RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Hillary voted to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. She helped organize the civil war against Muammar Kadhafi in Libya. She played a cameo role in the second Orange Revolution against the Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, and she is again talking up regime change against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. So many mistakes. So little learning."

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)


How Hillary Bangs the Drums of War

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

11 January 16

 

ould I approve waterboarding,” Donald Trump asked his supporters back in November. “You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.”

And, he added, “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.”

Had Dick Cheney returned from the near dead, reborn as a know-nothing carnival barker rattling the bones of American Exceptionalism without the Biblical bullshit? Demagogue for a new day, Trump brings to life our ancestors who stole a continent from Native Americans and then plucked Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from a rotting Spanish Empire. He gives voice to white supremacists, killer cops, and ballot-riggers who do not want the lives of black people to matter and do not want their votes to count. He panders to the growing ranks of nativists, each and every one the seed of earlier immigrants, who now despise the “huddled masses” from other parts of the world. And he speaks to the anxieties of white working-class underdogs whom he would inevitably betray.

Trump’s Republican competitors are no less toxic, and Ted Cruz could be worse with his loose talk about using nuclear weapons against Islamic State (ISIS) to see “if sand can glow in the dark.” But let’s not duck the more telling comparison. The nuanced and diplomatic Hillary Clinton could also be extremely dangerous on foreign policy, and much harder for the anti-war movement to fight against.

“This is a time for American leadership,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in November, just after the bloody massacre in Paris. “No other country can rally the world to defeat ISIS and win the generational struggle against radical jihadism. Only the United States can mobilize common action on a global scale, and that’s exactly what we need. The entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it.”

Hillary gave a brilliant speech that day, a masterful mix of detail and determination to establish herself as the have-gun, will-travel paladin of liberal intervention. She avoided the old-fashioned conservative nationalism of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, for whom might makes right. She sidestepped the neoconservative imperialism of Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, who tie themselves to the needs of the military-industrial complex far more than to the desires of right-wing Israeli governments.

Hillary, ever the idealist, takes up arms for the good of others. It’s an old stance that harks back to FDR’s liberal internationalism and the earliest days of the Cold War, and now finds a modern-day echo in historian Robert Kagan’s 2012 book The World America Made, a favorite at the Obama White House. Co-founder of the two neocon flagships – the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the Foreign Policy Initiative – and husband of Victoria Nuland, a major player in the US-led coup in Ukraine, Kagan now shuns the neocon label and calls himself a liberal interventionist.

With Hillary as with Kagan, it’s staggering how much they fail to learn from mistakes of the past, whether personal or historic. Re-read Hillary’s speech to the CFR. For all her talk of relying on local troops, she believes with Cheney that the American military hammer should remain our prime response to every terrorist nail in the Middle East. She continues to think Washington should step in when local clients like the Iraqis fail to do our bidding. And she still wants the US to promote regime change.

Just remember. Hillary voted to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. She helped organize the civil war against Muammar Kadhafi in Libya. She played a cameo role in the second Orange Revolution against the Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, and she is again talking up regime change against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. So many mistakes. So little learning.

“I worry,” warned Bernie Sanders, “that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be."

How kind Uncle Bernie was being! Among the consequences we know to expect is that a US-led war to drive ISIS out of Syria and Iraq may well succeed in the short-term, but would likely keep us tied down in the region for thirty to fifty years to come. As Mr. Rogers might ask, “Boys and girls, how do you spell neo-colonialism?”

Committed to American Exceptionalism and seeing America as the “indispensable nation,” Hillary’s experience and her ties to the rich and powerful make her deaf, dumb, and blind to the essential truth. American leadership in the Middle East is a big part of the problem, not of the solution.

Worse, she now wants to stir up even more trouble with her “comprehensive plan,” introduced in September, to counter Iranian influence across the region and bolster the confidence of our Arab partners, by which she means Sunni Arabs.

What could be more stupid than getting even more mired down in the middle of a historic sectarian war between Sunni and Shi’a Islam? You might well ask the same question of those who pretend to be part of the anti-war movement but now beat the drums to join with Russian and Iranian imperialism to fight against the Sunnis.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+12 # nice2bgreat 2016-01-11 13:28
.
It is more likely that the "ballot-riggers " are on the side of Hillary and Cruz, not Trump.
.
 
 
+5 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:01
What? trump and Hillary should be married. They compliment each other more than question and both worship Wall Street? Since Wall Street controls Diebold, your assertion is 100% FALLACY.
 
 
-3 # Barbara K 2016-01-11 16:08
You need to pay more attention. They are nothing alike.

..
 
