Trump as the ‘Relative Peace Candidate’

Hillary Clinton has shown no real remorse over her support for neocon “regime changes,” aggressive wars and belligerence toward Russia, leaving the oft-obnoxious Donald Trump as the relative peace candidate, says John V. Walsh.

By John V. Walsh

Until recently the progressive mind has been resolutely closed and stubbornly frozen in place against all things Trump. But cracks are appearing in the ice. With increasing frequency over the last few months some of the most thoughtful left and progressive figures have begun to speak favorably of aspects of Trump’s foreign policy.

Let us hear from these heretics, among them William Greider, Glen Ford, John Pilger, Jean Bricmont, Stephen F. Cohen and William Blum. Their words are not to be construed as “endorsements,” but rather an acknowledgement of Trump’s anti-interventionist views, the impact those views are having and the alternative he poses to Hillary Clinton in the current electoral contest.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in an MSNBC interview.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in an MSNBC interview.

First let’s consider the estimable William Greider, a regular contributor to The Nation and author of Secrets of the Temple. He titled a recent article for the Nation, “Donald Trump Could be The Military Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare: The Republican Front Runner is Against Nation Building. Imagine That.”

Greider’s article is brief, and I recommend reading every precious word of it. Here is but one quote: “Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate.” And here is a passage from Trump’s interview with the Washington Post that Greider chooses to quote:

“‘I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,’ Trump told the editors. ‘And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.’”

Trump talks about building infrastructure for the inner cities, especially better schools for African-American children, rather than bombing people of color halfway around the world! That is hardly racism. And it is not how the mainstream media wants us to think of The Donald.

Next, Glen Ford, the eloquent radical Left executive editor of Black Agenda Report, a superb and widely read outlet, penned an article in March, 2016, with the following title: “Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy – In Fact, He’s Damn Near Anti-Empire.” Ford’s piece is well worth reading in its entirety; here are just a few quotes:

–“Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present.”

–“If Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called ‘Middle American’ followers stick by him, it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means.”

–“Trump shows no interest in ‘spreading democracy,’ like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to ‘protect’ other peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton.”

–“It is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp.”

Demonizing Trump

Next let’s turn to John Pilger, the left-wing Australian journalist and documentary film maker who has been writing about Western foreign policy with unimpeachable accuracy and wisdom since the Vietnam War era. Here are some of his comments on Trump:

Near the ceasefire line between North and South Korea, President Barack Obama uses binoculars to view the DMZ from Camp Bonifas, March 25, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Near the ceasefire line between North and South Korea, President Barack Obama uses binoculars to view the DMZ from Camp Bonifas, March 25, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

–“Donald Trump is being presented (by the mass media) as a lunatic, a fascist.  He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our skepticism.”

–“Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.”

–“In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as ‘a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image’. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. …”

–“Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.”

The money quote is: “The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton.” When Pilger submitted his article to the “progressive” magazine Truthout, this sentence was deleted, censored as he reported, along with a few of the surrounding sentences. Such censorship had not been imposed on Pilger by Truthout ever before.

Truthout’s commitment to free speech apparently has limits in the case of The Donald versus Hillary, rather severe ones. So one must read even the progressive press with some skepticism when it comes to Trump.

Trump has also been noticed by the Left in Europe, notably by the sharp minded Jean Bricmont, physicist and author of Humanitarian Imperialism who writes here:

Trump “is the first major political figure to call for ‘America First’ meaning non-interventionism. He not only denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers, but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican President. He does so to a Republican public and manages to win its support.

“He denounces the empire of US military bases, claiming to prefer to build schools here in the United States. He wants good relations with Russia. He observes that the militarist policies pursued for decades have caused the United States to be hated throughout the world. He calls Sarkozy a criminal who should be judged for his role in Libya. Another advantage of Trump: he is detested by the neoconservatives, who are the main architects of the present disaster.”

Gambling on Nuclear War

And then there is Stephen F. Cohen, contributing editor for The Nation and Professor Emeritus of Russian History at Princeton and NYU. Cohen makes the point that Trump, alone among the presidential candidates, has raised five urgent and fundamental questions, which all other candidates in the major parties have either scorned or more frequently ignored. The five questions all call into question the interventionist warlike stance of the U.S. for the past 20 plus years. Cohen enumerates the questions here, thus:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

–“Should the United States always be the world’s leader and policeman?

