Exclusive: FBI Director Comey’s judgment that Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” but not criminal in her sloppy email practices leaves her limping to the Democratic nomination and stumbling toward the fall campaign, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Compared to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton presents herself as the well-qualified steady hand to manage U.S. foreign policy over the next four years, yet she has associated herself with a series of failed strategies and now faces an FBI judgment that she was “extremely careless” in protecting national security secrets.
A partial list of her dubious and dangerous judgments include voting for the catastrophic Iraq War, pushing for a misguided counterinsurgency “surge” in Afghanistan, embracing an anti-democratic coup in Honduras, undercutting President Obama’s efforts to peacefully constrain Iran’s nuclear program, devising the disastrous Libyan “regime change,” advocating a new invasion of Syria under the guise of creating “safe zones,” likening Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler, and – now according to FBI Director James Comey – failing to protect classified material from possible exposure to foreign adversaries.
Clinton admits that some of her judgments were “mistakes,” such as believing President George W. Bush’s blatant falsehoods about Iraq’s alleged WMDs and using a personal email server to communicate regarding her duties as Secretary of State. But arguably even more troubling is the fact that she doesn’t regard other of her official judgments as mistakes. Instead, she holds to them still or spins them in deceptive ways.
For instance, Clinton has never expressed regret about her support for the ouster of progressive Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, or her siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus against President Obama in mouse-trapping him into a foolhardy counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan, or her sabotaging Obama’s plan in 2010 to use Brazil and Turkey to convince Iran to surrender much of its refined uranium, or her propagandistic justification for bombing Libya in 2011 and leaving behind what amounts to a failed state, or her similar scheming for “regime change” in Syria that helped expand terrorist movements in the Middle East and has now destabilized Europe, or her reckless demonizing of Russia’s Putin and encouragement of a dangerous new Cold War.
In many of those cases, Clinton has not been called on to apologize or admit error because Washington’s neoconservative/liberal interventionist foreign-policy establishment marched in lock-step with the former Secretary of State. It turns out that if you move with the pack, you do enjoy relative safety even if your collective judgment is unsound. Usually, the people picking up the messy and blood-spattered pieces left behind by foolhardy policies are American soldiers and taxpayers whose opinions don’t matter much in the rarefied atmosphere of Officialdom.
The Worst News
Arguably, Comey’s July 5 statement terming Clinton’s use of an unsecured email server as “extremely careless” but not criminal was the worst possible news for the Democratic Party. A recommendation to indict Clinton might have compelled her to step aside and let the party nominate someone more likely to defeat Republican Donald Trump, but the lack of an indictment probably means that Clinton will persevere through the Democratic convention and go into the general election as damaged goods.
That outcome means she will be viewed by many voters as a privileged politician who was let off the hook while more poorly connected Americans would likely have ended up in prison.
Assessing Clinton’s sloppy use of a private email server – a process that she justified as a matter of personal convenience so she could keep her beloved Blackberry – Comey said laws may well have been broken and national security secrets may have been jeopardized to foreign governments though he couldn’t say for sure that her server was successfully hacked.
Explaining his reasoning, Comey said, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no responsible prosecutor would bring such a case.” Despite Comey’s recommendation, the ultimate decision still rests with Justice Department prosecutors.
But the impression that many Americans will get is that there is one set of rules for the “great and powerful” and another set for the rest of us, an extraordinarily damaging message in a political year of obvious voter discontent with the Establishment.
While there will be enormous pressure on responsible Americans not to elect the loose cannon known as Donald Trump, there are serious worries that Hillary Clinton may present her own enormous risks as President.
Will she surround herself with neocons and liberal hawks who will be eager to jam the American people into new and even more dangerous wars, including possibly the most reckless “regime change” of all, in Moscow?
Will she turn U.S. policies in the Middle East over to Israel’s right-wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu as she has implied in her desire to take the relationship to “the next level”? Will she display the same faulty warmongering judgment that she has demonstrated again and again, but without the temporizing influence of President Obama?
These are legitimate questions that Americans have the right to consider as they weigh which of the two highly unpopular standard-bearers to pick between. Even as Clinton has shifted her rhetoric toward a more populist style and given at least lip service to some of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s social issues, she has shown no moderation of her hawkish foreign policies.
That’s either because she’s trying to reel in the Republican neocons in the general election or because she truly believes in an interventionist approach toward the world. Either way, pro-peace Americans have reason to be concerned
[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?’”; “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon“; “Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party”; “The State Department’s Collective Madness”; and “Trading Places: Neocons and Cockroaches.”]
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
I was actually perusing an interesting article in Canada’s National Post about Hillary Clinton entitled “Rex Murphy: Hillary Clinton’s rigged game”. This might be worth a read as well to get a perspective of how people from outside America see Clinton (at least for the e-mail scandal).
National Post: “Rex Murphy: Hillary Clinton’s rigged game” (July 8, 2016):
Clinton’s case is the most cynical moment in an era in which cynicism is the very coin of the realm. Wonder why so many people are supporting Trump, or why so many Democrats came out for Bernie Sanders? It’s the populace’s way of giving the finger to a system that is rigged. Rigged for those with connections, money and power. Rigged with a capital “R.”
In case anyone is taking the FBI investigation of Hillary email gate seriously:
FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath
Source -The Hill-6 hours ago
“Compared to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton presents herself as the well-qualified steady hand to manage U.S. foreign policy over the next four years…”
Steady hand? Well-qualified? Or known for reckless endangerment at the least and treason to the American people (the 99%) at the most?
Judging by his actions, Donald Trump is neither reckless nor a traitor to the American people.
I’ve enjoyed many of Robert Parry’s articles, but I’ll be on guard now.
Donald Trump is anything but a “loose cannon.” His well-known speeches on foreign policy and the crimes of Hillary Clinton show integrity, clear thinking, and courage. Trump’s frankness, in contrast to the political lies of his opponents, is a virtue rather than a sign of recklessness, as the term “loose cannon” implies. Nor could a “loose cannon” have created the successful businesses and exquisitely appointed penthouse that Donald Trump enjoys. These are products of a careful, meticulous mind. Remember that Trump is fighting an entrenched elite. Shock and awe are all they perpetrate and all they understand. His mild use of this tactic may be why some commentators fail to grasp the scope of his campaign strategy.
It’s not about hack, it is about access.
Further to my comment of an hour or so ago, which has yet to get vetted and appear, I had meant to continue and say (but got unexpectedly distracted by events chez-moi):- I venture that the condemnation of ‘the lesser of two evils’ critique, as championed by Jill Stein among others, is insufficient to do the job of ever enlightening those who favor voting for HRC to keep out Trump and those who favor voting for Trump to keep out HRC. What we have here are persons owned by fear — much on the model of the many in the Middle Ages who, so terrified of the Devil, were prime candidates for the syndrome of demoniacal possession. Or, in other words, to cast a ‘negative vote’ is to submit, in fear, to a mode of extortion. Whereas what’s really needed, now more than ever, is to take a principled stand — or, in a word, to demonstrate a little courage.
Chomsky recently spoke of Bernie Sanders as ‘the only honest politician’ in America; and Dick van Dyke introduced Sanders at a CA rally saying he was ‘the sanest [sic] man’ in the US. I beg to differ, however, for just the same ought properly to be said of Jill Stein; hence, it has been truly edifying for me to see, here above in a few comments, some essential recognition of just this. Stein is certainly the most principled, sentient, erudite, and intellectually astute among all of the presidential candidates. And the fact that she is foremost, both in heart & mind, a physician rather than a career politician gives everything she has to say — both diagnostically and prognostically — a certain gravity and authenticity unattainable by, and even alien to, the Washington elite. —– #ImWithHer, just assuming Bernie has by now lost it.
