A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War

Exclusive: The transformation of the Democratic Party from the relative “peace party” to a belligerent “war party” occurred during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is likely to resume if Hillary Clinton is elected, writes James W Carden.

By James W Carden

The current debate over the future of U.S. foreign policy is largely over whether the U.S. should continue its self-anointed role as the policeman of the world, or whether it might be wise for the next administration to put, in the words of Donald J. Trump, “America First.”

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for a more active U.S. foreign policy. The 2016 election is shaping up to be, among other things, a battle between the inarticulate isolationism of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s liberal interventionism. Hers is an approach which came into vogue during the administration of her husband.

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton sought to differentiate himself from President George H.W. Bush by sounding “tough” on foreign policy. At the time, Clinton declared that, unlike Bush, he would “not coddle dictators from Baghdad to Beijing.”

Once in office Clinton departed from policies of his predecessor, whose foreign policy was steered by “realists” such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James A. Baker. Baker’s judgment that the war in the Balkans did not merit American intervention – “we don’t,” said Baker, “have a dog in this fight,” was emblematic of the administration’s approach, which, despite launching interventions in Iraq and Panama, was for the most part, a cautious one.

Bush outraged New York Times columnist William Safire when he warned of the danger that nationalism poses to regional stability. Speaking in Kiev in 1991, Bush promised that “we will not meddle in your internal affairs.”

“Some people,” he continued, “have urged the United States to choose between supporting President Gorbachev and supporting independence-minded leaders throughout the U.S.S.R. I consider this a false choice.”

Such was Bush’s wariness over riling Russia that, according to the historian Mary Elise Sarotte, Secretary of State Baker (along with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher) “repeatedly affirmed” to the Soviets “that NATO would not move eastward at all.”

Bush decided that it was best not to rub Russia’s diminished fortunes in its face. Not so President Clinton, who vowed “not let the Iron Curtain be replaced with a veil of indifference.” The Clinton team ignored the advice of Senators Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn and Gary Hart and the former Ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock, who all urged the administration to reconsider its policy of NATO expansion. Needless to say, predictions that NATO expansion would have dire consequences for U.S.-Russia relations have come to fruition.

Grandiose Ambitions

Speaking before the U.N. General Assembly in September 1993, President Clinton declared that the U.S. had “the chance to expand the reach of democracy and economic progress across the whole of Europe and to the far reaches of the world.”

A Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the USS Shiloh against air defense targets in Iraq on Sept. 3, 1996, as part of Operation Desert Strike, a limited U.S. military engagement against Iraqi government forces similar to what is now contemplated for Syria. (DOD photo)

A Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the USS Shiloh against air defense targets in Iraq on Sept. 3, 1996, as part of Operation Desert Strike, a limited U.S. military engagement against Iraqi government forces similar to what is now contemplated for Syria. (DOD photo)

At the time, the stars seemed aligned for such a pursuit. In Foreign Affairs, neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer declared that the end of the Cold War was America’s “unipolar” moment. The pursuit of American global hegemony was not, according to Krauthammer, some “Wilsonian fantasy.” It was, rather, “a matter of sheerest prudence.”

During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. military was dispatched on ostensibly humanitarian grounds in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Kosovo (1999). Clinton also directed airstrikes on Sudan in what was said to be an attempt on Osama bin Laden’s life.

Clinton bombed Iraq (1998) over its violations of the NATO enforced no-fly zones. That same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law which stipulated that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

In some ways the now deeply embedded belief in the efficacy and rightness of humanitarian intervention dates back to NATO’s intervention in Bosnia in 1995. The success of the Dayton Accords seemed to cement the idea that America was, after all, the indispensable nation in the minds of the Clinton foreign policy team.

The historian David P. Calleo has observed that while the Clinton administration “had always sported a low-grade Wilsonian rhetoric that implied hegemonic ambitions,” it was only after Dayton that “the policy began to imitate the rhetoric.”

The Clinton administration’s second intervention in the Balkans in 1999, set the template for what George W. Bush attempted in Iraq, and, later, what Barack Obama attempted in Libya. Once again, in the absence of U.N. sanction, Clinton launched a war under humanitarian pretexts. The 77-day aerial bombardment of Serbia carried out by NATO was ostensibly undertaken to prevent what was said to be the looming wholesale slaughter of Albanian Kosovars by Serbian forces.

The intervention in Kosovo not only riled the Russians, it also upset American allies. Shortly before the commencement of hostilities in Kosovo, France’s Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine declared that the United States was not only a superpower, but a “hyper-power.” According to Vedrine, the question of the American hyper-power was “at the center of the world’s current problems.”

Kosovo set a pattern that has held in subsequent interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Advertised (all, or, in part) as interventions on behalf of suffering Muslims, they invariably end up strengthening the hand of those who are declared enemies of the U.S.: Sunni Islamic extremists.

By the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure, the prudence exhibited by George H.W. Bush had long since vanished. Given her record, should Hillary Clinton win in November, the elder Bush’s foreign policy “realism” will have little chance of reappearing.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’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 eastwestaccord.com. He previously served as an advisor on Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State Department.

49 comments for “A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War

  1. Christie Mayo
    August 25, 2016 at 13:44

    Clinton exploitation of Haiti : we would be hard pressed to do well under further such actions by the Clintons and may be well courting disaster in the US if we vote them in for another 8 years.

    “The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world. It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold”

    Hillary Clinton’s brother, Anthony (Tony) Rodham was a prominent player in the mining scheme, according to corporate VCS documents.Rodham has no background in mining, no college degree, and his only qualification to be intimately involved in a mining venture in Haiti was as the brother of Hillary Clinton and the brother-in-law of the Special Envoy to Haiti Bill Clinton. Rodham joined the advisory board of VCS Mining in October 2013 and the 2014 VCS memorandum touts his influential connections to the Clinton’s “inner circles” and “power bases” within the beltway.

    (article 7 pages long)
    Recently Leaked Documents Confirm Clinton Haitian Gold Scheme | OpEdNews

  2. Candace
    August 24, 2016 at 13:06

    The current debate over the future of U.S. foreign policy is largely over whether the U.S. should continue its self-anointed role as the policeman of the world, or whether it might be wise for the next administration to put, in the words of Donald J. Trump, “America First.”

    There’s a debate going on over the future of US Foreign Policy? Where? Criticizing Hillary or Bill for interventionism doesn’t automatically mean an argument forms against it. Its brought up to troll or create perception managed indictments of Hillary. The issue of intervention is rarely if ever seriously discussed, certainly not by Trump and supporters
    (Saying America first isn’t an opposing argument. Its cheap applause, really cheap applause.)

