The Fear of Hillary’s Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton’s nominating convention has focused on domestic issues, but her foreign policy has many anti-war Democrats worried, as she surrounds herself with neocons and liberal hawks, writes James W Carden from Philadelphia.

By James W Carden

The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

The mood among some of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy cognoscenti here is one of an unadulterated smugness bred of certainty mixed with a sense of global entitlement. One Democratic U.S. senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts on Monday that the U.S. had “lost” Ukraine. Lost? Was it ever America’s to begin with?

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (Photo by Lorie Shaull, Wikipedia)

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (Photo by Lorie Shaull, Wikipedia)

Yet the Democratic Party’s foreign policy elites are certain that that is so. They are also certain Donald Trump is dead wrong about everything; they are certain NATO is the “cornerstone” of American national security and therefore any criticism of the alliance is “dangerous”; and many are certain that the Republican nominee is the Kremlin’s very own Manchurian candidate.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may well be the most qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office since George H.W. Bush, but there the comparisons end. Clinton is not running to extend the Obama legacy (whatever that may be) but to extend the Clinton legacy, and this should worry us deeply.

The foreign policy legacy of the first Clinton administration is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts. Clinton redux looks to be a continuation of the 1990s, a period that the mainstream media portrays through rose-colored lenses as a time of peace and prosperity for all. But what was it, really?

In foreign policy, it was a period in which liberal hawks like Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott and Samuel Berger took the reins of the foreign policy apparatus and abandoned the mostly nuanced realism of the George H.W. Bush administration. It launched a crusade to spread “democracy” and “open markets” abroad which, in practice, amounted to isolating Russia, relegating America’s European allies into vassals and immiserating the developing world.

The Clinton administration embarked upon a series of military interventions, often in the absence of United Nations sanction, in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999).

Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350.

Contributing to Disaster

Under neoconservative pressure – including from Robert Kagan’s and William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century – Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) which helped set the stage for the Bush administration’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik,

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik,

Meanwhile, Clinton embarked on a series of policies in the former Soviet Union which have had dire consequences. The decision to expand NATO by the alliance at its 1994 summit in Brussels came only 12 months into the Clinton presidency and only 24 months after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and peacefully disbanded its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

What Russia did in those 24 months to merit the alliance’s expansion to include its own former allies and protectorates remains a mystery. Indeed, by expanding NATO, Clinton and his team not only went against the advice offered by scores of distinguished Russian experts, savvy politicians and foreign policy thinkers, Clinton also sought to tie the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus to the United States.

All this took place while Clinton studiously ignored the grotesque abuses of power by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “Good ol’ Boris,” as Clinton liked to call him, bombed the democratically elected Russian parliament in 1993, stole the 1996 election with the help of American political advisers and pseudo-academics, and launched a barbaric war in Chechnya, while simultaneously raiding the state treasury and enriching the circle of thieves around him.

It was Yeltsin who subverted Russia’s burgeoning democracy, not his successor, Vladimir Putin. And he did it all with Clinton’s help.

A Hillary Clinton presidency will more likely than not be a faithful replication of her husband’s tenure. Her record as Secretary of State speaks to the kind of foreign policy she will pursue. She continually sought to embroil the U.S. in the Syrian civil war (2011-present), and pushed President Obama to unleash NATO forces in helping to overturn the Libyan government (2011) which cleared the path for ISIS to build dangerous footholds in both countries.

Whenever the option was between military action and serious diplomacy, the nation’s chief diplomat would invariably opt for the former, as when she forcefully lobbied the President to send more troops to Afghanistan (2009).

Surrounded by Hawks

As a candidate she has surrounded herself with liberal hawks, like former State Department Policy Planning chief Jake Sullivan and former the Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. She has also smothered the neoconservative establishment in a warm embrace. Leading members of the neocon tribe like Eliot A. Cohen and Max Boot have signaled that “they’re with Her” and on July 21 in Washington, D.C.’s tony Logan Circle neighborhood, leading neocon Robert Kagan and former Biden adviser Julianne Smith spoke on Clinton’s behalf at a fundraiser.

Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

A source who attended the Logan Circle soiree told me that Smith cited an outgoing memo to President Obama from Secretary Clinton which warned him of the danger of unchecked “Russian aggression.” Smith claimed that as someone who saw “Hillary in action,” that “it was the Secretary who pushed President Obama the hardest on checking Russian aggression.” Smith, according to my source, credited Clinton with pushing Obama “to turn up the heat on Putin.”

This effort by then-Secretary of State Clinton to “turn up the heat” on Putin, it should be noted predates the 2014 crisis in Ukraine by well over a year and predates Russia’s annexation of Crimea (which occurred after a referendum in which Crimea’s voters, by a 96 percent margin, called for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia). In other words, if what Smith says is true, Clinton was actively working to subvert the “re-set policy” of which she was ostensibly in charge!

Hillary 2016: change you can’t (and shouldn’t) believe in.

[For more on this topic, see’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon.”]

James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American Committee for East-West Accord’s He previously served as an advisor on Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State Department.

75 comments for “The Fear of Hillary’s Foreign Policy

  1. diogenes
    August 6, 2016 at 15:16

    Yes, Clinton’s foreign policy is more than enough to lose her my vote. To say no more. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference in a totally rigged system.

  2. Andrew Nichols
    July 29, 2016 at 00:19

    Fear? I’m in Aus where the post nuclear war movie On the Beach was set and I am TERRIFIED that Clinton will start WW3

  3. Jim Mooney
    July 28, 2016 at 15:03

    With Hillary I believe war with Russia, which will go nuclear, is inevitable. The Russians are Terrified of her becoming President and are on a red-alert hair trigger. With Trump, war could be accidental since he’s a loon.

    Sooo, inevitable death by nukes or accidental. There’s a choice.

