to be persuaded. The fact that there are debates about whether Hillary or The Donald is the lesser evil suggests that “evil” might be a more accurate label.

      • Knomore
        June 3, 2016 at 3:12 am

        That remark to the effect of Russia violating Nato’s doorstep just blew me away. This woman supposedly graduated from Wellesley and went to Yale Law School, yet seems to be totally ignorant of the world, its history and without any sense of decorum, any understanding that there are, in fact, other peoples, other nations — and those others do have histories of their own and they do have rights. My reaction, admittedly explosive, came from the fact that the only rationale I could muster was that she must be insane.

        She ranks right up there with history’s worst scoundrels and greatest egomaniacs. Donald has nothing over her in the latter category. If you violate too many community values and established rules of engagement for too long you cut yourself off from the human community. Hillary Clinton’s record of misdeeds and deceit is frightening.

        Putin as Hitler? No. A far more accurate comparison would be Hillary Clinton as Hitler. BUT these name-calling behaviors mark her as immature, and show that she, by comparison with Trump (who answered much more sensibly, “I would call him up and talk with him,”) is completely unequipped to run the foreign policy of this country. The world is strewn with her left-over disasters, and the ones she is preparing if, God forbid, she is given the Presidency. And she will only get it if she is given it. It has become increasingly clear that the entire electoral process has been fraudulently manipulated to benefit her. A normal person would find winning under those circumstances very disturbing, but not Hillary.

        I sincerely hope someone in the Democratic hierarchy — or someone anywhere — will see that she is totally unfit to become President of this country — or President of anything.

        • Zahid Kramet
          June 5, 2016 at 5:38 am

          The question is, do schools like Wellesley provide education or conditioning?

        • Daniel
          June 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm

          “This woman supposedly graduated from Wellesley and went to Yale Law School, yet seems to be totally ignorant of the world, its history…” I would answer that she is not ignorant of anything. She is deliberately lying to the public to cover what she knows to be true.
          The west has veered so far from any sense of common morality or respect for humanity that Hillary, and the rest of the DC elite, MUST lie to us, lest their evil plans for their own enrichment at the cost of millions’ suffering be fully exposed. Worse, the broadcast media outlets, nearly completely owned now by 6 (6!) corporations, will never risk asking questions to expose this lie – they benefit from it, too! So, Hillary and Co. have this system totally gamed, and have spent a lifetime trafficking in it. They will not be dislodged from their perches of power in our lifetimes, short of a miracle occurring, and we are so far down the rabbit hole now, I fear, that nothing short of the destruction of our current systems (or how they are being gamed) will restore national sanity.
          Until then, you’re vote actually means nothing. And that is a sad disturbing reality. Hillary or Trump? Neither, ever. They are grinding us into dust and asking for our approval (votes) to do it. Absolutely never.

      • June 5, 2016 at 1:44 am

        Let’s hope Bernie is successful.

        For those concerned about open socialism in the USA. Bill Maher pops the question:

        Must watch Real Time with Bill Maher: Bernie Sanders Interview – May 27, 2016 (HBO)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AwjZWboIk?

    • Stephen Berk
      June 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm

      Great statement, I totally agree with you, Susan.

  42. Paul
    June 2, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Excellent points. I would add that, to the extent Clinton follows through on her threat to create no-fly zones in Syria, she will again be pushing a trigger that could lead to war with Russia. A war that, without either side intending it at the outset, could escalate to nuclear. There is reason to believe that Syria is a red line now for Russia.

    Also ironic that Clinton and Co. have spent so much energy demonizing Putin. The alternative to Putin is to the right of Putin. But maybe all this is just a make-work program for the MIC. Makes sense. A Russia allied with China for the long term will also supply work for the Pentagon until long after all the college tuitions of their kids are paid off.

    Can you do a piece on infrastructure projects in the U.S. that could give U.S. defense contractors some other way to make a buck?

    • Bill Bodden
      June 2, 2016 at 8:10 pm

      Can you do a piece on infrastructure projects in the U.S. that could give U.S. defense contractors some other way to make a buck?

      Instead of building ships to wage war build hospital ships to provide medical care in ports around the world. Similarly, instead of building death-dealing bombers and drones, build flying hospital aircraft to meet the needs of people inland. (The Cubans could advise how this might be accomplished based on their experiences.) For a fraction of what the US is paying for destructive ships and aircraft we would make many friends instead of making enemies. There are, unfortunately, two problems to these proposals. One is that sacred profits would be reduced for the armaments makers. The other is that bad habits are hard to break.

