Who’s the Bigger Danger — Clinton or Trump?

Donald Trump has offered some unnerving ideas about foreign policy, including a cavalier attitude toward nuclear proliferation, but Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness may represent a bigger danger of nuclear war, as Ivan Eland explains.

By Ivan Eland

The senseless murder of 49 revelers at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub has amplified our need for a long overdue national conversation this election season about the overall direction of U.S. foreign policy and our proper role in the world. With the party nominating conventions just weeks away, now is a good time to start.

In what was billed as a major foreign-policy address several weeks ago, Hillary Clinton, who will carry the Democratic banner in this year’s contest for the White House, got the ball rolling, characterizing presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s views as “dangerous.”

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)

Focusing on Trump’s statement that Japan and South Korea should defend themselves, rather than rely on the United States — even if this includes the possible use of nuclear weapons — Clinton was anything but subtle: “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.”

By comparison, Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 television ad smearing Barry Goldwater, which featured a nuclear mushroom cloud and a little girl with a flower, was the epitome of subtlety.

Clinton’s biting attack on Trump got high marks from many in the media. Yet, ironically, Trump’s foreign policy views, if you think about it, are less scary, even in their implications for possible nuclear war, than Clinton’s belligerent interventionism — sold as “American world leadership.”

Even if one fervently opposes nuclear proliferation, a strong case can be made that the United States should spend more time worrying about the radical or unstable countries that either have nuclear weapons or are seeking them—such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and North Korea — than worrying about Japan and South Korea.

But that’s not where Clinton chose to take us. Instead, Clinton and much of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican and Democrat alike, obsess about Trump saying what should be obvious. It would not be a catastrophe if Japan and South Korea — stable, democratic societies and good world citizens — were able to deter aggression, if need be, even with nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking to the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking to the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

In fact, for many years, the U.S. foreign-policy establishment has covered up the danger to the American public, an illusion created by America’s extensive web of international security alliances and agreements. There is no plausible scenario in which any of our NATO allies, or any of the other nations that rely on the U.S. security umbrella — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, for example — is going to be called upon to defend the United States. As a practical matter it only works the other way: we guarantee their security.

Very few U.S. allies have nuclear weapons, and if they get into a scuffle with a nuclear power such as China or Russia, even over a minor issue, such as contested rocks in the South China Sea, the United States could ultimately be responsible by treaty to defend them. This ultimately could mean using nuclear weapons and inviting a retaliatory strike on American soil.

This essentially irrational policy was initiated during the Cold War to protect countries from attack by the powerful Soviet Union. However, as bad as a Soviet takeover of Western Europe or Japan would have been, it pales in comparison to American cities becoming nuclear wastelands.

The implicit U.S. pledge to use nuclear weapons to defend its allies was predicated on the risky notion that it would deter a Soviet attack. There was little or no conversation about the cataclysmic horror that could result if deterrence didn’t work. If the policy was irrational during the Cold War, continuing it has been even more irrational since the Cold War ended.

Donald Trump is wise to question the United States’ outdated, inflexible and costly commitment to protect large numbers of nations around the world. Such formal and informal alliances are the core of an overextended American foreign policy that requires having hundreds of U.S. military bases overseas and conducting countless — now seemingly perpetual — military campaigns, such as the wars Clinton supported in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya, to support this informal American Empire.

With a $19 trillion national debt, the United States can no longer afford such a policy. Besides, it is unwise and puts the American public — and our military — unnecessarily at risk.

Ivan Eland is senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, and the author of Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. [This article previously appeared at http://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/hillarys-foreign-policy-scarier-trumps-16639]

19 comments for “Who’s the Bigger Danger — Clinton or Trump?

  1. Hans Meyer
    June 20, 2016 at 13:21

    Hello,
    You made good points. But one thing that are not enough brought up from the cold war Era are all the studies made on nuclear winters
    Atomic are kind of using dangerous chemical weapons in a close unvantilated environment , everybody is in for fun. This brings me to your conclusion, these useless weapons are expensive to maintain, generate polluants, and take away ressources better spend elsewhere.
    One thing that has also never been considered clearly, is that the use of atomic put in danger countries that never considered to build or use them. And we should remind to the “elite” morons in any countries that stockpile them, that the main targets are civilian populations (you know kids going to school, old people – potential dangerous people) – they can talk about God or democracy, but…
    To finish, I do not think that nuclear missiles are the biggest danger, depleted uranium is much a serious danger as they use it like a kid with candies on Halloween.
    Considered that, the tangential Republican Clinton is scary me a lot.