  4. Jim Mooney
    July 28, 2016 at 14:54

    Fear of Trump may drive us into the arms of World War III. What a Hobson’s choice – a nutcase or a warmonger.

  5. July 28, 2016 at 02:38

    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON= Hitler in drag. Beware fellow humans if this one gets in I will bet u any fiat dollar their will be war with IRAN first and then Russia and China. Their Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Nixon and Kissinger( the petro-dollar) has gone beyond its use by date. YESTERDAYS NEWS GETS WRAPPED IN TODAYS FISH

  6. July 28, 2016 at 01:08

    One has to wonder whatever became of Robert Parry’s critical thinking abilities when it comes to 9/11 and the “war on terror”. Has it occurred to the gentleman that there is a 100 plus year history of steel frame buildings that rejects the notion that three buildings in the World Trade Center could disintegrate to dust in 10 seconds due to jet fuel fires, including one building not hit by a jet! This never happened before or since, only on one special day were the laws of physics repealed, 9/11/01. It recalls to mind the esteemed David Ray Griffin’s speech in Seattle “9/11: Why do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Believe in Miracles?”.
    Yet Parry persists in his belief in, or perhaps simply promotion, of utter nonsense in writing of President Bill Clinton, “Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350.” He presents corporate media truisms as facts in claiming that Osama bin Laden was ever anything more than a US intelligence asset to create a fake boogeyman to justify wars abroad and repression at home. It is sad and disappointing to those dedicated to truth and justice! Why continue to read someone who believes in miracles or promotes preposterous propaganda?

    • Zachary Smith
      July 28, 2016 at 10:06

      “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster”

      The third building had always been a mystery to me. Not any more.

  7. jaycee
    July 27, 2016 at 23:40

    What most people do not understand is that current US foreign policy is based on the position of being the sole exceptional super-power, and that any other power which asserts independent policy (i.e. China Russia) is automatically considered an adversary to be confronted militarily. Clinton’s likely advisors tend to hold the position that America’s superior military strength should be used now to eliminate or dilute the rival powers. JFK resisted similar pressure in the 1960s, but this crew does not exhibit the same temperment or intelligence.

    The TPP, negotiated in secrecy and only vaguely understood by the public, will fundamentally upend the democratic polity and there may be no way back after it is passed. The Dems may let Clinton pass it after a nominal deceitful debate, but the plan right now seems to be ramming it through after the election.

    • Marc
      July 29, 2016 at 19:08

      There is a critical difference between “most powerful” and “powerful enough”. The US military may be the most powerful but it is nowhere near powerful enough to occupy Russia even if every man and woman from 16 to 60 is in uniform. Unlike Haiti, Somalia etc, Russia does have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the ability to create more. You can’t bomb Russia without securing the thousands of WMD sites. Virtually all Russian’s are proud of their defeat of Nazi invaders and they are prepared to do it again. Russia may be only 100 million people but that is far more than can be subdued in a country the size of Russia.

      HRC is surrounded by people who are quite confident that no matter how much conflict they create, they and theirs will be safe while you and yours will be cannon fodder. Imagine restarting the human race with Kagan et al. as the key element in the gene pool.

  8. David G
    July 27, 2016 at 23:32

    “One Democratic U.S. senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts on Monday that the U.S. had ‘lost’ Ukraine. Lost? Was it ever America’s to begin with?”

    Our daddy gave it to us after we lost China and broke Vietnam and Iraq.

  9. Gregory Herr
    July 27, 2016 at 18:32

    The Democratic Senator who laments the “loss” of Ukraine might do well to remember that Ukraine belongs to Ukranians, likely many of whom don’t particularly appreciate the thugs he apparently feels are sponsor-worthy. I’m not going to reiterate the geopolitical truth about Ukraine, Crimea, Russia, etc.that has already been well-addressed on these pages. That truth is up against a simplistic, black-and-white narrative that is blatant in its disregard for essential facts and complexities. The shit people like Jeffrey Goldberg just threw up at The Atlantic is just one of many recent examples. It’s the kind of lies Clinton will run foreign policy around.

    Which brings me to another question. No, I absolutely do not want Trump to get in. But there are two highly important matters that as President, he could impact. He could veto the trade deal and he could give Putin the space and platform to mitigate public opinion and force NATO to back off. Short of a Jill Stein insurgence, we are screwed on so many different fronts with Clinton and Trump. I’ve come to the decision that voting for Dr. Stein is the right thing to do irrespective of the impact on other candidates.

    It also comes down to this. My long-standing anathema towards the GOP has now been matched by my sense of BETRAYAL attached to the Dems, particularly the Clinton’s and Obama. If we don’t elect Stein, then I’d just as soon let the Republicans deal with their mess while the Democrats stew in their failed “fake left, go right” suck up.

  10. Mixa Klimment
    July 27, 2016 at 16:35

    Read history: Crimea was, is and forever will be Russian. And the people cheered when it happened.

  11. Mixa Klimment
    July 27, 2016 at 16:19

    I’m very impressed by Putin. He should be our leader and not this psychopath Hillary

  12. July 27, 2016 at 16:04

    In any case, thinking citizens should always keep in mind Mark Twain’s advice regarding majority opinions: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

    • J'hon Doe II
      July 28, 2016 at 13:44

      “Another “Machiavellian Moment” is wonderful work.
      Thank You.

  13. Nancy
    July 27, 2016 at 15:19

    HRC is a proud warmonger. Sanders’ supporters are ready for a peace president with a strong domestic platform.

    We have Stein and Johnson. We want to win. With a silent media we need something to unify around NOW! Where are the strong voices of Consortiumnews followers? We can win with a third party!!

  14. Mark Thomason
    July 27, 2016 at 13:53

    In 2000 it was clear to anyone who noticed that W intended to get Saddam. That was a joke on the Late Show.

