Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

Exclusive: For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.

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)

But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

This “Team of Rivals” – named after Abraham Lincoln’s initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency “surge” in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

Clinton was a strong supporter of that “surge” – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War “surge” in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama’s foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama’s request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

Pumping for War in Libya

In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another “regime change,” albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a “no-fly zone” to “protect civilians.”

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her “no-fly zone.” Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

Privately, Clinton’s senior aides viewed the Libyan “regime change” as a chance to establish what they called the “Clinton Doctrine” on using “smart power” with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi’s government collapsed.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped her hands in glee.

Clinton’s glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks in support of another violent “regime change,” ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed “moderate” but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

Again, Clinton’s war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a “safe zone” inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another “regime change.”

In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton’s disappointment.

Parting Ways

Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama’s desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

Many on the Left deride Obama as “Obomber” and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a “realistic” (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama’s “red line” against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington’s conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his “red line.”

There’s little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve “regime change” in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – “killing innocent children” – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

Still Lusting for War

Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. “Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone,” she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a “safe zone” that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton’s invasion of Syria would stop at a “safe zone.” As with Libya, once the camel’s nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to “liberate” the people of Crimea from “Russian aggression” (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving “regime change” in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton’s actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of “humanitarian” warfare, starting wars to “save the children” or to stop the evil enemy from “raping defenseless girls.” The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When “friendly” civilians are dying, we are told that we have a “responsibility to protect,” but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as “enemy propaganda” or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

Trading Places

But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and “liberal interventionists” do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether “identity politics” or anti-war policies are more important.

At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation’s militaristic impulses.

In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

Ronald Reagan and his 1980 vice-presidential running mate George H.W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan and his 1980 vice-presidential running mate George H.W. Bush.

By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia’s borders.

But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced “regime change” in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel’s pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush’s Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won’t view as a failure.

The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” [See’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon.”]

So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America’s new aggressive war party.

[For more on this topic, see’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

100 comments for “Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

  1. Enrique Ferro
    June 20, 2016 at 20:41

    Who said Clinton is the lesser evil? A warmonger who had a prosperous country such as Libya destroyed, smashed to smithereens? A coup schemer who subverted a democracy such as Honduras’? A corrupt politician who used her public position to get her Foundation fatter? And the worst, based on this record and her speeches: a would-be president threatening to leave a country such as Syria in ashes and under the rule of warring gangs, like Libya, and disregarding the likely clash with nuclear powers such as Russia and China…? And that is the lesser evil? Fortunately many people are seeing clearly the no-future a sociopath lacking conscience and morals would take the world.

  2. Brad Benson
    June 11, 2016 at 14:40

    People should stop referring to Clinton as a War Hawk. She is a WAR CRIMINAL.

  3. Michael Herron
    June 10, 2016 at 23:14

    The democratic party has always been an “aggressive war party” and so has the republican party. There isn’t a bit of difference between a liberal interventionist and a neoconservative war hawk. These warmongers switch parties like walking thru a revolving door. There is only one major party in America…The war party. Why the citizen’s put up with either of them is beyond me. Is Trump the only hope for avoid constant interventionism?

  4. Raymond
    June 10, 2016 at 18:45

    Democrats once believed that Dick Cheney ran the world from the always all-powerful Office of the Vice President.

    Democrats now believe that President Obama is a powerless person who can only go along with the wars and the police state even though he wishes it wasn’t happening.

    To me, it seems like the Democrats have been full of it for at least 8 of the last 16 years, with the distinct possibility based on this assertion alone that they’ve been full of it for a perfect 16 of 16.

    • delia ruhe
      June 10, 2016 at 20:03

      Try 30 years — ever since Reaganism delivered the Dems an inferiority complex.

  5. delia ruhe
    June 10, 2016 at 18:45

    The American empire is going to come to an end for the same reason the USSR did. It will finally go broke. That will require a president with just the right combination of ideologies – say neoliberalism blended with neoconservatism, e.g., someone like Hillary. Mind you the US can probably stagger on as long as the US dollar remains the reserve currency, but the days of that privileged status are numbered as Eurasia’s preference for a basket of currencies (i.e., theirs) becomes the basis for ever more contracts among the Eurasian states.

    The sooner the fall, the better, for there is widespread misery across America. That misery is not going to let up while the empire is merely “in decline,” because an empire in decline is a desperate empire, sucking more and more resources from its workers and its natural environment in order to feed its ever expanding military and surveillance state. If that goes on for many more years, the US will resemble one of those Latin American countries that Washington turned into a banana republic. The quicker Washington tumbles from its imperial seat, the sooner ordinary Americans can get started rebuilding the republic.

    Keep an eye on China so that you can spot when it embraces a program of gradually divesting itself of all those yankee dollars. Then you’ll know the end is near, and a new beginning is possible.

  6. Jamie
    June 10, 2016 at 13:27

    This article is a complete fiction. Obama was enthusiastic about escalating Afghanistan. He was proud of his destruction of Libya and even the joint chiefs of staff had to temper his desire to arm jihadists in Syria and his wish to bomb Syria. The Obama administration has overthrown the Ukraine, ignited a new cold war with Russia, so the idea that Hillary marks any change in the war-mongering of the Democrats is foolish. At the most, she will simply accelerate the imperialist tenancies of Obama. He is only a reluctant warrior in the make-believe world of apologists.

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:18


  7. Madhu
    June 10, 2016 at 08:56

    I’m worried about NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe too. It’s the recreation (no, something much worse, I think) of the line of control between India and Pakistan.

    (And parts of the DC Consensus are busy working the levers to remove traditional Indian restraints in the area of nuclear policy, with help from internal parties, Indian hawks, etc. Same process within NATO.)

    1. Stories about how we need a new Schengen for NATO so troops can be more easily moved around (that article in Foreign Affairs is by a reporter who has been through the Reuters Institute and is a fellow at the Atlantic Council. Has written for Newsweek, Christian Science Monitor, etc. How are you a reporter and a fellow at a think tank?)

    2. Stories about how SACEUR should have more power within NATO for movement of troops (a move from ‘Reassurance’ to ‘Deterrence’).

    3. Bob Work (how close are they all, Michele Fluornoy, Ashton Carter, etc. with Work? Didn’t this site do a story on this some years back? Or am I confusing things?) and his techno-wizardry approach to strategy.

    4. Have you seen this article?

    Work said the “technological sauce” of the first offset was miniaturization of nuclear components. In the second offset, he added, that “sauce” included digital microprocessors, information technologies, new sensors and stealth.

    “We believe quite strongly that the technological sauce of the third offset is going to be advances in artificial intelligence and autonomy,” which will allow the department to create collaborative human-machine battle networks, he said.

    Silicon Valley, military contractors and who else is pushing this? It’s very odd, and extremely dangerous. A parallel with the mania for electronic medical information systems when they are not vetted and can cause problems as well as improve medicine. Companies push the EMR technology and it sort of, haha, develops a life of its own.

    Very strange.

  8. Medusa
    June 10, 2016 at 08:39

    The Dems have always been a war party — a Democrat bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Kennedy sent “advisors” to Vietnam, Obama has escalated wars in the Middle East. The Democratic Party establishment has supported all wars, even when it didn’t actually start them. The Dems were never “reluctant” about war.

  9. Joe
    June 10, 2016 at 06:21

    Its worth remembering that the Democrats have only been an ‘anti-war’ party twice in their existence.

    The most recent was when there was a revolt in the party against the Vietnam War. The party bosses fought hard against this, but the revolt succeeded enough to make George McGovern the party’s nominee and to make running against the war a successful position for lower level candidates to hold.