    I havent seen anywhere in the constant barrage of writers and commenters calling Hillary a hawk (at best) also say that Trump arguing America First = no policing or regime change and add an argument for why they believe its a better way to go than regime change interventionism. They say nothing about why they think interventionism is wrong, nothing about how Trump should handle the opposition from the Republican super hawk party that, amongst many other criticisms, has been arguing that Obama is too soft on Syria, Iran, Russia. Because you would assume that is going to be an issue if Trump is the opposite of Hillary who is on the same page minus religious war talk with the republican party.

    “The 2016 election is shaping up to be, among other things, a battle between the inarticulate isolationism of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s liberal interventionism. ”

    IS that a plug for or against isolationism? For or against interventionism? I guess it all depends on the audience and which voters the author is trying to influence.
    Don’t we try to isolate countries we’re trying to punish, anyway? Is that what Trump wants for America?

    Seems like if there is any “battle” going on its humanitarian interventionism vs unapologetic to hell with you all, we take what we want, smash smash everything regime change/interventionism.

    One side saying that because he doesn’t consider the views of anyone other than himself when making a decision, he’s willing to have a religious war and be meaner than anyone else – he’s the one you can trust to lead the country.
    And then the other side is stating the regular neocon bs higher ideals making a better world interventionism, with support from everyone above and underground currently involved in our many interventions, should get your vote.

    The choice in this election in foreign policy is over how our current and future interventions will be lead not between escalation and whether we’ll withdraw or change our interventionist regime changing ways like what is often implied.

    Hi America. Remember Congress? *please* stop looking for a president superhero to save us. Get involved and vote in your local elections.

    • Rufus T. Firefly
      August 26, 2016 at 14:22

      we are not now nor have we ever been policemen. we are ruthless thugs. the military is used, as was “murder incorporated”, to enforce the unfettered expansionist salacious global appetites of american financial and business interest of the 1/4%. There is no such thing as “liberal” intervention. The term is newspeak for destructive murderous wars or coups carried out directly or indirectly, covertly or overtly, by american or proxy armies, mercenaries, and anyone who will kill for money. And with american weapons. Always immoral and illegal.

  3. Ray Man
    August 23, 2016 at 19:30

    The democratic party never was a relative peace party. After Jackson illegally defied the U.S. Supreme Court and forcibly removed the Indigenous People from their ancestral lands in the southeast the democratic party gave the world the horror of Manifest Destiny which led to the genocide and open air imprisonment of the Indigenous People, the war against Mexico, and expansionist wars that have never ended, World War I, the destruction of the leftist labor movement via imprisonment, execution, deportation, and harsh anti labor activist immigration laws that focused primarily on Italian and Jewish labor activists. Roosevelt refused to lift the ban when asked in 1935. It is impossible to calculate how many people died because of Roosevelt’s refusal. He is the same president who helped the Germans and the Japanese build up their military systems and supplied the Japanese with fuel as they marched across China committing one atrocity after another. The democrats gave us WWII, the Cold War, the NSA, the CIA, nuclear weapons and their horrific use, the Korean War, the war against Viet Nam, coup, after coup after coup, immoral arms dealing on unprecedented levels, and an equal or greater share in all the horrors being played out around the globe, massive increases in surveillance and spying. We have been at war throughout the entirety of my 3/4 of a century on the planet regardless of who is in the white house or congress. None of this was possible without their bothers and sisters in the republican party. A pox on all of them.

  4. Blosted
    August 23, 2016 at 19:11

    Recently, articles on this site begin or are headline with absurd mis-statements of facts.

    In this case, it the notion that the war-like nature of the Democrats will ‘likely resume’ under Hillary.

    Obama has started more wars than Dubya/Cheney, and he’s kept both of the Dubya/Cheney wars going as he’s ‘surged’ multiple times in Afghanistan and as Obama has restarted what should now be called the “3rd Iraq War”. Obama has bombed more countries than Dubya/Cheney. Obama is the first president to serve the American people 8 full years of constant war.Obama has led a constant increase in the amount of money going to the military, including leading the opposition back when the US people were demanding cuts.

    So, while yes, I do think it will get even worse under Hillary, to say it will ‘resume’ under Hillary is to ignore that the Obama never paused or slowed down the warlike nature of the USG. The years of the Obama administration marked an escalation over the Dubya/Cheney years, and truthful writers would recognize this.

    But, in the Democratic Noise Machine Media, Obama is always presented as a good guy who wants to do differently but who is forced by unseen powers to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill…..

    Remember, the Democrats have only been ‘anti-war’ for two periods in their existence. The most recent was when a revolt of Democracy caused opposition to the Vietnam war to become the party’s official stance. The first time was when the Democrats opposed the Civil War in their role as the ‘pro-slavery’ party.

    • John
      August 23, 2016 at 22:23

      Blosted, No president wants to hinder the long term agenda of the Talmud Zionist Jews……These people truly believe they are superior to all races of humans on this planet…This is not a secret or some crazy conspiracy. The Talmud Zionist Jews rule the USA….money, politics , and the MSM…..I will say that Obama did delay their agenda in Syria and forced them to adopt a plan B aka Isis……Stay tuned ! It’s not over until the entire planet is smoking……

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        August 27, 2016 at 12:38

        Stop your anti-Semitic drivel. What a disgusting and pathetic display of projection. Listen white-boy: go fuck your own white-supremacist ass.

  5. Thurgle
    August 23, 2016 at 19:10

    “Humanitarian war” verges on being an oxymoron. The closest thing to an exception I can think of is Rwanda in 1994. Hundreds of thousands were certain to died in a matter of weeks. Five or ten thousands US troops airlifted in could have stopped the genocide of the Tutsis in a trice with little risk to themselves and relatively minor expense. Yet Bill Clinton chose not to act and to lie about the situation, and Hillary seems to have with been him 100%. They evidently saw some slight political cost to them if they acted and so chose to let hundreds of thousands die in order to maintain their political position.
    Fortunately for the victims, the Tutsi rebel army acted despite lacking international support of any kind and stopped the genocide before it could be more than half completed. But no thanks to the Clintons. Their subsequent apology and their talk of humanitarian war afterward is as hypocritical as itis obsene. In truth, a conflict becomes “humanitarian” when major US economic interests want military intervention, starting with energy interests and armaments makers. Its their fates towards which the Clintons express “humanitarian”concerns.

  6. August 23, 2016 at 14:48

    The next President has a good chance of presiding over the opening of WW III, and being the American will instigate it.

    That goes double for Clinton.

    The end is nigh.


