The ‘Safe’ Risk of Hillary Clinton

Exclusive: The U.K.’s “Brexit” vote underscores the power of this year’s anti-establishment politics, a warning to Democrats as they nominate status-quo candidate Hillary Clinton, a “safe” choice who may prove very risky, says Daniel Lazare.

By Daniel Lazare

With Hillary Clinton the all-but-official Democratic nominee, growing numbers of liberals are trying to talk themselves into backing someone they dislike (Hillary Clinton) versus someone they downright loathe (Donald Trump).

Noam Chomsky paved the way last January by announcing that he would “absolutely” vote for Clinton if he lived in Ohio or some other swing state instead of Massachusetts, where he teaches at MIT.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

More recently, Nation columnist Gary Younge advocated voting for Clinton regardless of which state you live in because while she’s “merely bad,” Trump “represent[s] an existential threat to basic democratic rights.”

Frances Fox Piven said roughly the same thing at last weekend’s “People’s Summit” in Chicago: “I’m going to vote for Hillary, but I’m not going to work for her. … Lesser-evilism may be a curse word, but I think it’s reasonable. Another four years of a deceptive neo-liberal government, I’m going to swallow it.”

All of which begs not just one question but two. The first, obviously, is whether Clinton really is the lesser evil. The answer: domestically, there’s no argument. Say what you will about Clinton, at least she’s not a raging bigot the way Trump is.

But things are not so clear once you leave the U.S. and venture out into the great wide world beyond.  Trump’s foreign-policy ideas are all over the map. He has vowed to tear up the nuclear accord with Iran and blasted Obama for “abandon[ing] our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic.” In practically the same breath, he then calls for better relations with Russia even though Russia sees any such forward-based anti-missile system as a direct threat.

Trump wants closer relations with Israel if such a thing is possible given Washington’s long record of obsequiousness to Tel Aviv, and he wants to expand the military. But he’s also an opponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, even if it took him until 2004 to wake up to what was going on, and says that U.S. “actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS,” which is of course correct. Last but not least, he opposes military action aimed at ousting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

Weighing Foreign Policy

So Trump’s foreign-policy stances are contradictory and ill thought out, yet at times almost reasonable and sane, especially by Washington standards. This is not the case with Clinton. To the contrary, she is a hawk through and through. Her rhetoric was every bit as ferocious as George W. Bush’s in the days after 9/11, if not more so.

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)

She voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force, which gave the go-ahead for the invasion of Afghanistan, and also for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She persuaded President Obama to pursue “regime change” in Libya and spent much of March 2011 recruiting ultra-rich Qatar to join in the effort. But she said nothing when Qatar then poured $400 million into the hands of Islamist rebels who proceeded to spread chaos throughout the country. [See’s “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy.”]

Clinton has been no less reckless with regard to Syria.  She beat Obama to the punch in calling for Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow, she’s consistently pushed for stepped-up support for the rebels, and, as recently as April, she reiterated her call for a “no-fly zone” even though it would require massive military intervention and would almost certainly mean a confrontation with Russia.

So if Clinton is ahead on domestic policy, Trump is better abroad. It’s a choice between racism and war, which itself is an indictment of America’s increasingly rightwing political system. But since U.S. foreign policy directly affects 20 times more people than domestic – i.e. seven billion versus 322 million – then there’s no doubt as to whom the “lesser-evilism” award goes to. It goes to Trump.

But the other question that the pro-Clinton argument begs is one of political viability. People such as Chomsky, Younge, and Piven wouldn’t urge a vote for Clinton if they didn’t think she could win. Instead, they’d vote Green, Socialist Equality, or for some other leftist party. So they argue in favor of pulling the lever with one hand and holding one’s nose with the other because they think she can pull it off.

But can she really? Again, the picture is less clear than is generally assumed. To be sure, Trump is currently going through a rough patch. He’s having trouble transitioning from the primaries to the general election, and his campaign is such a shambles that The New Republic recently predicted that he’ll lose as big in November as Barry Goldwater did in 1964.