    Today it is just as clear that Hillary means to get Putin. Since W failed in the larger project brought on by getting Saddam, the vastly larger project of getting Putin is a neocon/hawk fantasy of extreme danger.

    Yet Hillary has made it plain, via her advisers and her own focus, that she will steer us to war with Putin at any and every opportunity, and that he is her target. It is as clear as was W in 2000.

      July 27, 2016 at 16:30

      Those were my exact thoughts, before I started scrolling thru the Replies. HillBillious and her team of Neocons have their mindsets in synch and the last remaining impediment to their plans may be some NATO countries which decide to exercise some independence.

    • Bill Bodden
      July 27, 2016 at 20:03

      Putin and Russia are entirely different propositions from Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Putin and Russia DO HAVE WMDs and their military leaders appear to be more realistic and shrews than ours who majored in how to get promoted by image management.

      • Bill Bodden
        July 27, 2016 at 21:37

        Typo: “shrews” should be “shrewd.”

  15. Bill Bodden
    July 27, 2016 at 13:41

    The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

    We should also be greatly concerned that a sizable portion of the American people will vote to return the Clintons to the White House – not only in regard to foreign policy but also domestic affairs. This is understandable when many on the supposed left are surprised that Hillary’s “progressive” talk on the campaign trail when Bernie Sanders was a threat is now proving to be the utter bullshit independent thinkers warned them of.

    But don’t look to Donald Trump to be the white knight coming to America’s rescue. Neither can make a valid claim to being the lesser evil. So add his supporters to Hilllary’s and America becomes the greatest threat to the rest of the world.

    • July 28, 2016 at 10:37

      Bill Bodden: If one looks at the actual history, America’s government leaders have been the greatest threat to the rest of the world since the autumn of 1945.

      • Bill Bodden
        July 28, 2016 at 12:53

        After being the greatest threat to Latin America.

  16. Ol' Hippy
    July 27, 2016 at 13:20

    This is really the year there are no lesser-of-two-evils choice this fall, both candidates are equally bad for entirely different reasons. Clinton is a war pig, plain and simple, but she’s more moderate when it comes to women’s rights and wants to disarm us. Trump is the true wildcard and I’m guessing Pence would really be the one doing things a-la Cheney with women’s rights put back to pre- Roe v. Wade times and moderate gun rights. We have debt beyond belief and no mention, as yet anyway and an economy on last gasp life support that will fail next time Wall Street wants to extract to last reserves of average-American citizen’s capital. So I’m washing my hands and going in a different direction toward what should have begun during the ’73 oil embargo and vote for the environment because the Earth really does need a break.

    • Bill Bodden
      July 27, 2016 at 15:41

      … she’s more moderate when it comes to women’s rights…

      Except when it comes to sanctions, wars and regime changes in “Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999)” and Haiti and Honduras.

  17. HLDune
    July 27, 2016 at 12:30

    In response to Isobel Hudson’s comment, I don’t believe any of the contributors to this website prefer a Donald Trump Presidency over Hillary Clinton.

    The fact is, Hillary has a long record of public service which is what the writers base their articles on. Trump has never held elected office, so he is essentially an unknown. Nobody knows what he’ll do.

    That’s pretty scary too, but it’s easy to see what a second Clinton Presidency will be like—look at both Hillary and Bill’s record. It’s very troubling indeed.


    • Abbybwood
      July 27, 2016 at 13:40

      The polls be damned. Here in Southern California for everyone I have been talking to for the past month I have not met ONE PERSON who admires Hillary Clinton and plans on voting for her. She is loathed by everyone I meet as a liar and a fraud (especially since the DNC email scandal and then Hillary promoting Debbie into her campaign!).

      “Clinton Fatigue” is real, at least in SoCal.

      Since Assange has said that more leaked emails are coming (and hopefully some of the “deleted/personal” emails will be revealed), I have a feeling that come November Her Royal Highness and her “team” (including Debbie) will be DROWNING in these “leaks” and that the dam will burst right in all their faces.

      The American people may not be hip to all of Hillary’s hawkishness since she has tried to hide her true agenda regarding foreign policy since the debates. I received a fundraising letter from her and not word one about foreign policy.

      But everyday Americans who are catching the nightly news or newspaper headlines are smart enough to realize that when a person is a pathological liar and a fraud they do NOT GET PROMOTED! They get FIRED!

      FBI Director Comey implied with his remarks regarding Clinton’s email fiasco that she was “extremely reckless” with state secrets and that she lied. He said any other low level employee caught doing what she did would lose his/her security clearance and be marched out of the building.

      Yet after winning the nomination last night Hillary Clinton will start being given daily intelligence briefings leading up to the election. Why does she still have a security clearance to be given daily intelligence briefings when any other person would NEVER get another clearance??!

      What if the next trove of leaked emails prove that she WAS doing dirty deals with foreign governments in exchange for kick backs to The Clinton Foundation? Charges of RICO violations and more could be being investigated by the FBI right now. Recall when Comey was asked about any questions to Clinton regarding The Clinton Foundation he said, “I am not going to answer that.”

      Hillary Rodham Clinton and the DNC are a national embarrassment and I hope that by November 8th every single American citizen comes to the logical conclusion that neither she nor any of her “team” should be allowed anywhere near The White House. If the FBI won’t indict her, the American people can FIRE her on November 8th.

      I think Donald J. Trump is going to humiliate Hillary Clinton on November 8th. She deserves it.

      • Joe Tedesky
        July 27, 2016 at 16:45

        Abbybwood, since you mentioned just about everything I can think of, allow me to expand this conversation. Rep. Marsha Blackburn a Republican from Tennessee, is heading up a IRS investigation looking into the Clinton Foundation and it’s possible ‘pay to play’ schemes. I hope the Republicans do better with this investigation than they did with the Benghazi investigation, that they completely bungled.

