Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy

Exclusive: Besides bashing Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton offered few specifics in her big foreign policy speech which stressed the value of “friends.” But those “entangling alliances” helped create today’s global chaos, writes Daniel Lazare.

By Daniel Lazare

Now that Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination, her June 2 foreign-policy speech is looking more and more important. The reason is simple: Clinton is going to be all over Donald Trump in the coming months, punching away at his racism and xenophobia, his thinly veiled appeals to violence, and his fraudulent business practices.

But what she’ll no doubt hit him hardest on is his general unfitness to be anywhere near the nuclear button. As she put it in San Diego: “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It’s hard to disagree – the man does seem out of control. But what has critics choking on their morning coffee is the implication that because Trump is bonkers, Hillary must be the opposite, i.e. thoughtful and mature. As opponents ranging from ConsortiumNews’s Robert Parry to Paul R. Pillar, Jeffrey Sachs, Jeet Heer, Diana Johnstone, and Gary Leupp have pointed out, this is a woman who has had a hand in five or six of the major foreign-policy disasters of the post-9/11 period. So where does she get off calling Trump reckless?

But while critics have subjected her record to close examination, they haven’t given the June 2 speech itself the attention it deserves beyond quoting the zingers hurled Trump’s way. Yet everything about her flawed methodology is right there in that one 35-minute talk – the misguided logic, the ill-considered assumptions, the one-sided worldview that consistently leads her into trouble. Essentially, the speech is an ode to international friendship without recognizing how some of those “entangling alliances” have helped tie U.S. foreign policy into knots.

As Clinton put it: “America’s network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. And our allies deliver for us every day. Our armed forces fight terrorists together; our diplomats work side by side. Allies provide staging areas for our military, so we can respond quickly to events on the other side of the world. And they share intelligence that helps us identify and defuse potential threats.”

Friends make America strong, Clinton assures us, and if the U.S. is the most powerful country on earth, it’s because it has so many friends. Indeed, “Moscow and Beijing are deeply envious of our alliances around the world,” Clinton went on, “because they have nothing to match them.”

Yet Trump, a classic bull in the china shop, wants to wreck what generations of U.S. diplomats have worked so hard to build up, Clinton argued. If he gets away with it, the Kremlin will celebrate while Americans will mourn the loss of an international power structure that has kept them safe:

“And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.”

Stressing Allies

Allies – a word that appears in various combinations some 15 times during the talk – are what allow the U.S. to multiply its force around the world, Clinton argues. Instead of insulting everyone from Mexico to the Pope, the White House should therefore concentrate on strengthening the friendships it has and adding as many more as it can, Clinton contends.

Billionaire businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Billionaire businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

But there’s an obvious fallacy here. Simply put, it is that every ally is a separate nation with a separate set of priorities, none of which coincide completely with those of the U.S. (and often don’t coincide even more with the priorities of either their own people or the American people). Hence, every “friend” is also a problem, and the more “friends” a country has, the more the problems pile up.

This is an old issue in statecraft, which is why George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and other Founders warned against “entangling alliances” and why Lord Palmerston declared that great powers do not have friends, only interests.

But since the June 2 speech says nothing about goals, problems to be addressed or any other long-range considerations, Clinton apparently views friendship as an end in itself. Friends make America great, and great is what America ought to be. It’s circular reasoning like this that continually leads Clinton astray.

Take the Middle East where the two dominant powers (and U.S. “friends”) are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although they have certainly had their differences, for the moment their governments’ interests overlap particularly with regard to Syria, the great bleeding wound on the edge of Europe. But this is not the case with the U.S. Even though both Saudi Arabia and Israel are old, old friends of Washington, they are in fact sharply at odds with key American interests.

The chief reason has to do with Al Qaeda, known in Syria as the Al Nusra Front, and its offshoot Islamic State, the ultra-terrorist group also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh. Saudi Arabia’s attitude toward such groups is ambiguous. It is obviously hostile to ISIS since it calls for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy. But it is not entirely unsympathetic either, especially in Syria and Iraq where the Islamic State is locked in combat with Shi‘ite forces that Riyadh despises even more.

This is why the Saudi kingdom has taken part (albeit halfheartedly) in the U.S.-led bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria while at the same time allowing private donations to flow to the group via Kuwait. It’s a hedge that allows Saudi Arabia to keep its options open.

Meanwhile, Saudi attitudes toward Al Nusra have been frankly positive ever since King Salman, a hardliner, ascended the throne in January 2015. Despite Saudi promises never to have anything to do with Al Qaeda, one of Salman’s first acts was to meet with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and work out plans to supply it with U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles so that it could mount a major offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province, which it did just a few weeks later. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Climbing into Bed with Al-Qaeda.”]

The reason for the rapprochement is clear: Al Nusra is the most effective force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom the Saudis regard as part of a great Iranian-Shi‘ite conspiracy stretching from Yemen to Bahrain and the kingdom’s own oil-rich, Shi‘ite-dominated Eastern Province. This makes Assad public enemy number one. Since Al Nusra is the enemy of Saudi Arabia’s enemy, it must to a degree be Saudi Arabia’s friend.

Israel’s Reasons

Israel is more or less in the same boat. It has fought three wars with Syria and one with its close ally Hezbollah, and it regards Iran as a long-term threat to its very existence. Thus, it regards Assad as the prime enemy as well. For that reason, it “prefers IS to Iran,” as then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon remarked at a conference last January, and Israel is so friendly to Al Nusra that it has taken in its wounded for treatment in Israeli hospitals.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

But the U.S. does not quite agree since the American people still recall Al Qaeda as the villains of 9/11 and ISIS chopping off the heads of Western hostages (and claiming credit for Sunday’s massacre of some 50 people at an Orlando, Florida night club). Various neocons and neolibs have tried to confuse matters by arguing that Al Qaeda and longtime bêtes noires like Saddam Hussein were essentially the same, the “logic” that helped trick many Americans into supporting the Iraq War even though the secular Hussein was a bitter enemy of Al Qaeda.

Along those lines, Clinton, in her October 2002 speech endorsing an invasion of Iraq, accused Hussein of “giv[ing] aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.” (Clinton’s claim about aiding “Al Qaeda members” apparently was a reference to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi supposedly going to a hospital in Baghdad although there was never any evidence that Iraqi authorities were aware of Zarqawi’s whereabouts if indeed he did seek treatment at a Baghdad hospital. Still the canard worked as an effective way to confuse the American people.)