    Its worth noting of course that the Democrats started the Vietnam war, and the a Congress that had a nearly permanent Democrat majority in those times constantly supported the war and always voted for more money. Its also worth noting that McGovern has since been a swear word in Democrat circles and the party bosses openly rail against another ‘McGovern’. They went so far as to massively change the rules of the party introducing ‘super-delegates’ to make sure this never happens again.

    In its long history, the Democratic Party was ‘anti-war’ only one other time. That was during the Civil War, which the Democrats strongly opposed due to their ‘pro-slavery’ stance.

    To someone who knows history, that the Democrats are once again the aggressive war party comes as no surprise at all. Its mainly been a deluge of election propaganda of Republicans attacking Democrats as ‘weak’ that creates the background that makes this a headline that gets attention.

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 10, 2016 at 09:48

      I can hear President Johnson hissing, “I’ll give them their damn War,” on tape, I think, indicating possibly that he didn’t agree but had no choice because of his complicity in the assassination?

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:18

      Well,that’s true.but the modern republican party has been just as warlike,remember the shrub? and cheney? but The Donald is more of the old style patriotic republican,who wants what is good for America,not our Zionist enemy.

  10. Vesuvius
    June 10, 2016 at 05:58

    Yes, the Neocons have moved to the Democratic Party, trusting a Dems win in November.

    But wait a few months. The Trump machine will pull Hillary apart, her politics and her person will be scandalized from top to bottom in the coming, Dirty Campaign. With Hillary, Democrats cannot win. Bernie Sanders’ now betrayed followers will not vote for Hillary, they will turn to Trump.

    The next president will be Donald Trump. Already, he has secured The Christian Conservative Vote, see TIME’s recent issue.

    And he will govern in the way he has showed in his Campaign, and in his business. There will be a lot of “you are fired!”

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:16

      If she ever cheated her way to victory(only possible scenario)Imagine the gridlock in DC,It would make the current phony gridlock a love fest.

  11. Martin Katchen
    June 10, 2016 at 03:40

    The interesting thing about the Dems being the new war party is that the Dems are not carrying the segment of the population that provides most of the warriors (and much of law enforcement): Southern Scots-Irish. That is very different from the 40s 50s and 60s (or Woodrow Wilson’s 10s). Those voters are still Republican and supporting Trump, and that is not likely to change.
    And Hillary is digging that hole even deeper by supporting gun control, which is pointedly aimed at poorer whites (gun control has historically always been aimed at SOME discreet group be it African-Americans or Southern and Eastern Europeans or strikers and unionists). So she would attempt to repress the segment of the population that is doing the repressing and expect that segment to automatically follow orders because they are legal orders. Good luck with that!

  12. David G
    June 9, 2016 at 23:00

    The premise of this piece—that the Dems have, since the end of the U.S. aggression against Vietnam, been consistently less bellicose than the Repubs—is plausible, but I’m not sure it’s true, and I don’t think Robert Parry supports it very well here.

    The only specific example of the alleged difference given is that Bill Clinton resisted the call to go all-in on destroying Iraq, satisfying himself with starving its people and harrying them with air strikes. That is definitely a valid distinction in comparison to his successor, but insufficient, I’d say, to demonstrate a broader trend of the Dems being “reluctantly warlike” as compared to the Repubs.

    Still, it is true that the actual invasions since 1975 have by and large been ordered by Repub presidents, and Dems in Congress have dissented from them in greater numbers than their Repub colleagues—though that can as easily be chalked up to partisanship as to an aversion to fighting wars.

    Probably the major counter-example to the argument made here is Obama himself, but we know from many articles on this site that Robert Parry is convinced that this president personifies the reluctant warrior. Just as in earlier pieces on the subject, we read here that “[i]n the case of Syria … Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks”, with no notice taken of forces other than Obama’s mighty conscience that may have forestalled full-scale intervention, such as the U.K. parliament slipping the leash, and Sergei Lavrov’s judo move against Kerry on chemical weapons disarmament.

    However, while I’m hesitant about conceding Obama, or even the Dem party at large, any points for being in at all “peaceful”, I can’t dispute that the looming Clinton presidency (distaff division) looks to be a terrifying development.

  13. Bill Cash
    June 9, 2016 at 21:02

    Clinton will work within some restraints. She will try to work with allies and the un. Trump will have no restraints. He has demonstrated how wild and uncontrollable he is. He will try to dictate to everyone and if they don’t hew the line, he will attack them. He has shown this over and over. His whole control has been about enriching Donald Trump, nothing else.

    Our military has told us that climate change will be the biggest terrorist threat in the future and he doesn’t believe in it and will withdraw from any agreements. If this is what you want, I’m not with you.

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:14

      oy.Check for skid marks.

  14. exiled off mainstreet
    June 9, 2016 at 18:45

    It boils down to this: the assurance of survival Trumps political correctness.

  15. Bill Bodden
    June 9, 2016 at 15:28

    Hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped her hands in glee.

    As a child during WW2, I was told tales of chivalry and encouraged to believe that soldiers had some compassion for enemy soldiers they killed. That was probably more the exception than the rule, but some stories that came out of the war revealed examples of humanity breaching the violence of war. They stand in sharp contrast to the revolting delight expressed by Secretary Clinton on being told of Gaddafi’s death, especially when she must have been aware of the gruesome details of his execution. Perhaps some psychologist or psychiatrist or a writer well-informed in human nature will someday provide an analysis of this squalid episode.

    • June 10, 2016 at 00:32

      Some fool said : “If women ran the world we wouldn’t have wars.” He exited the world on an overdose of antidepressants. Were there no women in his world?

      “Every day’s a My Lai day for the US Army.”

      “JOIN THE ARMY! Become what you can be! A uniformed, licensed to kill member of a national Mafia.”

      Sadly, US Veterans, your beloved Semper Fi Marine Corps is no longer the Corps of honorable men and Band of Brothers whom you once knew; no longer an honorable representation of American Youth patriotically supporting and defending America and American ideals of Freedom and Democracy; but is rapidly sinking to a hired mob of undisciplined mercenary soldiers, killers, drug addicts, psycho and sociopaths, poorly led by gangsters apparently, “getting the job done!”

      And the number of suicides by returning vets is another story. The 90% don’t have a clue and aren’t trying anymore to find out what’s wrong with them a bullet in the head won’t fix.

      The senior US military leadership is now completely co-opted. It will be a revolt of colonels & corporals, or nothing at all.

      Bye Bye Miss American Pie!

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 10, 2016 at 09:37

      Bill Bodden, Yes, thanks for your humanity. Your image of America is very similar to mine,and I don’t think,that we are unique or diluded. Our America has been stolen from us generationally. It probably started before we were born but it certainly presented itself with the Assassination of President Kennedy. It is now nearly totally corrupted as witnessed by the choices we’re given in this election. We should do our upmost to reject Both and find a real alternative, and I’ll bet there will be massive support. I fondly remember the saying from the desperate 60’s when it appeared that Nixon/Kissinger would never end Vietnam, “No More Business As Usual.” We don’t have to make America Great again; we have to make it Good again…

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:13

      We treated Japanese soldiers to flamethrowers,about the most depraved attacks going as far as humanity,to rival napalm later.
      The German soldiers didn’t receive the same ferocity in fighting,but the civilians did.