        Today in a news conference Donald Trump made mention to how he hopes that Russia releases the 33,000 deleted emails that Hillary jettisoned off of her unsecured computer server. Now the pundits and talk show hosts are all talking like Donald did something unpatriotic. These people are talking like Trump is a traitor, for his calling upon the Russians to release these hidden Hillary emails. I on the other hand think that if Russia or any other country were to obtain this type of classified information, it would be vital to know what they know. I mean wouldn’t this be the first line of defense in order to gain the knowledge of what the Russians had learned by receiving information that came from an American Secretary of State? So I see Donald saying what must be said in order for our country to respond in like to whatever it is that was compromised. Actually I don’t think the media has reported this email story correctly, and due to that Americans have no idea to how reckless Hillary has been with our country’s most guarded secrets.

        I have heard people say, that what James Comey really did, was give cover to the Clinton Foundations wheeling and dealing. I’m not sure that was his motive for doing what he did with the Clinton email scandal, but it sure did overlook the 10 ton gorilla in the room. I also would recommend you go on YouTube and watch the movie “Clinton Cash’.

        In the end America is going to end up with a president who was voted in out of fear. Fear of the lessor of the two evils is the program, and the only game being played to gain access to the Oval Office for one of these two disappointments that are left to choose from.

        Oh and in case you haven’t noticed the American Left is now officially dead. The saddest part is it was killed off by a liberal. You can’t blame Trump for that. It was the Clinton’s who sabotaged and murdered the Left while demanding their vote at the same time. Who said our first woman president didn’t have balls?

        • Bill Bodden
          July 27, 2016 at 19:55

          Oh and in case you haven’t noticed the American Left is now officially dead. The saddest part is it was killed off by a liberal.

          Joe: The Democratic Party has been hostile to and aggressive against liberals and others of a progressive persuasion for generations, but like Mark Twain’s death the demise of the left is also probably greatly exaggerated. Tom Paine once said something about where there is injustice that is where he wanted to be. Where there is economic injustice there will always be a left, perhaps in a weakened state but one that could evolve into a revolution as happened in France, Russia and China. It is encouraging to note so many people talking about keeping the Bern alive and stoking it more even if Bernie Sanders has made the mistake of surrendering to Lady Macbeth and the oligarchs of the un-Democratic Party.

          • Joe Tedesky
            July 27, 2016 at 23:55

            Bill thanks for reminding me of how unscrupulous the Democratic Party is when it comes to their treatment of the Left. I’m still in the dumps over McGovern and how badly he was treated by the party from back in the seventies.

    • Zachary Smith
      July 27, 2016 at 16:05

      I don’t believe any of the contributors to this website prefer a Donald Trump Presidency over Hillary Clinton.

      At least one of the posters here does. Not that I’d vote for the torture-loving guy. IMO a person has to draw the line somewhere on the issue of “lesser evils”. That’s my line.

      Hillary screwed up a chance to get a decent health care system even before she entered “public service”. After that her long and well-known record has been in a non-stop disaster.

      As for Trump not having had any previous experience, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower were in the same situation when they took office. Not an encouraging list, that. But consider the alternative.

    • Cal
      July 30, 2016 at 12:54

      I haven’t decided if I will support Trump or not—-but I want to throw the biggest monkey wrench possible into the ‘machine’ —so I may have to vote for him in the end.

  18. July 27, 2016 at 12:23

    Glad to see you back in action.

    Not only did we go back on our word (GHWBush) not to take NATO east, but we (Larry Summers and team) screwed Russia over financially bigtime in the 90s. NATO should have been disbanded in 1992. It’s raison d’etre WAS the Soviet Union. Now, It’s an excuse for keeping the military-industrial complex going full tilt.and for avenging the Jewish neo-con grudge against the Tzars.

    I have visceral reasons for feeling this way. As a U.S. naval aviator flying patrols 12 miles off the Soviet coast for three years (1956-9), feeling the adrenaline while being escorted by Migs, I am grateful to these honorable people for not having shot me down, which could have been done easily in those days without anyone being the wiser.

    Robert Keith Brooklyn,NY

    • J'hon Doe II
      July 27, 2016 at 20:10

      Thank you, Mr. Keith for the literal knowledge you’ve shared here.

      Many, many, thanks.

  19. Vesuvius
    July 27, 2016 at 11:13

    Thanks for this article! However, perhaps it was not very kind of former President Bill to set up his wife Hillary against the formidable GOP nominee, Mr Trump. The coming fight for the Oval Office will certainly be something absolutely awful, worse than anthyting hitherto experienced.

    • Bill Bodden
      July 27, 2016 at 15:33

      Regardless of whether Hillary or Trump moves into the White House, the Oval Office will a more evil office than ever before.

  20. Tony
    July 27, 2016 at 10:58

    A Hillary Presidency would mimic a George W Bush ‘NEOCON’ Presidency a lot more than her husbands Presidency.

  21. Isobel Hudson
    July 27, 2016 at 09:45

    I read this piece with interest, as I respect Robert Parry’s judgment and his distance from party politics: he is an informed and, for this overheated time, unbiased reporter. I find myself mostly to his left in POV, but he’s not really interested in such labels as they do not help him do his important work.

    I presume that as editor he exercises that good judgment over contributions to his journal. So I’d like to ask Mr. Carden, whom I don’t know, and Mr. Perry, whom I’ve been reading and occasionally corresponding with for 15 years, whether they think Hillary Clinton is so bad that we’re better off letting the wave of enthusiasm for Trump ride him to the White House?

    From recent articles here attacking Hillary Clinton–published since Trump’s nomination–I’d guess that Mr. Parry and his readers and writers would prefer Donald Trump as president, as what they say about Secretary Clinton is dense with outrage. Since we’re talking about informed and intelligent writers, I want to know what they see (it’s not what I see, but they’re more experienced, closer to the action) when they look into the abyss of Donald Trump’s presidency.