But when push has come to shove regarding these terrorists, official U.S. policy since 9/11 has been that the fight against Al Qaeda and its spinoff ISIS must take top priority. So if Israel and Saudi Arabia are both soft on Al Nusra and even to a degree on ISIS, the U.S., at least on paper, is committed to being ultra-hard, a dilemma that Clinton’s speech ignored.

But this paradox is a problem that no amount of fancy footwork can get around. Consequently, the White House dithers, stalls and generally ties itself up in knots trying to do the impossible. It bombs ISIS except when ISIS is locked in battle with Assad’s troops, at which point the U.S. military holds its fire so as not to offend Saudi sensibilities.

The U.S. government supports Sunni extremists such as the fighters of Ahrar al-Sham who fight alongside Al Nusra in the Saudi-and-Turkish-backed Army of Conquest. The Obama administration even suggested at one point that Russia refrain from bombing Nusra forces in Aleppo since they are so intermingled with U.S.-backed fighters that it is all but impossible to pry them apart. But sometimes the U.S. bombs Al Nusra as well just to keep up appearances.

The Obama administration continues to call for Assad’s removal even though the effect would be to clear a path for ISIS and Al Nusra straight through to the presidential palace in Damascus. When Assad recently vowed to “rip out terrorism from its root wherever it exists,” State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner replied that the “remarks show once again how delusional, detached and unfit he is to lead the Syrian people.”

Since Israel and the Saudis regard Assad as an enemy, the U.S. feels obliged to follow suit. But since Assad also battles ISIS and Al Nusra on a daily basis, no one can quite figure out why the Obama administration continues with this contradictory policy. (The best the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media can come up with is a claim that somehow Assad is to blame for Al Qaeda and ISIS although the terror groups trace their origins back to U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s and the Iraq War last decade.)

As Secretary of State, Clinton helped engineer this incomprehensible and incoherent policy by leading the charge against Assad on Saudi Arabia and Israel’s behalf. She called for his ouster in July 2011, a full month before Obama got around to declaring that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

Dooming Peace Talks

As Jeffrey Sachs points out, her insistence on Assad’s resignation as precondition for peace talks insured that negotiations would die aborning. Although she insists in Hard Choices, her 2014 memoir of her State Department years, that the U.S. provided the rebels only with nonlethal aid, she had to be aware that, with the death of strongman Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, U.S. officials began shipping large amounts of Libyan weaponry – including hundreds of sniper rifles, RPG launchers, and howitzer missiles – from Benghazi to the ports of Banias and Borj Islam, Syria.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his entourage arrive to greet President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his entourage arrive to greet President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Since Saudi Arabia is committed to the violent overthrow of Assad, how could the U.S. say no? Isn’t that what friends do — stand by one another regardless of the consequences?

Libya is yet another example of the horrors that this Clinton doctrine of “entangling alliances” leads to (with France and other European “allies” eager to oust Gaddafi and thus strengthen their influence in oil-rich northern Africa). 

According to a State Department memo, the Secretary of State spent much of late March 2011 persuading Qatar to contribute to the anti-Gaddafi effort. She was therefore overjoyed when Doha at last agreed, as was her boss. Welcoming Qatar’s dictatorial leader Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani to the White House the following month, a grateful Obama said:

“We would not have been able I think to shape the kind of broad-based international coalition that includes not only our NATO members but also includes Arab states without the Emir’s leadership. He is motivated by a belief that the Libyan people should have the rights and freedoms of all people.”

Or as Obama put it a bit more candidly a few hours later in front of what he didn’t realize was an open mike: “Pretty influential guy. He is a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform – you’re seeing it on Al Jazeera. Now, he himself is not reforming significantly. There’s no big move towards democracy in Qatar. But you know part of the reason is that the per capita income of Qatar is $145,000 a year. That will dampen a lot of conflict.”

Evidently, Al-Thani’s enormous oil wealth (and his willingness to host U.S. military bases) gave him a free pass as far as democracy is concerned. But no matter. Qatar is a friend, so what could go wrong? A great deal as it turned out.

A longtime patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar turned out to have priorities that were separate and distinct from Washington’s. Of the $400 million that it pumped into Libya, most wound up in the hands of Islamist militias that soon spread anarchy from one side of the country to the other.

Their pockets stuffed with Qatari cash, fundamentalists set about removing “pagan” symbols – i.e. flags of NATO members engaged in driving Gaddafi out – from public squares where daily group prayers were held and encouraging local imams to issue fatwas ordering rape victims not to report such crimes to the police.

A few days after Al-Thani’s meeting with Obama in the White House, Qatar organized a secret meeting in Istanbul bringing Libya’s Islamist factions together in a united Islamic Front. (For more information, see Ethan Chorin’s Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution and Jason Pack’s The 2011 Libyan Uprisings and the Struggle for the Post-Qadhafi Future, published in 2012 and 2013 respectively.)

But Secretary Clinton still didn’t recognize the dangers. “For the first time we have a NATO-Arab alliance taking action, you’ve got Arab countries who are running strike actions,” Clinton burbled. What she didn’t realize was that she and Obama had been outfoxed (or perhaps were more interested in helping out NATO allies which wanted a bigger share of Libyan oil and France which feared that Gaddafi would create a pan-African currency that would supplant the French franc).

Today, Libya is a lawless zone with ISIS controlling miles of coastline around the city of Surt, a scant 300 miles from Europe, and literally thousands of other Islamist militias rampaging across the rest of the country. Three rival governments are now vying for control while vast amounts of weaponry have gone to fuel other conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East.

One might be inclined to call the Libyan mess the worst disaster in the Middle East – except for all the other disasters that Clinton has helped engineer. Concerned about Qatar’s role in fueling Libyan chaos, Obama administration officials batted around ideas about how to show Qatar that they were displeased with its support for extremists in Libya. Suggestions were floated to trim military aid or perhaps transfer U.S. military assets to other locations.

According to a major takeout in The New York Times: “But Middle East hands at the State Department pushed back, saying that pressuring the gulf monarchy would only backfire. And the Defense Department strongly objected: It had a 20-year history of close cooperation with Qatar, which hosted critical American military bases. In the end, there was no appetite for anything beyond quiet diplomacy…. Only last year did President Obama rebuke the nations meddling in Libya, and by then it was too late.”

After all, as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton now says, America must stand by its “friends.” Meanwhile, Qatar has contributed more than $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, which makes it not just a friend of the U.S. but a friend of Bill and Hillary – and thus doubly precious.

As Americans march to the polls on Nov. 8, voters should keep in mind Hillary Clinton’s dictum that friends like these are what make America great.

Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).

59 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy

  1. John Rohde
    June 14, 2016 at 14:20

    An interesting article but for the reference to the French franc: that went West a long time ago. The French currency is the Euro.