  16. exiled off mainstreet
    June 9, 2016 at 14:51

    This is one of the best articles I have seen on these issues and shows the real gravity of the threat we face. The Libya thing was a war crime, and, as alluded to in earlier postings actually included a mass-murder of Africans settled in Libya by the victorious el qaeda element. Hillary’s responsibility for this encompasses war crimes and the resultant crimes against humanity. Trump may have made politically incorrect statements that can be classed as racist, but he does not have a serious war crime on his record. As is indicated, his foreign policy is more reasonable. Survival trumps identity politics. Anyone supporting the harpy is playing russian roulette with the planet’s future.

  17. Bill Bodden
    June 9, 2016 at 13:10

    :Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate” by Diana Johnstone –

  18. Bill Bodden
    June 9, 2016 at 12:44

    The prospect for a (nuclear) war with Russia is more likely with the Clintons in the White House and their neocon accomplices in eastern Europe playing chicken with Vladimir Putin. They may not really want war, but their schemes, as the Scottish bard warned a couple of centuries ago, might just “gang agley” – go haywire with unintended consequences.

    The one and perhaps only redeeming point in Trump’s favor is that he appears to be more inclined to deal with Putin. As Winston Churchill said, “To jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.”

  19. Bill Cash
    June 9, 2016 at 12:16

    I accept what you say about Hillary but think you paint far too rosy a picture of Trump. He has promised to rep up the Iranian deal his first day. He has accepted a hundred million dollars in support from Adelson which tells me he has agreed to let Netanyahu run his mid-east policy. He might be better in the European theater but somehow I doubt it.

    He doesn’t believe in climate change which is the single most dangerous issue. He gets insulted very easily and would have the world’s most powerful military at his fingertips. Restraint isn’t part of his makeup. I truly believe he’d be worse than Hillary.

    • Brad Smith
      June 10, 2016 at 21:27

      Actually Trump has stated the Iran deal was a terrible deal, not that he would rip it up. In fact he was the only Republican that stated that he would not, because a deal is deal. He did say that he would make sure the deal was enforced. The Adelson money was not accepted because it came with Gingrich as VP. So he turned it down. He has also said that he would be neutral when it comes to Palestine. Now of course the powers that be have done everything they can to get him to walk that back, but so far he hasn’t.

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 11:09

      Adelson offered the dough,but it is illegal for that much money to be given by a person for a candidate so its really a non story,probably issued by Adelson to hurt Trumps support.
      Climate change;oy.About the most irrelevant meme in the world,because no one is going to hurt their hurting economies in fighting it,no matter its provenance.
      The military and the airlines,the major polluters are going to be curtailed?How much hydrocarbons are strewn into the air with every bomb blast and refinery fire?A major joke.
      Trump might be the answer,if he can curtail our military,and revitalize our economy from the feudalism of Zion.

  20. Ron Showalter
    June 9, 2016 at 09:43

    Nice, glad to see that you’re doing real work now telling us such enlightening things such as the fact that the Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans? Holy mother of god! How do you come to that AMAZING insight, Mr. Parry?

    I mean, it’s not like regular people – i.e., non-“reporters” who don’t get paid to spend their lives researching world affairs such as yourself – came to this conclusions DECADES AGO!

    So why now?

    Again, does the Bernie butthurt hurt THAT BAD?! I mean, instead of realizing that you and all of your faux-progressives have ONCE AGAIN been played for suckers via the US sham political Spectacle you instead double-down by continuing to fight for a man who – now, listen – was vying for the nomination of the US DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

    And you’re now going to support the OTHER Spectacular media figure in Donald Trump.

    Embarrassing. Really, really embarrassing.

  21. Victor Shrenzel
    June 9, 2016 at 04:09

    Dear Mr. Parry,
    I am a long time reader and admirer of your work. I am proud to have your books (one of them I was fortunate enough to get autographed). Today, however, I am writing in complete disgust with your piece, Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party (June 8, 2016). Even if I assume everything you say about Ms. Clinton is true (and I know the facts show that, unfortunately, much of it is), the title of your piece is as at best, misleading. More significantly, what is the evidence to support your claim regarding Mr. Trump: “Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.” How in the world did you arrive at this conclusion? If anything, the opposite is true. Trump has never served in public office so we do not have evidence either way, but here is a small sample of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy views (in his own words) from his campaign: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war.” “Bomb the shit out of ISIS.” “Take out the families of ISIS.” “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would, and you know what? If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.” Perhaps it was not your intention, but you leave some readers with the feeling that Clinton will cause more war and suffering than Trump? Is that what you really believe? Or was that simply added to your piece to strengthen your emphasis about Clinton? Sincerely,
    Victor Shrenzel

    • June 9, 2016 at 06:37

      You are right, of course, that Trump is a big mouth and a relative wild card, but Parry’s point is that Hillary is a proven warmonger, and Trump at least is the only candidate, including Sanders, who has not sputtered about “getting tough with Russia” and the demon Putin with no-fly zones, sanctions, etc. This coming from the Republican camp is reason enough to hope that he might indeed be his own man. Not likely, true, since he will be co-opted at the latest by the time he is elected, but as I said in my earlier comment, it gives voices of reason such as Robert Parry a chance to be heard so that (what should be) the No. 1 issue of avoiding nuclear holocaust (No. 2 being avoiding environmental holocaust) can be pushed to the forefront.

    • dahoit
      June 9, 2016 at 11:01

      Holy cow,IsUS are terrorists working for USzion in destabilizing the ME.Clinton has been on the ground floor of such evil.If Trump wants to take out these mercenary monsters,its OK by me,but of course the easiest way would be to cut off their CIA and GS dough.
      Yankee come home.
      And HRC has served in public office,abysmally.Serially abysmally btw.An idiot of neolibcon proportion.

    • dahoit
      June 9, 2016 at 11:03

      Approve waterboarding?We ‘ve been doing it since at least the Philippine insurrection,and all officially approved,at least by the military.

    • Brad Smith
      June 10, 2016 at 21:19

      You could answer this question yourself by simply listening to Trump. Now if you refuse to believe Donald that is fine. But you can’t say with a straight face that the author of this piece is incorrectly describing Trump’s positions. He is absolutely correct that these are in fact Trump’s stated positions. Furthermore, even if Trump has lied about everything it is still a rejection by the voters of the neo-con policy.

      One of the greatest moments in recent history was Trump’s destruction of Jeb during the debates. Trump flat out said that W lied us into war and he states very clearly that the destruction of Iraq led to the create of ISIS in that country.

      I know that it’s incredibly difficult to admit that the Republicans of all people have nominated a person who is not in fact the typical neo-con but it happens to be true.

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 10:59

      Total panty scrunching BS.America is the land of torture and has been for at least 200 years.Waterboarding was first documented in the Philippine insurrection over a century ago,and watch your war movies and crime dramas,torture was accepted and commonplace ways to make people talk.You don’t think that both native Americans and whitey didn’t torture?Staked on an anthill.sheesh.
      It may not be an effective way of getting the right info,but it is and has been commonplace.

  22. WeAllWin
    June 9, 2016 at 03:31

    Great piece, save for the untrue ‘Obama isn’t really a war hawk’ apologia.

  23. Bill Bodden
    June 9, 2016 at 01:30

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether “identity politics” or anti-war policies are more important.

    Most Democrats will follow standard operating procedure. Hillary may be a war hawk or a crook or whatever, but she is their war hawk, crook or whatever.

    • dahoit
      June 9, 2016 at 10:56

      This lifelong democrat will be more than happy to pull the lever(no more-computer)for Trump.
      This woman is no democrat.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 9, 2016 at 14:52


        I suspect you will be more the exception than the rule.

        • dahoit
          June 12, 2016 at 10:53

          I think you are wrong,but OK,we’ll see.Democrats have been totally screwed by the Democratic party,and all party affiliations today is in flux,as millions of Americans see it.And we rejected the neolibcon rethugs,totally,by nominating Trump.
          All bets are off this cycle baby.