Some Hillary Humor. Enjoy it while we can still laugh a little bit about the situation.
6 Hillary-FBI Excuses for Our New World Order
Regarding the ‘peace movement’, everyone knows most participants were draft age college students. Since the draft has been eliminated, the peace movement died—which is why we went draftless. A professional army is much more costly, so USA did not do it to save money
I am by no means a fan of FOX News, nor of Rudy Giuliani, but in a FOX interview yesterday, Giuliani spoke with authority as a former U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York (and Jim Comey’s former boss). In it he addressed some of the issues- and the concerns raised by Comey in his statement to the press- and concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would NOT have recommended bringing this case to trial, and that had he been the prosecutor, he had no doubt he would win the case- and he discussed his reasons why. (See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-fbi-decision-special-exception-182610687.html )
I suspect that there are many, many other respected prosecutors who, based on the information already in the public domain, would agree with Giuliani.
If Comey were reluctant to make a recommendation, I cannot understand why, given the seriousness of the allegations, and the mountain of evidence before him, he did not at least recommend passing the case on to a grand jury to determine whether or not Clinton should be indicted. That much of the evidence was circumstantial, should not have been the reason for recommending against a prosecution, since many other cases- e.g., insider trading cases- requiring a showing of intent, are prosecuted and end in convictions, based only circumstantial evidence (even those cases which should never have been prosecuted, such as Jeffrey Sterling’s).
And why drop the ball re: violations of statutes that do not require proof of intent, but instead, apply gross negligence as the standard? After all what could Comey’s unqualified statement that Clinton was extremely careless have meant other than that she was grossly negligent?
And, I wonder why he would have ignored the espionage statutes re: her disclosure and/or mishandling of classified information, especially when this Administration and the prior one had prosecuted so others who, unlike her, were not violating the espionage statute out of careless or blatant disregard of the law, but in accordance with a higher (e.g., Constitutional) law (for example, Binney, Drake and Snowden) and/or their obligation as a soldier to disobey unlawful orders (Manning), or in furtherance of their right and duty to follow administrative channels and testify truthfully to an Inspector General or Congress about an Admistration boondoggle (i.e. Sterling- where this was the real reason for the Administration’s prosecution, rather than for making some phone calls to NY Times reporter James Risen)- where ironically, but not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton was fanatical in her support of such prosecutions.
So, this reader agrees, Clinton is damaged goods, but maybe that’s also better for her corporate handlers, as long as she is not replaced by someone like Sanders, and she limps to victory over Trump.
Your headline is really shocking. I am very sorry to see Robert Parry, whom I have respected and supported for many years, display the kind of childish, misogynistic disrespect for his foe into which so many journalists and institutions have followed Mr. Trump.
I will continue to respect Mr. Parry’s past work–he knows a lot about foreign relations and our unsavory recent past in that regard–all through Mr. Trump’s dangerous presidency, or at least till President Trump gets annoyed at some fractious underling one day and nukes the Russians, after which my respect for Mr. Parry will not exist as he and I and all of you will have been atomized. But I don’t care to suffer through any more public misogyny. I lived with 62 years of it and have recently decided to shut it out and enjoy my remaining years on this beautiful if ragged and declining planet. (Until, as I say, Mr. Trump makes that impossible.) It seems a great many intelligent American men would rather see Donald Trump be president of the most dangerous country in the world than someone who reminds them of their mothers. Glad I’m not your mother!
Isobel Hudson… I don’t know about your mother but mine never pushed to invade a country (which became a failed state) or pulled off an illegal coup both of which resulted in the deaths and suffering of countless people. Clinton and Trump are both evil in my mind and in no way would Clinton ever remind me of my mother – who does not have an evil bone in her body. If you don’t like what Mr. Parry is writing then you also would detest what Mr. Greenwald and the Intercept are also writing about Clinton.
…[I]nvade a country (which became a failed state) or pulled off an illegal coup both of which resulted in the deaths and suffering of countless people…
They are only two items of a long list of criminal charges that could be applied to the Queen of Chaos if a power such as existed at the Nuremberg Trials was reconstituted and applied to the US empire and some of its satraps in NATO.
Bill Bodden… I certainly agree! I didn’t even mention her flip flopping on issues or all of the corporate donors or being paid huge swathes of money for speeches at Goldman-Sachs and being on, I believe, boards such as Monsanto and Walmart etc. All I see is shadiness, dishonesty, and ruthlessness from Clinton and I am not a fan of Trump either but I do believe that much of what he speaks about Clinton has already done.
I also agree that our western leaders should not be above international law and that is why I would so love the Chilcot Report to lead to Tony Blair being brought before the International Criminal Court because it would sent shivers through all of the warmongers in the western world – accountability (though the US has not ratified the Rome Statute but my country Canada did ratify the Rome Statute, is a full member of the ICC and would not be above the law such as our breaking Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by bombing in Syria).
Hillary Clinton regarding the brutal assassination of Qaddafi:
“We came. We saw. He died.” Then she laughs.
Isobel, allow me to respond to you, and to some degree Marion Delgado. I feel the same angst as you probably feel, when commentators, news reports, and other notable people, start lashing out at politicians we thought were good liberals. This is especially disheartening when the very same commentators, and the rest, all happen to be, or at least I thought they were liberals to, and yet they don’t sound quite liberal when it comes to them now reporting on my favorite candidate, such as maybe Hillary is for you. Okay, so far I hope I’m hitting on to what may bother you the most about Robert Parry’s critical article such as this, and why it feels like a betrayal of sorts.
Number one, our society has taken the liberal conservative tags to a whole other level. An example maybe, when G.W. Bush was in office he was criticized by let’s say Robert Parry. Now, that Obama is in office, should Parry back off his commentary about aggressive war policies, just because he and the president are by our society’s overly used tag terms that tag them both liberals? If that were the case, I won’t log on to Mr Parry’s site everyday, because he would be to me just another sellout. I’m tired of that gang of crony news people, who will say and do anything, just because of their allegiance to their tag label. Did you ever wonder what an invitation to the White House Correspondents dinner may mean to a young and aspiring journalist?
Number two, just for a moment, shut your eyes and think about Hillary when it comes to Benghazi, Libya, and unsecured email servers, and then just for that moment pretend that Hillary is a Republican conservative. Would you be so forgiving of a Ted Cruz, or if these incidents were the cause of a Donald Trump, could you give either of them a pass? I know Robert Parry, would write the same critical article as he did about Hillary, and that he would go after those conservatives just as hard, without a doubt in my mind. In fact maybe if the incidents were so similar he could just replace Hillary’s name with whatever name the conservative was, and still call himself a good and decent journalist. Plus, Hillary’s baggage is baked into the Clinton cake, you can’t escape it. So why try?
Your devotion to Hillary, I’m guessing could be mostly because she is a woman. My first boss when I was young was a woman, and to be quite honest that lady was probably the best, and if not the best, at the very least one of the best bosses I ever worked for. My wife is president of a company, and she works very hard to make things work, no man can replace her and do as well at her job. I have 5 daughters who are very smart, and very hardworking, and yes they do things that men can do, and they most of the time can do it better. My mother was a woman, and a darn good person on top of it. So, with that resume of mine out of the way, I would like you to google the name ‘Jill Stein’, and then get back to me about what you think of her. (I comment on almost every article here at consortiumnews.com) There are many suggesting Bernie should go over to the Green Party and run as President, with Jill his VP. I say no to this, with a whole level of difference to that suggestion. I would prefer that Jill run as the President, because she seems to me to be very most qualified by her intellect and by her nature. Bernie in my opinion would be the more suited for the VP position mostly due to his experience with the legislature, and by his being the VP this would give some relieve to those who think that his age is to high to guarantee that he could finish out his term. I would have Jill run as president and have Bernie as her VP.