  2. Knomore
    June 13, 2016 at 20:49

    Found this on James Corbett today — a young, aspiring newscaster talking about the Orlando shootings. It’s rough, but very well done for a first try… His explanation of the meaning of ISIS is very convincing and especially the meme that is dominating our world today: Divide and Conquer. It’s so prevalent and so widespread, so simple, yet so obvious that it hides in plain sight. It calls to mind the advent of Trump (I’ve heard–and tend to believe– that Trump is a Clinton campaign construction), the perfect foil to help hopeless Hillary get herself elected.


  3. elmerfudzie
    June 13, 2016 at 12:56

    None of the candidates running for office in the recent past or present, can promulgate to completion what must be done for the sake of American Democracy. The only alternative left is to pull the rug out from under the Council On Foreign Relations or CFR, International Corporations and all their associated Neocon lackeys. This requires redirecting government control of MONEY itself, closing the fiat currency system and the Federal Reserve boards exclusive control over who and when the “candidates” will be permitted to come forward for “election”. It begins with a return of the silver certificate backed by, guess what, silver!, printed by the United States Treasury Department AND removes the Rockefeller/Rothschild hands-on control of our country thus they loose control of social safety net funding, military expenditures and projected forces, CIA subversion/corruption of US organized labor officialdom and consequently the dissolution of a middle class, return American family farming by all available means(possibly by dismantling Monsanto and ADM corps) . Flat tax (with no loop holes of ANY kind), one person one vote, forbid political gerrymandering, eliminate super-delegate system(s), annual review and reinstatement of every corporate entity by local referendum, redirect Intel activities to foreign and NOT domestic spying, dissolve the link between speculative and investment banking, indict, prosecute and jail CEO’s responsible for bankrupting our nation with financial instruments such as derivatives, tricky hedge funds, non-competitive monopolization of business enterprises (price fixing) and so on….In short, ladies and gentlemen, a quiet revolution must commence. As JFK said, those who resist a quiet revolution will force a bloody and violent one to erupt (paraphrasing my own)…there’s simply no time left and everything, everything, we hold dear is as stake. A Clinton presidency translates into a third world war, Bernie simply means-more war machinery and the industrial preservation of it. A Trump presidency translates into a new Mussolini on the world stage… these are the voting choices?! dear citizens!!??

    • Knomore
      June 13, 2016 at 18:35

      But Elmer, I agree with all of your statements and recommendations but are you saying we should just scrap everything including Presidential elections and Presidents? They’ve been bad, very bad, especially in the past half century. People are saying that Nixon, of all people, was our last liberal president. BUT:

      I think I’m going to stick with Bernie and hope that he will, in fact, join the Green Party. If he doesn’t, that’s where I’m going. As Jill Stein said the other day, or was it Abbie Martin? talking with Paul Jay?: we’ve run out of time. Most definitely can’t afford either mainstream candidate so we’re going to have to do something drastic which entails dumping the mainstream.

      There’s one big bad thing down the road, a world-shattering economic crisis whereupon the death of the dollar is predicted. It may be just what we need to begin our run for the woods while the house falls down. The PTB who, if they’ve not planned this, have done everything to bankrupt America and make it possible, and are–some believe–now trying to divert it and/or stop it… But they haven’t been able to stop Donald Trump and they gave him a megaphone and a riveting agenda–if it wasn’t Bill Clinton who dreamed him up, hoping to provide a surefire way to get Hillary elected. We have to make sure that idea bombs.

      In some ways, the worst thing that could happen may turn out to be the best. Hold onto your seat!

      • Erik
        June 14, 2016 at 11:15

        Agreed that “the worst thing that could happen may turn out to be the best,” although likely that the oligarchy will try not to destroy their business. A string of collapsed financial bubbles due to corruption are the likely preludes to the demise of the US as a military power, which may be the best thing that could happen to the US politically.

  4. Abe
    June 13, 2016 at 12:40

    If the prospect of seeing the whole world turned into a giant Libya was not enough, public opinion all across the Global South must also get to grips with what arguably will become the most terrifying words in the English language: Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

    Oh yes, because a Hillary milestone will certainly translate into a Kaganate of Nulands milestone.

    It’s common knowledge that the Kagan clan pose as Washington’s undisputed warmongering resident neocons. Robert Kagan may be the Maharishi of Regime Change, his dull, oracle-style books avidly read and quoted by disciple Barack Obama.

    But Victoria is a much more colorful, crossover proposition; aid to Dick “Dark Side” Cheney; Hillary protégé at State; career peak in 2013 as Assistant Secretary for European Affairs; architect of the coup in Kiev in February 2104 – “f**k the EU” included. Who cares if the Kaganate of Nulands – formerly know as Ukraine – is a neonazi-infested, oligarch-ridden failed entity? With Hillary in power, Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has got to be seen as a surefire bet.

    All Hail the Queen of Exceptionalistan
    By Pepe Escobar

    • Knomore
      June 13, 2016 at 18:40

      Yes, if there was ever reason to see Hillary jailed, it’s to send the Kagan’s to the cell next door. Wow: You’ve just presented some truly scary thoughts. Envisioning some of the motivations of the French when they rolled out the guillotine.

    • Knomore
      June 13, 2016 at 18:46

      Your mention of Pepe Escobar reminded me of this: Do you know about Newsbud? Please read the following and give some thought to supporting this new and innovative news outlet so we can begin to complete the undermining of mainstream media and find out what’s really going on in the world… Here’s the link.


      Pepe Escobar will be on the team if Newsbud gets the funding it needs. They have put out at least three reports to date, the last on MH17. Check it out and listen to their reports. And please pass the information on to your friends.

  5. Abe
    June 13, 2016 at 12:00

    Gotta love all these comments sprouting like mushrooms on Consortium News:

    “I am not politicking for Trump. BUT…”

    ” I am not a Trump supporter, HOWEVER…”

    Not one cry of lament, not one word about voter theft from all these purported “dedicated supporters of Bernie Sanders”.

    And my goodness, how they all do seem so well “informed” about Trump.

    • dahoit
      June 13, 2016 at 12:40

      Trump speaks unvarnished truth,which America needs.
      Sanders never spoke that unvarnished truth.He was and is captured by a narrative of BS,centered around Israel.

    • Abe
      June 13, 2016 at 13:57

      Trump is totally captured by a narrative of BS centered around Israel.

      Trump’s foreign policy agenda is unequivocally Israel-Firster and anti-American

      • Abe
        June 13, 2016 at 14:17

        Just like Hillary, Trump enunciated the “unvarnished truth” of his foreign policy agenda to standing ovations at the AIPAC rally.