  2. J'hon Doe II
    June 20, 2016 at 11:33

    “When the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into a ditch.”

    CON VS. CON ——
    (excerpt)

    The rise of a demagogue like Donald Trump is a direct result of the Democratic Party’s decision to embrace neoliberalism, become a handmaiden of American imperialism and sell us out for corporate money. There would be no Trump if Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party had not betrayed working men and women with the North American Free Trade Agreement, destroyed the welfare system, nearly doubled the prison population, slashed social service programs, turned the airwaves over to a handful of corporations by deregulating the Federal Communications Commission, ripped down the firewalls between commercial and investment banks that led to a global financial crash and prolonged recession, and begun a war on our civil liberties that has left us the most monitored, eavesdropped, photographed and profiled population in human history. There would be no Trump if the Clintons and the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama, had not decided to prostitute themselves for corporate pimps.

    Con artists come in many varieties. On Wall Street, they can have Princeton University and Harvard Law School degrees, polished social skills and Italian designer suits that are priced in the tens of thousands of dollars. In Trump tower, they can have cheap comb-overs, fake tans, casinos and links with the Mafia. In the Clinton Foundation, they can wallow in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate and foreign donors, including the most repressive governments in the world, exchanged for political favors. But they are all crooks.

    The character traits of the Clintons are as despicable as those that define Trump. The Clintons have amply illustrated that they are as misogynistic and as financially corrupt as Trump. Trump is a less polished version of the Clintons. But Trump and the Clintons share the same bottomless guile, megalomania and pathological dishonesty. Racism is hardly limited to Trump. The Clintons rose to power in the Democratic Party by race-baiting, sending nonviolent drug offenders of color to prison for life, making war on “welfare queens” and being “law-and-order” Democrats. The Clintons do a better job of masking their snakelike venom, but they, like Trump, will sell anyone out.

    The Clintons and the Democratic Party establishment are banking that the liberal class will surrender once again to corporate power and genuflect before neoliberal ideology. Bernie Sanders will be trotted out, like a chastened sheepdog, to coax his followers back into the holding pen. The moral outrage of his supporters over Wall Street crimes, wholesale state surveillance, the evisceration of civil liberties, the failure to halt the devastation of the ecosystem, endless war, cuts to Social Security and austerity, will, the Democratic Party elites expect, airily evaporate. They may not be wrong. Given the history of the liberal class, they are probably right.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/con-vs-con.html

  3. Ella
    June 20, 2016 at 08:38

    Trump is a narcissistic psychopath whose incurable and inherently destructive character defect puts him in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.c5k4gbyeb

    This is a man without a conscience, pathologically driven by a desire for power and self-aggrandizement, and a need to humiliate and destroy his critics. Hillary has many problems, but she is within the range of normal.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 20, 2016 at 10:36

      Ella, that was my original view of Trump too. I followed up on your link and was very disappointed to find nothing in it about Trump.

      To address some of your critiques:

      “no conscience” — I have to disagree. He’s not the warmonger than Clinton is, in fact, he might be exhibiting a kind of nonviolence cum army. (I’ve got a book out on Gandhi and I do know what I’m writing about).

      “pathologically driven” — again, you take his tweets and his saying things like “I can do it” in the worst possible light. I am a professional philosopher and it’s always been my sense that to understand what someone is saying it’s important to look at what they are saying in the best possible light. I think if you read some of his book “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again” you’d be surprised. So, buy the book and make notes all over it. Of course you would not want to buy Trump’s book and have some of the purchase price go to him as royalties. Of course not. Also, the book’s retail price at Amazon is $15.88 and its list price is $25.00. Still too much money just to check out the book. BUT there are used books “like new” for as little as $1.19. That’s they way I purchased it. I held my nose when I tore off the package. Strange cover and all. Having read some, I am pleasantly surprised.

      You write that Clinton is “has many problems, but she is within the range of normal.”