    It’s a question I have for all those who consider Hillary Clinton a dangerous militarist, but Consortium News seems the best venue to ask it in, as it’s not trying to make profits off of sensationalist reporting.

    With thanks,

    • Lin Cleveland
      July 27, 2016 at 10:48

      We do have other choices, you know. Maybe the time has come to check out third party options and let this ruling duopoly know we no longer trust them. If not now, when? Let’s not let political fear-mongering motivate us. Both parties support big money and neither party gives a hoot about the “little” people.

      • Bill Bodden
        July 27, 2016 at 15:30

        In effect, you have answered your own questions.

      • b.grand
        July 27, 2016 at 23:20

        Lin, have you heard of Vote Pact? “Strategic VotePact Gives Life to #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary”

        Yes, vote 3rd party, or 4th… the Vote Pact idea is that voting for Green & Libertarian (2 separate voters) gives no advantage to Dem. or Rep.

        But personally, if voting for Stein throws the election to Trump, so be it. Better the blowhard than the psychopath.

        • Lin Cleveland
          July 28, 2016 at 12:35

          Thanks for the link. Recently, my disappointment in Green Party founder, Ralph Nader, grew by leaps and bounds. He supports the “hold your nose and vote for the psychopath” idiocy because this is not in his view the right moment for a third party. In that speech Ralph mentioned first the Libertarian Party and almost as an after thought he acknowledged the existence of the Green Party. I don’t think he even bothered to mention Jill Stein’s name. Last Tuesday Democracy Now! featured a debate between Jill and Ben Jealous I felt very impressed with Stein’s handling of the debate. What a nice break from the childishness on display at these conventions!

          I say to Ralph, “If not now, when?”

      • July 28, 2016 at 02:06

        Miller Exposes Corruption that even Trump Won’t Touch!

        If this election is a referendum about Morality, Bill & Hillary Clinton will lose and Bill & Hillary Clinton will lose badly.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      July 27, 2016 at 10:54

      Ms., they HAVE criticized Trump. I have been here since September, and they have criticized Trump.

      Also, I would assume that Clinton telling Obama to “turn up the heat” on Putin simply meant to criticize his human rights abuses more, rather than to support U.S intervention. But I am opposed to the U.S taking sides in Ukraine, as well as Russia taking sides in Ukraine. I am completely neutral.

    • Zachary Smith
      July 27, 2016 at 11:21

      I presume that as editor he exercises that good judgment over contributions to his journal. So I’d like to ask Mr. Carden, whom I don’t know, and Mr. Perry, whom I’ve been reading and occasionally corresponding with for 15 years, whether they think Hillary Clinton is so bad that we’re better off letting the wave of enthusiasm for Trump ride him to the White House?

      Clever phrasing there. You don’t bother to dispute anything author James Carden says, but instead try to divert attention to Donald Trump, a fellow who has not yet participated in any of the kinds of ‘adventures’ the Clintons have. This is a technique you’ve used previously.

      A much more convincing defense of Hillary Clinton would be your list of reasons why Donald Trump cannot be trusted with dealing with Russia. How a slightly ‘even-handed’ policy regarding Israel would harm the interests of the United States. How Donald Trump would screw up relations in Central and South America even worse than has Secretary of State Hillary. Hillary has a long track record of turning everything she touches into ****. Making a case for Bogeyman Trump being worse requires more than winks and nods, in my opinion.

      Also, you might actually present evidence for Hillary Clinton NOT being a dangerous neocon militant. Good luck with that one, for she has shown many times that she’s actually proud of everything she has done.

      • Fel
        August 1, 2016 at 05:39

        “Making a case for Bogeyman Trump being worse requires more than winks and nods.”

        OK, how about every goddamned thing that comes out of his mouth. No reasonably intelligent objective person who has spent any time watching Trump can possibly believe he will be a better choice than Hillary. Even if she is the devil you portray, which I do not believe she is. I think she will surprise us all and be a good president. But that’s secondary. Even if she is mediocre or bad, she is a far far safer bet to keep armageddon at bay than the thin-skinned, pathological, know-nothing, heartless juvenile bully boy Trump. It’s shocking to me that any thinking person can believe otherwise, not matter what that person thinks of Clinton.

    • Bob Van Noy
      July 27, 2016 at 15:44

      Isobel Hudson, your response seems so sincere that I couldn’t help but try to explain my opinion, not that it represents a consensus on this site at all. You are correct by pointing out the uniqueness of this very special site. In light of current events i would tell you that if voting today, I would vote for Jill Stein, or possibly Donald Trump to block Hillary at all costs. So, why? I’m a veteran of the pre-Vietnam military who as an 18 year old staged with the 101st, Airborne for the invasion of Cuba, I was told that we were stopping the spread of Soviet Communism to our shores, and thoroughly believed it… Imagine my shock 40 years later when I saw “The Fog Of War” (link here and realized that Castro was prepared for an invasion and was willing to utilize battlefield nuclear weapons, even if he had to sacrifice the island! It was then that I realized that our sixties military didn’t have a clue about what they were doing and were actually more dangerous than the supposed enemy… Not only that, but back channel communications were going on between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on a resolution and then possibly further talks beyond their military advisors. Both men knew the horrors of battle and knew that a military solution is no real solution. Eventually both men would be sidelined for their supposed treachery. I see the neocons in much the same light as those Russian and US military of the sixties; as supposedly smart people with no real fighting experience, willing to go to war first and talk later; and right now Hillary is their champion. She’s simply unacceptable…

      • Bill Bodden
        July 27, 2016 at 19:40

        It was then that I realized that our sixties military didn’t have a clue about what they were doing and were actually more dangerous than the supposed enemy

        And the tradition continues.