Hang in there regardless, because Robert Parry hasn’t changed, the political values world has.
Oh, and let me end my sincere response to you this way; the one woman who I dearly miss the most inside these hard and trying times of journalistic confusion is the dear and beloved Helen Thomas. I wonder what Helen would have had to say about all of this. In Helen’s world there were no tags, because those politicians are there to serve us…the American People, and Helen got that message well!
The Stuff of Novels
1. Obama gets a full briefing from AG Lynch regarding the FBI’s findings, which includes real evidence of foreign hacking and major conflicts-of-interest in regard to the Clinton Foundation.
2. Seeing his chance to finally screw Hillary, Obama orders Lynch to order FBI Director Comey to do a limited hangout on the national security aspects of the email scandal—but only after the Clinton’s have first been briefed.
3. In her tarmac tip-off, she tells the Big Dog that she will only be able to hold the line for so long, since there are disgruntled investigators who may leak the dirt that they discovered in regard to the Clinton Foundation. She tells Clinton that Obama has ordered a limited hangout of the email stuff, but will mitigate the circumstances by touring with her. Clinton leaves the meeting with a copy of the questions for Hillary’s final FBI Interview in his breast pocket, after the two agree that the best time for the interview is the ultra-slow news cycle of an infrequent, three-day, 4th of July Weekend.
4. Back at home, the savvy Clintons know that this is a political catastrophe, which may ultimately end her Presidential aspirations. However, having survived so many previous close ones, they are prepared to press on to the long-awaited Coronation in the hope that beat the email rap, while keeping the real heat off of the Foundation’s Finances.
5. Clinton goes to her FBI Interview and delivers her well-rehearsed answers to hand-picked FBI ‘Team Players’, completing the phony narrative that the official investigation is winding up “just as she has always wanted”.
6. Having previously been forced to limit the scope of the investigation, Comey commits the ultimate act of ‘vindictive compliance’, by kicking the matter back up to his boss with the peculiar pronouncement that no “reasonable” prosecutor would prosecute the case. Not only does he vindicate his Bureau, but he also knows that his comment guarantees that Congressional Committees will soon be asking the relevant questions behind closed doors.
7. Congressional Inquiries begin, but with less than three weeks until the convention, Hillary limps to the finish line and the Establishment Democrats give her the nomination, thus putting the final coup de grace to the Sanders Campaign. Once Bernie is out of the picture, Hillary’s numbers against Trump drop like a rock and embarrassing questions begin to surface about the Foundation.
8. Hillary abdicates the throne “for the good of the party” and the Democratic Establishment convenes an emergency convention to nominate Joe Biden as a replacement.
9. There are handshakes and backslaps all around from Obama to Biden to Lynch and even to Comey as everyone realizes that they have dodged a bullet by getting rid of the Clintons.
10. Bill and Hillary know they’ve been forced out, but they will retain their historical legacy will remain relatively intact and that they can continue with the important work of the Foundation.
11. The intelligence community as a whole is thrilled, since Biden is a long-time team player whose son does regular business in the Ukraine. They toast the New Cold War with their arms dealer friends and a few dozen Generals on the night that Biden accepts the nomination.
12. Across the realm, the establishment is happy: Republicans and Democrats; Wall Street Bankers; the shadow government; the multi-national corporations; the mainstream media; the NRA; AIPAC—even Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likudniks…
13. …and then Trump wins.
Write your own sequel.
Brad, I’m saving this. Your categorical run down of events seem believable. Also, please know I can be a terrible Sherlock, but what you have here is worth saving. See Greg Maybury’s comment above and his article he links you to. Greg made some predictions too. Hey, nice comment & continue on maybe on other articles, but I did get something to kick around by reading yours JT
ps here’s another scenario; Trump gets paid after Hillary’s inauguration
Brad, I’m saving this. Your categorical run down of events seem believable. Also, please know I can be a terrible Sherlock, but what you have here is worth saving. See Greg Maybury’s comment above and his article he links you to. Greg made some predictions too. Hey, nice comment & continue on maybe on other articles, but I did get something to kick around by reading yours JT
ps here’s another scenario; Trump gets paid after Hillary’s inauguration
please when you got more situation settings like this feel free to indulge, I love this kind of comment writing, and remember sometimes strange things heard from strange places seen by whom we forget, as do unknown origin prophecies sometimes will come true. I gotta go!
The amount of buy-in to right-wing nonsense in this is absurd. This is definitely not the sort of work Robert Perry used to do. I hope once the election’s over the Clinton-hating repurposing of the Judicial Watch/Arkansas Project crap will go away.
When/if the Queen of Chaos ascends to the Oval Office (or should that be “descends to the Evil Office”) we can, as the old saw says, “Cheer up, things could be worse.” And it is a good bet things will be worse – much worse. Then, Marion, you may wish you had paid more attention to items listed here and elsewhere on Hillary’s rap sheets.
Clinton hating? Don’t you find WAR CRIMINALS to be despicable human beings like the rest of us?
I’m with you, Ms. Delgado. Thanks for your comment.
Marion Delgado… what is “right wing” about opposing war mongering which has resulted in failed states and countless suffering of people in Iraq, Libya, and Honduras? Do you see “peace” as a right-wing, crazy concept? Do you consider the Pope right-wing or Desmond Tutu etc.? At least from what I have read from Mr. Parry, he criticizes BOTH Clinton and Trump with valid historical reference which I think should be important because it should take more than having “lady parts” to attain the highest office in the land, the historical record should count more and Clinton’s is a very bad one – “We came, we saw, he died – ha, ha, ha”. I am all for a women President but maybe someone more like Jill Stein or is she too “right-wing” for you?
there may not be a lesser evil as many of the replys above maintain, but there is a greater issue
This hacker Guccifer extradited to the USA and reputed to have all of Hillarys emails is incarcerated in the federal pen under
the control of Lynch from where he is ” lost ” to the FBI team that went to question. I only anecdotally heard the tale but it is
Go to 16.31 on this YouTube about The Sandy Hook Massacre That Wasn’t and guess who that ISIS figure might be.
Hillary Clinton is a criminal. The measure of how far we’ve fallen is that the country would even contemplate someone of her caliber as President of the United States. It’s unbelievable. But then we’re being prepared by the PTB for the unbelievable every single day. 9/11 was the unbelievable. As this documentary points out every subsequent false flag attack and a number prior were also unbelievable. I.e., Do Not Believe Any Of This. (Except for the terrifying specter of HRC as potentially the next President of the United States.)
There are “rumors” that Sandy Hook school was closed in 2007. How difficult would it be for a functioning media to follow up on such a simple fact as whether or not the school was open or closed when this massacre supposedly occurred?
Our picture of the world is hopelessly fractured. Think Picasso. What is human has disappeared and the fragments are manipulated by people without scruples and with no morals. They move the fragments about at will, and then make certain that the unbelievable occurs with boring regularity. We’re entrapped in the mold of the unbelievable. Psychopaths are running the movie. As someone pointed out, Hillary needs to follow Barack because anyone with a cleaner record would recommend Barry for the clinker.