      Well, I wonder if your thinking on that might change if you are willing to look without prejudice at some of what I wrote above in my long comment. In particular, check out [I’m just copying from above]:

      Hillary Clinton knocked Donald Trump in a series of “fierce attacks” during what her campaign touted as a “major” foreign policy speech [oh, please spare us the superlatives]. Here’s a taste of what the Democratic front-runner said:
      1. “I believe the person GOP nominated for president cannot do the job.”[This is nothing but a statement of opinion with no evidence or reasons offered.]
      2. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”[Same thing, her opinion, no evidence or reasons offered.]
      3. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”[I haven’t heard any lies and she doesn’t mention any. Rants? Yes.]
      4. After calling out Trump’s “nasty” tweets, Clinton said: “I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.” Trump did in fact tweet during the speech. Nasty? Maybe Clinton is overly thin skinned.
      5. “I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain [Trump’s] affection for tyrants.” [Trump will use diplomacy and meet with Putin; Clinton wants to turn up the pressure using the military. Who needs the psychiatrist?]
      ———————————————————————————————————————————-
      My comment on #5 is terribly relevant to your comment. If anyone turns up the military pressure against Putin, the likelihood of nuclear war increases dramatically. Nuclear war, Hillary Clinton knocked Donald Trump in a series of “fierce attacks” during what her campaign touted as a “major” foreign policy speech [oh, please spare us the superlatives]. Here’s a taste of what the Democratic front-runner said:
      1. “I believe the person GOP nominated for president cannot do the job.”[This is nothing but a statement of opinion with no evidence or reasons offered.]
      2. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”[Same thing, her opinion, no evidence or reasons offered.]
      3. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”[I haven’t heard any lies and she doesn’t mention any. Rants? Yes.]
      4. After calling out Trump’s “nasty” tweets, Clinton said: “I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.” Trump did in fact tweet during the speech. Nasty? Maybe Clinton is overly thin skinned.
      5. “I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain [Trump’s] affection for tyrants.” [Trump will use diplomacy and meet with Putin; Clinton wants to turn up the pressure using the military. Who needs the psychiatrist?]

      ————————————————————————————————————————-y so doing “we will help our European allies to decrease dependence on Russian oil. We will continue to confine, contain, and deter Russian aggressions in Europe and beyond.”

      That is a recipe that walks us down the path to a nuclear WWIII. If nuclear war breaks out, Most of us will be dead. Those few of us who will survive might come to wish we had died instantly in a fireball–at least the great majority of us who live on the grid. (I’ve lived off the grid in Northern California and that’s the way to be living if there is a nuclear war and you do survive–you’ll still have electricity, water, and what electricity and water allow one to do.) Survivors who are on the grid and rely on a public water system will find themselves without electricity, cell phone, food stores, gasoline, potable water, and toilet paper (it’s doable, as toilet paper is not widely used in Thailand and parts of India, but without toilet paper you still need water and water might no longer be flowing through our taps).

      For more on how crazy and violent Hillary is, ask Dr.Google about the book coming out on June 28th entitled “Crisis of Character.” The author does tell us that the Secret Service had the “nerve-racking” responsibility of maintaining marital peace. And dealing with the first lady’s anger was no small matter, according to Byrne, who describes Hillary as a self-centered, tantrum-throwing, physical abuser. Byrne says the Secret Service discussed the potential for “domestic violence” between the Clintons and worried frequently about how to protect the president from his volcanic — and occasionally violent — wife. Her only concern was herself,

      If you drop back and reflect on all of that, I think you’ll no longer think Trump is more dangerous than Hillary. But I would be curious if you do check this out and still have the opinion the Hillary is “with the range of normal” and would be more reliable as POTUS instead of Trump..

    • June 20, 2016 at 19:39

      George W Bush said he would be a compassionate conservative and wouldn’t do much intervention, either …

      The Democrats of today are like the Republicans of yesterday, and the Republicans of today are like the John Birch Society.

      Being off the grid during nuclear war just means it will take longer for the fallout to get you.

  4. Hal
    June 19, 2016 at 17:11

    Is it not time for the FBI and the Justice Department and of course Obama to stop the slow walking of the Clinton e-mail and foundation crimes. How can this country allow a person under investigation and with the information in the public arena on Clinton crimes not to be charged. It is insane. Her operation in the state department on she will make sure weapons deals go through if you give to the Foundation is sitting there for any half-decent report to match them up. WikiLeaks has on its web site a copy of email with Clinton telling the person to tear off the classification and sent it. Easy to find easy to read and easy to conclude.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 19, 2016 at 20:30

      Hal, that’s an excellent point. But Wikileaks Julian Assuage thinks she won’t be charged since the FBI by itself can’t indict her. For her to be indicted, the Attorney General has to concur. Loretta Lynch is the AG and was appointed by Obama. My guess is that Lynch is also one of the Top Dems who have been supporting Hillary even before the first Democratic candidates’ debate. Assuage thinks that the FBI will work out a deal with a Clinton administration, a quid quo pro using letting the indictment “slip by” in an exchange for something benefiting the FBI.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 19, 2016 at 22:40