        Trump’s foreign policy is a precise neocon script for more war, chaos and conflict.

        More neocon wars are not what America needs.

  6. Peppermintpattie
    June 13, 2016 at 10:52

    Did you even read the article?!

  7. Comment
    June 13, 2016 at 10:19

    The American Social Democrats are hoping that Senator Sanders is Not a sheepdog and a stooge for the Establishment, but it looks like Senator Sanders is a sheepdog, and they think that the best way to Represent his supporters is Not to bow to Corruption and to the Establishment at http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary .

    That News Article says that in 1984 and 1988 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson, and in 1992 it was California Governor Jerry Brown, and in 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich, and that in 2016 it is Senator Sanders, and if that Person rewrites his Article, then it should say that the Democrats’ sheepdog should be better understood to be a Corruptocrat wolf, and that the term sheepdog is a Very Generous and Deceptive Euphemism for that.

    We have seen 2 of those Corruptocrat wolves have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and so the other 2 Corruptocrat wolves should be asked who they endorse in the Sheepdog Primaries, and we will see what Senator Sanders has to say at what is said to be a Contested Convention, and which some People think will be a capitulation farce that is made to look like it is a Political Revolution, because it depends on believing the Corrupt Compulsive and Hardened Liar Hillary Clinton who should be in prison for her Crime, rather than being supported for her 5 Presidential term, and I explain in this comment.

    I think that it is More probable that Senator Sanders is a sheepdog for the Democratic Party, because he said in a moment of honesty that Hillary Clinton was Not qualified to be President, and the next day after being told Not to overact the sheepdog role, and so he said that the Lying, Crooked, Untrustworthy, Criminal, and Unethical Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President, and he did Not warn Americans about Clinton’s Clandestine Treasonous Secret Email Server that was used to Enrich the Clintons through the Money Laundering Clinton Foundation, and it Allowed Foreigners to look at Secret Information.

    We will see if a sheepdog’s definition of a Political Revolution is to bow to Corruption and to the Unjust and Oppressive Establishment, because that is what the Clintonite Corruptocrat wolves do.

    Hillary Clinton wants to Steal and Usurp the Democratic Party’s nomination, and those American Social Democrats who Cannot be Corrupted or Deceived will Not endorse her or support or vote for her or even concede to her, because this Democratic Primary was a Coup D’etat, and Not a Democratic Election.

    It would have been easier for Senator Sanders supporters to reconcile if the process had not been Rigged from the beginning to the Convention, if the Contested Convention allows Hillary Clinton to Steal and to Usurp the nomination, which is really a Coronation, and American Social Democrats will not support a Lying, Devious Person like Clinton no matter what the Corrupt Democratic Establishment or former sheepdogs say, or even what Senator Sanders says.

    The Democratic National Committee has Not treated Senator Sanders fairly at any time, and they used Unethical Methods against him, and now they want to Use him to help elect Hillary Clinton who is the Most Corrupt and Incompetent Person in American History to the Highest Office in the land, even though he Knows that the Lying and Untrustworthy Hillary Clinton is for the Trans Pacific Partnership and for Wars.

    The Real American Social Democrats do Not appreciate the Sheepdog Attempted Deceptions, and they do Not want Hillary Clinton to be the President of America.

    The Corruptocrats can make Honest Statements while they are Deceiving People, and one example is the Corruptocrats asking Senator Sanders Not to be a sore loser if he loses, and this is a true statement, because a Democratic Party Deceptive sheepdog is a Happy loser, because that is his Secret role.

    They want Senator Sanders to say that for Many Reasons including the Undemocratic and Unprincipled Rigging of the Democratic Primaries that it is Unconscionable for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party’s nominee, and that the Superdelegates should All Vote for him, because the November Elections will be a Referendum on whether it is conscionable for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party’s nominee.

    The Democratic Primaries were Corrupted to have a Coronation by the Establishment’s First Preference of Hillary Clinton.

    The Undemocratic Primaries can be best described as Terrorism of the Democratic Process, which included Vote Rigging, Voter Suppression, Slander against Senator Sanders, Media Biased and Lies in favour of Hilary Clinton, and Many Dirty Tricks from the Clinton Crime Syndicate, and if this did Not happen, then the sheepdog would have won the Democratic Party’s nomination for Presidential Candidate.

    They think that it is probable that the Clintons placed miniature cameras and listening devices near the Republican Presidential nominee, and that he is now a Puppet of the Clintons, and which the Clintons have done with much of the Democratic Party and much of the American Mainstream Media, which was meant to be the Fourth Estate of a Democracy, but which has been acting like a Fifth Column since the Nixon Clintons learned that President Nixon was recording People, and they improved on it to Puppetize People for their own Benefit to the Detriment of most Americans.

    The first President George Bush was the Director of the CIA, and his father was a Wall Street Executive Banker and a Senator for 11 years, and I think that this proves that Vice President George Bush was the Real President during the Puppet Ronald Reagan Administration that began in 1981, and we Know that Ronald Reagan was an Actor who could learn his lines, and Hollywood knows how Film People, and so I think that at a minimum, that Vice President George Bush the first was at least a Co President with President Reagan.

    The Official Presidency of President George Bush the first began in 1989 and went 1993, and then came the Clinton Co Presidencies of 1993 to 2001, and then came the Presidency of President George Bush the second of 2001 to 2009, and then came the Hillary Clinton Presidency of 2009 to 2017 under the Guise of the Puppet Obama Administration, and so we can see that the Establishment Prefers the Bush and Clinton Dynastic Dictatorships, and the American Social Democrats want Democracy restored to America.

    The American Dream says that if you are honest and work hard, then the System will reward you, and this is what Senator Sanders has done, but the Bush and Clinton Dynastic Dictatorships which began with the Puppet Reagan Administration with Vice President George Bush the first giving the orders and continues with the Clintonite Puppet Obama Administration, and while People say that a Clinton Presidency would be a third Obama term, the Reality is that a Clinton Presidency would be a Fifth Clinton term that includes the Bill Clinton Puppet Administration of Hillary Clinton’s and Hillary Clinton’s Puppet Obama Administration.

    The American Social Democrats have Known that Hillary Clinton was Not qualified to be President before the Primaries Campaign, and her Unethical and Undemocratic Actions during the Primaries has only Reaffirmed this Fact.

    We can see that Hillary Clinton is the Establishment’s First Preference for President at http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/10-ways-media-and-political-establishment-have-tried-orchestrate-democratic-primary , and there are Many American Social Democrats who will Vote for Anyone But Clinton at https://www.the-newshub.com/us-politics/i-wont-vote-for-clinton-and-will-encourage-sanders-to-run-a-third-party-bid-for-president .