But forecasts like this are not terribly meaningful this early in the game, especially in an election year as topsy-turvy as this one. Rather than polls, what matters at this point are politics, i.e. a sense of the candidates’ relative ideological strengths and weaknesses. And it’s in this regard that Clinton is more vulnerable than her backers apparently realize.

Clueless Candidate

Her speech in Cleveland following the June 12 Orlando massacre is a good example why. She began – inappropriately in view of the tragic circumstances – with the usual glib shout-outs to local pols:

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)

“I want to thank your extraordinary senator, Sherrod Brown, for his leadership. …  I want to thank your congresswoman, Marcia Fudge, who is both indomitable and indefatigable….  I want to acknowledge the mayor, Mayor Jackson, who was here, County Executive Budish….”

It’s the kind of thing that Clinton can do in her sleep, and it sounds like it too, i.e. robotic and impersonal.  When she got to the serious stuff, the clichés only multiplied:

“This is a moment when all Americans need to stand together … we must attack it [i.e. terrorism] with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination, and pride in our country and our values … the barbarity that we face from radical jihadists is profound…”

Once again, the effect was thoughtless and frozen. But then came something truly bizarre:

“Now, the third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.”

Why bizarre? Simply because Clinton has been a national figure for two decades as First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State, yet this was a rare recognition that there was something wrong with the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Otherwise, there has been almost nothing but praise. When the State Department negotiated a record $60-billion arms deal with Riyadh in 2010, for instance, her officials stated (somewhat redundantly) that the sale would benefit the Middle East “by deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly seventy years.”

How do you have a solid security relationship with a country that funds extremist mosques that function as a terrorist breeding ground?

When King Abdullah died in January 2015, she and her husband put out a statement praising the Saudi monarch “for his support of efforts for peace in the Middle East” and “the kingdom’s humanitarian efforts around the world.” Since when do you advance the cause of peace by funding Al Qaeda?

To be fair, Clinton was surprisingly frank – once.  In December 2009, she wrote in a State Department memo:

“While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. Due in part to intense focus by the USG over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern. Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Double-Talk about Saudis

The language was tough and unsparing. But the memo is the exception that proves the rule since it was a secret in-house communication that only saw the light of day when Wikileaks put it on the Internet – a disclosure, by the way, that Clinton assailed as “an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.” (Full quote here starting at 1:34.)

The second plane about to crash into the World Trade Center towers in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.

The second plane about to crash into the World Trade Center towers in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001.

If it’s long past time now for the Saudis to cease funding extremist organizations, why wasn’t it long past time then? Why has Clinton repeatedly assured the American people that everything is fine when, as she now concedes, America’s “friends” are funding extremist forces that are trying to kill Americans in the streets?

Trump can be counted on to hammer at such themes, and the more he does, the more voters will want to know. Indeed, Trump followed up her remarks in Cleveland by posting a few hours later on Facebook: “Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate. I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”

Actually, the problem is worse since, if one includes other Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as well as high-ranking businessmen, the amount of Persian Gulf money flowing to the Clinton family foundation is not $25 million, but anywhere from $51 million to $75 million. That’s a lot of dough.  So voters will want to know whether Clinton intentionally held off criticizing the Gulf monarchies because she wanted them to fork over as soon as she stepped down as Secretary of State and that she is only doing so now because the money is in the bag and there is nothing to lose.

Trump plays the politics of fear, as everyone knows. But he also thrives by citing examples of corruption, hypocrisy and incompetence, and Clinton exemplifies all three. Since she entered the Senate, Al Qaeda has grown from a tiny band of conspirators to a major military force wreaking havoc from Indonesia to California. Yet now she expects voters to show their thanks by propelling her into the White House.

Voters just might do it – if, that is, Trump is unable to get his campaign in proper working order, if there are no more terrorist outrages like San Bernardino and Orlando, and if the economy stays afloat.  Otherwise, voters may declare themselves fed up with an establishment candidate who obviously doesn’t know what she’s doing. In that case, they may vote for a know-nothing bigot who at least stands for change.