      I don’t see much coming out of the Hillary email investigation. I believe that there were several DOJ employees who donated around eight thousand dollars to the Hillary Victory Fund. So what’s that mean? It was reported that recently Eric Holder held a fund raiser for Queen Hillary. He maybe retired from public life, but I’m sure his representation inside the party is still valuable. Also, if President Obama had ever emailed Hillary during her time as Secretary of State, surely he would have noticed she wasn’t using her government server. Would the President be found guilty of a security breach on that basis? Who knows, but the election is over for those in the know, and I’m afraid it’s another term of the Clintons. I’m still going to vote, either a write in for Bernie, or more than likely a vote for Jill Stein, and knowing they will never win, I at least will be able to live with myself.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 19, 2016 at 23:20

      To further point out how it is soon to be Madam President, read the following;

      http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/19/the-us-state-department-is-awaiting-hillarys-reign/

      For 51 State Department diplomats to sign a letter bad mouthing President Obama’s foreign policy, one could surmise these so called diplomats are saying hello to their new Commander and Chief. BTW, I hope my read on this one is totally wrong, and please don’t kill the messenger.

  5. Ted
    June 19, 2016 at 14:35

    The Military Industrial Complex wins again.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 19, 2016 at 20:18

      The military-industrial complex, the bulwark and money-cow of the Establishment, definitely does not want either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. The military-industrial complex, plus the Congress (that’s what Ike put in his draft but he was too polite to reprimand Congress in his Farewell Address) are powerful forces of greed that support Hillary Clinton. All the neocons support her, Paul Krugman has become a shill for her, and the NYT and Washington Post seem to think her sh*t doesn’t stink..

  6. Zachary Smith
    June 19, 2016 at 12:54

    This essentially irrational policy was initiated during the Cold War to protect countries from attack by the powerful Soviet Union. However, as bad as a Soviet takeover of Western Europe or Japan would have been, it pales in comparison to American cities becoming nuclear wastelands.

    The implicit U.S. pledge to use nuclear weapons to defend its allies was predicated on the risky notion that it would deter a Soviet attack. There was little or no conversation about the cataclysmic horror that could result if deterrence didn’t work. If the policy was irrational during the Cold War, continuing it has been even more irrational since the Cold War ended.

    Overall, this wasn’t a bad essay, but the part I’m quoting really is awful. Mr. Eland begins by stating that the US nuclear umbrella was “irrational”, but doesn’t offer a speck of evidence for that belief. Europe was totally beaten down after WW2, and the only real army on the continent was a Soviet one. What Mr. Eland conveniently overlooks is that if deterrence failed, the US of A wouldn’t have been the only nuclear wasteland. The Soviets under Stalin truly were ruthless, but they had no desire to lose everything just to snatch some more territory. Allowing one’s Libertarian Isolationist tendencies to dictate the direction an essay goes isn’t really a great idea.

    However, as bad as a Soviet takeover of Western Europe or Japan would have been, it pales in comparison to American cities becoming nuclear wastelands.

    Mr. Eland ought to be ashamed of himself for writing this, but I’m sure he isn’t. The US participated in a war to prevent Nazi Germany from taking over the Eurasian regions, but ought to have immediately turned into frightened babies right afterwards? Nonsense is really too kind a word for this sort of BS.

    • Martin Katchen
      June 19, 2016 at 16:16

      Maybe we need to take another look at the Soviet Union’s behaviour from 1922, at least until 1953 when Stalin died. During the “interwar” period, the USSR spoke of “socialism in one country” and from their behaviour seems to have meant it. Far from being aggressive in it’s support for Communism outside of the USSR, Stalin seems to have treated socialism as the USSR’s intellectual property, much as a record label copyrights songs. There were plenty of communist parties outside of the USSR–and a lot of Russian intellectual policing of those parties.
      After the USSR was attacked by Nazi Germany it carved out a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe–which Roosevelt and Churchill (particularly Roosevelt) agreed the USSR should have. And did not go beyond that sphere, allowing a British occupation of Greece even though the Red Army likely could have reached Athens before Great Britain could. And the USSR limited it’s support for the Communists in the Greek civil war, as much out of an unwillingness to tolerate new Titos with differing ideas toward socialism as because of American pressure.
      The USSR was not in favour of Mao Zedong taking over in China either. During the Chinese Civil War, the Soviets actually drew Lin Piao into a trap in Manchuria, withdrawing it’s support and favouring Chiang Kai Shek. And later, when it became apparent Mao would win, encouraged Kim Il Sung to attack South Korea. The Chinese believe that the purpose of this encouragement was to make rapproachment between China and the US impossible–which the Korean War did.
      So perhaps the US “containment” of the USSR (which contained a nation that was containing itself for it’s own reasons) was more of a counter-attack against the New Deal by conservatives. A counter-attack created by business interests that aimed at transferring the war mobilization against Nazi Germany to a continuing mobilization against the spectre of “world communism”. A spectre which was given some reality when communism spread and mutated well beyond the Soviet Union’s control in the 1950s and 60s. A counter-atack which finally reached domestic fruition in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.