    • mikekrohde
      July 27, 2016 at 16:12

      Ms. Clinton is in bed with, or is it better said, sharing bankers, with AIPAC. That being said, being a Democrat and supporting the party in November does not preclude us from sharing our feelings about Ms. Clinton and her policy choices through the years. Her record is clear. She does the bidding of the neo-cons. I used to think it was just her well thought out choice. Since reading Mearsheimer and Walt in ” The Israel Lobby” I have come to believe the neo-cons are simply agents in the service of that country and they seduced Hillary at a time of weakness, i.e., no money after husbands’ legal bills . Wolfowitz was named ‘ Man of the Year” in Israel while serving in our Department of Defense. While it is nice to be noticed for one’s service, we usually look for those accolades from the citizens we presumably serve when we take those crucial jobs in our National Security services. Hillary moved because of Bernie on domestic issues, she’s promised to revisit NAFTA. How about revisiting our relationship with the country rewarding our Defense Department employees and trying to honor a spy who cost us billions in national defense dollars spying for Israel, who we had already given over 100 billion dollars. Jane Harman, I think a chairwoman of an Intelligence subcommittee was recorded calling an Israeli agent and promising to assist an arrested spy of Israel immediately after the arrest. She left the Congress not too long afterwards, but she probably should have been prosecuted as a spy. That is what neo-con is all about and Hillary is in their thrall. We would like her to redirect her loyalties. Wasserman-Schultz is part of that system and even after being caught red handed cheating during the primaries, Hillary can’t cut her lose. That goes beyond poor judgment. It shows loyalty to the wrong masters. We want Hillary to help rebuild the middle class and get our national security accounts in order. She has yet to demonstrate a commitment to those principles without a vigorous shove from real Democrats. She is running counter to our best interests at times and we want her to change. We have to ask out loud to be heard. That doesn’t mean we want Trump, although he could hardly do worse internationally than the neo-cons have led us into. The second Iraq war ranks with Vietnam as our worst National Security disasters in the 20th Century. She was head cheer leader and defender of the bull shit intelligence that I believe she new was false that Powell quoted at the U.N. and shifted the balance in this country to go to war. She is hard to trust. We hope this conversation will show her just like Bernie and his supporters showed her what we want domestically. Hardly a call for a Trump presidency.

      • Drew Hunkins
        July 27, 2016 at 20:32

        “I used to think it was just her well thought out choice. Since reading Mearsheimer and Walt in ” The Israel Lobby” I have come to believe the neo-cons are simply agents in the service of that country.”

        The Zionist power configuration is out of control in Washington and throughout much of the United States. Mearsheimer and Walt’s book is quite good, but also be sure to pick up two books by Dr. James Petras (both are short reads): 1.) ‘The Power of Israel in the United States’ by James Petras, and 2.) ‘Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power’ by James Petras. Also read Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out.’

    • F. G. Sanford
      July 27, 2016 at 16:34

      All of this controversy is occurring against the absurd backdrop of accusations that Putin is rigging the election in favor of Trump…by committing the dastardly act of revealing that the Clinton campaign rigged the election against Sanders. But, yes, Clinton definitely is a warmonger, and she is backed by a well-oiled, highly coordinated and extensively connected network of think-tanks, financial backers, arms manufacturers, foreign governments and rabidly delusional ideologues. Her political clout is gargantuan, while Trump appears to be a mouthpiece without a mouth. Could he do harm? Certainly, but not likely as much as Clinton. Assange said it best: like choosing between gonorrhea and cholera. But these articles may provide food for thought.

      • Zachary Smith
        July 27, 2016 at 19:53

        But it is the military issue that most sets Clinton apart from Trump, a fact that is receiving much too little attention. Clinton is very close to the centers of military interests, and during her tenure as Secretary of State we have built up military installations in the Baltic, right up against Russia’s border, and have sent a warship into the Black Sea, where Russia has coastline. How does an intelligent US citizen think that Russians would interpret such actions? We have an entire naval fleet in the South China Sea. How can the Chinese fail to interpret that just as we would should we find a fleet of Chinese warships patrolling our West Coast?

        That’s from your second link. There has been a big recent NATO buildup right on Russia’s borders, and there are indications Ukraine is making preparations for a major offensive against the breakaway Donbass. Is this something Obama plans to do, or is he setting the stage for Hillary? Or could it be something designed to elect Hillary?

        With the effective loss of Turkey the neocons in the White House and State Department may feel that time is not on their side.

      • July 28, 2016 at 02:19

        The ruse of diverting attention away from what Hillary’s emails contain, towards who may have hacked into her account, dates back to Ancient Greece and maybe even earlier. It led to the saying “Shooting the messenger”. As usual, a lickspittle corporate media has grabbed the baton and is running with it. We should not fall for it here, or anywhere else, for that matter.

        • July 28, 2016 at 02:38

          To add to my comment above: if the position were reversed and Putin’s emails had been hacked by Clinton, what would the American public’s reaction be if U.S. Intelligence agencies commented: “We never hack into Putin’s emails as we respect his privacy far too much.” Truth is that Putin isn’t so stupid or negligent to provide them with the opportunity.

    • Tobin Paz
      July 27, 2016 at 17:43

      I posted this in response to a Democracy Now debate between Chris Hedges and Robert Reich. I think it is slightly relevant to your question. My apologies if anybody is offended by my use of four letter words.


      Hedge’s raw and dark message is that there is no time. That we are not in a functioning democracy, and either a Trump or Clinton presidency will not allow a progressive movement.

      We have a surveillance and police state now that will be expanded to destroy any opposition. The time for an environmental and peace revolution is NOW. Earth is in deep shit. Many of our climate models have woefully underestimated the effects of global warming.