–“What is NATO’s proper mission today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union and when international terrorism is the main threat to the West?

–“Why does Washington repeatedly pursue a policy of regime change, in Iraq, Libya, possibly in Ukraine, and now in Damascus, even though it always ends in ‘disaster’?

–“Why is the United States treating Putin’s Russia as an enemy and not as a security partner?

–“And should US nuclear weapons doctrine include a no-first use pledge, which it does not?”

Cohen comments in detail on these questions here. Whatever one may think of the answers Trump has provided to the five questions, there is no doubt that he alone among the presidential candidates has raised them – and that in itself is an important contribution.

At this point I mention my own piece, which appeared late last year. Entitled “Who is the Arch Racist, Hillary or The Donald”? Like Cohen’s pieces it finds merit with the Trump foreign policy in the context of posing a question.

Lesser Evil

Finally, let us turn to Bill Blum, who wrote an article entitled, “American Exceptionalism and the Election Made in Hell (Or Why I’d Vote for Trump Over Hillary).” Again there is little doubt about the stance of Blum, who is author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, a scholarly compendium, which Noam Chomsky calls “Far and away the best book on the topic.”

Blum begins his piece: “If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump. …

“My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted.”

And he concludes: “He (Trump) calls Iraq ‘a complete disaster’, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. ‘They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.’ He even questions the idea that ‘Bush kept us safe’, and adds that ‘Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists’. …

“Yes, [Trump]’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?”

I have concluded with Blum’s words because they are most pertinent to our present situation. The world is living through a perilous time when the likes of the neocons and Hillary Clinton could lead us into a nuclear Armageddon with their belligerence toward Russia and their militaristic confrontation with China.

The reality is that we are faced with a choice between Clinton and Trump, a choice which informs much of the above commentary. Survival is at stake and we must consider survival first if our judgments are to be sane.

John V. Walsh can be reached at [email protected].  He has contributed to Consortium News,,,, and other sites concerned with issues of war and peace.

26 comments for “Trump as the ‘Relative Peace Candidate’

  1. Anonymous
    June 22, 2016 at 10:16

    We have heard how Hillary Clinton has mentioned that some of the Companies owned by the Republican Presidential nominee went bankrupt, but that was his own Money, and he must have learned someone useful to himself and to America because of that.

    We can only wonder how much the Clintons NAFTA Policy was responsible for that, but we Know that NAFTA Bankrupted Many Businesses and it cost the jobs of Millions of Americans, and costing America hundreds of Billions of Dollars each year, and for which her Beneficiaries are Grateful and they Know of the Clinton Foundation and of Secret Swiss Bank Accounts, and that Money could easily have been used for Investment in America with Publicly funded Tertiary Education.

    It is an Investment, because Students have No debt, and after commencing Employment, they can purchase a larger new home, because they are much better able to obtain a Bank Loan for that.

    The larger the home that is constructed means that more People who pay taxes are employed, and Companies that supply building materials sell more products and pay more taxes along with making better profits, and employ more People who pay taxes.

    Other Companies benefit from having more customers, and as a result of this, they employ more People who pay taxes and who purchase goods and services from other Companies who sell more goods and services and pay more taxes along with making better profits, and employ more People who pay taxes, and this leads to Economic Recovery and to Balanced and Surplus Budgets, which allows Governments to reduce Individual rates of taxes, while collecting more taxes overall, because of having Full Employment.

    Hillary Clinton Secretly wants the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the Corruptocrat Controlled State Department does Not want to release Hillary Clinton’s Emails on the Trans Pacific Partnership until after the Election.

    It is Dishonest for any American Politician to say that they are Not in favor of some level of Socialism in America, because Socialism is defined as a Government Employment and Employment creation scheme.

    The Police are an example of this, and if there were no police in America, then it would be a Third World Country.

    The Police Cannot make a profit unless they become Criminals to make that profit.

    However, the Reason to have Police is to Minimize the level of Crime, and to prevent America from becoming a Third world Country.