      • Truthster
        June 10, 2016 at 10:41

        Well put, dahlia.
        I will be pulling that same lever.
        Trump is now our hope to avoid WWIII. And he is right, Hillary is “trigger happy,” a very effective phrase to communicate her disorder.
        The antiwar intelligentsia are having trouble taking that final step of defending AND supporting Trump. But they already know better. They know that Trump is the right choice. But right now they will be ostracized in their social circle should they say they will pull the lever for Trump.
        It is time to demonstrate a little ovarian fortitude and stand with Trump, social circle be damned. It is the right thing to do – and our very survival may depend on it.

  24. June 9, 2016 at 00:01

    We should remember a few things before coming to the conclusion that the Democrats were “reluctant war makers” after the Viet Nam years-long atrocity: 1) Carter began engagement in the proxy war against the Russians and the left wing government in Afghanistan – that was taken up by Reagan and expanded; 2) Bill Clinton was not very reluctant in bombing Iraq and insisting on keeping the sanctions in place throughout his two terms, resulting in incalculable civilian deaths – the purpose of the sanctions was the hope of sparking a mass uprising against Saddam Hussein resulting in his ouster; 3) Clinton also was not so resistant in regard to the break-up of Yugoslavia, even going so far as to bomb Serbia. 4) I also find the characterization of Mr. Obama as being forced somehow to do all the decidedly not Peace-Prize-worthy actions which he has in fact done totally unbelievable. Even when he accepted the undeserved Nobel Prize for Peace, he signaled in his speech that he would use force not necessarily as the last resort. Also remember that all Democratic presidents from JFK to the current resident of the White House have covered for Israel’s illegal and disproportionate actions against the peace, as well as officially not recognizing its possession of nuclear weapons, or cutting off aid as various laws call for when U. S. military aid is used in contravention of its original purpose. Mr Obama, in addition, is now demanding trillions for the renovation of our nuclear capabilities – I wonder who is twisting his arm so strenuously that he cannot resist in this last year of his incumbency. It is probably true that Hillary Clinton will be a war hawk president but Obama has been a fine example for her to follow too.

    • jaycee
      June 9, 2016 at 14:30

      A few thoughts in support of your observations:

      “the purpose of the sanctions was the hope of sparking a mass uprising against Saddam Hussein…” Not sure that sparking a “mass uprising” was the intended or even expected or anticipated result. A potential uprising immediately after the first Gulf War was stifled as the US stood by. The purpose of the sanctions were to destroy Iraq as a functioning society, as several persons from the UN eventually concluded, and the damage inflicted on the citizens of Iraq was rightly described as one of the most grotesque crimes against humanity conducted in our times.

      “Obama… is now demanding trillions for the renovation of our nuclear capabilities – I wonder who is twisting his arm so strenuously…”

      As pointed out elsewhere on this site – the big money for the MIC is in high end weaponry. Think tank scholars were pimping for such renovations more than a decade ago, and eventually the policy-makers put it into practice, responding to the advice of the “experts” (with a little subversion on the Russian border in between to create a neat justification). This is just part of the planned massive military programs upcoming. See Sec Def Ash Carter’s speech from April:
      Or see Jim Lobe’s analysis of what might be expected from a Hillary Clinton regime: Clinton is responding to specific advice from specific think-tank scholars, and she appears more aligned to the very bad and poorly rationalized advice from the Brookings Institute than Obama was.

      • Rob
        June 20, 2016 at 15:14

        Not that it may matter to many of you, but there is actually a good reason for upgrading the nuclear weapon stockpile. Let me preface by saying that no nuke is a good nuke but, given that total disarmament is not going to happen anytime soon, it makes sense to ensure that the stockpile is stable and safe.

        Most of the current inventory of weapons was designed and manufactured in the 70s and 80s for employment as MRV’s on large rockets. The design criteria was to maximize yield while minimizing weight. This caused weapons to be designed and built with thin hulls and lightweight bodies. These weapons were not designed to last for decades, the assumption being that the USSR would be around for a long time and that we would continually replenish the stockpile. But the USSR didn’t last and the weapons are still around.

        For the past decade, people in the industry have known that these weapons would deteriorate and become unstable over time (by design, they contain corrosive elements) and that the stockpile would need to develop heavier bodied, lower yield weapons that could last a long time without extensive maintenance. Failure to do so could potentially lead to weapon failure with resultant chemical and radioactive material release (i.e., environmental nightmare). They won’t explode, but they’re still really nasty items.

        Upgrading the stockpile is very controversial but, short of dismantling and eliminating all of them (again, not likely anytime soon), this upgrade actually needs to happen.

  25. June 8, 2016 at 23:46

    Parry: “Obama’s desire to … apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians.”

    Not so sure about that one.

    June 7, 2016: “Susan Rice Assures Israel of ‘Largest Military Aid Package in American History’”

  26. June 8, 2016 at 23:00

    John Pilger: ” Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.”

    We might also recall the Democrats were the pro-slavery party.

    Then we can look further back to a complete sadist genocidaire like Andrew Jackson, and note that “Jackson’s supporters founded what became the Democratic Party.” (This quote is just from the Wiki page on Jackson.)

    This is not to say the Republicans are better, either. They’re not.

  27. ltr
    June 8, 2016 at 21:58

    Brilliant, necessary and ever so saddening essay.

  28. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
    June 8, 2016 at 20:43

    I disagree with the title of the article. The democrats and the republicans are the two faces of the same coin……America has become war and war has become America…………who said that manufacturing stopped in America……America manufactures wars by lies like what happened in Iraq and it manufactures terrorism to create more reasons for wars like what happened on 9/11…………science has proven that the official story of 9/11 is not true!!

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 8, 2016 at 22:39

      Don’t get me wrong when I say how conquest is part of America’s DNA. George Washington may have been the last U.S. President to have avoided foreign entanglements. Although, even in his time the Anglo-white were stealing land from this continents indigenous peoples. It seems that America’s history is littered with conquest, and privatization of other people’s property.

      The Guano Islands Act (11 Stat. 119, enacted 18 August 1856, codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 8 §§ 1411-1419) is federal legislation passed by the U.S. Congress that enables citizens of the U.S. to take possession of islands containing guano deposits. Even in 1856 the U.S. felt entitled over Peru’s sovereignty. Furthermore, this Act didn’t just pertain to the Guano Islands. This Act didn’t mean to set any precedent for any other nation, to try and do the same. Although there are exceptions at times if America likes you, such as provided for in regard to Israel’s takeover of Palestine in 1948.

      As I started saying, don’t get me wrong I love America. I grew up here. My ancestors migrated here for a chance to gain an opportunity, that their European countries apparently didn’t offer them any longer at that time. What I do love is not our country’s foreign policies, but the many people who have made a life here for themselves and their families. The melting pot of diversity. The mixing of religion and cultures, is our greatest treasure. I just wish we would quit stomping mud holes in foreign people’s chest. We could all do so much better.

      Always, enjoy your intelligent analyst and comments Dr Soudy.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 9, 2016 at 01:22

      The democrats and the republicans are the two faces of the same coin

      When it comes to warmongering, Hillary will certainly get bi-partisan support from John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham – among others.

    • voxpax
      June 9, 2016 at 10:39

      And HRC is a girl that does have cannon balls too…at least according to history. So what is this first female candidate for pres. bs.

    • June 11, 2016 at 00:31

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      As for 9/11 Truth ? Which will prevail? The big Lie, or this “little” Truth?