  7. Bob in Portland
    August 23, 2016 at 13:02

    Resume? The Pentagon threatens Syria for counterattacking the Kurdish forces in Masaka because we have boots on the ground? What the eff?

    I thought we didn’t have boots on the ground. And weren’t going to put boots on the ground. And now the Pentagon says it will shoot down Russian jets, invited by the legal Syrian regime, for defending its territory?

    I always had a suspicion that H. Clinton would push us into WWIII, but we’re already there. Make a cozy place for yourselves in your basements.

  8. August 23, 2016 at 12:14

    1st First Gentleman Life

    Bill Clinton Campaigning for Hillary

    Clinton has continued to be a force behind his foundation,
    which has overseen the distribution of millions of dollars
    from corporations, governments and individuals to globally-minded
    charitable works. The organization has dealt with issues ranging
    from providing increased access to HIV/AIDS medications to
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  9. Edward
    August 23, 2016 at 11:37

    Wikipedia presents this criticism of the justification for Desert Fox:


    Accusations of U.S. interference in the U.N. inspection process[edit]

    Iraq stopped cooperating with the U.N. special commission in the first month of 1998, but diplomacy by Kofi Annan brought fresh agreement and new modalities for the inspection of sensitive sites.[10] Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz had earlier accused UNSCOM officials of acting as spies for the United States,[11] charges later supported by Scott Ritter and Bill Tierney.[12]

    In a 2005 interview Ritter criticized the Clinton administration’s use of a blocked inspection of a Ba’ath party headquarters to justify the bombing.

    Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that’s trying to kill our president and we’re not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four people.

    In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters, like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can’t come in – you can come in. Come on in.” The inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” The Iraqis said, “If you don’t agree to the modalities, we can’t support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn’t allow the inspections to take place.

    Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But you know the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We’re playing by the rules, why aren’t you? If you’re not going play by the rules, then it’s a game that we don’t want to participate in.” Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn’t kick them out.[13]

    However, in his 1999 book Endgame Ritter explained that he was the one who had originally pushed for the fateful inspection of the Ba’ath party headquarters over the doubts of his boss Richard Butler and also planned to use 37 inspectors. It was temporarily cancelled due to the fact that Iraq broke off cooperation in August 1998:

    But it was the site where that second piece of information led us that contained dynamite. From a description provided by our source, I had easily identified the building in question, which was located in Baghdad’s downtown Aadamiyah section. The ten crates of missile parts were stashed in a basement of the Baghdad headquarters of Saddam’s own Ba’ath party. If we could achieve surprise and surround the site before the Iraqis could evacuate the crates, we would obtain the ultimate catch-22 situation: let us inside as promised and we would find the prohibited material; bar our entry and violate the Kofi Annan compromise, and in the process invite a devastating air strike by the United States. UNSCOM would be prepared to camp out around this site until the situation had been resolved one way or the other.

    The countdown to a perhaps decisive four-day blitz of confrontation began, with the first inspection – Ba’ath party headquarters – due to take place on July 20. On short notice I was able to reconstitute my intelligence support. The first two inspection teams were dispatched to Bahrain. I was set to arrive there on the 18th. I would be joined by my deputy chief inspector as well as several operations staff. All of us were veteran inspectors, requiring no additional training. Instead, the clock was stopped.
    The U.S. and U.K., Butler told me, were uncertain about going ahead. He needed to consult with them, he said, and on the 15th – my thirty-seventh birthday – I found myself pacing the floor of my office on the thirtieth floor of the United Nations Secretariat Building in New York, waiting for the results of these talks.
    Butler came back. It was all bad news. The inspection was canceled. My carefully assembled team dispersed.
    Clinton administration officials, torn between pressure from the Republicans to go forward and a reluctance to respond to any Iraqi confrontation (and there was sure to be one) with military force, had tried to convince Butler to postpone the inspection until “a more opportune time.” Butler was convinced. To me, he called it a case of “bad timing.” I viewed it as something else — an appalling lack of leadership, not only in Washington and London, but also on Butler’s part. He was allowing a golden opportunity to slip through his fingers. I said as much in a long, critical memorandum that I wrote to him the next day.
    The onus of leadership fell on him, I said, and if he would seize the initiative, Washington and London would have to follow. That may have been somewhat naive, but I firmly believed, I wrote, that UNSCOM was fighting for its very existence as a meaningful disarmament body, and inspections aimed at uncovering concealment remained imperative. It was a fight worth fighting, I said, recommending that we go ahead with the planned inspections regardless of the naysayers, though not without continuing to seek support. “In reengaging on concealment,” I concluded, “the Special Commission will be waving a red flag in front of the Iraqi bull. It is essential that this red flag be backed by a sword, or else the commission will not be able to withstand the Iraqi charge. In short, the Special Commission’s push on concealment must be 100 percent.”
    It was as hard-hitting a memorandum as I could make it. Butler accused me of overstating the lack of resolve in both Washington and London. But my argument over the need to get a concealment-based inspection on track did resonate with him. He authorized me to put together an updated inspection plan to take place following his August visit to Baghdad.
    I didn’t have much time. July was half through, and I needed to get a new forty-odd-person team assembled, trained, and deployed prior to Butler’s arrival in Iraq on August 2. We would use the same basic inspection concept that had been prepared for July; the intelligence on both sites, I was assured by sources, was still valid but not for much longer. I would make use of some twenty-five inspectors resident in Baghdad with the monitoring groups, and I added twelve experts, selected on the basis of what the team needed for the planned inspection. I had a five-person command element fly to Bahrain with the twelve experts to train them. They were to stay in Bahrain after the training to carry out last-minute preparations and receive intelligence updates until they flew into Iraq on the same plane that would take Butler out on August 5. Somehow it all came together. The inspections would begin on the morning of the 6th.
    I’d learned to read Butler’s body language and he was getting a little nervous as we flew deeper and deeper into Iraqi territory. The reality of what we were about to do had begun to hit him. Duelfer teased him about how the Iraqis could solve everything if they just shot us out of the sky. Butler was not amused. He kept asking probing questions, reassuring himself that these inspection targets were of a legitimate disarmament character. “What makes us go to that site?” he asked. How do I explain it to the Iraqis? … How do I explain this site to the Security Council? … What do we expect to find at this one? … What happens if the Iraqis stop us from entering?” [14]
    In early 1999 it was revealed that the CIA, as well as possibly MI6, had planted agents in the UNSCOM teams, leading the UN to admit that “UNSCOM had directly facilitated the creation of an intelligence collection system for the United States in violation of its mandate.”[15] As part of the CIA’s Operation Shake the Tree, run by Steve Richter of the Near East Division, a “black box” was installed at UNSCOM’s headquarters in Baghdad to eavesdrop on Saddam’s presidential communications network. The information collected by the agency was not shared with UNSCOM investigators.[16]

    Inspectors not thrown out[edit]
    The claim that UNSCOM weapons inspectors were expelled by Iraq has been repeated frequently. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council, called for action against Iraq and stated falsely that “Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998”.[17] The claim has appeared repeatedly in the news media.[18] However, according to UNSCOM inspector Richard Butler himself, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British air strikes: “I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission… Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’ … I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.”[19]

    Facilities not known to be producing WMD[edit]

    Gen. Anthony C. Zinni briefs reporters at The Pentagon following Operation Desert Fox, December 21, 1998.
    Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his Washington Post column January, 1999 that the operation had less to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.