 
+25 # dickbd 2016-01-11 16:19
Well, I prefer Hillary, but there is something to what #fletch1165 says. Hillary is a hawk, and she should know better.

Bernie has so much going against him, including his age and the fact that the media don't give him much coverage. But he's our best hope, in my opinion.
 
 
+17 # dandevries 2016-01-11 17:34
Quoting dickbd:
Bernie has so much going against him, including his age . . .


Bernie is actually only six years older than Hillary (9/8/41 v. 10/26/47).
 
 
+2 # Douglas Jack 2016-01-11 22:05
While Bernie has some good policy, he doesn't understand 'Satyagraha' (Hindi 'truth-search') deliberative diplomacy. Bernie's quick to jump on demonization of Islamic states & the Israeli 'beset-with-ene mies' Oded-Yinon-Plan colonial attitude towards destabilization of the Middle-east. OYP's US daughters are Project-for-a-N ew-American-Cen tury & New-World-Order . Without outreach to find our what our supposed enemies mean, we have no idea of what their issues are. Mohandas Gandhi united India through Satyagraha, bringing together belligerents & those of opposing views & asking them the question, "What are your best intentions & how can we help you fulfill these?" https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/2-satyagraha

Bernie's lack of communication & resulting fear-factor of relying upon the Military-Indust rial-Complex for supposed job creation. The best solution for bringing peace, prosperity to America & getting Bernie elected president is for Bernie to ask Dr. Jill Stein to be his Vice-President as well as to adopt her Green Party pacifist positions on war & economy. Jill will bring Bernie towards peace. Bernie & Jill then will receive the 5% support of Green Party adherents in addition to the majority of Americans who want peace & harmony with nature. Bernie would have to take on Dr. Stein immediately so that Green Party members can vote in the primary. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
 
 
+14 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 19:20
She is more like McCain than anything. And she sat in the Green Zone in a director's lawn chair right next to him smugly approving of bombing and killing everywhere, and fully embracing his notion of Bomb, Bomb Iran. Not one word of discord the entire time. Not one.
 
 
-6 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 11:56
" And she sat in the Green Zone in a director's lawn chair right next to him smugly approving of bombing and killing everywhere, and fully embracing his notion of Bomb, Bomb Iran..."
----------------
And you actually saw this, fletch? Or is this something you've made up and posted to undermine Hillary should she be nominated and runs against one of your neo-con parasites.
 
 
-6 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 11:52
Forget it Barb. Haven't you notice, on this site you aren't allowed to say anything positive about Hillary.
These people are beginning to behave like the wing-nuts on the neo-con sites.
 
 
+4 # Hey There 2016-01-13 23:26
Hillary already is married to a husband who was responsible for cuts to welfare and the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act.
READ ON http://listverse.com/2014/02/05/10-reasons-bill-clinton-was-secretly-a-terrible-president/
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-14 14:47
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-58 # bmiluski 2016-01-11 14:07
Oh boy.....more Hillary bashing on this site. How predictable.
 
 
-51 # Barbara K 2016-01-11 14:34
Isn't that the truth. I got so I don't come here much any more. I find it astonishing that they think Hillary started all those wars and drums of wars all by herself. She may have done some wrong votes, but she wasn't the only one. It was obvious that the Majority voted and she was one of the majority.

..
 
 
+47 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:03
No problem if you think she didn't start them. What did she do to end them then? As a famous Hogan's Heroes prison guard named Schultz once said, " I see nothing." And if that's the case how can she even be branded with the label "progressive?"
 
 
-16 # Barbara K 2016-01-11 16:07
Why do you think it was her job to end them?

..
 
 
+39 # dickbd 2016-01-11 16:22
Well, she was Secretary of State, and she should not have tolerated Victoria Nuland as assistant, just for starters.

She can be quite charming, but she is part of the problem with our government plutocracy and our international bellicosity.
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:42
She not only tolerated her, she appointed her.
 
 
-8 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 12:01
Yeah, she was Secretary of State surrounded by men. If she had tried to stop it by herself YOU and the rest of your Hillery-haters would have condemned her for trying to bully her ideas through.
 
 
+11 # dbrize 2016-01-12 13:46
Quoting bmiluski:
Yeah, she was Secretary of State surrounded by men. If she had tried to stop it by herself YOU and the rest of your Hillery-haters would have condemned her for trying to bully her ideas through.


bmiluski:

Your fallback to the feminist card in this discussion demeans its legitimate usages.

She has a RECORD. To critique her performance in office as "bashing" is sophistry at best and weak argumentation at worst.

Even a casual awareness of Sec Clinton's SOS record would inform you that she prevailed more than once over the "men she was surrounded by".