      The World today has become a replica of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

      It runs on… is fueled by, and greased with… Bullshit!

      Locked in our barn, fed only what the Hired Hands give us for fodder, we will never know what is actually happening out there in the barnyard of “the real world.”

      Alan Sabrosky, ex-US Marine, comes as close as I think we can get to the truth of it.

      It is obviously not what we were told what has happened… is happening!

      So… listen on… and get a slight glimpse of reality.

      I hope you are prepared to handle it… what it describes and forfends for America and the world is not nice to contemplate.

      But, that is the Farm we live in.

  29. Ethan Allen
    June 8, 2016 at 19:43

    While there is, as usual, very little to disagree with regarding your historical veracity in general or this present contention that the present day establishment element of the Democrat party has continued to degenerate into an empirical blend of neoliberal and neoconservative militaristic concepts that threaten to further destabilize the world. As you suggest, and factually substantiate, Clinton is not the progressive alternative she purports herself to be; both she and her husband have always been conservative elements within the Democrat establishment, regardless of their rhetoric to the contrary. I submit that the conservative takeover of the Democrat Party, and its devolution into militarism, actually began with the installation of Johnson as President; since that time the entire federal career bureaucracy has been gradually peopled with conservative ideologues, regardless of what “popular choice” sits in the oval office.
    You say in pertinent part:

    “The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

    With all due respect good sir, I fail to agree that Donald Trump actually has any “disdain for neocon strategies..”; or that he is somehow adverse to “..simply spreading chaos around the globe.” I suspect that the reasons “The smarter neocons…and many interventionists are pouring their hopes.” into Clinton is that she is much more predictably reliable and steadfast in her convictions as a team zealot.
    “The public good before private advantage.” TP
    As Usual,

  30. Chris Chuba
    June 8, 2016 at 19:26

    A Hillary Presidency, in a plausible scenario could lead to nuclear war
    1. A no fly zone in Syria is rebuffed by the Russians leading to a U.S. backed attack in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.
    2. Russians respond with a conventional, cruise missile attack on a U.S. military base in a place like San Diego (make the U.S. feel some pain so that they will back down).
    3. Hillary, given a choice between calling a cease fire or further escalation decides to attempt a nuclear first strike to take out the Russians once and for all, after all, to do otherwise would make her a one term President and she’s a narcissist.

    BTW here is a paper from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006 claiming that we in the U.S. had nuclear supremacy
    It’s quite interesting. They basically say that the Russian nuclear forces had deteriorated so much that they were vulnerable. If Hillary was convinced by a Breedlove type that a first strike would actually work, is my scenario a 0% probability? I don’t trust her. I trust Trump’s judgment a lot more.

    • Erik
      June 8, 2016 at 20:53

      Generally true, but Russia would not attack the US mainland, nor would a US warmonger attack Crimea, because the result is then politically inevitable. Some other scenario is more likely. A “theater war” in Eastern Europe is certainly contemplated by the US right wing, and escalation from there is quite possible, by unforeseen steps. I would suggest that Russia moving into South and Central America, and toward proxy war in Mexico, maybe even back to Cuba or Venezuela, is more likely, and the warmongers certainly want that scenario to support more military spending and right wing hysteria.

      More likely Russia and China will move move carefully by economic power to contain the warmongering US right wing, and more power to them in that. They may be the most able to restore democracy in the US.

      • Chris Chuba
        June 9, 2016 at 09:54

        Thanks for the reply Erik. My scenario is a worst case outcome (obviously since I was specifically going to a nuclear war scenario) that was not totally ridiculous. I left out a few details.

        A U.S. attack on Crimea is the most unlikely aspect of my scenario but it is not non-zero for the following reasons …
        1. We recognize this as Ukraine and there are hotheads in the U.S. that could back a Ukranian attack with U.S. backing.
        2. If we were engaged in a fight with the Russians in Syria because of a no fly zone, a naval battle in the Black Sea is plausible. An overt missile attack on Sevastopol is also plausible, hey, it’s not really Russian territory, a lunatic like Breedlove and a few others could delude Hillary that it would show the Russian’s who’s the boss.

        ” but Russia would not attack the US mainland,”
        In general, I agree but given THIS context, I would put this as likely. IF the Russians were being attacked in this manner they would be having a WTF moment. Keep in mind that this is now a hot conventional war with the U.S. where we are trading missiles and they are fighting a land war in their backyard with the Ukranians. I could well imagine them thinking that the U.S. needs a slap across their face to bring them back into reality and a CONVENTIONAL missile attack on a military base might do the trick as a type of wake up call. It would likely backfire because we in the U.S. would think ‘Pearl Harbor’ because we are idiots, it’s not a surprise attack but that’s irrelevant.

        Disasters and wars happen because of bad decisions and reckless behavior even if it was not the original intention. Something like a no fly zone can escalate because they are not thought out. When I read the Council on Foreign relations paper on the nuclear primacy, a chill ran down my spine because I shudder what a Narcissist like Hillary Clinton might do if she deluded herself into thinking that a first strike would actually succeed.

        I now wonder if our ABM really is an attempt to maintain, achieve, or merely bankrupt the Russians. In any case, it is an extremely hostile escalation but the sheep in the U.S. are cheering all the way. We are a nation of drunk drivers.

        • Erik
          June 9, 2016 at 11:57

          There is much truth in your observations of the instability and thoughtlessness of US warmongers, but I think that there are still missing steps in the scenario of an attack on the US mainland.

          If the US made a foolish or rogue nuclear attack upon Crimea via naval forces or an eastern Europe base, Russia could wipe out the naval forces or missile base with no international recrimination or support for US escalation, and the US would look very bad to its own navy or AF and to the nations hosting or near its aggressive forces. If the US attack was not nuclear, it would have to be a naval force which Russia could wipe out with small nuclear weapons, but (with its no-first-use policy) would probably destroy with conventional forces, perhaps trapping them in the Black sea until destroyed. Crimea would be an exceptionally bad target for the US.

          So far the US warmongers have been using proxies to make provocative attacks on Russia in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Syria, hoping for a reaction that they can use to demand military spending, which I expect to continue under Hillary/Trump. But Russia can always limit counterattacks to the proxies. It is when the US begins planting “tripwire forces” as in Korea and Vietnam that it spoils for casualties to demand escalation. But those were small enemies that our cowardly warmongers aren’t afraid of.

          So I expect the real counteroffensives of Russia and China will be peaceful economic inroads in this hemisphere, where the US warmongers have created so many enemies by fighting socialism and propping up dictators and oligarchies. The greatest enemies of “capitalism” are now probably those closest to home, and even within the US. And both Russia and China have blended socialism and capitalism while the US capitalists hold out against socialism and make enemies of their own people. As long as US warmongers can steal public funds, they can fight the public interest at home by means of foreign wars against socialism, but at last the US will be unable to twist arms and buy more weapons. There will be several more Great Recessions, after which poverty will be so pervasive that wars will be declared unaffordable, and the US will hide behind its TVs trying not to remember that it lost its own hemisphere due to foolish aggression.

          Also, the US is likely to find that the future Afghanistans and Ukraines and Syrias are in its own hemisphere, with itself on the defensive, perhaps even against a warmonger class in Russia or China created by its own warmonger provocations.

          • Chris Chuba
            June 9, 2016 at 12:49

            I totally agree that plan A for the U.S. is for a proxy conflict which is why so many U.S. politicians are drooling over Ukraine. I was just pondering the unthinkable, how would a direct conflict start. To my horror, many politicians, including Hillary Clinton have stated the need for a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria. This is a mainstream view in the U.S. What are these imbeciles thinking? They must believe that Russia will always back down.