    It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM’s inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the “degrading” of Iraq’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the “diminishing” of the Iraqi threat to its neighbours. But careful study of the target list tells another story.

    Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq’s air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait.

    The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.[20]
    According to Department of Defense personnel with whom Arkin spoke, Central Command chief Anthony Zinni insisted that the U.S. only attack biological and chemical sites that “had been identified with a high degree of certainty.” And the reason for the low number of targets, said Arkin, was because intelligence specialists “could not identify actual weapons sites with enough specificity to comply with Zinni’s directive.”

    Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[21] He told BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified, targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing weapons of mass destruction. Jones’ testimony is supported by the former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, John Morrison, who informed the same program that, before the operation had ended, DIS came under pressure to validate a prepared statement to be delivered by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, declaring military activity an unqualified success. Large-scale damage assessment takes time, responded Morrison, therefore his department declined to sign up to a premature statement. “After Desert Fox, I actually sent a note round to all the analysts involved congratulating them on standing firm in the face of, in some cases, individual pressure to say things that they knew weren’t true”. Later on, after careful assessment and consideration, Defence Intelligence Staff determined that the bombing had not been all that effective.[22]

    Within days of speaking out on the program, Morrison was informed by former New Labour cabinet minister Ann Taylor that he was to lose his job as Chief Investigator to the Intelligence and Security Committee.[23][24]

    The Duelfer Report concluded in 2004 that Iraq’s WMD capability “was essentially destroyed in 1991” following the end of sanctions.[25]:1

    Distraction from Clinton impeachment scandal[edit]
    Some critics of the Clinton administration, including Republican members of Congress,[26] expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox.[27] The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached by the House on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign. A few months earlier, similar criticism was levelled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, on August 20. The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship.

    The Operation Infinite Reach attacks became known as “Monica’s War” among TV news people, due to the timing. ABC-TV announced to all stations that there would be a special report following Lewinsky’s testimony before Congress, then the special report was pre-empted by the report of the missile attacks. The combination of the timing of that attack and Operation Desert Fox led to accusations of a Wag the Dog situation.

  10. August 23, 2016 at 11:26

    Thanks for a very important and timely article, which I’ve shared on Facebook and Twitter.

  11. Edward
    August 23, 2016 at 11:26

    “Clinton bombed Iraq (1998) over its violations of the NATO enforced no-fly zones. ”

    No, as I recall some excuse about non-compliance with UNSCOM was used as the pretext for this illegal aggression.

    The diplomacy leading up to the Kosovo war consisted of an agreement presented to Serbia that was designed to be rejected. Once it was rejected the White House could claim Serbia was being unreasonable and that a war was justified.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      August 23, 2016 at 18:47

      One should also remember that the Kosovo gangsters put into power have since made much of their money by organ harvests from non-Albanians and other black and grey market activities.

  12. W. R. Knight
    August 23, 2016 at 10:56

    It’s interesting how “interventions on behalf of suffering Muslims” doesn’t apply to Muslims in Palestine.

    • Bob Loblaw
      August 23, 2016 at 11:11

      Extraordinary how an intelligent people have been indoctrinated to believe delicate and detailed lies, of course there’s good Muslims and extremist Muslims. Palestinians unfortunately are the latter in American eyes.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      August 23, 2016 at 13:39

      W. R. Knight,
      Excellent point. Of course this policy was implemented with the AIPAC in mind and sprung from Clinton’s deep commitment to give at least three billion of our taxpayer dollars to Israel every January, whether we can afford it and whether the money would be more useful if spent on creating jobs here at home.

  13. Joe Tedesky
    August 23, 2016 at 10:44

    The Clintons should be headed to jail, instead of their retaking the White House.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      August 23, 2016 at 10:50

      Joe Tedesky,
      Yes indeed, and truth-telling articles like this one provides information we need to get out. Let’s all of us do what we can.

      • Bart Gruzalski
        August 23, 2016 at 13:31

        The Clinton juggernaut runs with W.C. Fields’ recommendation for liars like the Clinton Dynasty
        “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

        Yet bullshit is even worse than lies, of which Hillary is a master. But don’t overlook the bullshit.

        One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us.

        The late Harry Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus, one of the world’s most influential moral philosophers, explains the nature of bullshit and its dangers. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

        Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. Bullshiters quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

        Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. [For example, Hillary Clinton’s account of landing under fire in Bosnia and dashing off the tarmac apparently forgetting that the entire landing and greetings on the tarmac by dignitaries and children who presented her with flowers was filmed by ABC.]

        The book is a gem. If I remember correctly, Frankfurt puts politicians firmly in the class of bullshiters.

        It’s a great book, I’ve given it to friends (who I knew could handle a tongue-in-cheek essay by one of the masters of analytical philosophy).

        [For example, Hillary Clinton’s account of landing under fire in Bosnia and dashing off the tarmac apparently forgetting that the entire landing and greetings on the tarmac by dignitaries and children who presented her with flowers was filmed by ABC.]

        b They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

        • Erik Wessman
          August 24, 2016 at 12:32

          Hold on! Harry Frankfurt is still very much alive at age 87.

    • Bob Loblaw
      August 23, 2016 at 11:07

      Too bad you’d be lumped in with the rest of the GOPers who hate Hillary over Benghazi.

      Americans need to be bludgeoned over their figurative heads with the truth and they still condemn you for loony conspiracy theories.

      • Joe Tedesky
        August 23, 2016 at 11:26

        Bob, you are so right. The only presidential candidate I have heard say, we should close down our worldwide military bases, and respect international law, was Jill Stein.