    This is called Public funding rather than Free Stuff, and its purpose to reduce crime, and Publicly funding Elections would reduce Corruption, because as the Clintons have proven on Many occasions including NAFTA that Corruption is Not free to Americans, but Must be Publicly Funded.

    Hillary Clinton Secretly wants the Trans Pacific Partnership, because she is in a Puppet and Partnership relationship with Wall Street, the Big Banks, and Corporate America, who Fund her campaign to Exploit Americans.

    It is Interesting that the Democratic National Committee Documents that were Hacked by Guccifer the second, were marked Confidential at the time they were written until the time they were Hacked with the Confidential marking on those pages.

    After reading some of it, it sounds like Clinton and her Clintonite Corruptocrats wrote Facts concerning herself, and then just put Donald Trump where her name was on that Slanderous Propaganda that she and her Clintonite Corruptocrats wrote.

    I do Not Know on how much of Hillary Clinton’s accusations of Donald Trump are true, but Hillary Clinton is a Know Slanderer, and Hillary Clinton has learned Nothing from NAFTA, even though she Knew what the result would be and now she Secretly wants the Trans Pacific Partnership, and so on Nearly Everything that she criticizes Donald Trump on, and then she is More Guilty of, and sometimes it is Obvious, while other times she is Sneaky and Deceitful and Dishonest as Usual, and those who have been Paying Attention are Aware of.

    This is why there are Many American Social Democrats who want Anyone But Clinton for President of America.

  2. Jim Hannan
    June 21, 2016 at 19:50

    I don’t think Trump has an inner core, but mostly panders. He used the Code Pink line about Iraq early on, because he realized that Jeb Bush was his main competition. It turns out that he really wasn’t against the Iraq war.
    He has been extremely critical of the Iran deal. If he is elected and tries to renege on the deal, the US will lose most of Europe and other partners on the sanctions. And it will lead to more instability vis a vis Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
    He apparently thinks he can steal Mexican migrants payments sent back to Mexico. This will endear the US greatly with Mexico and Latin America in general.
    I get that lots of writers and readers of this website aren’t big fans of Hillary Clinton, but are you frigging crazy about supporting Trump?

  3. June 21, 2016 at 17:56

    I will never vote for the Gorgon.

  4. Madhu
    June 21, 2016 at 10:51

    I can’t in good conscience vote for Trump (or Hillary) but I understand why in frustration or fear many would vote for him. Poking the nuclear-armed bear is dangerous beyond belief, and the disinterest in working class life or its problems by the Washington class is disgusting.

    Trump is an erratic who says the occasional correct thing on foreign policy, but still an essential berserker (as I think Mike Lofgren put it in one article that I read). Anyone who would take on the Deep State from within would need to be incredibly disciplined and careful — and he is not that, in any way. How many ways would the permanent class in DC have of sabotaging peace with a true peace candidate? Maybe that was the real message of Eisenhower, would anyone else have his clout in the future to push back at the MIC?

    I don’t know. We are in trouble. I guess I am going for plan B, C, D, and so on, anyone but those two which will essentially be a vote for Hillary Clinton I suppose. But what other ways can her probably aggressive foreign policy be stymied? Will Congress roll over for her foreign policy appointments? Michele Fluornoy and that entire CNAS group makes sure to spread the wealth liberally in terms of cultivation of insiders so probably they will roll over.

    Why did the President really step back after the red line statement on Syria? Is that a potential model for pushing back at militarism or will the continued sour mood of the American people be the real thing keeping us safe?

    I can see why papers or news outlets are not covering NATO expansion very much outside of stories about Putin, most people notice the price tag and become more sour in mood….

    • Madhu
      June 21, 2016 at 11:19

      There was a big CNAS conference the other day with the usual suspects, it’s a McCain, Kagan, Fluornoy, Fontaine joint now (plus all those old Coindinistas hiding behind Women In International Security’s skirts) and we are in for more bellicosity in foreign policy under a Clinton administration, which is likely. I wonder if the Open letter from General Breedlove and others was timed for that, or I don’t know. They are always scheming about something. What a crew, Robert Work, Ashton Carter, Michelle Fluornoy, the McCain gang, the whole lot. Richard Fontaine is a failed advisor to a failed candidate for President (Jeb Bush) but he lands on his feet okay in that revolving door nonsense of DC.