            If Russia didn’t back down and there were Jet fights and S400 attacks and U.S. jets got downed then at that point we have a hot war at its earliest stages, not a proxy war. U.S. politicians who suggest such a thing are crazy, there is absolutely no legal principle involved, just ‘the M.E. is our turf, get out’.

        • Martin Katchen
          June 10, 2016 at 03:21

          What could change everything is the strides both Russia (which it shares with China) and the US have made in missile defense. Russia, which is rolling out it’s S-500 next month may actually be ahead of the US-Isaeli Arrow program. What happens if it is Russia that can enforce a no-fly zone in Syria and the bombers and drones stop getting through?

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 8, 2016 at 22:09

      Recently the Saker wrote about Russia’s nuclear capability.

      Whether it be Russia or the U.S., life will be very different (putting it mildly) than what we know it if someone pulls the nuclear trigger. I fear Hillary’s character, if all reporting is true of her, is certainly not the type of person we want in charge of the nuclear codes. Clintons never seem to suffer from any consequence due to their actions, and I would guess that Hillary would endeavor down a dark road believing she would survive regardless of any reality that would be left after a horrific nuclear engagement. I also get the sense how she may just be the type to want to show the boys how to get it done. Russians are worried about her as well, believing there just maybe an October Surprise being readied before her ascension to the White House. I didn’t always believe her to be the way I have just described, but with all of the recent reporting coming out about her, I find her to be very dangerous just by her nature. I’m sorry, but in my gut, I just don’t trust her. I will hope I am wrong about her, and that hopefully she will be just what this country, and the world needs.

      • Martin Katchen
        June 10, 2016 at 03:31

        In the event of a Trump victory, if Congress is frightened enough of President Trump to take sole possession of nuclear codes away from him (and from future presidents) that will be a good thing. The default power of POTUS to order the deployment of nuclear arms has given presidents godlike power over war and peace that Madison, Washington, Hamilton and Jay would be horrified at. Power that has spread over much of the rest of government too. It is this godlike power and perception of godlike power that has made it so politically difficult for a Congress to impeach a president or remove him or her because of ill health. If missile defenses on both sides have progressed to where missiles may not get through, war mobilization may once again require the drafting of large armies. Thus, congressional approval and maybe that anachronism, a congressional declaration of war.

  31. Pablo Diablo
    June 8, 2016 at 19:22

    Today, we are one step closer to President Trump. Too bad, the Neoconservative/Military/Industrial complex has a stranglehold on both parties. Some people make money off of war (lots of money) so they can buy politicians who will vote for war.
    A massive military buildup=an empire in decline..

    And, BOB, Hillary was for war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Honduras (coup with tragic death squads). What more proof do you need?

    • dahoit
      June 12, 2016 at 10:43

      Maybe Trump will say to the MIC;Make solar panels\.Make batteries.Make electric cars we can afford that don’t have the wheels fall off.Tesla,another Ziomole taking public dough for space privitization.Another giant scam foisted on US by our ziotraitors.

  32. Bob
    June 8, 2016 at 18:51

    I think you’ve at long last lost all sense of perspective with this irresponsible Hillary hit piece. “See if sand glows”, “I would bomb the sh&t out of them”, “I would water board and more”, recall any of those? They are from the other side. Go back and read the speech she gave before that Iraq vote. Not exactly itching for war.

    I think maybe you need to take some time off after the end of Bernie’s run. It’s understandable. But please eventiually try to get back to the wonderful rational reporting you used to do years ago. These articles are veering further and further off the rails with each week to the truly bizarre.

    • Gregory Kruse
      June 8, 2016 at 20:29

      I disagree.

    • Joe B
      June 8, 2016 at 20:43

      I think that nearly every site viewer here knows that these articles are quite right on that point. You will have a lot of good sources to refute to argue your case. Hillary is a warmonger if there ever was one, and a particularly dangerous one, able to mask her intentions in humanitarian language.

    • ltr
      June 8, 2016 at 22:02

      How about you taking time off, duh? What arrogance.

      Me, I think the essay superb.

    • June 9, 2016 at 06:15

      Absolutely wrong, “Bob,” and condescending besides. Your use of the words “bizarre” and (implied) “irrational” is indeed bizarre and irrational. He is not defending Trump but giving us an excellent and thorough history of Hillary’s militaristic history. Robert Parry is one of the few voices of reason and real journalism around. But I thank you, “Bob,” for giving me the chance to say so!

    • June 9, 2016 at 09:46

      Hundreds of thousands of folk actually voted for the witch ?

      Call it “Collective Conscienceless”. “Group Think.”

      Karl Jung extends his and Freud’s work with the individual mind to incorporate a “Collective Conscienceless” which operates on what has since become known as “Group think” and the psychology of large masses of people tightly knitted, into the psychotic folk they are today.

      America the Beautiful!

    • TruthTime
      June 9, 2016 at 10:22

      Is Bob One of Hillary’s paid shills or a truly ignorant American Citizen that actually believes what Careerist Oligarchs “promise”? You decide. Hard to be certain these days.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      June 9, 2016 at 19:27

      The article is spot on. Hillary is an unconvicted war criminal and the Libya thing she helped engineer led to a mass liquidation of Africans who had settled in Khaddafi’s Libya as “mercenaries.” If Trump brings out this story, which was disclosed in part even in the establishment BBC at the time, so it therefore will be more difficult to refute, then I don’t see how the black vote holds up for the harpy this November. Hillary’s role in the Ukraine thing and her continuing willingness to fight Russia on behalf of barbarians who would otherwise be denigrated as terrorists or politically incorrect expletives is appalling. All Trump has to say is no no-fly zones for ragheads and he’ll get a lot of votes.

    • Brad Smith
      June 10, 2016 at 20:54

      See if sand glows was Cruz. And yes Trump has said he will fight ISIS. He is in favor of taking out a current enemy that we are actively at war against. That is a far far cry from thinking that regime change is the way to go. It’s also a far cry from Hillary’s position on Russia.

      As for Hillary’s speech, you are wrong on that as well, or you never bothered to listen to her many speeches and TV spots regarding the subject. She was very much in favor of the Iraq war and she was live on TV more than once cheerleading for it. She repeated the same exact lies that W did, including that Saddam was going to get nukes.

      I can understand being skeptical about Trump, but don’t go apologizing for the mega war mongress Clinton. All that does it make you seem bias.

      • Dave
        June 11, 2016 at 01:13

        Trump also said he would let Russia carry most of the water in fighting ISIS. That makes plenty of sense, since Syria is a long-time ally and Russia has a much shorter supply line. Also, Russia has had Muslim problems of its own. I suspect the Russian people are glad to be rid of the the USSR’s Muslim republics (the five ‘Stans and Azerbaijan).

        What everyone here seems to have forgotten is Trump’s anti-NATO rhetoric. Calling it “obsolete” is great, but he could gain millions more votes if he advocated dissolving NATO entirely. Its mission ended 25 years ago; now it exists to prop up the European nanny states and the US military-industrial complex. Bring the troops home and assign them to patrolling the Mexican border. Isn’t guarding against hostile invasion supposed to be an army’s duty??

    • ltr
      June 8, 2016 at 22:00

      I appreciate these reference articles.

  33. Abe
    June 8, 2016 at 17:27

    “[…] given Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe”

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    The Trump “populist insurgency” meme was concocted by the Republican Party Machine to win big in the next election.

    Obviously, there is no political need to demonstrate the GOP’s devotion as an aggressive war party, or its commitment to “virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel”.