What I most want to know is the psychology that motivates people who don’t have to participate in these heinous charades. We know Clinton is a criminal. She almost cannot help herself. But the others? What makes them do it? Hope to see a convincing answer to that question one day.
” ‘ What I most want to know is the psychology that motivates people who don’t have to participate in these heinous charades. We know Clinton is a criminal. She almost cannot help herself. But the others? What makes them do it? Hope to see a convincing answer to that question one day.”>>>>>
If the ‘others you are talking about are insider supporters of Hillary then their motivation is to protect their own ass or jobs or gain some political reward and then too some are just stupid and also some might share her same ideology and agenda.
If the ‘others you are talking about are Hillary supporters among the public then the following is your answer……your average citizen is the same everywhere, all the time. Rarely can they see the ‘big picture’ or connect the dots or follow the bread crumb trail.
They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1933-45
“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, UNLESS ONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS IN PRINCIPLE, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.
“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing).
“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.”>>>
The psychology of the public and the psychopaths are always the same, only the names, agendas and times change.
The Clinton Foundation, as far as I’ve understood, is a separate investigation FBI is working on. When any results are expected, we don’t know. As a matter of fact, such an investigation would have better chances to finally pull Hillary down as the affair does not involve the government, State Department and the President himself. If she had been indicted on the e-mail issue, she could have blamed all these other parties being as guilty as herself. There is possibly some agreement behind the scenes to save the country from such a scandal.
Michael Fish had some very good points for investigating the Foundation’s activities. .
Some time ago I made a prediction:
H.Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee.
D.Trump will not be the Republican nominee.
I still think probability is high for both to come true.
When reading about the election fraud issues, I understood that the final, hand-counted results for California primary would be available only July 15th, including all “provisional ballots”. How will the Convention delegates otherwise know whom they are supposed to support?
Imagine a situation that in a middle-sized commercial enterprise one of the company’s lower level directors would be accused of extreme carelessness in keeping the company’s trade secrets? Would he still be promoted to be the next CEO?
A large amount of Clinton’s e-mails is made public now:
The files can be searched easily.
Human efforts will show the beginning of control over global climate collapse by 2025 or the likelihood of human extinction becomes close to certain. Environment is #1 issue. Runaway damage to Earth’s life support systems after 2025 will be too large to cope with. Two presidential terms from now.
The US government is the world’s largest single polluter.
The US military is the largest polluter within the government.
Mr. Connelly, you are absolutely correct that the environment is the #1 issue. You are absolutely correct about the 2025 date. The situation is much worse than you describe, however. We are in the runaway damage stage now. We are at 490ppmCO2equivalent right now, which locks in 4C warming over 1880 average. And greenhouse gases are increasing every year. 4C warming is unimaginable disaster. In a best case scenario we will reach 2C by 2024, but we have been getting worse than worse case. We could get 3C over 1880 by 2024, and that is disaster. It is already too late to stop the climate disaster, and we are doing nothing. The year 2025 is most likely the year of WWlll.
Just what I was going to say. Even in the unlikely event CO2 emissions are totally halted, the amount of disaster already in the pipeline is almost beyond belief.
Being elected, getting promoted and/or appointed are by their very nature DECIDELY NOT accomplishments. it’s what one does in those positions that can, when it’s warranted, be called accomplishments. the “compared to _____” arguments of moral relativism have only led us to a lower and lower common denominator. the unfortunate tack we have been on for some time where ethics, integrity and responsibility are a matter of opinion and the truth is a matter of perspective have made us a nation of hypocrites. I see all this ending very badly for us or at least for our children. I will not vote for HRC on the basis of her many failures… the ones we know about are enough for me to know she has no integrity and has made no real contribution to our country. sadly, many will be voting for her because they don’t even notice there are ethical issues here. many more fall for the, “we’ll compared to_____ , she is not so bad” argument. further still, very few value what you do here on consortium news and what you stand for. I, for one, am very grateful to see real journalists that address these issues without fear and largely without reward. keep up the good fight. thank you.
Insightful commentary as per. I have recorded for posterity in a post on Consortium News back in May (see link below) my feelings about the estimable Mme Secretary, so will keep this relatively brief.
After the announcement by FBI chief James Comey she would not be charged with any offences over “Servergate” — one it seems few folks certainly with similar views to my own were surprised by — we can safely say that she is now the officially designated Teflon-coated, scandal resistant, POTUS Candidate. Clearly her decision to stand by her man has paid off in spades, as herein she has acquired in hand me down fashion his own infamous resistance to same. And whatever her hubbie chinwagged with AG Loretta Lynch during their, ahem, ‘serendipitous’ meeting in Arizona last week, it had little to do with Bill’s golf handicap or his ‘grandies’. Anyone who believes this fairytale claptrap is reality impaired.
One should note however that some pundits have been pointing out the Clintons’ singular ability to avoid the minefields of political and establishment high flying risk takers, whether they be Republicans or Democrats. Truth be told, they have not cornered the market. They just happen to be the poster couple for this fraternity.
And although its hard to say just how this decision and the reaction to it might affect her chances in November, if she loses we are still looking at a Trump presidency (assuming he bags the nomination). And of course he comes complete with his own political baggage. Seems what we have here is something of a “Morton’s Fork” dilemma — to wit: two choices to be sure, but both almost certain to yield more or less equivalent if possibly different, yet in this case nonetheless, wholly undesirable, outcomes.
Not a good look America!
Greg, I always enjoy when an author joins in with us commenters on this comment board.
After going back and reading your essay, ‘Hillary Clinton’s House of Cards’, I will commend you for your good futuristic foresight that you had, as to seeing how this FBI investigation of Hillary’s ‘server-gate’ episode would work out for her. You should work for the Vegas bookies. You called it right.
I hope you contribute more to this site, because after rereading your May 21st article, I could go for more.
I think now, we are approaching a time where we could all start speculating just what a Hillary world will look like. I’m beginning to wonder to if, the stage isn’t set for an American empire in decline, and to how the American response to that decline will play out. Will the EU split apart, eventually splintering NATO into many tiny unmatchable pieces of a once ‘was’ great world powerhouse? Will the Shanghai Cooperation Organization make a difference towards America’s conquest for world hegemony? What about Hillary’s undieing love for Zionist Israel? I mean with all of what is going on, coupled with all that might come out of it, it’s any bodies guess to where this could all lead to. So, why not speculate for us, because we enjoy your work so much, and besides you were right about server-gate. Okay, so with that I’ll quit.
G’Day Mr. Mr. Maybury. My concern for most of this election cycle has been that we would see a Clinton/Bush runoff primarily because of the upcoming document dump concerning the JFK assassination due in November of 2017. My thought was that either that archive would continue to be redacted by order of the President or some of the documents would disappear completely. What do you think?
For those of you not familiar with this archive look here: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/why-last-of-jfk-files-could-embarrass-cia-118233
In the halls of justice, the only justice you find is in the halls – Lenny Bruce.
I’m against prisons, so instead of indicting Killary, set all the whistle-blowers free (and drug offenders, crimes of poverty, victimless crimes just as a start – and begin rehabilitating violent criminals and OUR FRIGGIN’ VIOLENT SOCIETY with its perpetual wars, racist law enforcement, environmental violence, and intrinsically violent inequality).