    This means that the American Social Democrats who Cannot be Deceived or Corrupted will Vote Republican before they vote for Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton has Already been Co President for 2 terms and so it Unconstitutional and Improper for Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party’s nominee.

    This means that the American Social Democrats who Cannot be Deceived or Corrupted will Vote Republican before they vote for Hillary Clinton.

    There could be People who think that the Republicans should have Advertisements that speak of the Democratic Primaries being Rigged, and that it is Highly Improper to American Social Democrats for Hillary Clinton to represent Democrats, and that the Election is a Referendum on this, and where American Social Democrats can show that they Respect themselves, and have consideration for America’s Reputation, by Not Voting for Hillary Clinton to be President of America.

    • Knomore
      June 13, 2016 at 16:13

      I have supported Bernie Sanders and wrote him last week that I could not/would not continue my support if he intends to eventually endorse Hillary Clinton. I begged him to hook up with Jill Stein; my sense is that a lot of his supporters are doing the same. I’m not going to second guess Sanders who is obviously a man of integrity, a rare presence in the immoral slugfest that is American politics. So I will wait through the next couple of weeks to see what he decides about the movement he has helped to create. As others have said, it will live on if he opts out. We shall see.

  8. Abe
    June 12, 2016 at 23:30

    President Obama is in… on the neocon fix.

  9. John
    June 12, 2016 at 22:16

    My new bumper sticker says……Pro-Life….Stop killing Civilians in the Middle East….What’s the count now over 1 million ?

  10. Lebensluge
    June 12, 2016 at 20:04

    “When Assad recently vowed to “rip out terrorism from its root wherever it exists,” State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner replied that the “remarks show once again how delusional, detached and unfit he is to lead the Syrian people.”
    Assad could have lifted these words from 90% of US politicians who have spoused the same rhetorical blather for decades. Baaed on the state department’s analysis, every president sin e Reagan is/was “delusional, detached and unfit to lead the American people.
    I think the truth lies in the marketplace of weapons. We don’t care who if fighting whom aa long as they are fighting and using American made weapons and ammunition. We don’t much care who gets the weapons as long as they pay (even if the $ comes from US taxpayers via USAID -Saudi Arabia and Israel) Clinton negotiated sales of IS arms throughout the middle east and the best way to keep the money flowing is to ramp up the use of those weapons – a marketplace that keeps giving.
    Trump would ‘ buy’ into that same paradigm should he be selected president. Really, what could go wrong having a businessman (crappy one at that) in charge of the business of war (killing for dollars)?
    This is a good article disclosing the ineptitude of US foreign policy. A policy failure in the middle east, eurpoe, and Latin America. However, unless we as a nation are willing to divest from the military industrial complex, no change will be on the horizon. Peace will continue to fail as a commodity, and as something doesn’t reap a profit, it will never be a part of our lives.

  11. Knomore
    June 12, 2016 at 19:56

    America’s entangled and impossible to understand foreign policy in the Middle East — even the experts seem confused about what’s going on there —- Who and what is ISIS, for example? — makes for a perfect playground for demagogues like Hillary Clinton who can profess to know things she doesn’t know and act to keep us safe when just about everything she has done has worked to make Americans terrified for their safety, and with good reason.

    The reason we have cause to fear is not terrorists out there wanting to bomb us, but because we have highly unqualified people like Hillary Clinton who doesn’t know the first thing about diplomacy running the ship of state (or professing the right to). The net result is we make enemies all over the place who hate us. The blighted landscape of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State is out there for everyone to see.

    Her credits include turning Libya into a failed state, creating a civil war in Ukraine where we are backing Fascists, and she now wants to do the same in Syria. This woman is not only clueless she is incapable of learning from her mistakes. She meddled in Honduras and many people believe brought about the murder of the human rights worker, Berta Caceres. The recent coup in Argentina that replaced a legitimately elected government with a criminal cabal is Kissinger-style diplomacy (remember Allende?); Kissinger is Hillary’s mentor.

    She will go after Iran when Iran has done nothing to the United States and with a little good will would probably become a staunch ally and friend. But not if Hillary is in charge. Hillary defends Israel, a terrorist nation if there ever was one. She loves the Israelis who hate Iran (and everyone else in the Middle East, except themselves, of course). The Israelis have insinuated themselves into our government; wonder how much money they’ve given to see their foreign policy for the United States enshrined in the person of HRC? Reasonable people which Hillary Clinton most certainly is not, would label Israel’s meddling in US foreign policy (and every other aspect of American life for that matter, our universities, our media, etc., etc. for what it is, a fifth column, and get rid of these people and anyone who supports them. Israel is a terrorist nation, second on this planet, perhaps only to yours truly. Hillary is playing with fire acting as if she has earned the right to run this country, touting her qualifications, when in fact, she has none. Most reasonable people think she belongs, not in the White House, but in jail. And if she is guilty of treason (as some of her activities suggest), jail would be a light sentence.

    • Joe B
      June 12, 2016 at 21:40

      Good point about Hillary and treason. Her emails may reveal even more of what is known, that she is receiving money from foreign powers to rent out US armed forces for pennies on the dollar, and against US interests. This is supporting economic war upon the US, which should be treason.

    • Alec
      June 13, 2016 at 00:40

      “Most reasonable people think she belongs, not in the White House, but in jail” …. along with ALL the “fifth column” you mention!

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 13, 2016 at 00:53

      “Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” George Washington

      Susan what you wrote here is painfully spot on. All influence with the Clintons seems to run through the Clinton Foundation. Another way, as we are finding out about, is by hiring them to give your organization one of their overly expensive speeches. Yes, the same speeches that Bernie so blatantly bugged Hillary to share with all of us, the American people. Just think of how either through a donation, or a speech you could get access to the keys to the kingdom. What’s a bundle of money, when the return on your investment could yield you so much more in return. What gives these people even more power, is that they are the very ones who put the lock on the door in the first place. To go a little further, their power could also through legislation take out any competition who may stand in their way. It’s their door, and not yours, or anyone else’s for that matter. It’s the oldest game in the book, once called pay to play, but now it’s new name is the Clinton Foundation. A longtime ago, a friend of mine who served under Peter Rodino, when I inquired to how much time Nixon was going to get over his Watergate crime, told me none. The reason was, was because Nixon’s congressional jury had their own skeletons to hide within their own closets. Everybody got something to hide, except for me and my monkey. The biggest thing that needs changed isn’t even to be found inside our government, and it’s name is the American news media. We could use a modern day Thomas Paine (a female one would be even greater), and that’s a fact.