      The original consensus regarding the Arctic ocean was that it would be ice free between 2050 and 2100. The reality is that we might reach that state as early as this year, if not, certainly well before even the most dire predictions.

      The Arctic is on fire. Some shores have hit 85 degrees Fahrenheit… let that sink for a second. Siberia is burning with massive wild fires, increasing the already alarming rate of permafrost melting. Bubbles of methane are forming underneath the ground.

      Residents on the north slope of Alaska are seeing a dramatic increase in thunderstorms, events so rare that many residents had never seen lightning or heard thunder in their lifetimes.

      A new study has come out that the albedo effect, the reflection of light off a surface, in the Arctic may contribute up to 25% of global warming. As the snow and ice melt, more energy is being absorbed, causing a feedback loop that may be unstoppable. This was not even taken into account in the Paris climate accord last year, a treaty that is neither effective or binding.

      Last month was the fourteenth consecutive warm month on record, some temperatures shattering the previous readings. We are a heart beat away from potential runaway global warming that we won’t be able to do anything to reverse. And in spite of all this evidence, the TPP may very well pass.

      Folks, if the TPP passes, it is game over. A forum post can’t do justice to all the ways the investment state settlement dispute provision would undermine and prevent any measures to mitigate the damage and consequences of what we have done. All one has to do is to look at the $15 billion Transcanda pipeline lawsuit, or the WTO ruling against India’s national solar program.

      A potential Clinton presidency will pass the TPP, no ifs, ands, or buts. If you don’t believe this, please, wake the f#$k up. The State Department postponed the release of her emails related to the TPP until after the election. The DNC platform has refused to oppose it outright. Since it has been fast tracked, meaning that it is a yes or no vote, there will be no debates or amendments. It can’t get any clearer than this.

      Trump states that he is against it, but underneath his narcissism and machismo, he is a racist authoritarian buffoon. The fact that this issue may hinge on him is beyond depressing. How the f#$k did we end up here? That really is rhetorical question because Hedges does a good job of explaining it.

      And if global warming might take us to the brink of extinction, global cooling most certainly will. Not the cooling climate deniers talk about, but nuclear winter. American’s knowledge of geo-politics is abysmally infantile. We are a stone’s throw away from a nuclear conflict with Russion and/or China. A Clinton presidency increases that possibility to such a degree that it should be avoided at all costs.

      She has stated that she would use nuclear weapons against Iran as deterrents “to keep the peace”. Not only does she admire Madaleine Albright, but she has vacationed with Henry Kissinger… WTF, is anybody awake, have we really sunk this far?

      And now we have the new British Prime Minister Theresa May saying she is willing to use nuclear weapons even if it means hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians will die. I’m even having a hard time comprehending the cataclysmic situation that we are facing.

      In case anybody thinks I’m not optimistic, at least a nuclear winter will prevent global warming from getting worse. Pushing aside the doom and gloom, I think we might have a chance. This chance starts with supporting the Green Party NOW… without reserves or fear. The Syriza party in Greece started with similar polling numbers compared to the Green Party at this stage of their election. All odds are stacked against us, but it can be done. All I know, if we are going down, I’m going down with one hell of a fight.

      • Anon
        August 4, 2016 at 17:21

        You do realize that globull warming is complete bullshit?

    • July 28, 2016 at 01:38


      It is so hard this time. Not even “a lesser evil.” I very much appreciate your call for discussion here on these pages. If consortiumnews readers/commentators/writers cannot come up with an imaginative idea or two, I despair of finding one. Me? I’m fresh out.



      • July 28, 2016 at 03:04

        Ray McGovern sage u r and I 4 one listen often to what u say. Its called the third option Stein or the libertarian candidate. At present the have 25 percent combined polling if stats r rite and not CIA manipulated. As u would know with ur past history.

      • July 28, 2016 at 06:39

        You’re quite right Ray, in this particular race there is no lesser evil out of the two front runners. In this it shares similarities with the recent Brexit vote. No sooner had the result been declared than many of the ‘losers’ began wishing they had voted to stay in the European Union.

        As a Brit, who has lived in Spain too long to take part, I’d have found it terribly difficult to decide. At the ripe old age of sixty-seven, on a personal level, the benefits of remaining in Europe outweigh the uncertainty of leaving. Nevertheless, as the professional politicians and bureaucrats that actually run Europe aren’t elected, it isn’t a democracy by any stretch of the definition. But the option of changing the status quo wasn’t on the ballot paper. That meant a vote to remain would’ve been seen as a vote in support of the existing system with all its gaping faults.

        From where I’m looking, the U.S has developed and is developing a parallel democracy deficiency, insofar as many of the important decisions on the economy and foreign policy are being decided by unelected bodies behind the scenes. Cabals like those controlled by Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and the rest of the neocon clan, do not have to depend on the whims of the electorate to wield power, it is for this reason they keep their cards as close to their chests as possible until they scent a winner. Hence support for either of the main candidates is being left to the very last moment by many.

        But, whereas the Brexit vote only had two options, there is a third option for U.S. voters. The protest vote should never be used lightly, however, in a desperate situation, where many Republicans don’t approve of Trump and even more Democrats don’t approve of Clinton, they must join forces to vote for anyone but either of the main candidates. In situations where that isn’t possible Republicans and Democrats have to join hands and make a huge show of not voting at all. And that means organizing massive demonstrations to show their discontent. But I feel the vast majority of voters are too frightened to do that. They’re going to be even more frightened when they suffer the terrible consequences of their inaction.

        It’s clear the West is at the beginning of a crisis of confidence that threatens to bring the whole system down. It must be brought down. The only question is how to do it in a way that best avoids the sort of uncontrolled chaos our leaders are hurtling us all towards.