    Trump is decidedly not hostile to the neocon project for a new century.

    Trump will continue to perform the assigned “outsider” and “maverick” Reality TV role: a cynical facade that will evaporate if the Republicans are allowed to regain full control of both the White House and Congress.

    Rest assured, if either Trump or Clinton are elected President, neocon strategies will continue spreading chaos around the globe.

    Sanders staying in the fight represents a slim hope of thwarting the neocon project that launched in 2000, was advanced in 2008, and threatens a radioactive Final Solution post-2016.

    The Sanders campaign would be well-advised to fully expose the joint Trump-Clinton neocon project.

    Sanders should immediately produce a twenty-first century version of the Daisy ad, with Trump and Clinton alternating the countdown

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 8, 2016 at 21:29

      So correct Abe, thanks. I’ve heard this expressed as: We are presented with two options, team A and team B. Each offers a slightly different approach to achieving the same overall goal which seems in part, to be an unacceptable foreign policy.

    • June 9, 2016 at 06:02

      Abe is right, since we know at the latest since JFK that no one can oppose the warmongers and survive, even if elected. The most that can be done now is use the remaining pre-election time to highlight precisely the points that Robert Parry so thoroughly covers, and also the great importance of improving relations with Russia to lower the risk of nuclear holocaust, as Parry and others have also made clear. This would probably give the edge to Trump but if US-Russian relations can be pushed to the forefront of public discussion there is a chance that it will continue that way into a Trump presidency. Then the job will be to bring reason to that discussion, which is always difficult but it is better to have the issues on the table rather than just ignoring them until a crisis appears and “action” appears to be imperative.

    • dahoit
      June 9, 2016 at 10:05

      C’mon,stop the nonsense.Trump has thrown a giant monkey wrench in the rethugs globalization,war forever and anti Russia nonsense the party has been infected with since the 50s.

    • Truthster
      June 10, 2016 at 10:26

      Yes, Abe.
      And black is white. Truth is falsehood.

      First of all, Bernie is on board for the move against Russia. He is an interventionist just not (quite) as bad as Killary who sets the bar very high. In fact Bernie’s hawkish position lost him support on what passes for the Left.

      Abe, your conspiracy theory trash does little other than keep voters away from the anti-interventionist Trump. So I find it very suspicious. In fact, Abe, I think you are part of an anti-Trump conspiracy, probably concocted by Cass Sunstein. Report to him at once that your and his plot has been detected. ;-)

    • Abe
      June 10, 2016 at 12:25

      Firstly, I am not a Sanders supporter. In numerous comments on Consortium News, I have detailed concerns about how Sanders directly contributed to the “Kosovo Strategy” of intervention in 1999. See

      Secondly, the notion of an “anti-interventionist Trump” throwing “a giant monkey wrench in the rethugs globalization, war forever and anti Russia nonsense” definitely qualifies as “conspiracy theory trash” promoted by a Republican Party desperate to secure the White House in November.

    • Abe
      June 10, 2016 at 13:29

      Interpreting Donald Trump’s often chaotic and even self-contradictory pronouncements on foreign policy as some kind of commitment to non-interventionism is a serious mistake.

      Donald Trump is No Non-Interventionist
      By Ed Krayewski

    • Brad Smith
      June 10, 2016 at 20:47

      You seemed to have missed where he has talked about the disaster that regime change has brought about. He has repeated this over and over and over. Now you might not think that the Donald is telling the truth about this, but the people who voted for him do. So it’s the Republican Voters themselves who kicked the neo-cons to the curb.

      Now you of course are Assuming that Trump will act like a neo-con once in office. But that is nothing more than your opinion and flies in the face of absolutely everything Trump has said about foreign policy. It also fails to take into account the foreign policy people who Trump is actively engaged with. They are from what is called the “Realist” branch of foreign policy. This is much more aligned with the likes of Pat Buchanan. If Trump wasn’t as adamant in his disdain for the neo-cons as he is you might have a point. You might have a point, if he had neo-cons advising him. But even then, you would be wrong to say that the Republican voters have voted for anything less than a major change in foreign policy.

      By the way, I hear your type of comment from people who really can’t stand Trump so they simply Assume without evidence that he will just roll over and become a neo-con. That is more like wishful thinking on your part or at the very least, trying to come up with an argument for opposing Trump.

      As much as you must hate this, you are about to be stuck with a clear choice come Nov. You can vote for Trump who is Not a neo-con or Hillary who is. Of course you can also sit it out or vote third party etc. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s going to be either the Neo-con Hillary or Trump who clearly has run against the wars and against regime change and against calling Russia the boogyman.

      • Dave
        June 11, 2016 at 01:55

        Well said, Brad. I was hoping Abe had merely forgotten to include the sarcasm tags in his original post; now I see his bizarre rantings are sincere. To believe any of it one would also have to believe all of the following:

        * the whole #NeverTrump movement is fake
        * the GOPe just pretends to hate Trump
        * Cruz and Kasich never really tried to form an anti-Trump coalition
        * neocon slug Max Boot was just kidding when he openly declared he would rather vote for Stalin than Trump
        * the leftist thugs attacking Trump supporters are actually other Trump supporters in disguise
        * Bill Kristol hasn’t really been scouting around for a 3rd party spoiler candidate

        I know better than to fully trust any candidate for public office, but if Trump can put just half of his non-interventionist rhetoric into effect I will count it as a resounding victory for humanity and a huge face-slap to the neocon cabal. OTOH, Hillary is Dick Cheney in drag — no wonder the neocons adore her.

        • dahoit
          June 12, 2016 at 10:34

          I concur totally with your post.
          Trump is our last chance to democratically change our direction,the next cycle,if he is subterfuged from the nom,will be Hitlers clone,and as with everything wrong with US today,.is directly laid at the feet of the zionist mole traitors within.

    • June 20, 2016 at 09:52

      Your disingenuous dismissal of Trump’s criticism of foreign military adventurism and “nation-building” conveniently forgets the Ron Paul effect on the party. The honest truth is that Trump is an enigma for the electorate, but even if he is a tool, he has renewed that “Ron Paul” anti-war effect in the national political conversation. Hillary had to fend off Bernie Sanders on the subject, obviously, but now Sanders is mouthing off like he’s “all in” for Hillary after he gets his domestic socialist agenda some attention in a party platform that is seldom referenced anymore in presidential elections and is forgotten (and usually broken) in the first days after Inauguration.

    • Bill
      June 20, 2016 at 12:10

      Bernie is not a peace candidate. He supported clinton s war against Serbia and is a supporter of ridiculous military spending programs like the f35, a great “socialist” job creating machine. He may oppose republican wars but I see no evidence that he is in principle antiwar.

  34. June 8, 2016 at 17:09

    I am completely in agreement,, Mr Parry!……..TAKE HER TO THE WOODSHED OFTEN AND HARD
    is my advice.

    And now we need to brace for the possible explosion of TWO US national political party conventions–
    and all that these might entail.

    2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR, retired.
    POB 177 W Pawlet, VT 05775
    802 645 9727 [email protected]

  35. Martin Andersen
    June 8, 2016 at 16:38

    Unpunished U.S. Southern Command role in ’09 Honduran military coup @

    • Peter Loeb
      June 9, 2016 at 07:34


      My Dad was a key figure in US politics, often taking positions with
      which I disagree today.He ran primaries, worked for the White House
      (where he put together a slick booklet with lots of photos for HST
      called “SWORDS INTO PLOUGHSHARES” precisely to counter
      the perception of Democratic administrations as war hawks…

      My Dad always would say around the breakfast table that
      foreign relations never decide elections.