That’s just what voters have done in Britain by deciding to leave the European Union – and a similar anti-establishment uprising may occur in the United States. If so, liberals may once again find themselves in bed with not just a “lesser evil” but with a loser.

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

52 comments for “The ‘Safe’ Risk of Hillary Clinton

  1. Zachary Smith
    June 30, 2016 at 08:39

    I do not like to be a spoiler and swim against the stream, but I still have to say it as I see it.
    The war in Iraq was not so bad, and justification for Bush is that he had to do something.

    What a charming fantasy.

  2. Stenka Razinova
    June 28, 2016 at 18:25

    I do not like to be a spoiler and swim against the stream, but I still have to say it as I see it.
    The war in Iraq was not so bad, and justification for Bush is that he had to do something.The mess which is now was not so much result of the war. It is the catastrophic result of the debathification program which eliminated the ruling ideology. People need to be fed some ideology they cannot exist without it.
    So after bath ideology gone people did fell back on religion.
    And that is what we have now.

  3. June 26, 2016 at 19:32

    What you say about Donald Trump is false. He is not bigoted. He is against only what is illegal concerning immigration. Is it “bigoted” to oppose law-breakers? There is no further implication, in Trump’s push to enforce border laws, of bigotry toward Mexican citizens in Mexico or legal Mexican immigrants in the US. You are also wrong that Trump’s foreign policy is “all over the map.” He is a consistent non-interventionist. He has repeatedly called for friendship with Russia. Why must clever intellectuals such as yourself so wrongly vilify Trump? It leaves me cold.

  4. Dennis Rice
    June 25, 2016 at 11:55

    From the beginning of the Trump phenomenon, and isn’t that really all it is and has been(?), I gave the American people credit that he would not become president of our country. To his credit he has shaken the Republican party with a good long needed throttling, but I still have faith that the more informed American has seen through his clown show. He will not become president.

    Which leaves us with our “good old ‘boy'” Hillary, whose record of screw-ups nationally and internationally, are known in our country and around the world. Who rides the coattails of whomever she can use and abuse to glorify “Hillary”; who denies the fact that when Wall Street or “too big to fail corporations contribute to her campaign they are expecting something back for their “investment.”

    Bewilderingly, the very people/voters (minorities in particular) who complain that government doesn’t do enough to help them are the very same people/voters who are supporting her (along with those who can’t get past the idea that the good of the country is more important that electing the first woman president, or that “it’s her turn.”

    And these would be the same people/voters who cannot tell you the difference between a socialist and a communist; who think socialism is all about taking away a portion of their income (tax) to give it to those in need, never mind that portions of that same tax are used for socialistic purposes such as schools, streets, hospitals, fire/police protection….

    Alas, unless some great miracle happens, they are stuck with Hillary without knowing they are stuck with her.

    Can we agree that the National Democratic Committee are afraid of Hillary, whose campaign is less about being president of this country and realistically “all about Hillary.”

    The Democratic National Committee does not have the integrity to nominate someone with “integrity” (like Bernie Sanders) anymore that the Republican National Committee has the integrity to dismiss Donald Trump. (Try to “contact us” vie the Democratic National Committee site via the internet and you will never get a reply).

    The American people have just passed up a chance, and their last chance, at a peaceful revolution to change what they continually dislike about the American government, and again have just shot themselves in the (being nice here) in the foot.

    The downward trend of our country continues with the election of Hillary Clinton.

  5. Zachary Smith
    June 25, 2016 at 10:03

    Everybody needs to keep in mind that what Hillary says and what she does are different things.

    Democrats Reject Platform Proposal Opposing Trade Deal

    I can’t improve on the comment at the Naked Capitalism site: “So much for Clinton opposing it.”

    And from this morning’s google news:

    AP: Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. calendar left plenty out

    WASHINGTON — An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

    Yet this dreadful woman appears to have a clear path to becoming President.

