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?
Moments of turmoil and chaos are moments of opportunity. George Bush and his war in Iraq have presented this nation with its most difficult moment in seventy years. The next election may be seen as our chance to climb out of the coffin. Yet with this election we are offered the possibility of maybe an even more abominable abyss. Hillary Clinton presents herself as our savior. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. Continue reading