      They are of vital importance to many of us since that
      era. (Such as readers of Consortium.).

      It was preordained that HRC would not feature her
      foreign policy “experience” in her campaign. It would be
      like a student claiming years at a college while neglecting
      to mention all the failing grades. For HRC’s campaign
      HRC’s foreign policy would be underplayed. Not mentioned
      at all if possible.Defended when directly attacked by an adversary
      with no experience in foreign policy himself or in dealing
      with the interlocking interest groups which live off of
      increasing production of machines of death (the weapons
      lobby, AIPAC, NRA etc)

      I can accept Parry’s belief that Barack Obama was a “reluctant
      warrior” but not very reluctant at all. He was a great
      showman. Statements filled with good intentions and
      governmental meaninglessness on Social Security
      (Congress will decide), He represents one more example
      of a war hawk with oratorical style.

      So Robert Parry has allowed himself to become part and
      parcel of the general Democratic plan. In fact Donald Trump
      may himself be contributing to HRC’s deceptions.

      Those of us who are on the left (admittedly an ancient
      phrase) must perceive how we have in so many ways
      been co-opted.

      We quickly “forget” predator drones, assassinations,
      daily murders, rapes, aggression by Israel ( hiding
      thereby the sins of our friends which make those of others
      seem as nothing by comparison).

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA. USA

      • June 9, 2016 at 09:34

        Well said Peter.

        The world in which we live is a beautiful place… it is a Rose Garden, as promised in the lore of our ancestral mythology… but it has been infested and contaminated by a hungry, greedy and rapacious pest, a worm, which has bought, stolen, traded and devoured all that was peace and beauty, and defaced it all by a sheen of what we call “civilization” or “sillivization!”

        The Sick Rose

        O Rose, thou art sick!
        The invisible worm
        That flies in the night,
        In the howling storm,
        Has found out thy bed
        Of crimson joy,
        And his dark secret love
        Does thy life destroy.
        –Wm. Blake

        • Jim Elliot
          June 9, 2016 at 23:34

          Jim Elliot – I think I’m processing what I’ve always sensed – something is rotten in the state of denmark – I’m grateful that I’ve been able to put that sensing aside for many years, but I’m coming to believe that the seeds of destruction were present in the first humans – maybe in the first life form. The worm. I still like people, and believe that the vast majority want to do “good”, but throughout history, they have chosen to follow one psychopath after another and now the power in the hands of the psychopaths is greater than ever. I suppose it’s possible that the 99 % could refuse to participate, but I don’t see that happening. The human wheels are starting to squeak and some spokes are coming loose and the wagon seems doomed to break down and start sinking into the long traveled ruts – and in a few thousand years the ruts will become invisible and the passage of humans will only recalled as a dream.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 9, 2016 at 12:20

        Perhaps, “ambivalent” might best describe Obama when it comes to war. On the pro-war side he has been both reluctant (e.g., the “surge” in Afghanistan) and enthused (drones in various places). But he was judicious in resisting the calls for open war on Syria after the now-apparent false flag Sarin attack.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 9, 2016 at 09:21


      A very thorough article. I liked the way you mentioned “one of the more colorful lies to justify the war.” I’d forgotten that, but it reads like poetry. I thought you might have mentioned the important role that Putin played (given John Kerry making a slip in a public talk and Putin jumping in for peace) in stopping the US.

      My only issue with the article is that you assume Clinton, the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, hasn’t captured that role yet. At least half of those who voted or wanted to vote in the primaries do not support. There are several hurdles that remain:

      1. Clinton has to avoid a criminal indictment for her breaches of national security when she used a private server.

      2. Clinton has several problems of a medical nature that have not yet been exposed but which make her unfit to be president—and this too might make a difference to turn her “superdelegates.”

      Finally, and I think this is the BIG ONE today and a topic on which Reuters just published an article today (

      3. For Clinton to win she needs the support of the Bernie Sanders crowd. She won’t get it. So? If the Superdelegates and party leaders don’t want their candidate to suffer a crushing defeat and drag down Congressional and Senatorial Democratic candidates, they will be forced to find a way to eject their candidate who is truly horrible.

      • Jim Elliot
        June 9, 2016 at 23:39

        Clinton like killing and exercising power. A lot of people in government like killing and exercising power. Citizens keep voting for these people and following their lead. The world is not becoming more peaceful or loving.

        • June 10, 2016 at 23:19

          I have always known that women are much better than men at most things…. except being men. Hillary is a total failure at that!

      • Dave
        June 11, 2016 at 00:14

        I doubt if the Lizard Queen is worrying about any indictment. If one appears imminent, I strongly suspect Obama will give her a full pardon — in exchange for a large chunk of Clinton Foundation cash, of course.

        And no squawking that a pardon cannot come before a conviction. Ford pardoned Nixon even before a grand jury could be convened — not just for Watergate, but for every crime he might have committed during his entire time in office.

    • June 20, 2016 at 10:17

      Facts on Honduras from a spouse of a Honduran, who dived deeply into the events of 2009 in Honduras:

      The Ambassador Hugo Llorens backed Zelaya’s plans for his auto-coup for that Sunday; he appeared in commercials praising his fraudulent and autocratic orders for his “survey”, which was declared illegal by the Supreme Court after the government’s own Fiscal-General (atty. genl.) filed his lawsuit against it and against laws passed by Congress. (That got Rubio two very heavy-duty major professional hits on him and his security, which got several of his bodyguards and escorts killed). Zelaya said he didn’t have to obey any pipsqueak judges (“juecesitos”).

      Kind of like Nixon who said “It’s legal if the president does it”.

      The story was reported backwards everywhere. The world press blacklisted the lead-up that involved massive grassroots demonstrations in Honduran towns against Zelaya. He returned from the presidential summit in Santo Domingo in November 2008 where George Soros was the keynote speaker and immediately began violating the Honduran constitution and implementing the plan for a Chavista-copycat “auto-coup”, in the same sense that one might call the anti-Sendero Luminoso dissolution of Congress by Fujimori in Peru as an “auto-coup”.

      He diverted tax funds and international funds to his plans to take over with his fraudulent “survey” and when he saw that he had so much push-back from the streets and from almost every civil institution in the country, he moved his plans for his putsch to June 28. There were massive protests in the streets Monday and Tuesday against CNN-Espanol for its false news coverage of events, and half the adult population filled the central plazas to support the interim president and the transition government.

      The elections, which my wife voted in, were the cleanest and most internationally watched in Latin America probably in history, because all Honduras (except for the diehard professional billionaire-sponsored left and some socialist global-government advocates) knew what would happen.

      Zelaya’s own Liberal Party voted unanimously to recognize the dictator’s removal from power together with the opposition National Party. The joke going around was that Zelaya had finally united the country.

      Hillary Clinton called Micheletti personally and ordered him to put Zelaya back in power. She asked him what it would take to make it happen, hint hint, but Micheletti told her defiantly, “Only an invasion”. He told Chavez to take his $3 million and stick it where it don’t shine. He happily wears his visa denial as a badge of honor. He is no longer mentioned in AP reports because they want to “unperson” him (read Orwell’s 1984–shocking how few young people ever heard of that book).

      Obama bad-mouthed the defenders of freedom and there are influential Hondurans there today who cannot get a visa because they are on the punished list the Obama-Clinton State Department made up. Criminal golpista thief Zelaya gets a royal reception in the U.S. and U.N. for obeying his billionaire plutocrat globalist puppet masters, embarrassed at this setback. This “Truth Commission” was set up as a “Coverup Commission” to give talking points to historical liars.


Comments are closed.