      • Knomore
        June 13, 2016 at 12:05

        Chris Hedges in Truthdig today:


        Bernie Sanders has proven in the past year that there is enormous (HUUGE) dissatisfaction in this country re what we are doing at home and abroad. And everyone knows that HRC just represents more of the same.

        So now we must focus on what to do about it. There are many ways: As people become more and more impoverished, we withdraw less and less of our support from the corporations who are foisting this Fascist plan upon us. Do the opposite of what GWB announced in the aftermath of the false flag called 9/11, another PNAC-style event (and they are still dreaming up horrific stuff–See Bob Van Noy below)… So we STOP BUYING their stuff. There is a great website called Local Futures. It produced a documentary a couple of years ago called The Economics of Happiness which emphasizes the need for localizing.

        Localizing may become imperative in the aftermath of the promised upcoming economic conflagration which will destroy the dollar. How much of this has been purposeful, it’s hard to say, but the Fed has been instrumental in destroying the US currency and has literally bankrupted this country. So the future ahead is going to be rough.

        Bernie Sanders is a good man and one could wish this dismal future on someone who truly deserves it, like HRC, but/BUT we want to keep the world afloat. So each of must begin to think about what we personally can do to make it tougher for this country to survive doing what it has been doing.

        Plant a garden, stay out of the military, don’t shop at places like Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Buy your books at book stalls and secondhand stores. This will be hard for me because I buy tons of ebooks from Amazon (and other stuff, too) — but I have so many books that three lifetimes will not exhaust all the reading material I’ve accumulated — which brings me to another suggestion: Check out Buddhist temples and other establishments that offer contemplative-style programs.

        Among the sad legacies of the Western so-called “Enlightenment” is that the riches of the inner world have been overlooked, if not denigrated. Spending time understanding how one thinks is a wonderful way to enrich one’s life — and you don’t have to pay these corporate hacks a dime. At the same time, it helps each of us to become acquainted with the fabulous inner resources that are ours free of charge and available at any moment of the day or night.

        John Perkins has come out with a new book called The World Is As We Dream It. And it’s true. We’ve dreamed up a nightmare and we can replace it. Get busy! That’s to all of us: It’s our time now.

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 13, 2016 at 09:03

      Susan Raikes Sugar, I found this document yesterday from a group called Center For American Security. Simply chilling. Is this the new PNAC?
      Link here: http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf

      • Knomore
        June 13, 2016 at 11:28

        The first line is stunning: “The world order created in the aftermath of World War II has produced immense benefit for peoples across the planet.” i.e., Those who are not dead or hopelessly maimed as a consequence of our assaults with advanced weaponry including nuclear warheads (Fallujah), with GMOS, with space age technologies of which the average American who must pay for all this has no idea… SO:

        Let’s first ask the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Afghanis, the Ukrainians, the Iraqis, the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Yemenis. Ask the Hondurans, the Argentinians who are suffering the effects of our largesse at this very moment… Let’s ask the native populations in South America, in Alaska and other places whose lifestyles are being destroyed by American corporate greed, by oil and pesticide run-off in their waterways.

        And those are just the most obvious ones. Among the remainder is the growing underclass of impoverished people in America, the working poor who are slaving away (literally!) to pay interest on phony money produced by an illicit Fed that counterfeits money upon which we pay the interest so the US can go out into the world and use its advanced weaponry (that’s our most marketable skill) and murder people everywhere. And according to the Center For American Security run by the likes of Robert Kagan, husband of the villainous Victoria Nuland, people everywhere love it.

        The truth is American foreign policy, the kind that Hillary Clinton represents, benefits only a tiny handful of people. And you cannot fight propaganda like this. So write Bernie Sanders and beg him to link up with Jill Stein. Destroying the American duopoly and the evil it stands for, and the evil people it coughs up, is the first stage of the fight we must wage to restore America to the promise that maybe it never had, but the potential that American ingenuity does offer to the world. The good kind… the bad kind is everywhere; we know what it is and we must replace it. This is urgent.

        We absolutely must take our country back before these people destroy the world.

        • Bob Van Noy
          June 13, 2016 at 12:51

          Excellent reply Susan Raikes Sugar, and thanks. I owe the link to Joe Tedesky from yesterday and suffered from déjà vu when I read it, recalling my first experience with the PNAC statement. This group is so intrenched in our foreign policy that I fear that they will never be repressed, and will simply morph into the next election cycle. I’m hoping something will untrack the Clinton Machine before she is the “official choice” of the Democratic Party.

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 13, 2016 at 14:04

            Susan, and Bob, your comments are greatly appreciate. You both give me a lot to think about, as you both give me a real education, with your comments and references. Thanks JT

          • Knomore
            June 13, 2016 at 15:30

            And I want to add to the comment above, if anyone is listening: Throw away your cell phones. Ask yourself about all those people ten years ago who were walking down the street carrying plastic water bottles. Those same people are now carrying cell phones. Draw whatever conclusions you like but it’s obvious that America is, on some level at least, extremely insecure and maybe a better word would be, immature.

            What I really want to draw attention to is the question of why we feel the need to do this. Why are we doing this? The corporations love of it, of course… they can track you and sell you stuff and lie to you and maybe give you brain cancer. All of which just stands to make them more money.

            But what is most obvious about the cell phone craze is that the corporate elites have tied America up. We live in an exquisite world, about which we know next to nothing because we’ve been lied to for centuries, beginning with the Western so-called “enlightenment”— which was actually when the lights went out in the Western world. And now the big media conglomerates have captured every minute of your day (and your night too) to make certain you see nothing but the world they want you to see which is, in fact, a very ugly world. It’s not the real world.

            Don’t pay cell phone companies to tie up your mind and your time. Get to know yourself and your world. You can then dump your psychiatrist and throw away your Prozac. Save your money and your time, maybe your life — and high on the new agenda: this lovely incredibly beautiful world which speaks to us all the time, but we don’t see it, can’t believe it, because we’re walking down the street, running into people because the only thing we see and all that matters is CRAP. We’ve been sold a phony bill of goods and it makes someone a lot of money to prove to you that you’re a sicko-wacko, someone who needs their help!

    • Knomore
      June 14, 2016 at 16:23

      My mistake: I wrote the “recent coup in Argentina…” — this should be the “recent coup in Brazil.”

  12. June 12, 2016 at 19:46

    Great article.

  13. Bart Gruzalski
    June 12, 2016 at 19:32

    Thank you for a great article. If you look at my comments on Consortiumnews over the past few weeks, primarily on articles about Sanders and/or Clinton, you’ll notice I don’t give out five stars easily. But this piece gets seven out of five stars.