  7. Bill Bodden
    June 19, 2016 at 12:49

    Who’s the Bigger Danger — Clinton or Trump?

    This is like being sentenced to death in Utah. Lethal injection or firing squad?

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 19, 2016 at 20:12

      Bill, read my comment above or, much better, read Trump’s book “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.”

      I am not a Trump supporter but a Sanders supporter. Nonetheless I can read and think at the same time. I do recommend the book though my comment of itself should raise your awareness of what policies Trump would adopt.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 20, 2016 at 10:10

      Bart:

      I have been in an anybody-but-Hillary mode for a very long time, and I can see your point, but there are two problems with Trump. One is that the price we might pay for him as an alternate will very likely be exorbitant. The other is that his mouth will almost certainly do him in making sure he doesn’t get anywhere near the White House. The only hope after that – and it is a very slim hope – is that if Hillary is elected Congress will begin successful impeachment hearings on or about January 22nd.

  8. Nancy
    June 19, 2016 at 11:06

    HRC’s banner event is not a done-deal – Bernie Or Bust! But I definitively agree that HRC is equally capable of causing a devistating war – maybe even sooner than the Trump monster. HRC is running in the wrong Party, and, by FDR standards, she is a far-right Republican. Help our sorry, embarrassing, and broke(en) country.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 19, 2016 at 20:07

      Nancy, I agree that HRC’s banner is not a done-deal. In fact, I’ll go a step further and say that she will not be the Democratic Party’s candidate. Bernie Sanders is ’the only candidate who can unify the Democrats and give them a chance of winning the presidency.. But since Ivan Eland assumes a Clinton candidacy, I’ll comment within that framework.

      As Ivan Eland notes, “in what was billed as a major foreign-policy address several weeks ago, Hillary Clinton, who will carry the Democratic banner in this year’s contest for the White House, got the ball rolling, characterizing presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s views as “dangerous.”

      Clinton’s “address” had the depth of a high school cheerleader’s monologue. In it she roasted Trump like someone might roast a birthday boy at a birthday party. In the article “Clinton Roasts Trump in Foreign Policy Speech: The 13 Biggest Zingers”, MSNBC lists the 13 “zinger” points Clinton “scored.”

      The article with the list tells us that “out of the gate,” Hillary Clinton knocked Donald Trump in a series of “fierce attacks” during what her campaign touted as a “major” foreign policy speech [oh, please spare us the superlatives]. Here’s a taste of what the Democratic front-runner said:
      1. “I believe the person GOP nominated for president cannot do the job.”[This is nothing but a statement of opinion with no evidence or reasons offered.]
      2. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”[Same thing, her opinion, no evidence or reasons offered.]
      3. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”[I haven’t heard any lies and she doesn’t mention any. Rants? Yes.]
      4. After calling out Trump’s “nasty” tweets, Clinton said: “I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.” Trump did in fact tweet during the speech. Nasty? Maybe Clinton is overly thin skinned.
      5. “I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain [Trump’s] affection for tyrants.” [Trump will use diplomacy and meet with Putin; Clinton wants to turn up the pressure using the military. Who needs the psychiatrist?]
      6. “There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”[Cute but no cigar. Trump knows this too.]
      7. “Making Donald Trump our commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake.”[Her opinion, no argument or reasons given.]
      8. “This isn’t reality television – this is actual reality.”[Yah so…? You don’t think Trump knows this?]
      9. “[Trump’s} ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent.”[This is false. Read “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again” and you will read a coherent work in which the ideas coherently form a piece covering both domestic and foreign policy. I’m NOT a supporter of Trump’s but I can read and think at the same time. Either Hillary doesn’t know what she’s talking about or she is just out-and-out lying. She is a pathological liar, so that might be it. She must have an idea of what Trump would say and do in a real debate on domestic and foreign policy, and that requires reading his book Maybe she hasn’t gotten to it yet.]
      10. “Letting ISIS run wild, launching a nuclear attack, starting a ground war; these are all distinct possibilities” with Trump “in charge.”[Really? Hmmm… I don’t read that in his book and haven’t heard that Trump adopts any of these foolish positions.]
      11. “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”[Trump plays the verbal game. Frankly, from what I’ve read Hillary is the one with the dangerous and violent temper.