  6. Kozmo
    June 25, 2016 at 02:19

    Clinton is pretty much saying she wants to see Assad dead in the same way she saw Qaddafi dead, and seems surprised and annoyed that Assad does not roll over and die on command.

    What would be the reaction of US leaders or the public if foreign statesmen routinely advocated overthrowing the government of the US or “removing” US leaders as often as American politicians do for foreign countries?

  7. Peppermint
    June 24, 2016 at 20:43

    One of the reasons I appreciate the consortium news is not only for the articles, but the usually well-informed and thoughtful comments. Thank you!

  8. GM
    June 24, 2016 at 17:57

    It is worth noting that although the US Gov is arguing thru it’s proxy CIA director John Brennan that the Saudi government–the royal family dictatorship–were not complicit in 9/11, only the Royals have wealth in that country and any terrorist funding emanating from Saudi Arabia is therefore derived from the royals and the royals alone.

    • Joe B
      June 24, 2016 at 18:37

      The Bin Laden family is said to be one of the largest construction companies in SA, and to have been the initial source or channel of AlQaeda funds. With an SA per capita income well over that of the US, I’m sure that there is plenty of private funding. But if the royal family wished, they could certainly cooperate to trace private funding.

  9. Jim Bracken
    June 24, 2016 at 17:03

    It’s very sad, but I think every vote for Stein moves Hillary a step closer to the White House. I am a Green, but if it takes a vote for Trump to keep Hillary out, I’ll do it.

    • Joe B
      June 24, 2016 at 18:34

      It’s a good point. Voting for anyone but Hillary (vs. not voting) is necessary to punish the Dems for selecting Hillary. But a Trump vote might move them even further right.

  10. Bill Bodden
    June 24, 2016 at 13:29

    To replicate Brexit to some degree in the US, Americans need to vote on November 8th for “none of the above” or candidates other than Clinton or Trump.

  11. Bill Bodden
    June 24, 2016 at 13:23

    Typo: “cause of piece” should, presumably, be cause of “peace.”

  12. jo6pac
    June 24, 2016 at 12:51

    The lesser Evil is still Evil. I’ll be voting Green once again.

    • TruthTime
      June 24, 2016 at 19:03

      Good. And thumbs up to you.

      It astonishes me how Americans feel absolutely compelled to vote Republican or Democrat. Years of propaganda will do that, especially with the media now owned by about 6 Corporations.

      We as Americans DO have another choice, and that is a Third Party like Green to break up the corrupted Two-Party System which is more of a One-Party System, the War Party. The Oligarch Party. Until the paradigm is broken that people believe they must vote for one of two corrupted parties, nothing will change. Tyranny will continue.

      I will never in clear conscious vote for lesser evils, war, or Oligarchs. They can kiss my ass.

  13. June 24, 2016 at 11:45

    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 :

    Hillary is supported by the Military Industrial Complex, the Neocons and even the current State Department is eagerly waiting for her in the White House.

    The only real difference is that a Clinton presidency absolutely means more Middle East wars, and a Trump presidency may not. Which is why the Republican establishment is doing its best to ensure that Trump loses which is what AIPAC (Israel Lobby) wants, sensing that someone with his wealth and ego may not be as malleable as Hillary.

    Hillary they now have deep in their pockets and totally compromised.

    Trump seems like a loose cannon – but he did not become a billionaire several times over by being foolishly incompetent.

    • GM
      June 24, 2016 at 17:52

      We don’t know that Trump is a billionaire several times over. He has a habit of drastically exaggerating his net worth.