She prevailed over V-P Biden in supporting more troops to Afghanistan for one example.

She forged an alliance with SecDef Gates that made them powerful allies throughout her term of office.

She prevailed "over the boys" in persuading Obama NOT to release photographs of the Osama Bin laden corpse as well as promoting successfully the attack on him.

All this and more is easily verifiable.

Now, back to your assertion: please be so kind as to provide some factual information as to which wars Hillary "...tried to stop..." but couldn't because she "...was surrounded by men...".
 
 
+25 # Saberoff 2016-01-11 17:03
"...they think Hillary started all those wars and drums of wars all by herself."

What? No one ever said she started all those wars all by herself.

But when she's not part of the solution, she is part of the problem. And now she's rattling away again!
 
 
+17 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 19:21
The Secretary of State is supposed to serve American interest in my opinion. And these wars didn't. So yes clearly she has culpability.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:41
It was her job to represent the interests of the US in these countries and not to instigate for wars in the first place. Gods knows how they can be stopped now, but it is obvious that she doesn't want to stop them and wouldn't if she could.
 
 
-8 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 12:02
And YOU know for sure that she instigated wars because YOU sat in on the meetings where she was surrounded by men beating the drums of war.
 
 
-8 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 12:11
Oh of course Barb. After all, she was all powerful and everyone just bowed down to her wishes. After all, you know how much men respect women, especially if they have any sort of ideas of being equal to them.
 
 
+43 # Farafalla 2016-01-11 15:19
Add to her list of regime changes, the overthrow of democratically elected Mel Zelaya in Honduras. She plunged the poorest country (on the mainland continents of the Americas) into a bloodbath that is ongoing. She supported the "constitutional " coup in Paraguay.

You Hillary supporters aren't Democrats. You support a 1968 Republican. Bernie is the only real progressive in the race. You have no idea what Hillary would do as president since she changes stripes daily.
 
 
-21 # Barbara K 2016-01-11 16:07
Where is your proof that she did the Regime changes?

..
 
 
+24 # sucost 2016-01-11 18:58
She bragged in her book about her role in the coup against Zelaya in Honduras. The coup has been a disaster for poor Honduras.
 
 
+11 # nice2bgreat 2016-01-11 21:59
.
Try looking at, instead of away.

Oh that's right.

When she was Obama's lackey, Hillary held no responsibility for her actions -- just vollowing orderz; right?


In case you are genuinely interested, ...

Hillary's involvement with interfering with the 2010 Haitian elections, during her time as US Secretary of State, has come to light as one of many instances of official State-Departmen t business carried out on Hillary's private email server.

Part 1:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14968

Part 2:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=14972
.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:45
I hadn't heard about Haiti. Just another reason to oppose her, but I really don't think the Hillarites are interested in facts.
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:39
She didn't fire the first shot. She put people in place in these countries that agitated and fed the flames of unrest. Victoria Nuland was her appointee. Hillary knew exactly what she was and what she would do when she appointed her.
 
 
+8 # Ralph 2016-01-12 06:15
Don't let the door hit ya. Lemme think about this. SOS during illegal overthrows of Honduras, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine to name a few. Had her hand in the Syrian disruption. Oversaw the rise of ISIS from a US foreign policy point of view. The buck always stop somewhere else.
 
 
+11 # RMDC 2016-01-12 06:51
BK -- it was Hillary's role in the destruction of Libya that ends it for me. She played the really vicious destroyer. Just as soon as she was told that Qaddafi had been captured, she broke off her schedule and flew straight to Tripoli. As she exited the airplane, she paused to say "We Saw, We Came, and He Died." Well Qaddafi was not dead yet. He was being tortured to death. Hillary was in Libya and was the highest US government official in Libya at the time. She was therefore in charge of the special forces who were torturing Qaddafi to death. It is not likely she was present, but she may have stopped to see Qaddafi in his last moments.

this is why I'm against Hillary. She's as bloodthirsty as any neocon.

Qaddafi was one of the great statesmen of the last half of the 20th century. He was a student of Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana (overthrown by the CIA) and was one of the great leaders of the African unity movement. He was much like Castro -- smart and deeply concerned about his fellow post-colonials. The US hated him and finally got its vengeance. Hillary is one of the haters. I stand with Qaddafi and not with the murderous bitch Hillary.
 
 
-6 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 12:08
I know what you mean, BARB. And God forbid you post anything that's anti-Bernie such as his support of the NRA, Israeli's military position, the increase funding of our military complex, etc.
It seems that there's not much difference between these people and the repugs on the neo-con sites. They're just as rabid about their point of view, and just as demeaning should you disagree with them.
 