      Gary Byrne book, “Crisis of Character,” which will be available on June 28th and can be pre-ordered on Amazon. Here is its ranking on Amazon:
      ? #1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > United States > Executive Branch
      ? #1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics
      ? #1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Political Science > History & Theory

      Some passages from the book have been leaking out (for example, Hillary giving Bill a black eye during a screaming match). From what little I’ve read of these passages and of what the author though he was up to,, I’d be very worried if Clinton had her ambitious fingers on the nuclear buttons. Byrne writes that the Secret Service had the “nerve-racking” responsibility of maintaining marital peace. And dealing with the first lady’s anger was no small matter, according to Byrne, who describes her as a self-centered, tantrum-throwing, physical abuser. Byrne says the Secret Service discussed the potential for “domestic violence” between the Clintons and worried frequently about how to protect the president from his volcanic — and occasionally violent — wife. Her only concern was herself, Byrne says. “Mrs. Clinton was a joke, taking herself and the entire administration minutiae so seriously. Her ‘brand’ was her only concern. She was a faux leader, all bark, no bite, but in a very real power position as first lady.”]
      12. “I wonder if he even realizes he’s talking about nuclear war.”[He does: see “Crippled America” p. 33 and passim.]
      13. “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin.”[They will probably be relieved that neocon hasn’t-seen-a-war-she-doesn’t-like Clinton is not POTUS. Trump will use diplomacy and even talk to Putin! Hillary will follow up on Obama’s dangerous path of trying to encircle, restrain, and push Russia into a corner.]

      Think about it: having seen the depth (very shallow) of Clinton’s biting attack on Trump, why would the media give her high marks? Well, the media is owned by the Establishment and Trump is not an Establishment candidate, she is. Maybe that’s it. Certainly seems plausible. Follow the money.].

      As Ivan Eland points out, “there is no plausible scenario in which any of our NATO allies, or any of the other nations that rely on the U.S. security umbrella — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, for example — is going to be called upon to defend the United States. As a practical matter it only works the other way: we guarantee their security.” Trump wouldn’t put up with this unless these other countries pay the costs of US protection
      .
      Ivan Eland ia also right to point out that “very few U.S. allies have nuclear weapons, and if they get into a scuffle with a nuclear power such as China or Russia…. the United States could ultimately be responsible by treaty to defend them. This ultimately could mean using nuclear weapons and inviting a retaliatory strike on American soil.” Trump would change these treaties because they are not in America’s interest.

      Ivan Eland points out correctly that “Donald Trump is wise to question the United States’ outdated, inflexible and costly commitment to protect large numbers of nations around the world. Such formal and informal alliances are the core of an overextended American foreign policy that requires having hundreds of U.S. military bases overseas and conducting countless — now seemingly perpetual — military campaigns, such as the wars Clinton supported in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya, to support this informal American Empire.” Trump would discontinue this absurd and wasteful war-provoking foreign policy. Tough luck for the military-industrial complex.

      Hillary has promised to stand up to Putin, and by so doing “we will help our European allies to decrease dependence on Russian oil. We will continue to confine, contain, and deter Russian aggressions in Europe and beyond.” That is a recipe that walks us down the path to a nuclear WWIII. Then we won’t have to worry about such comparisons. Most of us will be dead, which might be better than living without electricity, cell phone, food stores, gasoline, potable water, and toilet paper (it’s doable, as toilet paper is not widely used in Thailand and parts of India, but without toilet paper you still need water and water might no longer be flowing through our taps).

      Verdict? Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous candidate, not only by comparison but just assessing her by herself. Trump, on the other hand, is a peace candidate and would not adopt the disastrous actions/policies that Obama continues to do.

    • June 20, 2016 at 19:35

      The Clintons were a done deal before the primaries.

      Sanders did better than expected, which made for a good show.

      The “election” is like televised wrestling, a bruising contest rigged in advance.

Comments are closed.