  14. Jim Hannan
    June 24, 2016 at 11:44

    I use the metric of which candidate will be better for me and those I love.
    In that case, it’s quite obvious that Hillary Clinton is much superior. She will replace Scalia with a reasonable person on the Supreme Court, and probably name two or three more justices.
    She will continue the work of the Obama administration by working to save Obamacare, which has brought health insurance to 20 million Americans. She will work to enforce environmental laws. She will advocate for a woman and family’s right to choose when they have children.
    Hillary Clinton is endorsed by the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO. She will be supported by overwhelming majorities of African American and Hispanic citizens.
    As almost a co-president from 1993 till 2001, she and her husband provided our country with 8 years of peace and prosperity. They did wage a NATO war in the Balkans, to protect a group from genocide. They also left the White House in 2001 with a projected ten year federal surplus of $5.6 trillion, which would have wiped out the national debt.
    However, we then elected the worst President in American history. Oh, and the tweedle de tweedle dum candidate, Al Gore, turned out to be one of the strongest voices against the Iraq war. And Ralph Nader. Not a peep on the war or anything else.
    Hillary Clinton is a centrist-left candidate that will make my life better. Trump is a narcissistic idiot, who likes Brexit because more tourists will play golf at his course in Scotland. His tax plan will leave me, a senior living on Social Security, struggling to make ends meet. His Supreme Court picks will roll back even more of our liberties and shred the struggling safety net. He wants to tear up the Iranian nuclear deal and start a trade war with China.
    She did vote for the Iraq war. So did Tom Harkin, Joe Biden and John Kerry. Bad idea, which she has acknowledged.

    • June 24, 2016 at 11:53

      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! And that is not “Racism” but it is not how the mainstream media wants us to think of The Donald.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 24, 2016 at 13:36

        And, when Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on waste, Hillary fired him.

    • Akech
      June 24, 2016 at 12:39

      (a) Advocating for the woman’s right to choose whether to a abort a fetus or not does put food on my diner table when the TPP, NAFTA or CAFTA have suppressed families income to slave wages
      (b) Working to enforce environmental laws while promoting global fracking to destroy it, really?
      (c) Obamacare authored by the insurance and drug companies are pouring tons of $$$ into Hillary election and leaving million Americans with no insurance or high deductibles
      (d) Talking about the Balkans, Kosovo is now a human organ harvesting and trading republic! Whose organs are these people snatching anyway, the poor peoples’ organs?

      The 1% does not only vie for the bloody domination of the world natural resources, they also feel that the body parts of most 99.9%(ters) should be included as stocks in trade!

      • Bill Bodden
        June 24, 2016 at 13:37

        Well said, Akech

      • Jim Hannan
        June 24, 2016 at 16:25

        Actually, being able to determine one’s reproductive freedom has a huge bearing on being able to put food on the dinner table.

        Obamacare has added 20 million to health insurance, and has significantly lowered the cost curve on health care generally.

        If we took Clinton and Trump out of the equation:

        One party believes in climate change and environmental protection, one does not.
        One party believes that families should be able to plan for children, one does not.
        One party believes that the Iran deal will lower tensions in the Middle East, one party does not.
        One party believes that working people can organize, one does not.
        One party believes in a progressive income tax, including an estate tax, one does not.

        • Bill Bodden
          June 24, 2016 at 17:33

          Obamacare has added 20 million to health insurance, and has significantly lowered the cost curve on health care generally.

          And the health insurance companies have been running with their loot to the bank ever since. Meanwhile, premium purchasers are getting a dose of sticker shock having to pay more and/or face higher deductibles.

        • Joe B
          June 24, 2016 at 18:20

          I computed that here in Maine, Obamacare insurance costs were so high that it was cheaper to be uninsured unless my annual health expenses exceeded $37,000. They have only once in my life exceeded $5,000. So I don’t believe that Obamacare has brought anyone coverage who was not covered before, unless they had been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. It has clearly done absolutely nothing to reduce medical costs. It is a fraud to get bribes from the fraudulent insurance industry. And what else did Obama or Hillary accomplish in 8 years but a string of disasters insulting just to read about?

        • Peter Loeb
          June 25, 2016 at 10:18

          JIM HANNAN….

          One party BELIEVES IN…. ????

          You mean one candidate says…What the reality is is quite different.