    I do have one important point of disagreement. You begin by saying that Hillary Clinton has “clinched” the Democratic nomination. I’m sure she wants all of us to think that, but I don’t think she has for a number of reasons:
    • the FBI investigation is not over,
    • her slimy cronyisms are beginning to ooze out from the bottom of the closed curtain,
    • she has a tendency to be confused (hence unfit for POTUS),
    • she is a pathological liar and known to be so,
    • Sanders supporters are not going to support her.

    What I think is that putting these points up large will show her back-room supporters that she cannot win the presidency and will, instead, take downs the entire Democratic slate with her. That’s Congresspersons, a bunch of Senators, and governors. Once they realize that they’ll have to choose between a blind commitment to friend Clinton or a commitment to save the Democratic Party. I think the latter will win.

    You point out that Clinton doubles down on the friendship theme: “Friends make America strong, Clinton assures us, and if the U.S. is the most powerful country on earth, it’s because it has so many friends. Indeed, “Moscow and Beijing are deeply envious of our alliances around the world,” Clinton went on, “because they have nothing to match them.” Just think about that. If Moscow and Beijing are friends, that’s a very powerful friendship. Add to that BRICS and the US and her dependent, greedy, and grousing friends is nothing to be envious of. The envy is actually the other way: Russia and China and BRICS cooperating are going to replace the dollar as the international currency of trade and replace it with a basket of currencies, of which the dollar will be only one. It was Saddam Hussein’s threat to do what would cause the dollar to be downgraded, by trading oil in Euros, that many think was the WMD which caused our Establishment to launch the Iraq war.

    You point out that “even though both Saudi Arabia and Israel are old, old friends of Washington, they are in fact sharply at odds with key American interests.” That is the CORE of the problem with Clinton emphasizing that the US is strong because it has so many friends. You say this when you write “the more ‘friends’ a country has, the more the problems pile up.”

    You later write that “ if Israel and Saudi Arabia are both soft on Al Nusra and even to a degree on ISIS, the U.S., at least on paper, is committed to being ultra-hard, a dilemma that Clinton’s speech ignored.” She didn’t give a clear foreign policy speech but put together a bunch of applause lines (her critique of Trump, if you evaluate her speech, makes few serious critical comments and most of the applause lines are dumb ad hominems and statements about how she feels about Trump).

    You point out that “as Secretary of State, Clinton helped engineer this incomprehensible and incoherent policy by leading the charge against Assad on Saudi Arabia and Israel’s behalf.” And that wasn’t even whispered in her speech.

    You also write “one might be inclined to call the Libyan mess the worst disaster in the Middle East – except for all the other disasters that Clinton has helped engineer.” A delightful way to say what is true and really a bit scary if she ever became POTUS.

    I didn’t know that Qatar had contributed “more than $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, which makes it not just a friend of the U.S. but a friend of Bill and Hillary – and thus doubly precious.” Doubly precious—well put with echoes of the “Lord of the Rings.”

    I want to end with my only disagreement with you. Clinton may be the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, and the Establishment is falling all over itself to give her a streamline path to that goal, the media keeps strewing rose petals along the path, but she has numerous weaknesses which can and should derail her before the Democratic Convention.

    Thanks for a great article: seven stars out of five!

    • Bill Bodden
      June 12, 2016 at 20:09

      I’m sure she wants all of us to think that, but I don’t think she has for a number of reasons:
      • the FBI investigation is not over,
      • her slimy cronyisms are beginning to ooze out from the bottom of the closed curtain,
      • she has a tendency to be confused (hence unfit for POTUS),
      • she is a pathological liar and known to be so,
      • Sanders supporters are not going to support her.

      To paraphrase the Great Skeptic, no one ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence or character of the American people

      • Bart Gruzalski
        June 12, 2016 at 21:19

        Bill, I take it you were being skeptical about my claims.

        The folks who are going to make the decision on who is the nominee will be are the top Dems behind the curtain. The bullet points you quote will have a powerful impact on the election if Clinton becomes the nominee. Trump isn’t dumb, despite the badmouthing of the press and by Clinton. Some of what I refer to is just coming out. Sanders supporters will not support Clinton in enough numbers to carry her over the abyss.

        I also am unsure about the Great Skeptic here. Mainstream media and alternative media are going to flood the news with the issues and conflicts coming up prior to the Convention. The intelligence of the American people is fine: people have just been overworked, including commutes, and over propagandized by what Paul Craig Roberts calls the presstitutes.

        I think the economy is in bad enough shape that the saying “it’s the economy stupid” will be influencing people to pay attention in this particular election. Another “saying” is that you give the top dogs enough rope, and they hang themselves. I’ve seen that countless times in my life. Hillary thought she was coasting toward a coronation That gave her all the rope she needed.

        So it’s up to us to make sure the word gets out there.

        • Bill Bodden
          June 12, 2016 at 21:31

          Bart: I’m skeptical about the majority of Americans who will vote, but I wouldn’t place any faith in the FBI throwing a wrench in Hillary’s way.

          • Bart Gruzalski
            June 13, 2016 at 03:47

            Bill, I’m inclined to agree with you but … as long as there is an ongoing FBI probe, the whole email issue and Clinton’s embarrassing lies about it will nag at her campaign team and provide a context for other issues about her use of a private server while she was Sec of State.

            The most likely to derail her ruc in, in my opinion, is that Sanders supporters are not going to support Clinton. Once the Top Dog Democrats behind the curtain realize that, they will face a choice:

            (i) do we let Clinton not only lose the presidency for the Democrats but also lose lots of offices farther down the ticket: Congresspersons, Senators, Governors
            (ii) do we pull the plug on Clinton and work with another candidate to win the November election.

            I believe that when the Top Dog Democrats realize how much of a loser Clinton is, they will not allow her to become the Democrat nominee for POTUS.

            Next on my list are breaking stories on Clinton cronyism and payola (big bucks to Clinton foundation lead mysteriously to unusual appointments etc). The public loves a good scandal and some are beginning to break.

            I don’t think that Clinton’s being a pathological liar will likely do her in. Lots of people already know about her lying and she still has a following.

            Hillary’s tendency to be confused (hence unfit for POTUS) has not been developed as a news worthy story. I think it will weigh in as more people scrutinize Clinton.

    • Alec
      June 13, 2016 at 00:33

      US foreign policy is run by Israel which decided long ago that Saddam was to be removed (see yinon plan and clean break policy paper).