Surely e-mails and other communications and their dates that both Hillary and Bill addressed to donors to the so-called Clinton Foundation for a year on either side of her service as secretary of state should be followed on the servers and the files of the donors. It begs belief that the donations to this foundation were given freely to the Clintons when they had so much power. My question to the FBI and to the public is: Were the deleted e-mails and all other communications of Bill and Hillary also investigated at the bases of the ‘donors’….. who had to look like they were under pressure. Also, the NSA is reputed to have a file of everything that anyone in the world was saying to everyone else. Have their files been checked ? Building a ‘Foundation’ when one has a high government appointment is pretty suspicious and certainly merits close forensic investigation. The amounts are suspiciously high. Yet there is nothing mentioned about this matter from anyone, including even the alternate press.
Is there some possessor of hacked material from Clinton’s private server just waiting for the right moment to reveal the damnable evidence? If so, when? Before the un-Democratic Party’s convention? How about just before November 8th? Talk about the “Queen of Chaos.” That might even shake Gore Vidal’s “United States of Alzheimer’s” to its roots.
I keep wondering when the Goldman Sachs speeches, and the other banker speeches, will get into the news. Boy, what a reporter scoop that will be.
Joe, the working theory is that those “speeches” never happened, that they were a legal form of bribe directed at candidate’s pocket instead of her election fund. Therefore, the transcripts may not exist. It is not only the “$650,000 speech to Goldman”, there were almost 100 hundred other. This is a standard business practice, typically labelled as “consulting fees”, which is how companies pay out politicians for contribution to their bottom line. But speeches look much better because the politician has to spend only an hour or two at company’s premises to justify.
Thanks, that makes sense.
But the impression that many Americans will get is that there is one set of rules for the “great and powerful” and another set for the rest of us, an extraordinarily damaging message in a political year of obvious voter discontent with the Establishment.
Two sets of rules for “them” and “us” should be much more than an impression for the American people. It is a fact of life that should wake the terminally somnambulant among us but is highly unlikely to do so. If, after the catastrophe of the Iraq War was blatantly obvious, majorities of the American people voted to return Dubya Bush and the senators and representatives to their offices after creating that disastrous crime against humanity, then the majority of the American people are beyond hope.
Bill Bodden… with the Iraq War in mind, it sounds like the Chilcot Report in the UK is quite damning of Tony Blair and I heard George Galloway speak of Blair (and his cohorts) possibly being impeached where I believe they would no longer be able to hold government office again. Overall though I would love to see Blair up for war crimes before the International Criminal Court which, I believe, the UK is a fully ratified member. It looks like we are seeing democracy in the UK and democracy being stolen in the US.
The problem in the UK, at least with its Labour Party, is that the Blairites are trying to unseat Jeremy Corbyn so he won’t push for action against Tony Bliar.
The Iraq War Was an Act of Military Aggression Launched on a False Pretext: Remarks on the Chilcot Inquiry Report by Jeremy Corbyn – http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/06/the-iraq-war-was-an-act-of-military-aggression-launched-on-a-false-pretext-on-the-chilcot-inquiry-report/
Bill Bodden… I did see that after Cameron resigned that there were calls for Corbyn to resign as well but I see the Chilcot Report as a feather in Corbyn’s hat since it seems that he was ridiculed for not supporting the Iraq War, protesting against it, and now the Chilcot Report justifies his sanity in doing so. Actually, I just watched a video of Corbyn speaking before the British Parliament about the Chilcot Report and I think he can stand quite proud today, the Chilcot Report could strengthen Corbyn within the Labour Party – we will see. As for Blair, sadly I don’t think he will ever go before the International Criminal Court, as George Galloway puts it “Blair is not African enough to stand trial”, but according to Galloway it is likely that Blair (and his cohorts) will be impeached where they can no longer serve in public office again. Anyway, it is a small victory but should be interesting to watch the fallout…
Bill Bodden… here is the video that I watched from George Galloway about the Chilcot Report:
I feel that the only way for the American voters to slap down the “double standard” of justice is to make certain that we do what ever is necessary to reject Hillary Rodham Clinton on November 8th. If Obama/Lynch/Comey refuse to indict her, well, WE CAN!
Obviously the most severe way to do this is for all Sanders supporters (and other Democrats/Independents) to vote for Trump as a protest vote against Clinton and “perpetual war for no peace”. If we care about the sanctity of human life and the wasting of our hard earned tax dollars and if we truly want our tax dollars to be used to create good jobs and the re-building of our infrastructure then voting for Donald Trump, regardless of his ham-handed ways and stupid tweets, is probably the best course of action to take to achieve the goal of seeing Clinton soundly rejected on November 8th.
As a life-long activist (I actually ran for Congress against Jane Harman in 1992 here in SoCal), I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton MUST be soundly rejected at the polls on November 8th, if for no other reason than to send a very loud and strong message to the DNC that the board for the “going along to get along” game has been flipped over and we are refusing to play any longer.
For those who don’t have the stomach to actually vote for a Trump/Gingrich ticket?, then another way to deny Clinton the presidency is to organize for and support Jill Stein at the polls. Stein actually supports the policies ALL Progressives hold dear and obviously any vote for Stein will be a lost vote to Clinton and will also send the signal that we are not “going along to get along” with the DNC.
A vote for Johnson is a fool’s errand as his campaign will hurt Trump and that is obviously then no way to bring Clinton down as most of his voters will be rejecting Trump and they all loathe progressive programs we all champion like a “Medicare for All” health care system.
And the final option is to boycott the election and stay home. This could help Trump take down Clinton and it would also send a signal that most loyal Democrats want nothing to do with Clinton or Trump and the “rigged” election system. But this would be the hardest campaign to achieve as most Americans who are voters really do like to participate in general elections.
For me I will be wavering between Trump and Stein leading up to November 8th and if a strong, organized campaign blossoms for Progressives to stop Clinton by supporting Trump or Stein I will join it.
All I know is I want to stay up late on November 8th and hear Hillary Clinton’s concession speech to either Trump or Stein and I don’t care what the recriminations are on November 9th. I just want her to leave D.C. in disgrace, as she should.
I cannot vote fro Trump and a vote for Ms. Stein is a vote for Trump.
Lynne Gillooly… seems to me that there is no lesser evil in this election. Trump talks a big game but much of what he has spoken about Clinton has done – such as in Libya and Honduras. A vote for Stein, is a vote for Stein, instead of more of the same warmongering by either the Republicans or Democrats…
Lynne, go to democracynow.com and listen to Jill Stein. Jill talks about how everything Trump swears he will do, how Hillary has already done those very same things. Plus, if you are worried about Roe vs Wade, or same sex marriage, and any other social liberal causes to be protected, then don’t worry about any Supreme Court pick, because the conservatives need just those kind of arguments to be around, because without these issues the conservatives have nothing to run on. What should be of concern, is will Hillary bring on WWIII? Trump just wants to build a casino in Moscow, and I could live with that…in fact over a Hillary, that would mean we could all live with that. Trust me, you may now want to vote for Hillary, but the day will come that you will deeply regret ever doing such a thing as voting for this Queen of Chaos. Think about it.
In this presidential election I cannot, in conscience, vote for either of the two presumptive candidates. Rather, I intend to vote with moral integrity. This means that I will vote for the person I deem to be the BEST candidate–and certainly not the person who seems to be the lesser evil. Otherwise, I would not be able to live with the consequences. I urge others, also, to vote with integrity.