          As only one example: We did not get “universal health care”. We
          got exception after exception, opting out for medicaid, placing Big
          Pharma in a central decision-making position as to rates (after all
          they were major fundraisers for Barack Obama) . Those with
          better proposals such as Representative Conyers among others,
          were marginalized out of key meetings to make decisions on health
          care. We got no to transition employees for health insurance companies
          into workers for a federal program…

          There are many other areas. Obama picked up a peace prize
          and continued war making on the powerless of the earth,
          worldwide assassinations, drone attacks , support for weapons
          of death given to our friend Israel…

          And on and on it goes.

          I don’t believe Trump would be any better.Not at all.
          But how can I vote for Hillary with blood on her

          “One party believes in..”??? Haven’t you ever been to a
          campaign rally before?

          —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • TruthTime
      June 24, 2016 at 17:22

      Then enjoy the next illegal war when Hillary false flags to invade Syria and Iran. And when we start to lose in a multinational war both men AND women will be drafted equally to serve King Hillary.

      Hillary is famous for saying things and doing another. She is absolutely lying directly to your Plebeian face and having a laugh about it with her Elite Goldman Sachs and War Monger buddies.

      If you believe her, I feel sorry for you. Was Honduras, Iraq, or the illegal bombing of Kosovo something she REALLY felt sorry for when she advocated the illegal bombing of Libya?! In her evil words she said of Libya, once the most prosperous nation of North Africa, “We came, We Saw, He Died.” THAT is how disgusting she is as a human being. She even promised a War with Iran for Israel, will she feel “sorry” for that?

      Does she or any other insane State Department or Pentagon or Insane CIA criminal feel sorry for arming terrorists? Did Hillary feel sorry when the U.S. conspired to blatantly overthrow the Democracy of Ukraine through her Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland protégé? Feel free to answer these questions.

      Never Hillary. Never Trump.

      Jill Stein is 100% a better Human Being of conscious than Killary Clinton is.

    • GM
      June 24, 2016 at 17:50

      There is no guarantee that Hillary will not nominate an authoritarian like herself to SCOTUS.
      BTW, it was Breyer, a Clinton appointee, who tipped the vote this week in favor of gutting the 4th Amendment.

    • Guzdeh
      June 24, 2016 at 17:55

      Genocide in Kosovo? Or Srebrenica?

      This book is a good start:

      Besides your government recognizes genocide or “genocide” when it suits it. And vice versa.

    • abi
      June 25, 2016 at 09:03

      If you can live with the bloodletting, in the name of humanitarian interventions, that Clinton would unleash, then good luck to you. What the hell, as long as she would make your life better, or so you think.

      Vote your conscience.

    • diogenes
      June 26, 2016 at 22:46

      Michael Hudson accurately describes Hillary as “to the right of Cheney”. Her stated positions on many issues show it. She is as fake as Obama and will be more dangerous. “We came. We saw. He died. Cackle Cackle Cackle.” This is the voice of a bloody-handed psychopath. She will be a disaster for America and a disaster for the world.

    • DriveByCommentator
      June 27, 2016 at 01:23

      Your memory is selective to say the least. Bill Clinton oversaw pointless sanctions that killed around 500,000 Iraqi civilians (Saddam, curiously, was just fine). He is responsible for, among other things, destroying Haiti, bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, dismantling Glass-Steagal and paving the way for the neoliberal/neoconservative stranglehold that controls the levers of power today. Hillary took pleasure in destroying Libya and is threatening war with Russia.

      But, hey, I’m glad you think she’s the best choice for your family. Bear in mind yours is not the family on the block. If HRC wins in November you might want to start building an atomic proof bunker in your backyard.

  15. Drew Hunkins
    June 24, 2016 at 11:37

    We raise our glass to the Brits! Poking a seminal piece of the Troika squarely in the eye is always a moment to rejoice for anyone concerned about economic injustice and social betterment.

    Certainly the Brexit is no panacea but just about any movement that puts a chink in the armor of such a vital ruling class institution is to be cherished. The vote is a bright spot in an otherwise lackluster year thus far. Thank you UK denizens.