      • exiled off mainstreet
        August 23, 2016 at 18:45

        Those who don’t hate the harpy over Benghazi are either fools or apologists for war crimes. Benghazi represents the majorwar crime sponsored by Clinton, not merely the ambassador who was working with them to shift Libyan weapons to el qaeda who was murdered as a result of factional blowback there. The Libya thing represents a war crime which even Obama has admitted was his biggest ‘mistake” as president and opposed by the erstwhile hawk and Bush-Obama war minister Robert Gates, whose resignation was probably related to this action. Clinton is also responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the thugs she sponsored, including a mass-murder of ethnic Africans Libya had allowed to be settled in Khaddafi’s home city of Sirte as “mercenaries.” This was reported by the BBC at the time (though presumably it has since gone down the memory hole there) and was recently reported again by blackagendareport’s Danny Haiphong. Hopefully, if Trump decides not to mention it, the Green VP candidate Ajamu Baraka, also associated with that accurate website, will make mention of it again. Clinton should be rattling a cage for her sponsorship of the Libya overthrow. An email from Sidney Blumenthal revealed that she was aware that the likely result of the Libya affair would be destabilization and control by jihadi barbarians of that country.

        • Curious
          August 24, 2016 at 00:38


          I’ve often enjoyed your addition to the discussions on this site and for that I thank you. One small gripe here if you will, The Capitol of Libya is Tripoli and there many articles, even from the Jerusalem Post of all places asking “why was Ambassador Stevens was in Bengazi and not Tripoli?” Please remember, Benghazi was a CIA listening post and a CIA op. If you believe the State Dept has clout over the CIA there is more reading one has to do in your future.

          The terms “fools, or apologists” seems a bit extreme since you have the dynamics wrong to begin with. It won’t take long on the internet to see how many CIA personnel were in the Benghazi airport the next morning. They certainly didn’t step up to anyone’s defense of the 4 Americans, but they lived, and I bet they had no trace of gunpowder on their hands.

          State Dept vs CiA. Think about it before calling everyone fools. And for those idiots who wanted to scramble F-16s, what were they going to do? Their collateral damage could have killed off the 4 Americans just as easily as the ones in the CIA compound but would have eliminated some secret papers no doubt. The ones with the hardware to kill on site were in the compound already. Smart bombs are not that smart. Again, A smart bomb from an F-16 could have done what in this case exactly? And can an F-16 fire a smart bomb without an AWAC? for later discussion.

          There is little doubt Benghazi was a funnel for weapons, but let’s clarify a CIA post vs a Consulate, and then let’s clarify the CIA vs the State Dept. That clarification will be most helpful before the darts are thrown. I am a through and through Clinton disliker, so I raise the other points independent of her lack of character, but the killing was hardly the work of a faulty State Dept and a Clinton phone call to stand down.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 24, 2016 at 01:14

            Curious, I’m not that intelligent, but I’d like to get your opinion to something which has bugged me for a long time. I’ve always wondered to why not more was made of David Petraeus’s role, or no role, when it came to the Benghazi disaster. I mean after all, he was the Director of the CIA at the time, yet never a mention of his name when it comes to the Benghazi attack. Okay, here’s where I may lose you, could Petraeus have dropped a dime on himself, as to his having an extramarital affair? Goofy, I know, but it would be just enough of a whole other narrative to change the subject…maybe, right, wrong? After all we are living in the post Bill Clinton days, and screwing around isn’t what it use to be. I know I am probably way out there with this, but I have never really understood why more hasn’t been made of where Petraeus fits in to this failed mission in Benghazi. Sorry, but since you seem well up on this subject, I thought I’d run this by you. I hope you are a believer in the policy, of there is no such thing as a stupid question.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 24, 2016 at 02:55

            Here’s a question to all, while I agree about the tension between State/CIA, I would add the names starting with Sarkozy, Pentagon, add an Englishman or two, and WA la you have a cluster of two much greed going on. Who knows what upset the terrorist, we have ourselves to blame for not watching to what was going on at the time, long gone are the days of George Marshall. I mean the muti interest level by all these characters and groups is too many more to upset the locals…it’s always the locals. But where was the Army? What about the French and those two English Persons? Hillary was probably home trying to get a hold of Bill at his house, and you know Bill. Obama had duty fund raiser, plus it isn’t his job to watch over places like Benghazi …he just doesnt do stupid stuff. Sarkozy was dining with Erdogan, and Syria has never been the same since. Erdogan had cheaper guns to sell and a limited supply…now that’s going to cost the CIA rat line,,and bingo somebody isn’t getting pepperoni on their slice of the pie…and the CIA didn’t reduce the price of all those old used limited supply of Turkish pieces of crap guns, and well it doesn’t help to bond such a crowd together,,and seriously doesn’t trust each other & then there ya go…There’s dirty rotten scoundrels everywhere, and then there’s the NATO alliance. With it having a lot to do with the locals,,and also with the Pentagon taken out a al Qaeda playing card …and a double cross of some kind of problem over Arms shipments and this was the price of doing business with each other… The DC minions who are left to watch over this rat line, while their bosses are busy go straight to YouTube video… Susan Rice gets excited at first….you know the rest.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 24, 2016 at 03:27

            Update…Putin bombed ISIS Oil Transport inc. out of business and really messed it up badly for Erdogon Jr…. This bombing continued and speeded up after the Russia Jet & rescue chopper crew …lets not forget the rescue chopper crew…. Let’s not forget the Russian passenger liner over the Sinai… Later for retribution on that number … But for the shot down of the Russian military people, Putin didn’t strike back he pulled Erdogan closer and directed the Turkish leader in the right direction to who really is the deceptive one…and Gulen happens to stay put in that same very ally’s back yard… This is as American as Castro or Ho Chi Minh … Erdogan is now addicted to Russian intelligence… China, is coming in to Syria on the Assasd side to get their troops some real life training. Watch Brazil after these Olympics and expect India to side closer to China. The City of London is hedging their holdings by investing in the China AIIB….. With Europe the way it already is with with their domestic problems, and Ukraine… Well all you have left is the Canadians, Australia, and the Samosas, the US will be left all alone. Don’t worry Netanyahu has visited Putin three time do far this year, and Israel is buying and selling just fine. That’s when it’s a good thing that the Americans are dealing with that damn old Lobby. Where’s the paddle?

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 24, 2016 at 03:58

            While Hillary E-Invited ISIS a wedding invitation…ISIS emailed back Madam Secertary a copy of their plan, she thought she was suppose to like it okay, now give a girl a break, watch that glass ceiling on your way out…Colin told her to do it this way, every time…and Hillary thought they were on the CIA payroll, that’s what David said… We are not sure on that one, but I digress… So that was a unknown unknown, not a known unknown or a unknown known…somebody slap please…

            On that YouTube video of Rice’s…Petraeus accidentally hit the sign button to authorize the video story while he was badly kissing, not Paula but himself and that’s when he at that moment contacted the TMZ & the Enquirer, and that’s the truth in a nut shell unless it’s a known unknown and then to be forgotten unknown known, maybe they all got debriefed also, that’s a unknown unknown and then rest goes down to the who gives a flying & Hollywood gets the movie rights, we are all stars…. The system is complex, but the characters are simple, and never forget how they are most highly Exceptional, and good too.