      • Bart Gruzalski
        June 13, 2016 at 03:58

        Clinton puts Israel’s interests before the interests of our nation and her people. Israel is not a poor country and yet it is the recipient of more foreign aid that any other country in the world. If Clinton put American interests before the interests of any other country or peoples, she would not send Israel $3Billion every January–that’s a good bit of American taxpayer money that could be used to put Americans back to work.

        • Peter Loeb
          June 13, 2016 at 09:13

          3 BILLION YEAR TO FIVE (5)….

          As you know talks are underway between Netanyahu and
          Obama to raise the 3 Billion to 5 billion a year.

          That would certain pass overwhelmingly in the Congress.

          —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Nancy
      June 13, 2016 at 09:55

      Sadly, I stopped ready after the first biased paragraph – i did, however, ready several of the worthy comments. It’s an embarrassment to be an American and a tragedy for many.

      • Quentin
        June 14, 2016 at 12:48

        Might you take the trouble to explain what you opaque comment means?

  14. Patricia P Tursi
    June 12, 2016 at 19:31

    HIllary is responsible for many deaths and refugees around the world. We have a huge military and the world is intimidates. Want to avoid being droned? Do as the US says She is a warmonger and has no compassion for her victims and the indigenous people who lose their land and are killed. She has stated that she would annihilate Iran. She is responsible for overthrowing many elected countries and the Clinton stealing money from Haiti is documented. What’s to love here or respect? She should be in prison for racketeering and for her email crimes. http://www.thenation.com/article/chronicle-of-a-honduran-assassination-foretold/.

  15. Bill Bodden
    June 12, 2016 at 19:29

    The nations that Hillary refers to as “friends” and “allies” might more accurately be defined as accomplices and satraps. Or, as the old saw goes, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

    • rosemerry
      June 13, 2016 at 12:38

      Exactly! “America’s network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. And our allies deliver for us every day.”
      1. NATO is a US and puppets club destined to destroy any hope of peace.
      2. Russia does NOT have to be an enemy, and to pretend it and China are envious of the USA is pathetic. They are both cautious and diplomatic, unlike the US recent administrations. They do not seek to rule the globe.

  16. Abe
    June 12, 2016 at 19:25

    The Democratic Presidential Candidates on US Foreign Policy
    Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)


    Ritter was a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later a critic of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, he stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities. Ritter is the author, most recently, of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change.

    McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, and in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief. He received the Intelligence Commendation Medal at his retirement, returning it in 2006 to protest the CIA’s involvement in torture. In 2003 McGovern co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Moderator Mark Crispin Miller is a Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. Miller is the author of several books, including Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney’s New World Order and Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform. He is also the editor of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008.

  17. June 12, 2016 at 19:01

    Hillary has establish a long and bloody history for herself as being a corporate stooge for her military-industrial-complex sponsors as well as her Wall Street sponsors. She has “blood on her hands” for the violent deaths of MILLIONS of innocent men, women, and children.

  18. Realist
    June 12, 2016 at 18:00

    None of the mentioned Middle Eastern countries or factions are true “allies” of the United States. Just like Europe, they simply fear what the United States might do to them if they fail to act as loyal vassals. Washington, for its part, is willing to lay waste to any country that defies it and to make common cause with the Devil himself (or herself) to achieve its goals. How many millions dead and still counting?

  19. Shirley Smith
    June 12, 2016 at 17:42

    As I have said before. Clinton and Trump have one thing in common for sure, the love of money. Our politics have gone into the sewer. The big media, who are well funded, have promoted Trump and Clinton by leaving out much about all other candidates, because they have the money which is in common with Trump and Hillary.Two candidates, in my opinion, who will look at the money that supports them when making decisions. No longer does this election represent those who want to work for the people, rather, just some of the people. the wealthy. Trump says what will turn off many people, and Hillary says whatever she thinks people want to hear. Trump, in his own way, is promoting his friend Hillary, in my opinion.

    • Secret agent
      June 12, 2016 at 20:13

      Trumps been pretty much self financing so far. Hillary, not so much.

      • June 13, 2016 at 02:38

        The bottomline is: Hillary Clinton does have kosher sanction. Without this, she will never be considered a “serious” candidate by the ‘candidate makers’ of America and their minions, the MSM. All else is irrelevant! It is that simple!
        Merit, popularity and electability have no place in modern American politics.

        Recall Ron Paul, former chairman of a major House subcommittee and a man with a significant base of support, deserved far more respect than he got. He is author of several books. In his book Liberty Defined he shares his perspective on 50 issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism.

        But, “the reality” ? He was not a reliable, housebroken kosher pet… Paul was renegade unbroken and his own man with serious ideas; a threat to everything that contemporary American politics stands for in this day of corruption, graft and grifters. It is all a Zoo… a political Zoo… stagecraft smoke and mirrors. A game!

    • Roberto
      June 12, 2016 at 23:52

      Hillary is neocon supported, Trump is neocon opposed.

      • Abe
        June 13, 2016 at 13:33

        Trump is neocon supported by billionaire Sheldon Adelson and others.

        Trump made a deal with the neocons to run as a faux “neocon opposed” candidate.

        The Trump-neocon conspiracy is a fact.

        Adelson described the neocon deal with Trump:
        “Trump is a businessman. I am a businessman […] Why not?”

        Trump’s shameless Israel-Firster / anti-America foreign policy agenda was enunciated at the annual AIPAC Conference in March 2016

      • Abe
        June 13, 2016 at 13:54

        Trump loudly proclaims his “tremendous love for Israel” and demonstrates his abject obeisance to neocon foreign policy diktats.

        Make no mistake, both Trump and Clinton are neocon supported.

        War is absolutely guaranteed if the American public does not oppose this neocon duopoly.

        • Rick Pipkin
          June 14, 2016 at 09:16

          My theory is that both are a danger to America’s future as politics relate to war. I feel however that Hillary presents the most danger because she has so much power and favors to call in; Trump however will be nullified by both the democrats in congress as well as his won party. Therefore he will get far less done than Hillary should he get in the White House. We, the American voters, have placed ourselves in a terrible position but one we deserve for our past ignorance. We have created this mess now we must pay the price. Feel sorry for the innocent people around the world that will suffer with either of these two in the white house.

        • June 18, 2016 at 08:53

          Trump’s son in law is Jewish. So is Hillary;s.

    • June 13, 2016 at 02:15

      If Americans want to see the result of their handiwork, they need only note that Arlington National Cemetery and other National Military Cemeteries are choked with the bodies of Americans in uniform who died needlessly because of the ignorance, amateurishness or outright incompetence of their elected and appointed civilian leaders – The War Makers.

      They have killed more of you than the enemy.

      • Rick Pipkin
        June 14, 2016 at 09:17

        Sad but true! Great observation.

Comments are closed.