Here is an interview Abby Martin did with Jill Stein:
You are using the lesser evil argument. There are instances where a case can be made for voting for the lesser evil, but the problem is that the American people have been voting for the lesser evil for generations and the choice with each quadrennial charade is ever more evil culminating in the present disaster. The opportunity to vote is also a chance to give voice to the kind of person you want elected. This year there is much to be said for a massive none-of-the-above vote either in the form of a vote for Jill Stein or a write in.
Bill I have been quoting you, and I hope I have done it in a manner befitting to your intellect, but I like your idea of not giving a candidate (Hillary) our political capital. I’d love to take credit for this idea, but you said it first a while back, and after thinking it over, it makes good sense to me. You can read my other comments on this subject, and hopefully you will feel I gave your idea some quality in it’s nature. I also am tired of voting out of fear, and closing my eyes to pull the lever of the candidate of lessor evil. It’s just gotten that bad, that I am finally going to just vote, win or lose, for a candidate I believe in…imagine that!
Joe: If it helps the cause, please feel free to recycle any points I make. It’s a bonus for me in appreciation of your comments.
Bill, not to sound to weird, but I have been reading your comments here, and on another site where we post comments sometimes, and you have often made many good points with your logic, when making your comments. There are many here, and on others sites who say things that sometime stick with me. What I have found good about your voting mantra this year, is that with this voting time around there are plenty of people complaining about who they should vote for. The public feels robbed of any good choices to pick from among our two major candidates, and that dilemma makes for an awkward election season to content with, not to mention what it means about our democracy in this country.
So, one day after reading how you felt about making a choice between these two lessor evils, and how we could at least starve out any one of these two deviled egotistical maniacs by not voting for either, and by us doing that we would save that valuable voter political capital for ourselves. To me that sounded like a good idea. I also recall, how at that time there were a few of us commenting on how a rise of a third party would possibly be the key we all need to open up this heavily guarded door of the establishment that we all need to go through, in order to have our citizen voices be heard.
The people of this planet desperately need for us Americans to get this right, and get it right while we still have some civil rights left, to get it right with. The question maybe; will low voter turnout lead to high volume protesters, in order to start a big governmental correction. We will see that by voting for the lessor of the two evil, only gets you a different shade of an evil, but whether deep candy apple red, or either shaded sky bright blue, it’s still evil.
Bill Bodden… one quote that I have always liked was I believe from Einstein and his definition of insanity that being to “do the same thing over and over again expecting different results”. That is how I view Americans voting for either Republicans or Democrats after all of the lies for both domestic and foreign debacles.
Joe: I never thought of Einstein’s quote in this context, but it really is appropriate. It supports the charge some people are making about America gone mad.
Bill Bodden… it just seems that people vote for “change” in either party but nothing ever changes, decade after decade of the same thing – I think that meets Einstein’s definition of insanity.
If you are convinced the electoral system is incorrigible, a vote for ANY of the above (including 3rd parties) contradicts your conviction. It is a vote to perpetuate a corrupt system.
If you are convinced the electoral system is incorrigible, an express ballot item vote of “No Confidence” would best indicate that conviction (without abandoning your franchise, which exists independently of the electoral system.)
If you could notify the registrar exactly WHY you were choosing _not to vote at all_ (No Confidence) you could avoid having your protest miscast as “apathy” while maintaining your franchise.
Not necessarily. Though a registered Democrat, there is no way under heaven I’ll vote for Hillary. If – as expected – I can’t bring myself to vote for Trump, I’d throw away my vote on Stein if she was on the Indiana ballot. Which she isn’t.
I have suspected before that there were a few DNC operatives here, herding Bernie voters into the Hillary’s camp. “A vote for anyone else but Hillary is a vote for Trump” is their mantra, they use it like preachers.
The reality is completely opposite: “A vote for anyone else but Hillary is a vote for Trump” is a politicians’ two-step way of thinking, whereby voters are just numbers to be tallied. But voters are people not numbers and they have their own conscience. For people the character of the person they directly vote for matters much more than the ultimate election outcome that they have little control over.
Dear voters, vote for what you feel is right. If there is an alternative vote for it, if there is no alternative then do not vote. Do not carry your vote on your conscience for the next 8 years. If Hillary wins she will continue and expand the US warfare state, enrich the Military Industrial Propaganda Complex further, continue the decay of the US infrastructure, and make you all poorer.
Abbybwood, you always make good sense with your comments, so allow me to further this discussion of who, or how to vote this November. To those who say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, well then I say to that, whatever gave them the big idea in the first place that I would be okay with a Hillary Clinton presidency? Seriously, I might be able to deal with a Trump presidency over a Clinton one, any day of the week before stooping so low as to endorse our madam of death Hillary for the highest office of our land. It may come down to political capital, and how we voters reward that. If Hillary is to go into the Oval Office, which she probably will, we still don’t need to give her our unending support. So, I will be voting for Jill Stein, why; because I agree with her. Remember that, before we all got so use to voting for the lessor of the two evils, we all once did that…we voted with our conscience. May the best candidate win, or so it went. So, don’t give Hillary any of your well earned political capital, and whatever you do don’t vote out of fear. Either that, or just stay home on election day, because the election is probably fixed anyway.
Thanks for your response. I am heavily leaning toward Jill Stein.
“Jill NOT Hill” 2016!
She will never leave DC in disgrace. She doesn’t know what is meant by “disgrace”. She probably thinks she deserves respect for staying with that scoundrel she’s married to.
You know Greg, as stupid as it may sound, how someone may vote for the faithful wife Hillary mostly because she stayed with the Cheating husband Bill is just way to bazaar. Yet, it’s sadly enough of a reason for some voters to vote for this egotistical sociopath. The real question about these two, which I don’t have enough time or space to talk about here, is why are they even married to each other in the first place? Now, there’s a great subject for a book.
Oh, and you are right, the Clinton’s don’t know how to leave even when everyone is seen holding the door open for them, and are we all screaming quite loudly at their graciousness to get on out of here. Like the guy no boss can fire. You must have known this guy, or sometimes a gal, because they are the Teflon coated pieces of office-ware who duck and run at the slightest chance of us taking the heat, and the last to get the memo kind of people, who never does anything wrong. Their the ones who get the promotion, only no one can remember anything of what they did to deserve such a raise. You know these types, they are the ones who when we send them to get the boss a half a dozen of donuts, they just put their name on it when presenting to our employer. They answer the most easiest of questions, and do it in a fashion of them thinking how wonderful they are, because they think they sound like Eisenstein, and the smile across their face comes with it as an extra bonus. Here’s the best part, I can deal with that kind of person at the office, and I might even learn to like them if given the opportunity, but when it comes to Hillary & Bill, well….
Well looking from the outside, it seems clear that American democracy is being stolen in favour of Hillary Clinton. This also deeply projects the unevenness, again, of American society which is clearly running on two sets of rules (though I would say this is largely true for the rest of the western world as well). Now with the Chilcot Report coming out in Britain, the vote for Brexit, along with a referendum for Scottish Independence – Britain is looking much more of a democracy to me than the United States these days. I actually find what I have heard of the Chilcot Report in the UK as a small victory for democracy – though I would prefer the International Criminal Court now bring Blair up on war crimes.
One thing though, Mr. Parry, that I do disagree with in this article is the implication that Iran was working toward creating nuclear weapons – which I do not believe. According to what I have read, I believe the CIA said that Iran stopped its’ aspirations for a nuclear weapon in the early 2000’s. One other thing though, is why should the US, a nuclear power, have a right to tell any country whether they can make a nuclear weapon or not when clearly Israel has them and it seems that any country that gives up their weapons gets invaded (I think even North Korea realizes this).