        • Tobin Paz
          July 28, 2016 at 08:34

          Fortunately in Spain no hard right movements like in Greece, Hungary, Poland, etc. have appeared to form. The best (in my opinion) and most concise explanation of what is happening in Europe comes from economist Richard Wolff:

          On Contact: Capitalism in Crisis with Richard Wolff

  22. Lin Cleveland
    July 27, 2016 at 09:02

    The foreign policy legacy of the first Clinton administration is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts.

    Empire America has such a long history of meddling in the politics of other nations–beginning, I guess, with The Monroe Doctrine and on–employing clandestine activities meant to undermine democratically elected governments in order to promote a venal, totalitarian governing body that assists in the exploitation of natural resources around the globe. Gee, I had the impression that Bill Clinton’s signature NAFTA policy was designed to lift all boats creating such vibrant international trade that workers around the world might see their opportunities and incomes grow. However, the effect of NAFTA has sunk the prospects of labor world-wide including right her in the U.S. of A. Millennials now feel the squeeze as more applicants fight over fewer and fewer employment opportunities that provide an income that covers the cost of living.

    Now, faced by the damning Wikileak’s release of DNC emails the Clinton people with zero proof are quick to divert attention from their own vert undemocratic behavior by accusing Russia. Shameful!

    • Lin Cleveland
      July 27, 2016 at 10:39

      I meant to add to the above post that when Obama and Secretary Clinton supported the illegal military coup ousting democratically elected President Manual Zalaya that was the straw to break the camel’s back for me. A neighbor called me to have coffee so I didn’t have my entire say.

      The Republicans tell us their primary goal is to beat Clinton and the Democrats main goal is to beat Trump. Both want voters to “hold our collective nose” and vote against our own best interests. When did our elections turn into some kind of high school sports event where winning–even if you cheat–is all that matters?

      • July 28, 2016 at 02:03

        “winning–even if you cheat–is all that matters”

        Yep! That’s what first lady Michelle Obama and the Dems including Bernie Sanders are teaching their own children and the children of America.

    • Bill Bodden
      July 27, 2016 at 15:27

      Empire America has such a long history of meddling in the politics of other nations–beginning, I guess, with The Monroe Doctrine

      The empire’s long history of “meddling” and empire building began with the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans.

      I had the impression that Bill Clinton’s signature NAFTA policy was designed to lift all boats

      It was like the Titanic. The lifeboats were installed for the upper class, not the people in the lower classes.

      Now, faced by the damning Wikileak’s release of DNC emails

      Will Wikileaks also be given leaks from Hillary’s home server? If so, The Donald will be installing the TRUMP logo on the White House next January – in neon or LED.

      • Lin Cleveland
        July 27, 2016 at 17:02

        Thanks! I have some native blood and I know and appreciate your post!

  23. Jim Hannan
    July 27, 2016 at 08:44

    This article in today’s Guardian is fascinating on the arms sales from eastern Europe to Saudi Arabia, and others for use in Syria.

    Hillary Clinton and her team need to start pressuring our so called allies to quit supplying the jihadis.

    • David Wilson
      July 29, 2016 at 16:11

      Hillary Clinton and her supporters at the State Department are the ones who have been supplying the weapons to the jihadis, as she sees them as her allies against Assad, Iran and her biggest nemesis – Russia.

  24. W. R. Knight
    July 27, 2016 at 08:39

    Hillary’s new take on domestic policies (for which we need to give credit to Bernie) are well and good. But here’s the rub. All that good stuff she promises requires money. And it’s our foreign policies together with our tax policies that are bankrupting the U.S. So, by the time she’s finished playing “Regime Change Queen”, there won’t be any money left to implement any of her newly acquired domestic policies.

    BTW re Robert Kagan: Neocon intellectual is an oxymoron whether prominent or not.

    • Bill Bodden
      July 27, 2016 at 15:19

      All that good stuff she promises requires money

      All that good stuff she promises and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald’s. McDonald’s is only interested in the dollar – not the bullshit promises.

  25. Peter Loeb
    July 27, 2016 at 07:29


    These aspects of RHC’s so-called “qualifications”
    (!!) make it quite impossible for me to give her
    my support in November. I am not so crazy that I believe
    her opponent will do better or even that he will ever
    do what he says.

    Thanks for your excellent contribution.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • July 27, 2016 at 16:37

      Thanks for your excellent article. When Bernie endorsed Hillary, I endorsed Jill. “Bye bye American Pie!”

    • July 28, 2016 at 01:54

      Michelle Obama backing her hubby is one thing, but to come out and back crooked Hillary is another. She did not have to stoop so low!

      What is she teaching her children and the children of America ?

      It is okay to cheat your way to the White House ? How does Bernie Sanders and his followers feel about that ?

      It is not that Michelle really believes Hillary is all human, pure, feminine, trustworthy, WOMAN; she did it for the Party, irrespective. I thought Michelle was better than that. But, then I recall thinking her husband was too.

      Hillary & Co. are the epic center of greed, ambition and corruption and Michelle has been close enough to the real thing to know it better than the people she was lying to. Talk about stooping low.

      The Democrats are having a hard time trying to make Hillary “look” trustworthy, human, feminine, mother, grandmother, woman. Why is it necessary if she is the real thing ? What a joke.

      Talk about teaching the children by example. What a lot of hogwash America.

      • July 28, 2016 at 03:12

        There *is* a real America out there that must be restored. In spite of and against Obamaism and its epigones. #AmericaFirst
        – Justin Raimondo

        “Feel the Bern,” sez Obama — mocking the embittered delegates ripped off by a rigged system. – Justin Raimondo

        The worst nightmare of everyone who loves liberty — Hillary Clinton as President. – Justin Raimondo

    • Kenny Wood
      July 29, 2016 at 08:07

      Operation Cyclone to Salafist Principality

      ( DIA report 2012 )

      33 year bookends = both parties

Comments are closed.