 
+3 # tm7devils39 2016-01-14 14:54
You and bmiluski need to read "Queen of Chaos", by Diana Johnstone...it' ll be the last time you try to kiss Hillary's ass.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:36
Once again, you refuse to address the substance of peoples complaints against her. The article summarized it fairly well, but left out her endorsement of the coup in Hondouras that has come back to bite us recently. Why can't you deal in facts instead of flippant dismissal?
 
 
-7 # bmiluski 2016-01-12 11:59
Thanks for proving my point you Bernites.
 
 
+2 # wrknight 2016-01-15 09:23
Quoting bmiluski:
Oh boy.....more Hillary bashing on this site. How predictable.

You know, there is nothing more that I would like to see than a woman president, but I'm sad to say that Hillary is not the one. Liz Warren would have my vote in a heart beat.

You have to look at Hillary's policies, both past and those which she presently espouses; and the simple fact is that I opposed war in Iraq, I oppose our involvement in Afghanistan, I oppose our involvement in Syria and I especially oppose our involvement in Ukraine, all of which Hillary supports. On top of that, I opposed the neutering of Glass-Steagall, I opposed deregulation of critical industries and I oppose liberalization of the financial industry and I oppose TPP, all of which Hillary supports. (In fact, the only policy Hillary ever had that I truly supported was her position on health care when Bill was first running for president. And that suffered an early death.)

War is bleeding this nation dry and what's left is being outsourced. Both are policies supported by Clinton. The only beneficiaries of Hillary's policies are those members of the military-indust rial-political complex and, of course, the bankers and wall street.

You can call this Hillary bashing, but I challenge you to name a Clinton policy that I can support.
 
 
+42 # RMDC 2016-01-11 14:13
Well Hillary and Trump are perfect examples of the difference between democratic imperialism and republican imperialism. The democrats use the alibi of the "right to protect" or "humanitarian" war. The republicans are more macho and just want to kick some ass.

In the end, both approaches lead to the same place -- a destroyed nation, piles of dark skinned people dead, wounded, devastated, and a world in shambles. Neither one is worse than the other. They are both horrific and cowardly. For the richest and most powerful nation on earth to attack, bomb, and destroy poor people is simply a crime. It is the equivalent of child abuse, the kind of abuse in which a child is raped and beaten to death by an angry and violent adult. That's what Hillary and Trump illustrate. I hope both go down in flames and live in infamy.
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-01-11 19:21
Hear, hear!
 
 
+38 # jimmyjames 2016-01-11 14:35
Will this woman please go away before she gets us all killed?
 
 
+8 # RMDC 2016-01-11 20:39
jimmyjames -- yes, and she can take Cruz with her. Together they can carpet bomb Hell.
 
 
+15 # Woratnac 2016-01-11 14:43
Everything this article says about Hillary Clinton's hawkishness is true. Those who decry "Hillary-bashin g" at this site should take a look, just for curiosity's sake, at QUEEN OF CHAOS by Diana Johnstone, available at Counterpunch. Johnstone, based in Paris, was called "the greatest American European correspondent" by none other than the late, great Alexander Cockburn (The Village Voice, The Nation) in the 1980s. She's still terrific. Anyway, look at the book. At the same time, while I am voting for Bernie in the primary I'm in the same bind as others who are willing to vote for him in the primary but not in the actual election for fear of getting Trump instead. Thoughts, anyone?
 
 
+23 # Anne Frank 2016-01-11 14:56
So you are saying you will vote for one Nazi scumbag in order to avoid electing another Nazi scumbag? Eugene Debs said, "I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." How is racist genocide by Hillary Clinton preferable to racist genocide by Donald Trump? Just curious.
 
 
0 # wrknight 2016-01-15 09:33
Quoting Anne Frank:
So you are saying you will vote for one Nazi scumbag in order to avoid electing another Nazi scumbag? Eugene Debs said, "I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." How is racist genocide by Hillary Clinton preferable to racist genocide by Donald Trump? Just curious.

That's a tough call. When you are starving and you really want a good steak and you are offered a choice between gruel and stale bread, do you hold out for the steak?
 
 
+21 # REDPILLED 2016-01-11 15:02
Bernie has said he will not run as an independent if he is not the Dems' nominee, so what is the problem?

Regardless of who the figurehead is, the Deep State corporate oligarchy will still be in control, and their imperialist policy of Full Spectrum Dominance will still be the U.S. approach to the rest of the world, while neoliberal economic policies at home will still keep tens of millions underpaid and more millions unemployed, while the .01% amass even more wealth and hide it offshore.
 