    Hopefully the dismantling of NATO, the EU and all the “TPPs” baloney is next along with any prospects of an imbecilic and suicidal Washington led war on Russia.

  16. Anon
    June 24, 2016 at 11:29

    [Entity] that obviously doesn’t know what it’s doing. vs [Anti-Entity] know nothing, bigoted, at least stands for change.

    Entity = Hillary / UK Govt | Anti-Entity* = Trump / Brexit

    *Actions of Anti-Entity are strictly advisory, subject to approval by Deep State (aka ENTITY)

  17. Brad Owen
    June 24, 2016 at 11:06

    I think Tarpley’s on the right track about Brexit being a threat to the American Republic (and a re-enforcement of the the grip of the Tory Empire upon the American Republic). I also think it is a maneuver of the plutocratic oligarchs of the far-flung Tory Empire to bring China to heel via their financier assets in Hong Kong(Wall Street of the East which, like Wall Street, are franchise operations of The City and the Tory Empire. I avoid Phrases like “Anglo-American” because they are misleads, masking Imperial Tory operations in USA, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and outposts in Hong Kong, South Africa, India, etc…). In a way it is still about bringing down the three great Republics; USA, Russian Federation(via SME & NATO), People’s Republic of China…the failed objective of WWII, along with restoration of Empire, in modern fascist dress.

    • Charles E. Carroll
      June 24, 2016 at 20:07

      Everywhere in the world the Brits have been = Trouble.

  18. Joe Tedesky
    June 24, 2016 at 10:47

    The problem of picking between these two presidential candidates is living with yourself afterwards. I have decided to vote for neither. It’s Jill, or Bernie, and I’m voting with my soul in tack. When it comes to Hillary saying what is needed said about the Saudi’s for example, I feel that is her way of putting the pressure on them, and by doing that she ups the bribe. Oldest trick in the book, is to create a rule, and then take money thru the back door to lift the ban. In the book ‘Clinton Cash’, Hillary and Bill do this quite a lot. Oh, and if a client should not give to the Clinton Foundation (or one of her three donor centers) then a client could pay the Clintons for a speech. Speeches appear to start somewhere around 250k. As much as I could listen to Bill speak all day, not so much Hillary who’s like nails running down a chalkboard, where in the heck would I ever come up with that kind of money. That’s okay, because I’m not in the market for any military grade weapons, and I’m not a bank. Trump on the other hand could be dangerous after a morning briefing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, Bernie or Jill, and then set back, and try to make life work. Hey, I’ve done it many times before, so I will just have to do it once more.

    • June 24, 2016 at 12:03

      FULL Part 1 – Donald Trump Town Hall With Sean Hannity In North Carolina March 3rd 2016

      A true American patriot will not disagree with the man.

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 24, 2016 at 15:12

        Debbie I watched the Sean Hannity interview of Donald Trump. As usual I like what he has to say regarding trade agreements, but I lack the confidence in this man to believe him to do anything with them. His idea of making America great again is hard to argue with, but how encompassing is his plan when he seems to display a certain kind of bigotry which I feel wouldn’t be good at all for this country’s rise to greatness. Of course, the Donald wants to spend more on our military….really? How much more should this nation spend, when we already out spend something in the neighborhood of out spending the next ten or so many nations who follow our vast military budget? We have certainly gone the way of the cuckoo bird, and maybe more so than that. I want a leader who will want to close military bases, not install more of them to only meddle into other nations sovereignty. Thanks for the reply Debbie…JT

        • TruthTime
          June 24, 2016 at 16:55

          You are correct Joe.

          The insane “Defense” Budget of the U.S. is a paramount issue to this country. It is the #1 cause of economic decline which has a negative trickle down affect on the Civilian Markets.

          And Tax Payers are forced to pay .GOV millions of dollars for the overloaded budget.

