There are so many reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders. For those of us whose interest is primarily in national security and foreign policy, the two other names that you might not recognize in the title of this piece are the best ones I can think of. Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com said it better than I can in https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/, but the main point, which Parry alludes to, is that Bernie seems to be making nothing of this issue.
Maybe he is completely on top of it, understands the issue, and sees it precisely as Parry and I do. And maybe he knows from his decades in the business that you don’t win elections on foreign policy, though that is a premise that a lot of presidents might well argue with, Kennedy and Cuba, Carter and Iran, Reagan and the Soviet Union. But why not play a pretty good card, pivotal or not?
Hillary Clinton has allied herself with neocons for decades; the idea that her vote on Iraq was some sort of one-off “mistake” is absurd. Her alliance with, and support for, and employment of Nuland and Kagan, the husband/wife neocon intervention operatives, is absolutely everything one needs to know about the direction of Clinton’s foreign policy, assuming she sticks with her history and eschews some sort of redemption scenario which is the fantasy-based rationale for my vote for her in any general election.
Kagan was a co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for a New American Century, made famous in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” for its pre-9/11 reference to the necessity for a New Pearl Harbor in order for the US to be able to project power around the world in the way that its signators wished. Who were members of that gang? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Abrams, Wolfowitz…need one say more?
Hillary Clinton’s self-congratulatory pronouncement at the first Democratic debate that when she represented Wall Street–giving the most benign interpretation to that phrase–she went down there, being aware of the behavior in which they were engaging, and told them to cut it out, provokes a question or two. They are:
What precisely was the behavior that led to her admonition?
Upon what information was she relying to conclude that the admonition was appropriate or necessary?
Where did she say what she said and who was present?
Is there a record of what was said?
What was the reaction to her statement?
Was the conduct of which she was complaining criminal or just risky and stupid?
When she returned to the Senate, what steps did she take to confront the problem which impelled her to go to the headquarters of the mis- or malfeasance and admonish its practitioners?
Did she conduct hearings, make a referral to the Justice Department, or inform her colleagues, or the other citizens that she represented, of the dangers that she foresaw?
- How precisely would she describe those dangers, did she memorialize her fears at the time in any manner whatsoever?
- Maybe most importantly of all, what did she want us voters to think about her? Are we supposed to be impressed that she had the gumption to speak harshly to the financial world, her most powerful backers? Are we supposed to be impressed that she knew bad things were happening? Or are we supposed to be too stupid to realize how useless an act she was committing. Did she know what a useless act it was, if act it was?
Robert Caro is a dinosaur, and we should be thankful. So we have it from no lesser than Charles McGrath on the cover of the New York Times Magazine. Caro’s work is brilliant. So we have it from former President William Jefferson Clinton in the cover article of the New York Times Book Review. In appearances all across America’s media, Robert Caro is praised and saluted for his most recent installment, the fourth, of his proposed five volume work on Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, according to Caro and most of the rest of the world, brought us as a nation so much good, though he may not have been.
At what point should a president realize that it just hasn’t worked out as he had planned; that he is going to be incapable of delivering what he told himself he wanted? Did Barack Obama not understand, before he took the oath that there were powerful forces at play in this land and that their interests are not those of the people, and, giving him every benefit of the doubt, not those of Barack Obama? Where was Barack in 1994 when the insurance lobby spent $300 million dollars, by one account, to defeat Clinton’s mess of a healthcare bill which was in its essence a series of gifts to the very companies that paid that money? What explains the administration’s utter lack of preparedness for the fight that has been going on for the first year of his presidency over healthcare? Continue reading
1. One assumes that you, Senator Mc Cain, would agree that committing American forces in a war is the most serious decision and the most substantial test of judgment faced by any president.
2. The record suggests that even today you concur with the Bush-Cheney decision to go to war in Iraq.
3. One assumes that you agree that the reasons employed by the Administration to create support for the war were largely concocted lies vigorously sold as the truth, or premises founded on willful ignorance, sold equally vigorously. Continue reading
I think that Edward R. Murrow would be applauding loudly, that in the midst of the cowered sheep of American mainstream media, a voice of outrage speaks his mind, looking straight into the eye of power. Keith Olbermann may bring a tablespoon too much sanctimony to the dish for everyone’s taste, but anyone who denies themselves these moments, cheats themselves of an opportunity to be uplifted by a public act of courage. The depth and breadth of the spine that it takes to engage in such talking of truth to power is difficult to gauge, not sitting in the chair in front of the cameras. Quite considerable, I am thinking. Continue reading
Dear Senator Clinton,
It is very easy to be a dispenser of advice. It is very easy to suggest selflessness on someone else’s part. It is extremely easy to advocate a courageous stand when one’s own backside or reputation or historical achievement or marriage does not hang in the balance. In the event there is doubt about any of these claims, keep reading. Continue reading
Hillary is a member of the power elite. Her husband has been a member the Trilateral Commission since at least 1991 and the two have attended the Bilderberg Conference, one hundred and thirty or so inhabitants of the world’s most rarified air. Those groups have been driving the interests of Empire since they were created. They are peopled by the most powerful and fantastically wealthy human beings on the planet. They conduct their business in utter secrecy. As groups they have been worried, almost to the point of saying so, about the problem of democracy since the 1960′s. They are the global status quo, and every one of their members and associates have benefited enormously from the vast and growing inequalities in all of the world’s countries. Maybe Hillary will act against her fellows’ interests. Continue reading
Let us accept that Senator Clinton means it when she says that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It seems fair then to judge her performance since that vote to see what may be learned about her governing philosophy or her political tendencies.
She said that the case for the use of force was credible. This brief will mention, but put to the side a number of factors which should have given her more pause than they did: Continue reading
The ends of years have always been the cause for some backward looking. The past twelve months have provided some insights into the nature of the rock that comprises the sheer cliff that those of us who believe that the government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11 are trying to scale. Very hard to get a handhold. But then Eisenhower had no idea how the guys he put at the bottom of the cliffs of Normandy were going to get to the top. He just knew that if he put brave men there, they would get the job done. One bridles at the comparison, but on the other hand” Continue reading