Other then that, great article. Seems like a good day for democracy in Britain and a bad day for democracy in the US where it seems the election is being stolen in favour of Hillary Clinton. Also, why do the American people have to choose between Clinton or Bush – there are third parties? Being Canadian, we actually have 3 main parties – the Liberals, Conservatives, and the New Democratic Party (the Green Party also has some support).
Joe L. by all accounts of what I have read, especially in foreign news sites, it sounds as though England may just possibly being the EU nation which is starting to separate from the EU plan. Thierry Meyssan of voltairenet.org and some others have written about how the City of London is investing in China’s AIIB. Will the City of London be the center of Europe where to get some Yuan? I always though that if there were to be a split inside the EU, that it would come from Germany. I thought this due to how many German companies are fed up with this Russia sanctions thing, and also because the German public is in a teeter over being swamped with foreign migrants who have nothing coming to find refuge in their German nation.
So, should we expect to see in the future a Hillary/Netanyahu campaign, armed to the hilt to go marching off to war? Remember the Shanghai Cooperation Organization represent two thirds of the worlds population. This is nothing to brush off your shoulders, as this is a very big representation of people and nations to just simply brush off and ignore. Now, I can see Hillary and Bibi, just being the types to do just that, ignore these people…just who are these knaves anyway, to question these fine leaders of arrogance and power. Okay, then what should we expect as a reaction to that….chaos. Oh, I forgot Hillary is the Queen of Chaos, oh never mind.
Joe Tedesky… I always love reading your comments. Yeah, what is happening in the UK is very interesting and is a show of democracy at the behest of the elites of the western world. Now will the UK truly leave, that is the question now. I believe the vote was non-binding and I even hear people like Kerry saying that it is not too late for the UK to change its’ mind along with Scotland (and possibly other UK countries) saying that they still want to be in the EU. Should be interesting to see if they truly do leave the EU but I read that could take over 2 years to do – though the EU has signified that they want the UK to leave quickly. I do find the Chilcot Report a breath of fresh air though even Wikileaks tweeted that the Chilcot report was “fixed to protect US interests”. I actually listened to George Galloway speak of the Chilcot report and Tony Blair where he remarked that Blair will likely never be brought before the International Criminal Court because he was not “African enough” – I had a little chuckle when I heard that. I think also, with Cameron stepping down, the elites were trying to get rid of Corbyn since he largely opposes war but now the Chilcot Report proves that Corbyn was right to oppose the Iraq War and is truly a feather in his cap.
As for the SCO, I believe that India and Pakistan just joined this year – if I am correct? Then, I believe, it is likely that we will see Iran join the SCO in the next year or two. I see the SCO, AIIB, BRICS Development Bank, and the creation of an alternate SWIFT as a positive thing for the world where I believe western controlled institutions such as the IMF, World Bank etc. are used as a hammer to force countries to accept US (and western) interests. I think that is part of the reason for the aggression that we are seeing toward Russia and China (meanwhile our media decries the opposite) – it is all about control and keeping the outdated system that has benefitted the west for so long at the head of the table – I think that is the way of the dinosaurs. I think also European countries are starting to realize the need for change, that is why many joined the AIIB at the behest of the US. I am also encouraged by some voices in Europe that speak out about “NATO aggression” – we really need that right now. I only hope that we don’t end up in WW3.
Joe L as you know us Americans are in love with capitalism. Now, what does true capitalism center itself around? Competition. Nothing more, or nothing less, than alternatives to whatever it is, we are suppose to be picking from. New socks, shoes, DVD’s, dishwashers, war, refriger…wait, did I say war? As a good capitalist I will not pick war, over peace, and neither will the Europeans. The Europeans probably still have a few of those old WWII survivors around, and I’m sure many younger Europeans learned in their history class, how Europe suffered mightily from all of that war that was inflicted upon their soil some seventy years ago, and was more frightful than one can imagine except for a European. It’s time to put an end to this conquest that such people as Hillary, McCain, Graham, Netanyahu, and others wish to drive us all off the cliff with. Getting back to that capitalist thing I was talking about, with a New World Order comprised of America, Europe, Russia, and China…less we forget Africa, and South America. We would all be better off to have these alternatives, say for us having some competition to choose from. A New World Order that would focus on infrastructure projects to lift everyone up with, and a disarmament program to make the world a safer place to live in, would be a welcome thing.
Joe Tedesky… I agree with all of that. What we need is “peace” candidates rather then more war. I also hope that the TPP and TTIP fail dramatically since it would push us in the wrong direction. I would really welcome the world to disarm and instead our politicians act as they should being “diplomats” that sell diplomacy. I was actually thinking about “competition” in the form of the BRICS Development Bank, AIIB etc. and that is very healthy. As for capitalism, in its’ current form, is evil and leeches off the poorest in society to enrich the people at the top. It was sickening 5 years ago to see that over 300 people had the same wealth as half of the world’s population but now it is even worse with only, I believe, 61 people having the same wealth as half of the world – this needs to stop. Personally, I believe that extreme capitalism or extreme socialism are dangerous. Instead, I believe that societies need to strike a balance between public and private. I also do not believe that the IMF (or the people behind them) should force countries to privatize which makes multinationals rich and keeps the population poor – enough of that. It almost feels like we are approaching a point for revolution unless people like Corbyn OR Sanders OR Stein can help turn the tide.
I don’t know where you get the idea that “capitalism” ‘means competition. Alexander Hamilton, the founder of our economic system, as well as the Federal system on which it is based, does not use that term. That came into vogue with Karl Marx. What he did do was contrast his program with that of Adam Smith, the apostle of “free trade,” meaning of course the rule of the most powerful, whose signature work was published in time for the American Revolution. What Hamilton describes in his four famous reports to Congress is the need for a national bank, government created credit, and support for the development of manufacturing. Later, this program was identified as ‘The American System” by Henry Clay and championed by J Q Adams as well as Abraham Lincoln. It had three primary components: 1) a National Bank; 2) a high protective tariff and; 3) investment in infrastructure such as railroads, ports, canals, and roads.Never was it called “capitalism” or was “competition” its main feature, rather it was premised on the concept of the general welfare, as described in the Preamble of the Constitution. Today, that means a Glass -Steagall bankruptcy reorganization to shut down the “too big to fail” banks and restore the flow of productive credit, and accepting China’s offer of collaboration on its “New Silk Road” mega-infrastructure development program.
jdd, slow down I wasn’t getting academic. You are right, and I respect all of your notable references, like Adam Smith.
A little about me; I have worked in a competitive industrial my whole life. When we in my crowd thought about capitalism, we thought that meant having the competitive edge over your business rivals, and staying in business in spit of it. Whether it was by improving your product, or by improving it’s durability, or by quickening it’s delivery, were the things we thought about…we thought that was capitalism. Maybe not capitalism in the term you see it, but by a street vendors entrepreneurial way of seeing it, we were the very best that capitalism could provide. I was trying to make reference to us having a variety of government, as we do with product.
What I should have said, was that us citizens of this planet would do well, or at least might do better, if we were to have more than one big worldwide superpower to order us peasants around, that’s all. If you read enough of my comments, you may take note that I’m sometimes the worst at using metaphors, so be kind, and I hope you get something out of these comments here. JT
I apparently didn’t pick up on this part of your comment jdd…..
“Today, that means a Glass -Steagall bankruptcy reorganization to shut down the “too big to fail” banks and restore the flow of productive credit, and accepting China’s offer of collaboration on its “New Silk Road” mega-infrastructure development program.”