 
+15 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:10
Only 8% support Trump. He will not be the nominee. Hillary and Trump work for the exact same people behind closed doors. Its just wall paper ands self-appeasemen t to think either will serve the people at all. They will never take the guns or do what Australia did with buy backs etc and everyone knows it. Not so long as they are the number one gun exporters and arms dealers with Israel number 2. Even Chinese small arms dealers were left in the dust, the former kingpins of sales. And birth control and abortion? Give me a break. No modern society takes those away. Its all appeasement to nut cakes and will never happen. When has Hillary stood openly for immigration reform as well? Under Obama most immigration lawyers retired from the business since its now impossible to get a visa unless you are a wealthy elite. And in that case you don't need a lawyer. You just pay off the State department directly. Not sure what reality you are living in. But this is the one I think is the true one.
 
 
+5 # MidwestTom 2016-01-11 15:34
A poll this weekend said that if the race is Hillary versus Trump 14% of republicans would vote for Hillary, and 20% of Democrats would vote for Trump. If it ends up H vs. T, this will be the nastiest race of our lifetime.

I am not sure what they can throw at Trump, other than his own weird statements and views, but there is plenty that he can throw at her.
 
 
+22 # Charles3000 2016-01-11 15:58
I will vote for Bernie all the way, as a write in if I must.
 
 
+16 # tedrey 2016-01-11 17:12
My thoughts, Jimmy James. Go 100 % for Bernie until the primaries, and then see what the options have become. Work hard to avoid having to choose between two evils. We're working to keep a "very good" as an option. Help us win for Bernie.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-01-12 00:58
Well, if it is Hillary against a Rupublican I will vote for her only because of the supreme court. But if Trump loses the nomination and decides to run as an independent, I would urge Bernie to do the same. A four way race would be interesting. I think Bernie would have a good chance.

But you imply that Bernie cannot win the nomination outright. I do no agree.
 
 
+7 # NAVYVET 2016-01-12 10:05
What makes you think she would support anyone but a Scalia think-alike for the Supreme Court? She seems to enjoy that wannabe theocracy "prayer group" of big shots that she belongs to, just as Scalia and Thomas thrive on Opus Dei. She would be disastrous. I'll write in Bernie if I must, and form a "prayer group" that prays for Bernie to win.
 
 
0 # wrknight 2016-01-15 09:59
I don't think it would be interesting at all. You fail to take into account the actual process for selecting a president according to the Constitution. In a four way race, it is unlikely that the electoral college would have a clear majority in which the choice of president goes to the House of Representatives . ("...and if no person have a Majority (50+% of the total), then from the five highest on the List, the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote." - Article 2, U.S. Constitution) You know what that means. (In 2012, the vote would be 33 Republican to 14 Democrat with 3 tied. I'm sure the numbers haven't improved.)

Remember, we don't vote for president, we vote for electors who will then vote for president. If there is a tie or no clear majority among the electors, there is no run-off election - it goes straight to the House of Representatives to chose the president. The Republicans would love that scenario.
 
 
+17 # Anne Frank 2016-01-11 14:53
Hillary's support for genocide and endless wars has not been "mistakes," inasmuch as each crime she advocates in fact advances her sole agenda: to prove loyalty to Israel and not the U.S., so the bankster mafia will buy her the election.
 
 
+30 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:11
She is inherently beholding and bought and paid for by multinational corporate elites.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-11 16:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-01-11 16:49
Do you deny that there is a 0.01% ruling elite that determine most policy in the US and most of the world?

Perhaps you missed the University study that showed that US citizens have a statistical ZERO impact on US policy, and that this is an oligarchy?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

Do you not realize that members of this elite have competed with one another throughout history?

Are you not aware of "stagecraft" as a controlling mechanism?
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-11 18:19
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-01-11 18:43
"Oops, you gave me a thumbs down"

No, I didn't. You're just as accurate an internet psychic as every other one I've ever seen.

"So let me ask again - who's really in control?"

Again, you miss the point. There are clearly individuals and groups struggling between themselves for power and wealth. But yes, supra-national financial interests are often on all sides, and profit handsomely regardless of what faction wins. Similarly, certain corporate interests have risen from the ashes of every conflict, and their Board of Directors are often sitting on many different boards, or have significant investments in "competing" corporations.

BTW: I'm not one who has completely given up hope on our duopolistic political system, but again, as the study showed, our votes have ZERO statistical influence.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-11 19:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-01-11 23:15
"There is no study that says the collective votes of all Americans have no impact on elections."