      • Peter Loeb
        June 3, 2016 at 6:38 am

        BILL BODDEN…

        The weapons industry and its supporters hate making things for
        the peaceful and constructive improvement of society
        They have grown up in the culture of manufacturing weapons
        to kill and destroy and to thereby. This includes not
        only the corporations but the workers as well.

        We all know that in the US violence is good business. Everyone “wins”
        but the dead and decimated ( usually brown or “other”).

        And then we will make an ever higher tech killer which is
        more “efficient”(sic).

        We don’t have any elephants for any rooms in the US but
        if we did, this is a good place to begin.

        By the way, such building and rebuilding programs if ever
        constructed (which is not in the foreseable future) should be
        umbillically linked to skilled employment in such peaceful
        ventures as Mr. Bodden mentions. The cry of “Jobs! Jobs”
        must be irrelevant…

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 3, 2016 at 10:35 am

        Bill, you are right. Brakes are brakes, engine are engines. We could be manufacturing equipment to rebuild our infrastructure, and work on environmental projects, instead of making stuff to kill people. I know all about this, since in my career government vendors, and even the military came to me for advice on certain parts that were required. In fact, I have seen hangar decks turned into hospital areas. Life flight helicopter technology advanced greatly due to the Vietnam war. The same machines that manufacturer guns can machine screws and plates for bone surgery.

    • Praedor
      June 2, 2016 at 8:47 pm

      Hillary is dangerously ridiculous. Russia has longtime military bases in Syria. You know, like the US has in Germany. How would it work if Russia decided it wanted to impose a no fly zone in Germany? Go well would it? We can no more no fly the Russians in Syria than they can the US in Germany.

      Or try this. How about the Russians coup Mexico and install a nice puppet there. Would the US stand idly by for that? It’s identical to the US pulling a coup on a country in Russia’s backyard and expecting passive acceptance.

      No.

      Hillary is = to World War 3.

      • Duglarri
        June 5, 2016 at 3:26 am

        I think the military will point out to Hillary that the presence of the S-400’s in Latakia means the time for a no-fly zone has passed. It’s not that taking them out would be difficult, and require a war with Russia- it’s that taking them out, quite possibly, can’t be done.

        Hillary will be a lot like Orson Welle’s portrayal of General Dreedle in Catch-22. “Take this man out and shoot him.” “You can’t shoot him, Dad.” “I can’t? Why can’t I? What’s the use of being a General if you can’t shoot people?”

      • Stephen Berk
        June 6, 2016 at 3:03 pm

        I agree, and I think she is more militaristic and more dangerous than Trump. Trump, for all his obvious faults, has recognized the necessity of getting along with Russia and Putin. Clinton, like the rest of the neocons, is clearly nuts. She lives in her own binary world of US good/Russia bad. Not far from Joe McCarthy, or Barry Goldwater in 1964, whom she worked for while Bernie was marching with MLK.

    • rosemerry
      June 3, 2016 at 3:21 am

      Celebrations in the Kremlin for avoiding global destruction would perhaps be better than the completely bizarre and dangerous position of a POTUS who has no conception of how anyone except her own limited circle of rich neocons would feel, with justification,as a threat.

    • Aziz
      June 3, 2016 at 4:03 am

      @ Paul : Excellent !!! :-)
      Your comment is priceless and right on point !!

      thanks !

    • W. R. Knight
      June 3, 2016 at 4:51 am

      What Hillary deliberately leaves out of her rhetoric is that NATO’s border used to be in the middle of Germany and along the Austrian-Hungarian borders, but has moved eastward to Russia’s border. NATO’s doorstep is now Russia’s doorstep.

      I am not surprised that Hillary calls Russia the aggressor while NATO continues to encroach on territory that used to be part of the Soviet Union as that is to be expected from her. Hillary will lie about anything in order to get what she wants. What I am surprised at is how many Americans swallow that bullshit.

    • June 5, 2016 at 1:24 am

      Good point Paul. But who is in-charge ?

      On the three core issues – military power, number of settlements & settlers, and leverage over the US Government – Israel is stronger today than in 2011. The fragmented anti-Zionist gaggle (is too disorganized to be effective) run in circles while Israel and its side focus their efforts and win.

      • ET Dahl
        June 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm

        As we have commented before, Russia and the USA have come very very close to Nuclear War in the 80’s but cool-heads prevailed. Mr. Parry did not mention what I view now is an extreme possible trigger of Nuclear war and that is Israel. I once thought and still do feel that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world but over these past few years Israeli society has become unbalanced and demonstrates aggressive behavior which the world has taken notice. Let us remember Israel has Nuclear bombs and the U.S. has given them a pass on their conduct with other countries in the area. Clinton has said she will support Israel if any aggression towards that county occurs.

Comments are closed.