This is one of the best one sentence lines I’ve read on this site, and that I totally agree with. I thought back in the 90’s when they trashed Glass-Steagall that there went the old ball game. Those people I told you about that I work with, well we are the same people who get involved in those infrastructure projects, like the Silk Road that you referred too, so you are talking out talk, well said jdd, take care JT
It’s good to know that our Brit cousins now feel the desire for declaring Independence from Empire…but they will be disappointed by their oligarchs in The City (see Tarpley on Anglo-Chinese[financial] alliance), just as our Patriots were disappointed by our Tory Loyalists who never departed from Empire and never left us either…indeed, they (and their Empire) have prevailed over We The People. Now we can make genuine common alliance with the British people against our common enemy; the one, all-inclusive, 1%er Oligarchy of The City and The Street, whose Western Empire stretches from Australia and NZ to Russia’s borders..
“Either way, pro-peace Americans have reason to be concerned”
Since the Vietnam War there has been no peace movement in America. YES, there are some peace activists BUT they do NOT make a peace MOVEMENT………..We need to understand that very well because without a PEACE MOVEMENT, pro-peace Americans are going to achieve almost nothing. Remember, the majority of members of both houses on congress voted AGAINST the Nuclear deal with Iran……….The pro-war faction in the country is very strong and has been since the Vietnam War………..Carter was the last Democrat to avoid wars……….Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq in 3 days than what was dropped during the entire first Iraq War in 1991. Obama is very proud that he bombed 7 countries………..
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy… I believe that when I did the math about wars that the US has waged it turned out that since 1776 the US has been at war somewhere around 91% of its’ history – which supports your post. Information Clearinghouse says that the US has been at war 93% of its’ history – 222 years out of 239 years (the article was written in 2015) – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm.
Yes there has been a peace movement in the United States, and even against Bush and Obama’s wars, but the problem is that peace movement is in many ways controlled by the financial oligarchy through foundation funded cut outs, the same formations that actually helped to destroy the peace movement back in the 1960’s encouraging the radicalization towards violence as is the case with the racist Weather Undergound dupes such as Obama sponsor Bill Ayers the terrorist. The murder of Martin Luther King Jr, was to destroy the convergence of antiwar, Civil Rights and labor, in a peaceful non-violent approach to the crisis. This destruction of moral leadership, created the vacuum to which the destruction of not only the peace movement, but also labor/economics and Civil Rights could be achieved.
Remember out of nowhere, Cindy Sheehan started protest against Bush down in Crawford Texas. Cindy gave people the courage to speak out against the war, in fact because of Cindy’s actions the Democrats would win the Congressional majority in 2006 and then betray the peace movement.
The betrayal continued, through the choice of Obama, whose Hope and Change, gave the impression that he was against war, but some of us knew better, that he was but the face lift for imperialism who would, as we have seen, bring war against Putin and Russia. Note Webster Tarpley’s pre-nomination emergency book Obama:The Postmodern Coup, to which I was a contributing author to.
Little do people realize that Cindy Sheehan protested Obama’s first summer vacation, a news story that was eclipsed by the death of Ted Kennedy, just as she was to have her news conference, how convenient…..
Forty years have passed since the rock band named WAR had the # 1 song titled “The World Is A Ghetto” —
The last 16 years have brought their song/lyrics to life. Two sets of rules = “heaven” or HELL for humanity.
The war crimes committed in Libya, Syria and elsewhere are more serious, but as the article indicates, the entirety of the imperial regime is jointly responsible and people are given a pass if they are part of the power structure. What this shows is that the power structure has evolved to the point that insiders can basically violate all of the draconic “laws” that put normal people, like Kiriakou and Manning, into prison. The imperial nature of the structure is thus exposed. Meanwhile, with Clinton’s multiple record of war crimes, not to mention the stench of corruption emanating from their foundation not even mentioned here, how can any body not a fool or a knave vote for Clinton? The risk of armageddon, touched upon, is real. For that reason, no matter how idiotic Trump appears, (and he is right about key issues: anti-neoliberal trade pacts and anti confrontation with Russia) survival trumps political correctness
Survival Trumps Political Correctness
Now there’s a slogan for you!
The worst in this saga is that neither the police (FBI), nor the judiciary (Justice Department), nor MSM, not even Robert Parry mention the key issue: WHY? Mr Parry brushes on the issue of convenience of Hillary, which is a distraction offered by the Queen herself. The private email server was not about the convenience, it was all about HIDING THE PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THE PUBLIC (burning meeting schedules, obscuring how the decisions are being made, why and by who etc).
Therefore, this whole case is not about the impunity for the breaches security for the exceptional people, it is truly like a magnificent final full stop on a story about an election promise of an administration to be the most transparent ever. It is the most striking proof of the old cynical adage: if a politician promises you something before the elections, this will be the last thing he would ever want to deliver once elected.
If Hillary gets pushed through by TPTB to the Presidency, we can be absolutely sure that we will never know if Bibi himself ordered the bombing of Iran – the public records will simply not exist. Even 30 or 50 years later when the embargo is lifted, we will not know.
But my guess has always been that, if Hillary gets pushed through by TPTB to the Presidency, there will be no 30 or 50 years later due to a nuclear war she will initiate. There will be no records to examine even for the subsequent civilisation of cockroaches, you know dinosaurs -> humans -> cockroaches.
That’s the plain truth. Already there have been examples of people less privileged than Queen Hillary getting nailed for much less.
Totally different rules for the Elites – they’re essentially above the law. That’s the US of A in 2016.
Zachary, since I value your knowledge of history, coupled with your well thought out opinions, which BTW I often agree with, would you not say that by the establishments endorsement of issuing policies based on such double standards like Comey’s, that our empire days maybe coming to an end. Isn’t it so historically correct, that one of the signs of a failing empire is when said empire starts making irrational things up, that this is the once great empire’s beginning to an end. Making things up, just to satisfy their own nasty greed, and distaste for the average citizen who they govern over is often a mistake that all despots evidently make? I could not think of a more suitable person, or persons, such as Hillary and Bibi to play the part of the last of the great Caesar’s of this warring empires era of chaos is about to come crashing down around them. My hope is that the good people will survive their nonsense and pain, and come out of this for the better… but then I always think the glass is half full. JT
The glass is actually only one fourth full.
And it’s two minutes to midnight. Let me know when the glass is on fumes, I’ll start packing. Good to hear from you….
Hillary and Nutty-yahoo are not even close to equivalents of Ceaser. He was a ruthless political achiever, but tactically sufficient military General.
Hillary and Bibi would be the equivalent of later Roman Emperors that “promised” to fix the Roman Empire’s problems, but really did nothing of the sort and lied instead while enriching themselves.
Hillary and Bibi are also most definitely not Military geniuses. Again, here they are tactically insufficient and again equivalents of later Roman politicians boasting of more militant adventures, often having to rely on “mercenaries.”
I’ll go along with that TruthTime, and I’m a little relieved by your response, because I happen to kind of like Caesar. thanks for the correction JT
Joe, what I know about Empires you could put on a 3×5 index card. It seems to be a fact that the Elites have a firm grip on US affairs now, but they have turned out to be mighty incompetent at most everything except for enriching themselves.
Zachary, I’m no scholar either on the subject. One of the people who is a scholar on the subject of empire, is Kevin Phillips, who you may watch on youtube. His lecture’s are a little over an hour, but boy are they good. Again, Zachary your comments are great food for thought for some of us ‘cement heads’, so keep it up.