I provided the link above. Since you're obviously just a troll, I'm done.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 11:29
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # Douglas Jack 2016-01-11 23:49
John D, RE: ". . . because we vote for their politicians . . . " What you're missing is that; our real vote is with every dollar & moment which we 'spend'. Congress representatives are beholding to corporate moneyed interests. Voting Xs on paper means very little when money makes decisions. Representatives can't successfully vote against centralized corporate economic interests. These are referred to as the Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-L egislative-Comp lex held by very few oligarchs. Radscal identifies, ownership of corporations held by centralized networks. These are in the hands of Windsor, Vatican & Rothschild 'trillionaires' (# seconds in 32,000 years), each with their 1000 or so 'billionaire' (# sec 32 years) sub-lieutenants , each with their 1000 or so 'multi-milliona ire' underlings.

The origins of oligarch control starts with colonization, whereby aristocrat oligarchs from Rome & Greece colonized Europe sent ships for military reconnaissance to Africa, Middle-east, the Americas etc for plunder & conquest. The murder of many 100s of millions was planned with gold & other riches of the Americas stolen by these concentrated hands.

'Indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') response is mutual-aid collected in multihome dwelling complexes where 70% of us already live with average 32 unit apartment, townhouse & village clustered housing. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/extending-our-welcome-participatory-multi-home-cohousing
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 11:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Ralph 2016-01-12 06:24
Still immersed the corporate fascist Kabuki theater that is USan politics I see. Corporate fascist candidate A (conservative brand) versus corporate fascist candidate B (progressive brand). Got the political runs? Your solutions is to take Ex-Lax progressive brand instead of the Dolcolax conservative brand. Works every time.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 14:48
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 19:25
The Power Elite. C Wright Mills. 1956. Start your education there.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-11 19:59
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Ralph 2016-01-12 06:09
You're like a blind man feeling up an elephant. You have a hold of its trunk and you're wholly convinced you are battling a snake. Unbeknownst to you, a large global capitalist/corp orate fascist foot is about to smash you into a cartoon pancake.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 14:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # geohorse 2016-01-12 07:51
It's Ike's military-indust rial-congressio nal complex. No mystery here---- it's where the money is.
 
 
+6 # smilodon1 2016-01-11 14:56
It's sad Hillary's the only viable alternative to Bernie. None of the republiclowns comes close to either of them so they're not worthy of consideration. I'll gladly vote for Bernie. Should Hillary get the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote against her opposition. In chat case it's back to the same old thing: voting for the lesser of the evils.
 
 
+13 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:13
Its proof the paid for Democrats won't mind much if they lose. Business as usual is what they want. Only Bernie stands out for actual reform. Elizabeth Warren will hopefully be the running mate.
 
 
-7 # skylinefirepest 2016-01-11 15:36
Since when would billary be the worse of two evils? She's a liar and a criminal, hates our military, has no respect for our country, and on and on. Whoever the Republicans run may or may not be an unknown entity but we all damn well know what billary is!!
 
 
+2 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-11 20:37
and appropriate moniker --- pest
 
 
0 # Anarchist 23 2016-01-14 12:46
I've done with voting for the 'Lesser of Two Evils'...I've had to do it all my life and things just get worse...if it's Hillary vs Trump, I think I'll write in Cthulhu...Vote the Greater Evil! C:E
 
 
+10 # harleysch 2016-01-11 14:58
Weissman's predictable throw-away attack at the end of his piece on "Russian and Iranian imperialism" betrays a sad bias of the author. His anti-Putin attitude also coheres with what Hillary and the neo-con/liberal imperialists have been shoving down our throats, thus undermining some of the useful things he wrote in this article.

He obviously does not get the motivation of the neo-con/liberal imperialist types,
which is to use terrorism to destroy Russia and China, to eliminate them as a threat to their global empire.
 
 
+7 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 15:15
last I checked Russians were bombing Hillary's precious ISIS that wants ASSAD deposed. ISIS Turkomen minority amongst the bombees, who steal oil from Syria.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-01-11 16:58
Even earlier, Weissman reveals his bias by stating that Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol put US/MIC interests above Israel.
 
 
+9 # cmp 2016-01-11 17:01
.. Thank you!

And:
Is GATT/WTO working for the people? Or, is it tilting all downhill into the (Banker & his asset Corporations) pockets?

When an Institution like the World Bank has Paul Wolfowitz assigned as its boss, is anyone in the World even remotely confused, at which direction that wind blows?

Can the International integrity get any lower than the IMF making illegal loans to a Country that is at War?

How has the UN functioned for Syria? There is 260,000 (men, women and children) dead in 5 years. That's 1 person every 10 minutes - for 5 years straight.. .. And, how many refugees have to be exiled around the planet? …. Who is actually doing anything real for these hundreds of the thousands that are suffering – right now? When do we reverse this trend??