            All this while Obama wasn’t doing stupid stuff!

    • Bart Gruzalski
      August 23, 2016 at 11:28

      Joe Tedesky,

      Of course, though in some countries they’d face a much more severe punishment which I can’t mention for fear of being politically incorrect.

      The bumper sticker has it half right: “Hillary Clinton for jail.” The other half is the other half: “Bill and Hillary Clinton for jail.”

      Thanks for bringing up the truth, Joe.

      • Joe Tedesky
        August 23, 2016 at 13:58

        Bart when the war gets started between Russia and the United States, you and I will be demonized to a level like you can’t imagine. At this moment, our friends giggle how you and I are gullible Putin apologist, but when the real war begins we will probably be strung up by the angry mob of patriots we will encounter. As for now we are just put up with, and considered conspiracy nuts, but after the bombs start bursting we will be deemed traitors. No doubt the real traitors will get bonuses and medals, and you and I will be having our heads shaved in the town square. These creeps who hide behind the flag are never wrong. You and I on the other hand are not only wrong, but expendable to say the least. I wouldn’t think less of you if when that day comes you pin on your Hillary 2016 button, and swear ‘that your with her’. Let’s both hope those liberal judges save our butt, and then let’s help find that 6.5 trillion dollars the Pentagon misplaced.


        • Curious
          August 24, 2016 at 04:02

          Hi Joe, i welcome your input and your questions and whoever built the algorithms on this web site will not let me respond to your previous question to me re: Benghazi. Can we blame Consortium for editing discretion or a bad algorithms? Or just young people on this site saying they’ve had enough (too conspirat-editorial?(my word play) There was another point you made a few months ago where I wanted to respond but CN in their wisdom made no ‘reply’ button possible.

          There are no dumb questions, especially from you.

          So, with apologies to Bart and his thread I will respond to you Joe, working around the CN cutoffs (which are strange since some are only three long) First of all hello, and I enjoy your effort to learn on this site as I have found no equal with information outside of the mainstreamcr_pnetworks and lying papers of note or pretend note. Prison today is for the ones with a broken tail lights, not for the ones passing on State Secrets these days.

          As a quick note, I believe Petraeus had roughly 4 hrs of closed door testimony against the multiple hours of Clinton by an ex prosecutor stating publicly we will get to the bottom of this…. his bias and stripes showed before he even received the chair. That bias and the direct attempt to fry Clinton was stated in an obvious way for the salivating press.

          As a result, there is no real mystery here Joe. Bring in an ex-prosecutor to develop the political talking points and fail points, but as a junior he failed miserably. Do you remember he said it was the worse day of his life? I believe you and I have had worse days than frying someone on false information. A good defense attorney should reexamine all of cases brought to trial by Mr Gowdy before he was in congress. If one only had the time and a budget. He spent 7 mill already.. I would suggest a quiet fund of $500,00 to examine Gowdys’ record before congress since he has already wasted 7 mill of our money and is still going on.

          No, I’m not smart but I have had the luxury of friends around the world and experiences that bring some difference of opinion. This is not about me, but some of what I have learned and have seen for myself.

          Bottom line Joe, Petraeus is one of their own and very well connected. Please reference in your mind how many at the top level have been punished, as they usually rise further up the lying chain of disinformation.

          If Nüremberg presupposed the law and the president of international law which was a hope, the “American values” touted by the lying politicians would be obvious lies and they would be in chains. People swoon over Stanford Professor Rice, but one could make a loop on You tube about “mushroom clouds” that the amnesia folks have completely forgotten about. She is but one of many of course, and many higher up than she. Petraeus is protected. Lower officers have been tossed due to the adultery clause (on occasion) and he gave away State and Military secrets on top of adultery and military secrets.

          Politics. Try to impeach a president for a sexual contact between a man and a consenting adult, intern nevertheless, but let the head of the CIA go in a closed a door meeting with nary a newspaper reporting.

          Joe, politicians fear the CIA, especially after Kennedy. They gave the head of the CIA a pass, that’s all. few people know. I will stay generic, but that is my take. Thanks for the question.

          I just wish the new media would be honest and say we want war everywhere, no matter where because our patrons make a lot of money. They make no money on peace. Wouldn’t that be a good change for the journalists with even the shred of dignity?

        • Bart Gruzalski
          August 24, 2016 at 08:30

          Hi Joe,
          When the war gets going between the US and Russia, I don’t think we need to worry about the demonization of the previously human dead unless the doors of hell open and the pre-human demons come out to watch most of us humans die–maybe pre-human demons enjoy that sort of sadistic delight. But more seriously:

          A Russian warning

          We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China.

          Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak—all based on no evidence.

          But we—knowing both Russian history and the current state of Russian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:
          If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, AND MOST OF US WILL END UP DEAD. [THAT’S D-E-A-D, DEAD. FRIED OR NUKED INTO DRY TOAST, NO LONGER ALIVE, YOU AND ME AND YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, D-E-A-D.]

          Let us take a step back and put what is happening in a historical context. Russia has suffered a great deal at the hands of foreign invaders, losing 22 million people in World War II. Most of the dead were civilians, because the country was invaded, and the Russians have vowed to never let such a disaster happen again. Each time Russia had been invaded, she emerged victorious. In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia; in 1814 Russian cavalry rode into Paris. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed Kiev; On May 8, 1945, Soviet troops rolled into Berlin.

          But times have changed since then. If Hitler were to attack Russia today, he would be dead 20 to 30 minutes later, his bunker reduced to glowing rubble by a strike from a Kalibr supersonic cruise missile launched from a small Russian navy ship somewhere in the Baltic Sea. The operational abilities of the new Russian military have been most persuasively demonstrated during the recent action against ISIS, Al Nusra and other foreign-funded terrorist groups operating in Syria.

          A long time ago Russia had to respond to provocations by fighting land battles on her own territory, then launching a counter-invasion; but this is no longer necessary.

          Russia’s new weapons make retaliation instant, undetectable, unstoppable and perfectly lethal.
          Thus, if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no Internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied.

          At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States.
          The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow. Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, [NATO] has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender.

