2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYES, Hillary Clinton IS A Neocon (Consortium News)
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon
April 16, 2016
By Robert Parry
If there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursday’s debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and – if she becomes President – Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons’ signature goal of “regime change” in countries that get in their way.
Beyond sharing this neocon “regime change” obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or “perception management” to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called “gluing white hats” on their side and “gluing black hats” on the other.
So, in defending her role in the Libyan “regime change,” Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “genocidal” though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafi’s efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a “Gaddafi apologist.”
Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a “Saddam apologist.”
Read more:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)is the Democratic party now so full of neocons
that it just doesn't matter
that Hillary is one ?
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)I sure don't want to believe it...
think
(11,641 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And I would have voted against him even if he had a (D) after his name and pretended to be a progressive.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Ponder the implications of that.....
mythology
(9,527 posts)Of your fantasy? We get it. You have an unbalanced opinion of who Clinton is. That's fine, but nobody who doesn't already agree with you is going to confuse Clinton and Cheney.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)This means YOU, Hillary voters!
seafan
(9,387 posts)...neocon advisers.'
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon, April 16, 2016
Though President Obama should know better – and I’m told that he does know better – he has succumbed this time to pressure to go along with what he calls the Washington “playbook” of saber-rattling and militarism. NATO is moving more and more combat troops up to the Russian border while Washington has organized punishing economic sanctions aimed at disrupting the Russian economy.
Hillary Clinton appears fully onboard with the neocon goal of grabbing the Big Enchilada, “regime change” in Moscow. Rather than seeing the world as it is, she continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope in line with all the anti-Russian propaganda and the demonization of Putin, whom Clinton has compared to Hitler.
Supporting NATO’s military buildup on Russia’s border, Clinton said, “With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests [to reduce U.S. support for NATO]. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”
Though Clinton’s anti-Russian delusions are shared by many powerful people in Official Washington, they are no more accurate than the other claims about Iraq’s WMD, Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops, the humanitarian need to invade Syria, the craziness about Iran being the principal source of terrorism (when it is the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks and other Sunni powers that have bred Al Qaeda and the Islamic State), and the notion that the Palestinians are the ones picking on the Israelis, not the other way around.
However, Clinton’s buying into the neocon propaganda about Russia may be the most dangerous – arguably existential – threat that a Clinton presidency would present to the world. Yes, she may launch U.S. military strikes against the Syrian government (which could open the gates of Damascus to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State); yes, she might push Iran into renouncing the nuclear agreement (and putting the Israeli/neocon goal to bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran back on the table); yes, she might make Obama’s progressive critics long for his more temperate presidency.
But Clinton’s potential escalation of the new Cold War with Russia could be both the most costly and conceivably the most suicidal feature of a Clinton-45 presidency. Unlike her times as Secretary of State, when Obama could block her militaristic schemes, there will be no one to stop her if she is elected President, surrounded by likeminded neocon advisers.
Our fate as a nation will be sealed if this catastrophic ideology forces its way into the White House in November, and this time, with nothing to stop the ruinous and inevitable consequences.
There are glaring reasons why so many people distrust Hillary Clinton's judgment.
If the dark, war-loving forces behind her manage to propel her into power, there will be no do-overs.
There will be only enormous regret and despair. And not only by Americans.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Is entertaining.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Nor would Henry Kissinger.
And, these two men have had very close contact with HRC since they have been her chosen advisors.
They KNOW. We should all know too. Unfortunately we don't.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Lots of oil.
"Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves — 43.6 billion barrels — outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects."
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-3-alerts-precis/mailid-74-three-little-words-wikileaks-libya-oil.html
Mohammad Gaddafi shared the oil wealth with the Libyan people, not just the one-percent Wall Street types.
For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.
-- http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-us-nato-sponsored-terrorist-haven/5482974
While little reported in the USA, Libya's former leader also used the wealth to better life throughout the poorest nations of Africa.
In 2010 Gaddafi offered to invest $97 billion in Africa to free it from Western influence, on condition that African states rid themselves of corruption and nepotism. Gaddafi always dreamed of a Developed, United Africa and was about to make that dream come true - and nothing is more terrifying to the West than a Developed, United Africa.
-- http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/7869956-war-on-libya-is-war-on-entire-africa-
Wall Street-on-the-Potomac prefers to do business with those it can relate to: greedy types. As Gaddafi was using its oil wealth for ALL Libyans, he was a problem. Like Pinochet in Chile.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
John Poet
(2,510 posts)
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)This primary has shown that a majority of our fellow dems either don't care or support the military action overseas.
Response to John Poet (Original post)
John Poet This message was self-deleted by its author.