      How to stymie the efforts of the permenant DC class?

  5. June 21, 2016 at 03:38

    Unfortunately since Adelson Billionaire Zionist is funding his presidency the Zionist lobby will have a profound effect on his foreign and domestic policy.

  6. Zachary Smith
    June 20, 2016 at 23:56

    Trump as the ‘Relative Peace Candidate’

    Once again a title gives me a real chuckle – something I’m not doing as much as I’d like these days.

    That an arrogant and unscrupulous and totally ignorant rich man is going to be the GOP nominee for President is just sort of mind-boggling.

    That there is an excellent argument this jackass is a safer and saner prospect for the White House than the candidate on the Democratic side is positively frightening.

  7. Gregory Herr
    June 20, 2016 at 21:29

    Well said Sam. I, for my part, was remiss by not adding, “one of the last things we need to be doing is electing Donald Trump”. But there’s the dilemma.

  8. Sam
    June 20, 2016 at 20:46

    Yeah, if you don’t mind overt racism and hate speech from your presidential candidate who supports racial profiling and would love to make America great again in the image of 1950s America where everyone but white men was put in his or her place either in the kitchen or blasted by water hoses and battered by police batons and German shepherds — not to mention a guy who has demonstrated a total lack of coherence in his views on foreign policy — Trump is your guy. I guess we all would have been better if George Wallace had been president. Segregation now, Muslim bans tomorrow, and big walls forever.

    I get that lefties hate Hillary. But give me a break. Trump is the most mentally deranged presidential candidate we’ve ever had. The only coherent view is the racial hatred burning in his heart. He is George Wallace with less sophistication and class. Any lefty who doesn’t see this is a fraud. You’re not a progressive in any way that has any meaning to me. You’re either against Trump or you’re a loony privileged well-educated upper class Caucasian fraud as a progressive.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      June 21, 2016 at 00:06

      The real threat of nuclear war with Russia over supporting el qaeda elements in Syria trumps political correctness on behalf of odious imperialists.

      • Sam
        June 21, 2016 at 10:58

        You call what Trump has said and promised to do merely a question of political correctness?

        I’ll make three points out of the dozens I could make:

        1) Neither you nor anyone on this board has any idea what Trump would do with the military, our diplomacy, or with the nuclear codes. His temperament and bizarre statements, swinging wildly from one point of view to another without any coherence or consistency, offer zero confidence in his ability to maintain composure under even the most tepid concerns. So this notion of nuclear annihilation being less likely under Trump is at best utter speculation.

        2) Nuclear war is possible at any time with any president. That’s just a reality of our nuclear age. But the same criticisms of Hillary being made today could have and were made of JFK in the 1960 race, in which he ran well to the right of Nixon on Cold War policy.

        3) Regardless of how you assess Hillary’s foreign policy, how can you ignore that Trump has promised to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and has called climate change a Chinese ploy, has agitated all 1.4 billion Muslims with his bizarre proposal to ban Muslim travel and to profile and target Muslims with surveillance, has promised to bring back waterboarding and worse, has offended Mexican and other Latinos with his hate-filled rants against immigrants and promises to build a wall, which alone could ignite a trade war or worse with Mexico, and has said he has no problems with countries obtaining nuclear weapons, which goes against a half century of American policy and will do more than anything Hillary might do to increase the risk of nuclear war somewhere in the world. All of these policies and more are far more reckless than Hillary’s hawkishness. Under President Trump, we can kiss climate stability goodbye, we could radicalize millions or even tens of millions of Muslims, increase tensions with our southern neighbor, and ignite an global nuclear arms race.

        Sorry, but on whatever measuring stick you may offer, Trump is far more dangerous to global stability and domestic tranquility.

        • Madhu
          June 21, 2016 at 11:09

          I agree with number 1 and on this basis can’t vote for Trump, it’s too big of a risk.

          As for 2, the threat of nuclear war is always there but some Presidents seem to raise the risk level (Cuban missile crisis for Kennedy, Able Archer 83 for Reagan, and then ‘glitches’ like the Norwegian missile in the 90s) and Hillary is one of the more potentially dangerous Presidents given her strong support for NATO expansion and meddling internally in Russia via civil society schemes and so on. So on nuclear weapons, they both seem equally dangerous to me, but the other reasons seem sensible for choosing Hillary over Trump. The global arms race thing seems like hyperbole.

          I will choose neither one and try and think of other ways to stymie her sure to be meddling and dangerous foreign policy. Both seem horrible to me in completely different ways. And I can’t forgive her cavalier treatment of American troops (or Afghan and Pakistani civilians) as secretary of state given her knowledge of what was really going on and her seeming lack of interest. Blumenthal tried to get her to do something sensible (if those leaked emails in papers are correct) but she just couldn’t be bothered.

          Not a reason to vote for Trump, but I really can’t stand that sort of aristocratic behavior.

          This whole probing defenses on Russia’s borders is Able Archer 83 all over again. It’s completely insane, and this President is very strange to ignore it while going on about nukes in Japan. This is what worries those who won’t vote for Hillary

          • L. Anders
            June 22, 2016 at 12:02

            “Cuban missile crisis for Kennedy” Please read JFK and the Unspeakable. JFK saved the world from Armageddon and often gets no credit.

  9. Gregory Herr
    June 20, 2016 at 18:51

    The serious dangers embroiling the general geopolitical situation would most definitely ratchet up were Clinton to gain power. Anyone But Hillary is becoming a real thing in many minds because of that ever more apparent foreboding.
    I admit that, because of what I’ve just alluded to, I’ve found myself tempted to look for positives in the very things so well outlined in this article. If Trump could coherently tie things together as is done in the article, that would be something. But we get these “hopes” from Trump in such tidbit (and at times contradictory) fashion, that it’s really hard to get a handle on actually how much of his own man he is capable of being…and what indeed are his bedrock views. And the foreign policy “establishment” is one of the hardest things to buck up against…it takes a JFK….courage, principle, morality, and an intelligence of a rare kind.
    I am still committed to supporting Jill Stein…this campaign must be heard. But yes, this State Dept.thing in combination with Hilligula is enervating to say the least. The last things we need to be doing are taking out Assad and trying to make Russia and China “subordinate “.

  10. Brad Benson
    June 20, 2016 at 16:04

    Well done Mr. Walsh. I had seen and saved some of those articles and links for future use, but you provided some new one’s all of which are interesting.

  11. Joe Tedesky
    June 20, 2016 at 15:16

    Why waste the ink over a casual endorsement of Donald Trump, when these superb left leaning people could put a plug in for Bernie (who’s still above ground) or Jill Stein (who barely ever gets mentioned)? Are we all that brain washed to only support the two Wall Street parties, which doesn’t in the least bit represent we the people. The MSM has done a remarkable job of framing everything we must respond too. We all are like confused little sheep. The only problem there, is the head shepherd is not leading us to fields of grassing grass, as much as this dark shepherd is leading us to the slaughterhouse, and we don’t even know it. Donald Trumps advocacy of anything could be more toxic, than refreshing. Ignore that man, and let’s start talking about Jill, or Bernie, or both. Put the pedal to the metal to educate our fellow American citizens on just how bad Hillary Clinton is. Although, I believe this presidential election has already been decided, we all at least could show these oligarchs where our heads are at, and it’s not in favor of them. Make these warmongers realize we are here, and that we are not pleased with their awful plans for their beloved New World Order….we need a global people revolution. We are the workers, and the maids, we could just shut everything down. In fact, unless they blow us all up first, this revolt will happen. My hope is we still have time to make it a peaceful revolution. What an oxymoron thing it is, to fight for peace, but that is what it is coming to….God help us!

  12. Drew Hunkins
    June 20, 2016 at 14:13

    I’ve mentioned in other forums that Trump seems to have less of a penchant for making regime change wars than Killary and I’ve been absolutely ridiculed, mocked and heaped with derision, being branded a Trump supporter, merely for meekly mentioning that Trump seems to have less of a fondness for war making than Killary.

    Ergo, be prepared to be excoriated in the company of many fellow liberals and progressives for even uttering one syllable in favor of Donald Trump.

    • Elena Pezzutto
      June 21, 2016 at 14:16

      I get that too, whenever I make a favourable comment about Trump’s foreign policy versus Clinton’s. I don’t let that stop me; the stakes are simply too high. Just keep at it, over and over and over again. Many people will read your comments but will never say a word. Trust me, they are reading them, even though you won’t see them respond. How do I know this? I used to administer a political page on social media and the stats about page visitors were simply astonishing.

      • Drew Hunkins
        June 21, 2016 at 17:11

        Thanks for the encouragement Ms. Pezzutto. You bring an absolutely fascinating background analysis to light.

        • Elena Pezzutto
          June 22, 2016 at 12:50

          And thank you for YOUR mockery. It wasn’t meant to be a background analysis.

  13. Abe
    June 20, 2016 at 13:20

    Along with applying military pressure on Russia, Hillary Clinton will carry on attempts to suffocate Russia’s economy, primarily through the use of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other oil and gas rich Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Their ongoing campaign of oil price dumping along with Qatar’s LNG supplies to Europe are putting Russia in a difficult position. Naturally, the US will continue developing its shale capabilities to drive the prices even lower. It’s curious that all the attempts that Moscow has made so far to negotiate oil prices with the CSA have yielded no results, nor will they any time in the future. But the Saudis and Qataris are cleverly distracting Russian officials with a string of high-profile visits made by various emissaries promising all varieties of potential deals they have no intention of actually implementing. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already deeply involved in a hydrocarbon war against Russia.

    Not by chance, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has recently visited Washington to hand over a total of 20% of Hillary’s Presidential campaign funding in exchange for the US dropping all charges against Saudi Arabia for its connections with terrorists.

    Riyadh and Doha have already put a large bet on Clinton, hoping for a return on their investments from the pillaging of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. What we’re going to get has been already manifested in the letter by American diplomats to Obama. So Russia has a few months left before Hillary Clinton launches a “new” policy of “old American aggression”.

    The US State Department is Awaiting Hillary’s Reign
    By Alexander Orlov

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      June 22, 2016 at 14:47

      You made that up. Jews don’t control any of those things – and most Zionists in the United States are white Christians. I know this because nearly all Republicans and Democrats are white Christians. And the fact you mentioned entertainment shows you say the Jews control Hollywood, and that you criticize alleged Hollywood liberal values. Please go on RationalWiki’s article on “Hollywood values” for a debunking. Their values are actually conservative.

  14. Bill Bodden
    June 20, 2016 at 13:13

    Regardless of which threat to peace enters the White House, increasing dissent among the populace revealed by recent polls and support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump may add another excuse for going to war. Getting the people to take their minds of their own domestic troubles and focusing on a war is a common tactic for inhumane leaders to keep the people in line. Hillary, who is prone to barbaric wars over civilized diplomacy, will find a cowed citizenry a bonus.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 20, 2016 at 13:19

      I certainly agree that Trump is a relative peace candidate. My name for how this fits in with the varieties of concepts of nonviolence it that there is a Trumpian species of nonviolence which is much more realistic in this day and age than the Gandhian version (I’m not talking through my hat–I’ve several academic articles on nonviolence, have lectured across the country about a nonviolent way of defeating terrorism, and have a book published on Gandhi).

      I’ve a pending deadline so I’ll save my other comments for later.

      Thanks for the article!

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 21, 2016 at 02:04

      With the recent rise of the 51 for Hillary State Dept. fan club coming into the news, I would not be surprised, that yes they are planning some barbaric wars for to cause a need for a Hillary, if not now rather than sooner, Hillary will take the throne. The people will vote for her, because a vast amount of us will see Hillary as the experienced stately one who will rescue us from this radical evil Islam that because of them I need to stand in TSA line at the airport, and equally tell Mr Putin to back off and be nice to your gays. Not that it matters, but if you want to scare yourself, think of Hillary as president with both Houses Republican. LIz will be keeping an eye on those Wall Streeters (Yeah, okay) while Hillary will be in a Strangelove environment somewhere close to the middle earth, while she proceeds to hover over a nuke reporting map, and I would love to see the look on Queen Hillary’s face when at last we find out the Russians had an S600 System…and hey it works, uh oh!

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      June 22, 2016 at 14:42

      Be anti-Semitic somewhere else, you pig. By the way, I am anti-Israel and am opposed to Israel’s wars.

Comments are closed.