          The Russian leadership enjoys over 80% of popular support; the remaining 20% seems to feel that it is being too soft in opposing Western encroachment. But Russia will retaliate, and a provocation or a simple mistake could trigger a sequence of events that will end with millions of Americans dead and the US in ruins.
          Unlike many Americans, who see war as an exciting, victorious foreign adventure, the Russians hate and fear war. But they are also ready for it, and they have been preparing for war for several years now. Their preparations have been most effective. Unlike the US, which squanders untold billions on dubious overpriced arms programs such as the F-35 joint task fighter, the Russians are extremely stingy with their defense rubles, getting as much as 10 times the bang for the buck compared to the bloated US defense industry.

          While it is true that the Russian economy has suffered from low energy prices, it is far from being in shambles, and a return to growth is expected as early as next year. Senator John McCain once called Russia “A gas station masquerading as a country.” Well, he lied. Yes, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second-largest oil exporter, but it is also world’s largest exporter of grain and nuclear power technology. It is as advanced and sophisticated a society as the United States. Russia’s armed forces, both conventional and nuclear, are now ready to fight, and they are more than a match for the US and NATO, especially if a war erupts anywhere near the Russian border.

          But such a fight would be suicidal for all sides. We strongly believe that a conventional war in Europe runs a strong chance of turning nuclear very rapidly, and that any US/NATO nuclear strike on Russian forces or territory will automatically trigger a retaliatory Russian nuclear strike on the continental US.

          Contrary to irresponsible statements made by some American propagandists, American antiballistic missile systems are incapable of shielding the American people from a Russian nuclear strike. Russia has the means to strike at targets in the USA with long-range nuclear as well as conventional weapons.

          The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine.

          Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

          First and foremost, we are appealing to the commanders of the US Armed Forces to follow the example of Admiral William Fallon, who, when asked about a war with Iran, reportedly replied “not on my watch.” We know that you are not suicidal, and that you do not wish to die for the sake of out-of-touch imperial hubris. If possible, please tell your staff, colleagues and, especially, your civilian superiors that a war with Russia will not happen on your watch.

          At the very least, take that pledge to yourself, and, should the day ever come when the suicidal order is issued, simply refuse to execute it on the grounds that it is criminal. Remember that according to the Nuremberg Tribunal “To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

          Since Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is no longer a valid defense; please don’t be war criminals.

          We also appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear superpower that is capable of destroying the US in about an hour.

          Speak up, break through the barrier of mass media propaganda, and make your fellow Americans aware of the immense danger of a confrontation between Russia and the US.

          There is no objective reason why US and Russia should consider each other as adversaries. The current confrontation is entirely the result of the extremist views of the neoconservative movement, whose members have infiltrated the US Federal government, and who consider any country that refuses to obey their dictates as an enemy to be crushed.

          Thanks to their tireless efforts, over a million innocent people have already died in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia and in many other countries—all because of their maniacal insistence that the USA must be a world empire, not a just a regular, normal country, and that every national leader must either bow down before it, or be overthrown.

          In Russia, the irresistible force that is the neocon movement has finally encountered the immovable object. They must be forced to back down before they destroy us all.[the USA took the dollar wars to Russia, expecting a similar result as in Iraq with Saddam Hussein and as in Libya with Gaddafi.]
          We are absolutely and categorically certain that Russia will never attack the US, nor any EU member state, that Russia is not at all interested in recreating the USSR, and that there is no “Russian threat” or “Russian aggression.” Much of Russia’s recent economic success has a lot to do with the shedding of former Soviet dependencies, allowing her to pursue a “Russia first” policy.

          But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe.
          Eugenia V Gurevich, PhD
          Dmitri Orlov
          The Saker (A. Raevsky)
          JOE, the danger is not from our head-in-the-sand Ostrich fellow consumers (note I did not use the misnomer for them), but begins with Hillay and our insane so-called neocons (actually Ziocons) who will start WWIII.

          Keep up the fight. We’re about all we have.

          • Curious
            August 24, 2016 at 09:47

            Good points Bart. I wonder if the Generals who were students in war college have to get re-credentialized as doctors do. A bit of this is tongue-n-cheek of course, but I would be interested in a stat regarding the current US Generals and when they either went to war college, or West Point. Not only is the Pentagon a puffed up bureaucracy, but lagging (it seems to me) in current knowledge of strategic weapons and Russias’ capabilities. It’s almost like the IBM company of 20 years ago, which had to break up all it’s archaic departments as they thought they could go on forever with outdated models.

            Also, as a political point, I hope anyone in a group of listeners who would hear again and again about how entitled US persons are (blah blah) I hope someone has the fortitude to ask repeatedly “where is the 6.2 trillion dollars the Pentagon can’t account for, and the 1.5 or so of this year alone?” And yet we hear how the military needs more money and Israel needs to upgrade to 5 to 10 Billion while the average American citizen struggles with basic needs. The money the Pentagon can’t account for would give a nice income to all Americans and health insurance too.

            Maybe a nuclear dust cloud would be just what the US and the Pentagon deserves after it’s plundering of the planet for greed and gain, and not defense. They can’t even define ‘defense’ anymore, as it is a runaway organization. More people should pay attention to the wasted dollars, and Barts’ points here, that the US could be ash in a matter of days, if not hours if we keep playing old ‘war games’

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 24, 2016 at 10:46

            Bart, Curious, here is a link to the Inspector General DOD report talking about the 6.5 ….6.5 trillion… I, I, I Said, trillion dollars that the DOD IG can’t find.


            When it comes to this current Israeli bunch we have to deal with, Why I would worry more about about them (the Israeli’s) pulling off a false flag nuke attack before I would worry about any Russians doing it. Just like the Hillary Democrate’s computer hack, blame it on the Russians. Although as fading empires go…attack Russia, after all it’s in the fading empire book. I picture a bunch of the DC tough guys & gals sitting in a room saying, I’m not afraid of the Russians, are you afraid of the Russians, who’s afraid of the Russians, anybody here afraid of the Russians then please stand up… Standing up would take too much courage, and DC politicos don’t have that much courage enough among any of them to speak of, so life goes on, or until it doesn’t.

    • Stygg
      August 23, 2016 at 18:33

      Jail? They should be swinging by their necks.

  14. Michael Eremia
    August 23, 2016 at 10:29

    Brilliant beyond belief !

  15. Bart Gruzalski
    August 23, 2016 at 09:29

    James W Carden, you’re expose couldn’t come at a better time. Women historically have been opposed to war since what war gives them is grief: grief over dead and wounded husbands, sons, brothers. That Clinton has been able to organize women to support her attempt to break the “glass ceiling” and override their maternal sentiments against war is truly phenomenal. The result? Hillary’s Female Supremacist Factor to elect a pro-war woman which is very strange and supremely ironical.

    It’s a very sad day when Hillary Clinton successfully manipulated American women who should be in favor of peace to be willing to support a warmonger.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      August 23, 2016 at 09:40

      How come, when my comment has been submitted and can be read, does the comment section announce “0 comments for “A Clinton Family Value: ‘Humanitarian’ War””?

      Annie, my favorite commentater, do you have a take on this? Or is this just standard operating procedure?

      Thanks, Bart

      • Annie
        August 23, 2016 at 17:30

        Hi, Bart,

        I’ve been making comments on this site for a short time, and so far I haven’t noticed, but that certainly doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I do want to comment on your response to this article. Killary was my senator when she gave a thumbs up for the Iraq war which I didn’t support and marched against. I was not someone who admired the Clinton presidency, or Hillary, who supported her husband’s many political decisions, and one of the worst were the sanctions imposed on Iraq that killed 500 thousand children, as many children that had died in Hiroshima. As secretary of state she was the force behind the overthrow of Gaddafi. A genocide she and Powers claimed – another lie. Obama claims Libya was one of the worst failures of his presidency, well, he should of listened to his secretary of defense, Gates. Because Hillary is so militaristic, and a female, it truly makes me detest her even more, and I know women who feel the same way. However, I also know women, often ill informed about her record, simply think, WOW, a female president. There are others who know she’s a hawk in her dealings with the world, but perceive that as being a strong woman. I think from the beginning there were women who perceived women’s lib as a movement that would create peace in the world, a world more given to diplomacy then war, while other women greeted the movement as an opportunity that would enable them to become as powerful as men, which means supporting wars, engaging in combat, even starting them, and sometimes even willing to see there loved ones die for love of country. Not me!

        • Bart Gruzalski
          August 24, 2016 at 08:54

          Dear Annie,

          Once again, an exceedingly worthwhile comment. Killary has been almost sadistic in her delight in war (and her very sicko ha-ha delight over the death of Qaddafi–“we came, we saw, he died” crackle crackle crackle).

          I agree with your substantial reflection:

          “I think from the beginning there were women who perceived women’s lib as a movement that would create peace in the world, a world more given to diplomacy then war, while other women greeted the movement as an opportunity that would enable them to become as powerful as men, which means supporting wars, engaging in combat, even starting them, and sometimes even willing to see their loved ones die for love of country. Not me!”

          It is a strange psycho-maniacal suicidal-destruction of compassion and the nurturing aspect of womenhood.

          I know a lot about the psychological aspects of dying and regrets that people experience (I’m the publisher of a great book here, “Grief Alchmey: A Story of Hospice.”).

          Men tend to have more difficulty dying since they are losing everything they spent their energies trying to achieve: fame, money, etc. NONE of that seems very important as life ebbs away (the great classic here is Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Illych”). What does seem important to the dying are the love they’ve shared, the people they’ve nourished, the touches by loved ones or animals one has come to love–all the fame, when for fame’s sake, drops away. Why does Hillary want to be president? For Hillary (fame for fame’s sake). Why does Trump want to be president? Because the country is broken and he wants to fix it, to help people, to stop USA military aggression overseas–Gandhi did not see death as the end of stupid and egotistical pursuits (I’ve got a book out “On Gandhi”).

          But the fame for fame’s sake will leave the ridiculously selfish and egotistical with a dying that none need envy.

      • John
        August 23, 2016 at 22:07

        Bart , If your comment doesn’t fit consortium news narrative it will be delayed or not published….There is nothing new about who signs the checks…..Good luck……

    • doray
      August 23, 2016 at 11:00

      Both women AND men should be in favor of peace, Bart, but I know many women who wave those military flags who are proud to send their sons and daughters to fight for our “freedom” in the lands where them “terrrrrrists” live. I even heard my mom’s late pastor’s wife, (who’s a wonderful woman!), say, “We have to kill them over there so they don’t kill us over here.” Of course, I called her on it with, “How many children would Jesus slaughter?” But it kind of fell on deaf ears. Democrat women support Obushma as if he isn’t personally responsible for the slaughter of innocents that rival that horrible George Bush. They support Killary as if her husband wasn’t responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 children with his sanctions in Iraq alone. It’s absolutely mind boggling how so-called feminists refuse to admit that the Democrats are as war-mongering as the Republicans. There are two kinds of feminists though, ones who want to have what men have and be “equal” to men, (feministas), and those who truly want true feminine ideals to at least be a part of deciding domestic and foreign policy. I’m one of the latter and so are most of my men friends. One true feminist running is Dr. Jill Stein. She’s got my vote, just like she had it in the last election. I refuse to vote for the lessor of TOO evils when I can vote for the greater good.

      • Stephen Sivonda
        August 23, 2016 at 23:47

        Doray… you summed it up completely. I’m with Jill Stein and the green party. I detest HRC…for what she is , a warmonger that lusts for power and the wealth that it ( Unfortunately) brings. Trump scares the shit out of the Neocons…and to me that’s good. But his unpredictability is what troubles me and many others. He really does not like war though. So , Stein it is !

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        August 27, 2016 at 12:19

        I don’t like antifeminists like yourself, scum.

        I am opposed to Hillary, and like Jill Stein.

    • Bob Loblaw
      August 23, 2016 at 11:01

      Nothing is scarier than a true believer.

      Hillary is the best candidate, that’s the response I get after attempting to have liberal friends look at the record. How their great historical candidate is proven to be in favor of illegal wars.

      My fears are “imaginary”, rather than acknowledge my complaint, they tell me I’m irrational, or as Sarah Silverman says, ridiculous. How dare I request them to question their judgment?

      Tin foil hats are then suggested whilst eyeballs roll. How can I be afraid of Hillary when Trump is the alternative? They ask, well, Putin’s boyfriend is looking far less insane so long as they insist on continued ignorance I reply.

      How does the truth penetrate these levels of propaganda and indoctrination?

      • Bart Gruzalski
        August 23, 2016 at 13:57

        Bob Loblaw,
        I am not saying what I’m saying from in a self-serving financial point of view. Before September seventh my book will be out: “America First: from George Washington to 2016.” I’ll make sure the publisher keeps it as inexpensive as possible (no more than 14.95 and hopefully up to $5 less than that). My credentials are perfect for this project: conceptual analysis, public policy, non-violence. I’m a Ph.D. Professor Emeritus; last taught at Northeastern University, Boston; have three books, one on Gandhi; have given over sixty talks across the country, many of them on how non-violence defeats terrorism. And I’m experienced in direct non-violent action as well as being a non-violent martial at rallies and marches.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      August 27, 2016 at 12:40

      “Female Supremacist”? I am opposed to Hillary, but I don’t like your sexist comments, old man.

Comments are closed.