          If it grows or continues it will lead to eventual collapse no matter what. There is a Historical Precedent for it and every Empire seems to fall into the Self-Defeating Trap that they can somehow do ‘better’ than the previous Empire.

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 24, 2016 at 21:50

            There was a time when America exported some really neat things, like, grain, farm equipment, cars, and all sorts of products which necessitated a productivity that helped most of our citizens out, in order to lift their living standards. Americans were even hoping that our customers were experiencing their own society’s rise, because at it’s core America had a good heart. Now America exports bombs and bullets. No client out there is anxious for their next order experience, either. We have become the nation that the PNACer’s had planned for us to become. We have became the nation who would roll out the Yinon Plan. We are the only nation who could stand toe to toe with Russia, ha Russia! Sadly, our news is run in cycles of sound bites, which swirl on up into its becoming just more noise. Maybe this Brexit will be the beginning of a global people movement, and then maybe we Americans can get a few to a couple of candidates who would be responsible, and accountable, to govern us better. We can do better!

        • June 25, 2016 at 14:35

          Joe, So what is the alternative ? Hillary ?

          Hillary is supported by the Military Industrial Complex, the Neocons and even the current State Department is eagerly waiting for her in the White House.

          The only real difference is that a Clinton presidency absolutely means more Middle East wars, and a Trump presidency may not.

          Which is why the Republican establishment is doing its best to ensure that Trump loses which is what AIPAC (Israel Lobby) wants, sensing that someone with his wealth and ego may not be as malleable as Hillary, who they now have deep in their pockets, totally compromised.

          Trump seems like a loose cannon – but he did not become a billionaire several times over by being foolishly incompetent.

          Also see the 2nd Part of his interview:

        • June 25, 2016 at 15:30

          Joe, I understand your concerns. The estimable William Greider, a regular contributor to The Nation and author of Secrets of the Temple 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 writes John Walsh and he recommended 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.”

    • Charles E. Carroll
      June 24, 2016 at 20:06

      Sad but true!

    • Peter Loeb
      June 25, 2016 at 10:02


      I feel the same way. I shall not vote for either Trump or HRC. I wondered about
      Jill Stein and read her web page. I found nothing condeming the US-Israeli
      horrors. Absolutely nothing. “Zilch!”

      As a passionate anti-Zionist, I can support neither and could not look at myself
      after a vote for either.

      I will try to get the best out of whoever wins. I expect little of either.

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 25, 2016 at 11:14

        Peter, keep me informed, although I will need to recheck Jill out on her Israeli position, it seems to me that she wants suitable fairness for all in that hell hole they call Israel.

        • June 25, 2016 at 18:58

          Joe, Check out Donald Trump here:

          Donald Trump supports Putin ‘bombing the hell out of ISIS’

          • June 25, 2016 at 19:00

            And more important Putin on Donald Trump and US elections


            Smart ass Zakaria asked Putin why he said that Trump was a talented and smart candidate.

            In response to Zakaria’s question, Putin said:

            “Well, you’re a famous person in our country, not only as a host on a major media corporation but also as an intellectual [Zakaria got his Ph.D. in government from Harvard]. But why are you juggling with what I said? Your ‘journalist’ side is prevailing over your ‘analyst’ side.

            Let’s examine what I said. I said in passing Trump is a bright [colorful] candidate. Do you not find it to be so? I do. I do not ascribe any other characteristics to him.

            “But what I did note and what I most certainly welcome is that Mr. Trump said he is wanting to restore relations with Russia. What’s bad about that? We all welcome this. Do you not?”

      • June 25, 2016 at 20:58

        Peter, I agree with you completely. I believe that Hillary and her husband BOTH ought to be in prison. They have so many “skeletons in their closets” that it’s ridiculous. Of course, since they are multi-millionaires, neither of them will ever serve a day in any prison facility. As far as Trump is concerned, I wouldn’t trust him any further than I could throw him…which isn’t very far. What about all of Trump’s bankruptcies and his (alleged) ties to organized crime? No press coverage on that, to speak of…

Comments are closed.