The International Community and its 20th century Institutions of Enlightenment have all been high jacked by high paying thugs who have no prejudice or discrimination. These monsters only see green.. (.. and they are same thugs who also hijack governments)

... A lot of Lives are depending on Bernie.. .. In the meantime, I could care less if it’s Genghis Khan himself that is on the quad runner and coming to the rescue, because these modern day barbarians of the Empire are killing a whole lot more, than just time.
 
 
+13 # tswhiskers 2016-01-11 15:01
I suspect that the party et al support Hillary primarily because she is part and parcel of the Dem. Party, i.e., a politician. Politicians and the media know too well how to deal with politicians and so they understand Hillary far better than they do Bernie or, on the GOP side, Trump. As for Woranac's fear that a vote for Bernie may mean a vote for Trump too, keep in mind that (forgive the obvious here) a vote for Hillary is not a vote for Bernie. If there are many Dems who like Trump I haven't heard it in the media. I HAVE heard that some Reps. may like Bernie, tho. I think that all of us on this site agree that Bernie is far preferable to Hillary as a candidate. So please, people, let's all vote for Bernie, even if it risks losing the primaries to Hillary. Every vote gives Bernie a better chance of winning. What matters is, as always, turnout, lots of Dems. deciding to vote in the primaries as well as the election.
 
 
+2 # joan 2016-01-11 15:15
I don't usually comment on RSN articles--it seems to be a boys game--but I'm moved to comment on these comments, in order to womansplain something to a bunch of awfully irritable guys. What we mean by 'Hillary-bashin g' isn't disagreement (how I long for a little back and forth between disagreeing parties with arguments that address each other!). 'Hillary-bashin g' refers to the excruciatingly contemptuous tone and language used here, as if former Secretary of State and Senator Clinton were just too "stupid" and "mistaken" and childishly naive (Mr. Weissman even ventriloquizes Mr. Rogers!) to understand global politics. Given her experience, study and travel to the places we're discussing, and her long-term access to classified information, it would be more accurate, and respectful, to say that Secretary of Clinton and Mr. Weissman disagree than to assume that one of them is an idiot. Senator Sanders shows more respect because as a Senator he knows a bit more about what and how much Secretary Clinton knows. I am a staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders because I agree with most of his positions (though he disappoints on Palestine) and have been observing him in action, as a New Englander, for decades. But I share his civilized respect for Hillary Clinton, despite our divergent opinions, and I must say that the bashings are making me wonder whether it it's time for a woman president after all--even one who disagrees with Mr. Weissman and me in all our impressive expertise!
 
 
-7 # skylinefirepest 2016-01-11 15:40
Joan, if billary had any experience she would not have left secret files in her emails unprotected for the world to see. She would not hate the military that protects us from the evils of the world. She would not have claimed she was "ducking and running from snipers"....etc . ad nauseum. She is trailer trash and an enabler to her womanizer husband. I find it an embarrassment that anyone in this country would vote for her.
 
 
-5 # Caliban 2016-01-12 13:58
"Hates the military"? "Trailer trash"? "Enabler"? More than a little bigoted non-thinking here and not a remotely fair assessment of Secretary Clinton's long career in public service.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-01-11 17:06
Of course, anyone who really holds progressive/lib eral values is offended by the sexist attacks against Ms. Clinton.

Which is why she and her team LOVES them.

People who rightly abhor Clinton for her militaristic/Wa ll St/Israel fealty find ourselves either defending her against these sort of attacks, or being attacked ourselves as "misogynists."

Separately, it's been a common error in US politics for as long as I can remember to equate disagreement with stupidity. Many of our opponents are truly evil psychopaths, but are brilliant at what they do. That's why they're so dangerous.
 
 
+5 # fletch1165 2016-01-11 19:37
She's not stupid one iota.She knows exactly what she is doing. And if you think there is secret knowledge she knows and is not letting on to us, you believe in two things: fairy tales and that your leaders are automatically working for your interest. Both are clear fallacies and very naïve positions. I am all for the correct women being elected of which there are many. Elizabeth Warren is a good example IMO. There are plenty of others. Hillary is not a feminist at all, or even progressive. We know this much based on all the dead women and children overseas she continues to target just like any rotten man elected or appointed. Was there ever an apology? No. Its because clearly her intention is more of the same.
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-01-11 20:28
Well a a little "womensplain" deserves a bit of "mansplain".

Note the feminist card is always a handy card to hold but should be played carefully.

For instance, you are not incorrect that Hillary Clinton has been "bashed" fairly regularly on these august pages. However, the same can be said of politicians named Obama, Bill Clinton, Bush (take your pick), Cheney, Trump and a host of others. A casual perusal of these pages will attest that "contemptuous tone and language" is in no way limited to Hillary Clinton.

There certainly exist a plethora of "irritable guys" on RSN, but rest assured their irritability is spread around on a gender neutral basis.
 
 
-6 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-11 20:43
overly loquacious and self- satisfied and self-righteous guys too... dear! Joan is right in that it always seems to be a 'boys' game' which makes it rather tedious as well.
 
 
+17 # walt 2016-01-11 15:43
Hillary, along with her ardent supporter Wasserman-Schul tz, needs to be seen as one loyal to Bibi Netanyahu. On numerous occasions she has sworn to take the country AGAIN into a war if Israel is in any way "threatened."

Therein lies our real problem- the Israel lobby that drove us to invade Iraq and that showed its ugliness when it was revealed that one of their generously funded recipients, Sen. Tom Cotton, drafted a letter to Iran directly undermining our president's efforts to negotiate a peace deal there.

Hillary is definitely a neocon war hawk and needs to be seen as such. Americans neither want nor need any more war. It's time for a leader who would use reason and diplomacy worldwide while tending the real problems at home. Bernie Sanders is the right one for that.
 
 
0 # Shades of gray matter 2016-01-11 17:17
Was this essay written some time ago, misplaced, dug out & published? Even Hillary has rotated some in the last couple of months, no? The situation in Damascus is evolving significantly as we speak. Russians are teaching everyone but McCain that air power has its limitations. Saudis have drifted away from U.S. A LOT occurs behind the scenes. More than occurs in public, often times. The public stuff is often misdirection. So be cautious.
 
 
+2 # jazzman633 2016-01-11 17:27
This --

if [waterboarding] doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.”

-- is my #1 favorite Trumpism so far. But there's still a lot of time. Still, for direct verbal expression of the id/limbic brain, he is a master, and I look forward to many more Things Nobody But Trump Says.
 
 
+5 # Shorey13 2016-01-11 20:09
My brother reminded me yesterday that Margaret Thatcher started a war against Argentina in the Farallon Islands to prove that she had "cojones." We can expect no less from Hillary, who is certainly a Neocon.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-11 23:16
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-01-12 10:28
Decent enough satire; for improved reception, suggest The Onion.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-12 14:06
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-01-12 14:23
Can only go by my opinion which is that sarcasm is often unrecognized on RSN unless provided where expectd (by Borowitz for example) and satire is a flat tire from the get go.

Ah, well, my late grandfather oft would tell me me "son, when you lose your ability to laugh, all that's left are hard times".
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-16 22:27
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-12 15:00
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-12 16:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 16:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-14 10:23
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-8 # VMWH 2016-01-11 20:59
And Bernie Sanders voted every time it came up against the Bradey Bill on gun control. I will vote for Clinton in the primary and for the democrat in the general election.
 
 
+10 # diamondmarge7 2016-01-11 21:57
Hillary vs. Trump sounds like a perfect Hobson's Choice. What a thought! BERNIE is the true Progressive, the true Roosevelt-FDR, that is-Democrat. FEEL THE BERN. And work like hell itself to knock on doors, phone bank, talk to everybody, donate, do whatever you can and more-to get the nomination. The election is assured once we get past the corrupt DW Schultz w/her thumb on the scales. Hillary? Like hell. BERNIE or GREEN. And go to www.citizensagainstplutocracy.org and take the pledge. For Godsake, for mysake, for the sake of our democracy, work for BERNIE.
 
 
+3 # Salburger 2016-01-12 04:33
And Wilson invaded Mexico saying "we must teach them to elect good men"
 
 
-5 # geohorse 2016-01-12 07:53
YOu worry about Hillary but if the GOP were running the show we'd have big numbers of boots on the ground in major shooting wars daily. It's bad enough now but really, it can get exponentially worse.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-01-12 12:44
Some of us do not judge the morality of US "regime change" operations based on how many USians are sent to kill and die. It is the killing and dying for profits and Realpolitik agendas we reject.

Regardless, it was Ms. Clinton who lobbied Obama to "surge" the number of US troops in Afghanistan, called for more US troops in Iraq and wants US troops to impose a "no fly zone" against Russia in Syria.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-13 16:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # old codger 2016-01-14 07:04
Hillary would be the American Margaret Thatcher...aggr essive, cruel, merciless !
But apart from nice uncle Bernie , who else is there ? Only a gang of idiots and a maniac !
The electoral machine will put Hillary in the White House and the same old disasters will unfold !
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN