RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "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."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton. (photo: AP)


Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

17 April 16

 

The argument over whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon may have been settled by her hawkish debate performance on Thursday, which followed her Israel-pandering speech before AIPAC, reports Robert Parry.

f 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.”

Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.

She talks about the need for “safe zones” or “no-fly zones” for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe,” Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israel’s “mowing the grass” operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.

In Clinton’s (and the neocons’) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: “I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. …

“So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.”

Ignoring History

Clinton ignored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the 1940s when Israeli terrorist organizations engaged in massacres to drive Palestinians from their ancestral lands and murdered British officials who were responsible for governing the territory. Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands has continued to the present day.

But Clinton framed the conflict entirely along the propaganda lines of the Israeli government: “Remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.”

So, Clinton made clear – both at the debate and in her recent AIPAC speech – that she is fully in line with the neocon reverence for Israel and eager to take out any government or group that Israel puts on its enemies list. While waxing rhapsodic about the U.S.-Israeli relationship – promising to take it “to the next level” – Clinton vows to challenge Syria, Iran, Russia and other countries that have resisted or obstructed the neocon/Israeli “wish list” for “regime change.”

In response to Clinton’s Israel-pandering, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who once worked on an Israeli kibbutz as a young man, did the unthinkable in American politics. He called out Clinton for her double standards on Israel-Palestine and suggested that Netanyahu may not be the greatest man on earth.

“You gave a major speech to AIPAC,” Sanders said, “and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. … All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue. … There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

But in Hillary Clinton’s mind, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is essentially one-sided. During her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month, she depicted Israel as entirely an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts.

“As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever,” she declared.

“The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values. … This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. Families live in fear.”

Yet, Clinton made no reference to Palestinian parents who worry about their children walking down the street or playing on a beach and facing the possibility of sudden death from an Israeli drone or warplane. Instead, she scolded Palestinian adults. “Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families,” she said.

Then, Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the Israeli government. Clinton said, “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security.”

Pleasing Phrases

In selling her neocon policies to the American public, Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push “regime change,” following much the same course that she used to persuade a reluctant President Obama to invade Libya in 2011.

The Libyan operation was sold as a “humanitarian” mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi.

As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies.

In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc.

Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.

But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children.

With Americans fed a steady diet of such crude propaganda, there was little serious debate about the wisdom of Clinton’s Libyan “regime change.” Meanwhile, other emails show that Clinton’s advisers were contemplating how to exploit Gaddafi’s overthrow as the dramatic moment to declare a “Clinton Doctrine” built on using “smart power.”

On Oct. 20, 2011, when U.S.-backed rebels captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him, Secretary of State Clinton couldn’t contain her glee. Paraphrasing a famous Julius Caesar quote, she declared about Gaddafi, “we came, we saw, he died.”

But this U.S.-organized “regime change” quickly turned sour as old tribal rivalries, which Gaddafi had contained, were unleashed. Plus, it turned out that Gaddafi’s warnings that many of the rebels were Islamic militants turned out to be true. On Sept. 11, 2012, one extremist militia overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Soon, Libya slid into anarchy and Western nations abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. President Obama now terms the Libyan fiasco the biggest mistake of his presidency. But Clinton refuses to be chastened by the debacle, much as she appeared to learn nothing from her support for the Iraq invasion in 2003.

The Libyan Mirage

During Thursday’s debate – instead of joining Obama in recognition of the Libyan failure – Clinton acted as if she had overseen some glowing success:Well, let me say I think we did a great deal to help the Libyan people after Gaddafi’s demise. … We helped them hold two successful elections, something that is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent-up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship. I was very proud of that. …

“We also worked to help them set up their government. We sent a lot of American experts there. We offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military. They, at the end, when it came to security issues, … did not want troops from any other country, not just us, European or other countries, in Libya.

“And so we were caught in a very difficult position. They could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn’t want to have others helping to provide that security. And the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country.”

But that is exactly the point. Like the earlier neocon-driven “regime change” in Iraq, the “regime change” obsession blinds the neocons from recognizing that not only are these operations violations of basic international law regarding sovereignty of other nations but the invasions unleash powerful internal rivalries that neocons, who know little about the inner workings of these countries, soon find they can’t control.

Yet, America’s neocons are so arrogant and so influential that they simply move from one catastrophe to the next like a swarm of locust spreading chaos and death around the globe. They also adapt readily to changes in the political climate.

That’s why some savvy neocons, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, have endorsed Clinton, who The New York Times reported has become “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

Kagan told the Times, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Now with Clinton’s election seemingly within reach, the neocons are even more excited about how they can get back to work achieving Syrian “regime change,” overturning Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and – what is becoming their ultimate goal – destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and seeking “regime change” in Moscow.

After all, by helping Assad bring some stability to Syria and assisting Obama in securing the Iranian nuclear deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has become what the neocons view as the linchpin of resistance to their “regime change” goals. Pull Putin down, the thinking goes, and the neocons can resume checking off their to-do list of Israel’s adversaries: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

And what could possibly go wrong by destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and forcing some disruptive “regime change”?

By making Russia’s economy scream and instigating a Maidan-style revolt in Moscow’s Red Square, the neocons see their geopolitical path being cleared, but what they don’t take into account is that the likely successor to Putin would not be some malleable drunk like the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin but, far more likely, a hardline nationalist who might be a lot more careless with the nuclear codes than Putin.

But, hey, when has a neocon “regime change” scheme veered off into a dangerous and unanticipated direction?

A Neocon True-Believer

In Thursday’s debate, Hillary Clinton showed how much she has become a neocon true-believer. Despite the catastrophic “regime changes” in Iraq and Libya, she vowed to invade Syria, although she dresses up that reality in pretty phrases like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” She also revived the idea of increasing the flow of weapons to “moderate” rebels although they, in reality, mostly fight under the command umbrella of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Clinton also suggested that the Syria mess can be blamed on President Obama’s rejection of her recommendations in 2011 to authorize a more direct U.S. military intervention.Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him,” Clinton said, “and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya.”

In other words, Clinton still harbors the “regime change” goal in Syria. But the problem always was that the anti-Assad forces were penetrated by Al Qaeda and what is now called the Islamic State. The more likely result from Clinton’s goal of removing Assad would be the collapse of the Syrian security forces and a victory for Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and/or the Islamic State.

If that were to happen, the horrific situation in Syria would become cataclysmic. Millions of Syrians – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, secularists and other “infidels” – would have to flee the beheading swords of these terror groups. That might well force a full-scale U.S. and European invasion of Syria with the bloody outcome probably similar to the disastrous Iraq War.

The only reasonable hope for Syria is for the Assad regime and the less radical Sunni oppositionists to work out some power-sharing agreement, stabilize most of the country, neutralize to some degree the jihadists, and then hold elections, letting the Syrian people decide whether “Assad must go!” – not the U.S. government. But that’s not what Clinton wants.

Perhaps even more dangerous, Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric suggests that she would eagerly move into a dangerous Cold War confrontation with Russia under the upside-down propaganda theme blaming tensions in Eastern Europe on “Russian aggression,” not NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 which ousted an elected president and touched off a civil war.

That coup, which followed neocon fury at Putin for his helping Obama avert U.S. bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran, was largely orchestrated by neocons associated with the U.S. government, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife), Sen. John McCain and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman.

After the violent coup, when the people of Crimea voted by 96 percent to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the U.S. government and Western media deemed that a “Russian invasion” and when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine rose up in resistance to the new authorities in Kiev that became “Russian aggression.”

NATO on the Move

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.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?’]



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+93 # grandlakeguy 2016-04-17 11:38
Thank you Robert Parry for telling it like it is!

Your extensive fact filled article should be required reading for every voter.

The media has whitewashed Clinton's bloody record as SOS and her unforgivable actions as a US Senator in support of the Bush/Cheney genocide in Iraq as well as her
disgraceful opposition to a ban of the use of cluster bombs.
We will always face the prospect of terrorism as long as our nation pursues the course of regime change and oppression of foreign nations.
Hillary Clinton is clearly a right wing hawkish Republican pretending to be a progressive Democrat. She is a clear and present danger to the entire planet.
We have the rare opportunity at this moment in history to change the path of American policy away from aggression and instead choose peace.
A Bernie Sanders Presidency is what is needed.
Bernie, please fight this horrible, lying, power hungry neocon all the way to the convention.
 
 
-32 # Barbara K 2016-04-17 13:06
There are videos of Hillary's speeches. See this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/17/1516205/-A-Hillary-Clinton-Goldman-Sachs-Wall-Street-speech-has-been-released

Not much like what Bernie said.

..
 
 
+45 # djnova50 2016-04-17 14:44
Barbara K,

Nobody, not even Bernie Sanders has disputed that Hillary Clinton is strong on women's issues. The video that is posted on the Daily Kos article of April 17, 2016, was first posted to YouTube on October 22, 2014.

In his comments regarding Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the most recent closed door speeches. So far, Hillary, nor her campaign, has released the transcripts.
 
 
-66 # rocback 2016-04-17 14:55
Hillary and Bernie voted the same 93% of the time they were in the Senate. She will be the nominee probably in about 3 weeks.

Your constant Hillary bashing is only helping Trump and Cruz.
 
 
+15 # dipierro4 2016-04-17 15:38
I'll grant you, Cruz scares the daylights out of me. Trump, I am not so sure.

Of the 3 people most likely to be elected -- Cruz, Hillary, and Trump -- only one doesn't follow the Neocon line and talks of working cooperatively with Russia in the Middle East: The same one who advocates single payer national healthcare. And would he really, really deport all the undocumented aliens -- resent in up to 10% of all American households? I have my doubts.

But I agree as to Cruz.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:02
Trump is now being called the "low-informatio n" candidate.
 
 
+6 # Bruce Gruber 2016-04-17 19:20
Not my choice, but as a "Repub" Independent, his pandering to the tribes of 'aginers' coalesced by Atwater and Rove (bibles, guns, abortion, gays, and gummint, he's a wonder to behold. They love him for his anti-establishm ent role, reducing their invective to a thin scream of angst - as it should be.
 
 
+2 # RMDC 2016-04-18 19:52
Yes, this is true. But it is also true for Cruz and Hillary. These candidates appeal to true belivers who don't really care much about facts. They have their candidate. All they want is the coronation.
 
 
+57 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 16:55
That they voted the same on 93% is irrelevant because that 7% can make a big difference when you look at the particulars for the differences. Humans and chimpanzees share more than 98% of their DNA, but it is difficult to argue that humans and chimps are the same. That 2% makes a world of difference, and the 7% difference, which includes going to war on trumped up lies that cost the US over $3 trillion and got tens of thousands permanently wounded physically and hundreds of thousands more permanently damaged psychologically , is a big difference.

And pointing out the truth about Hillary is NOT Hillary bashing. Hillary bashing is criticizing her for something she is not responsible for. One hopes that if her faults are brought to daylight, she will learn from her errors and change. So far that seems to be a vain hope.
 
 
+24 # Dred Pierce 2016-04-17 19:16
At least Trump is only a potential murderer. Clinton lives in a blood stained bribery scandal that makes Vlad the Impaler look like. This woman will bring down nuclear destruction on the US that will make Al Qaeda and ISIS avoid us because of the Radiation. If this killer hurts the Russians, the Russians will hurt us back. They could start by blowing up NATO. Wow, where would we be then? Remember the neocon certainty that Iraq would be over in weeks? These closeted blood suckers should all be prosecuted for inciting war crimes. In America, the prisons are stuffed with the wrong people.
 
 
+19 # jimallyn 2016-04-17 23:23
Quoting rocback:
Hillary and Bernie voted the same 93% of the time they were in the Senate. She will be the nominee probably in about 3 weeks.

Your constant Hillary bashing is only helping Trump and Cruz.

So what? She voted for the war against Iraq, she voted for the so-called "Patriot" Act. She supported fracking and she pushed GMOs on foreign nations. She pushed for war on Libya, which has only created a haven for ISIS and other militant groups. On the things that really mattered, she didn't vote with Bernie, and she didn't vote for the interests of the American people. She has repeatedly show very poor judgement. If you think that anybody here is "bashing" Hillary, why don't you disprove some of the "bashing"? You can't, because it's all true.
 
 
-50 # rocback 2016-04-17 15:14
Perry has no crystal ball to know whether we wouldn't be better off if we had taken a more direct approach against Assad.
 
 
+36 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 16:47
But we do have past experience to tell us what happens when we do things like that. The past experience is Libya and Iraq, both now quagmires with the jihadists ascendant whereas before they were just unhappy places where "bad guys" ruled. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that Syria wouldn't be the same, especially because the same groups were present as have taken Libya and Iraq apart.

Doing the same thing time after time and expecting different results is really stupid.
 
 
+6 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-17 23:58
Bad affix was helping to fight terror. Now his whole country is taken over by terrorists. Not the kind of change I am looking for.
 
 
+19 # Nominae 2016-04-17 22:59
Quoting crocback:
Perry has no crystal ball to know whether we wouldn't be better off if we had taken a more direct approach against Assad.


Well, let me see now.

Robert Perry is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been blowing lids off of governmental war criminal activity clear back to the Iran Contra affair.

crocback is an uninformed and often fact free troll shilling FOR a governmental war criminal.

Who to believe .... who to believe ....
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 12:35
Of course, it makes no difference to the believers in the "indispensable nation" and the "exceptional" "world leader, but "direct action" -- which al-Nusrah was hoping to arrange through their false flag sarin attack on their own supporters -- would have been yet another illegal action by the number one Rogue Nation of our time.

And expecting Russia, Syria's longtime ally and supporter, to sit back while we invade the place is so stupidly delusional that it beggars description.

As is the proposal for a "no-fly zone" -- an even worse offense against international law respecting the sovereignty of all nations, not just that of the U.S. and Israel, than we are now, at the behest of this gang of criminal vipers, engaged in -- which, since neither al-Nusrah, the local branch of al-Qà'idah, nor ISIL has an air force, would be primarily aimed at shooting down Russian planes, and hoping that Putin continues to act the cautious statesman rather than retaliating, which will give those same Nazis-in-all-bu t-name an excuse for launching a global thermonuclear war.

Despite your ignorance, had Obama followed the advice of the neo-cons, including Hillary, that war would in all likelihood have already taken place, and global warming would have been supplanted by a radioactive nuclear winter.
 
 
+42 # Wally Jasper 2016-04-17 15:18
I got all excited to see a video release; "wow, was there a whistleblower there filming?" And then I actually went to the link you posted. This isn't one of Hillary's paid Goldman Sachs speeches. This was an unpaid speech for a Clinton Foundation funded 10,000 Women event. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to present this unpaid speech for a Clinton Foundation event as being one of the paid Goldman Sachs speeches for Goldman Sachs executives that she is refusing to release. Come on, do you think we're all nitwits?
 
 
-58 # rocback 2016-04-17 15:26
Apparently Bernieites feel the need to lie when the facts don't support their own twisted version.
 
 
+39 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 16:49
Misrepresenting one of Hillary's speech as being to Goldman Sachs when it actually is nothing of the kind is a lie. Calling you on it is not.
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-04-17 23:17
Quoting crocback:
Apparently Bernieites feel the need to lie when the facts don't support their own twisted version.


Ain't it just revolting ? If I were you, I would stomp right out of here in high dudgeon in protest of your abysmal treatment on this site.

Really .... don't let the door hit ya ...
 
 
+38 # Vermont Grandma 2016-04-17 15:54
Check again. This link is NOT to one of the secret Goldman Sach's speeches HRC got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for, but rather was a a separate event for which Goldman Sachs was a sponsor.

This was a speech HRC gave at the annual dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014. One expects that HRC was NOT paid for her address at the Clinton Global Initiative annual dinner.

At $225,000 each, HRC made paid speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2013, on June 4, 2013 and on October 24 and 29, 2013. PS On June 6, 2013, Bill Clinton made a paid speech to Goldman Sachs two day's after HRC's first speech - for $200,000.

Thus, Goldman Sachs paid HRC and Bill $950,000 in 2013 alone.
 
 
-25 # rocback 2016-04-17 17:20
Great speech. And the author of the piece said it so well:

"All bank people are not crooks, all doctors are not frauds, all Republicans are not evil — and all Democrats/Progr essives/Liberal s are not perfect.

The truth about the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders can, and are being twisted, stretched, and omitted in effort to make each look better or worse. Many titles I see these days about our Democratic candidates are sensationalized , mean-spirited, exaggerated and/or blatantly false. The thing is, our liberal sites and social media networks reach millions. We can disgrace ourselves to the country and resort to Tea Party/FOX tactics — or we can do this thing right. I’m not talking about political correctness. I’m searching for responsibly to the truth. Somewhere in my life, someone told me, “When you hear something negative about someone, consider the source.” As Liberals, Progressives and Democrats most of us know, way down deep, we know — #WeAreBetterTha nThis "
 
 
-25 # rocback 2016-04-17 17:24
I for one am also guilty because when I see the lies about Hillary, it infuriates me and makes me want to give tit for tat. But I will try to refrain from attacking Bernie.

This may last until the next lies I see posted about her but at least I am agreeing to try.
 
 
+17 # Merlin 2016-04-17 19:27
rocback 2016-04-17 17:24
rocback 2016-04-17 17:20
rocback 2016-04-17 15:26
rocback 2016-04-17 15:14
rocback 2016-04-17 14:55

Hahahahahahaha

Please don't leave us! You are the funniest hillarybot to post here, like forever.

Especially this gem:

"As Liberals, Progressives and Democrats most of us know, way down deep, we know…"

You? a Progressive?

Hahahahaha
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-18 09:06
Notice the time of my post and than the time of the posts you cite. They are all BEFORE.
 
 
+11 # Nominae 2016-04-17 23:13
Quoting crocback:
I for one am also guilty because when I see the lies about Hillary, it infuriates me and makes me want to give tit for tat.....


Yes, well, perhaps you can protect your delicate sensibilities by allowing your feet to do the walking. If you are convinced that Hillary is "Da Man", then go vote for Hillary seven months from now, and just put a freakin'sock in it during the interim.

Nobody [with the likely exception of the Clintonista camp themselves] appointed you as Hillary's babysitter, or Knight in Trolling Armour.

You are a one comment contributor. We get it - you are in the tank for Hillary. That is your inalienable right. You clearly have nothing else to add. So no one benefits from seven more months of hearing you crow about who you INTEND to vote for.

I sincerely hate to be the one to break it to you, but nobody else CARES ! Don't just talk about voting - DO IT ! You know, in November - like everyone else.
 
 
-1 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-18 00:02
The awesome thing is with the Internet and a little time you can find the source. Don't believe the media telling you Trump is a racist. Go watch the video. The video about Mexicans did not say they are all rapists. So what else are they lying about him.
 
 
+9 # EternalTruth 2016-04-18 06:13
Rocback, instead of merely stating repeatedly that we're twisting and lying about Clinton, why not actually point out examples of those lies? Please inform us how Robert Parry is lying to us. Otherwise, you might as well change your name to trollback because your baseless accusations add nothing to the conversation.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-04-18 09:05
If you read below I cite several examples of how Parry claims she says one thing but his interpretation, because of his preconceived bias, claims he can read her mind and she really means another.
 
 
+4 # EternalTruth 2016-04-18 11:43
He interprets her words based on her record/history. You call it "twisting", most people call it "analysis" and "learning from history".
 
 
+1 # RMDC 2016-04-18 19:50
This is not the speech, but any speech to her dear friends at GS is an indictment of her.
 
 
+1 # crispy 2016-04-19 02:19
So... this speech was not pro-bank it was pro women and it seems Hilary is not all that bad but read Parry's article and tell me what you like about her positions and actions!
 
 
+23 # dadhantat 2016-04-17 13:58
For the subtitle 'Pleasing Phrases' I might use 'Parsing to Please'.
I agree with grandlakguy without equivocation. There will be more of the same o, same o: with growth of the Military Industrial Complex.

I am probably wrong for making a generalized comment, but after reading retired colonel Andrew Bacevich's new book AMERICA'S WAR: For The Greater Middle East, I can not help but think HRC talks like a neocon because a very large number of people in the US think like she does.

This thinking results from the logic Bacevich (in my mind) lays out for the public's current thinking about our role in the Middle East and elesewhere like Honduras. There is still a strong sense of and pevasive thinking concerning the exceptionalism of the US and our entitlement to a mythological life style that we deserve a HAVE IT ALL existence because we are some how better.
 
 
-42 # rocback 2016-04-17 15:09
Perry is an isolationist and Berine supporters remind me of someone who finds out they have cancer and just hide their hands in their eyes hoping it will go away.

We certainly don't want to be policeman of the world but we also need balance in our foreign policy and shouldn't ignore threats.

Sometimes you need the chemotherepy which temporarily causes distress but in the long run, is good for you.

On her Iraq vote which seems to be the club her opponents beat her up with constantly, she says it was a mistake.

But people forget that when Bush asked for Congress to vote on it, he portrayed a vote allowing him to go, would only be used as a last resort and would show a unified front to Saddam in hopes he would allow inspections.

It worked and he did allow inspections but Bush invaded anyway before the UN inspections could be complete. He lied. For that she said she made a mistake.
 
 
+24 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 16:59
But did she learn from her mistake. There is no reason to believe it, especially since she did the very same thing in Libya with much the same results.

She is a poster child for repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results.
 
 
-28 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:09
Libia is nothing like Iraq. We INVADED Iraq.
 
 
+18 # dbrize 2016-04-17 19:09
What the hell do you mean "nothing like Iraq". We (the public) had less input (none) than we did Iraq. At least those of us who could dig a little knew they were lying us into Iraq and had a chance to state the case.

This was cooked up in a secret plan, using proxies controlled (we thought) by us,(right) and we were fed another batch of propaganda. All designed by SOS Clinton. With another round of blowback that killed Americans.

No wonder you want to run from it.

It has furthered the instability in the region and extended it deeper into North Africa (where our latest and ongoing CIA/MIC operators are busy at work. All with the knowledge and support of Clinton. This is the kind of shit Ollie North used to pull under Reagan and we know what Dem's thought about that don't we?

As for Parry being an "isolationist", there is no such thing as an "isolationist". It's a weasel term used to circumvent honest discussion of foreign policy.

You claim we "shouldn't police the world". Most agree. We presently have ongoing special operations in over 130 countries globally. Sounds pretty much like "policing the world" doesn't it.

And here you are, supporting one of the proponents. Has she told us this is a mistake?
 
 
-24 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:19
We did not invade Libya. We invaded Iraq. Big difference. Teh jury is still out whether we qare better off or not with Gadaffi gone. Remember Lockerbie.
 
 
+16 # dbrize 2016-04-17 19:35
Quoting rocback:
We did not invade Libya. We invaded Iraq. Big difference. Teh jury is still out whether we qare better off or not with Gadaffi gone. Remember Lockerbie.


Who said we invaded Libya? File your non sequiturs somewhere else.

There is no "jury". There is either more or less world stability after an action. You are just spinning.

Just like spinning "isolationist" out for try.

You have ignored the ongoing operations/glob al policing question. You say you oppose it. Does your candidate?
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-04-17 23:36
Quoting dbrize:
There is no "jury". There is either more or less world stability after an action. You are just spinning.

Just like spinning "isolationist" out for try.

You have ignored the ongoing operations/global policing question. You say you oppose it. Does your candidate?


This rocback Troll is just throwing corn pone at the wall to see what sticks.

Calling Perry an Isolationist is simply an obvious demonstration of the ignorance of the name-caller, as if any more evidence were needed, and it says much more about rocback than about Perry.
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-04-19 02:34
Quoting rocback:
We did not invade Libya. We invaded Iraq. Big difference. Teh jury is still out whether we qare better off or not with Gadaffi gone. Remember Lockerbie.


gadaffi always denied being involved in Lockerbie...
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-04-19 14:53
I guess he paid the families all that money because of charity.

I guess he just wanted Megrahi released back to Libya for humanitarian reasons.

You people crack me up.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2016-04-19 15:32
Why don't you just skip all the bullshit and respond to the accusations leveled in the article?

What do you feel about Clinton being a Neo-Con? Are you ok with that? Do you think the article has a secret unpatriotic agenda to tell the truth, in spite of Hitlery being the "chosen one"?

Stop the bullshit distractions and respond to the article.
 
 
+6 # EternalTruth 2016-04-18 06:25
"It worked and he did allow inspections but Bush invaded anyway before the UN inspections could be complete. He lied. For that she said she made a mistake."

MILLIONS of us marching in the streets knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was lying. But apparently she couldn't be bothered to do some fact-checking on such a serious issue? What? She made a mistake? Oh shit, well it's ok then, let's put her in charge of the largest most obscene military force ever imagined. I'm sure she won't make any more "mistakes."
 
 
+3 # Jim Rocket 2016-04-18 07:59
Anybody who had a clue knew the chances that Bush was lying were great. Hillary voted yes because she's a war hawk. And she will continue the Imperial war hawk policies that are making us all less safe.
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-04-19 02:36
She had access to senate intelligence info so she knew Bush was lying
 
 
+56 # jimmyjames 2016-04-17 13:27
I so tally agree with Robert Parry . As granlakeguy says, "Your extensive fact filled article should be required reading for every voter." Especially Hillary Clinton supporters. That group is so hell bent on electing a woman that they have stuck their heads in the sand and will not see her for what she is. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. If the voters want more Bush/Obama policies of foreign intervention, by all means, cast your vote for HRC. If you are tired of endless wars in the Middle East and forced regime changes in South and Latin America, vote for Bernie Sanders. FEEL THE BERN - VOTE GOR BERNIE!!
 
 
+22 # Polisage 2016-04-17 14:16
[Hillary Clinton appears fully onboard with the neocon goal of grabbing the Big Enchilada, “regime change” in Moscow.]

We had regime change in Moscow but not in the way we expected.

The EU population is three times that of Russia and two of their member states are nuclear armed. Europe is prosperous.

So why are we still in NATO 25 years after the end of the Cold War??
 
 
-34 # rocback 2016-04-17 15:18
"Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push “regime change,”"

BS. Talk about putting words in her mouth. Now Perry is a mind reader. What Hillary meant is exactly what she said not some fantasy in Perrys mind that he twists because of his won preconceived bias.
 
 
+20 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 17:04
It is patently obvious that when she used those phrases before in other contexts, they meant exactly what Mr. Parry said they do. Why should you believe that this time is different other than to alleviated cognitive dissonance.
 
 
-24 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:10
you just made that up. Show me specifically where she used those phrases before and meant something else.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-04-17 23:40
Quoting rocback:
"Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push “regime change,”"

BS. Talk about putting words in her mouth. Now Perry is a mind reader. What Hillary meant is exactly what she said not some fantasy in Perrys mind that he twists because of his won preconceived bias.


Exactly how do YOU propose to know what is in Hillary's mind ? Perry is a qualified professional.

You are a Troll...... See the difference ?
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 13:05
See my comment above about "no-fly zones" -- to which I may add that the phrase itself is something that belongs in a kindergarten.

Hillary never met a war she didn't support, and has always pushed the military option above all. The most obvious of these is her calling Putin equivalent to Hitler for defending the victims of what Stratfor, a conservative and military-connec ted analysis firm, called "the most obvious coup in history" -- a coup that the intercepted calls of Nuland and company and the bragging about U.S. support establish beyond serious argument or doubt that it was planned and put into action by U.S. neo-cons who had worked for Hillary when she was SOS.
 
 
+28 # diamondmarge7 2016-04-17 14:19
Please also read "Queen of Cnaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton" by much-lauded & experienced journalist Diana Johnstone.
As SOS, everywhere she touched with her bloody claws, Hillary left death&destructi on: Haiti, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine & more. She is a Republican neocon who never met a weapons system nor a war she couldn't drool for. She is a menace to the entire planet, A lfelong FDR Democrat, I will nevar vote for her. Instead i prefer a man who sees negotiations & peace, not chaos & war, as the goals to strive for.
Please go to www.citizensagainstplutocracy.org & take the pledge to either write in BERNIE or vote for Dr. Jill Stein. NEVAH CLINTON: corrupt, power-mad-maybe either a sociopath or worse.
 
 
+16 # indian weaver 2016-04-17 16:51
Hillary and Obama are perfect examples of how cowards behave, and how horrible they are, when in positions of great power. They are very dangerous to us all, worldwide. A courageous honest person is what we all want but, almost never exist in a politician, except a few like Bernie.
 
 
-22 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:16
"bloody claws" " left death and destruction in Haiti". Wow!

The Clintons raised millions for the Haitian people... $54.4 million from more than 2,000,000 individuals, businesses, and organizations. It dispersed funds to more than 50 organizations through grants, loans, and equity investments. As of December 2012, the Fund estimated that its programs sustained or created 7,350 jobs, trained 20,050 individuals, and had an additional positive impact on the conditions of more than 311,000 Haitians.
Key focus areas for funding included providing small and growing businesses with access to financing, business services, and entrepreneurshi p training (36%); facilitating job training and workforce development (31%); responding to critical, unmet needs (23%); and supporting the recovery and expansion of microfinance institutions, many of whose beneficiaries are women (10%

Bill and Hillary did more for Haiti than any other American in history.

What exactly did Bernie do for the Haitian people?

You must be living on another planet.
 
 
+12 # Farafalla 2016-04-17 21:02
Tuesday January 13, 2016 marked six years since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people. Tens of thousands of Haitians are still living in tents. Here in New York City, a group of Haitians gathered in front of the Clinton Foundation to protest former President Bill Clinton’s role as head of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. Activist Dahoud Andre was among them.

Dahoud Andre: "Today is the 12th of January 2016, six years after the earthquake. And for us, it was important to be in front of the Clinton Foundation, because Bill Clinton, as head of the IHRC, Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, was responsible for the $6 billion that came into his hands. He had unlimited control of this money. Six years after the earthquake, not much has changed, and as a matter of fact, Haiti is in worse condition than it was in 2010. Only Bill Clinton can tell the world what happened with this money."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/13/headlines/nyc_protesters_target_bill_clinton_over_conditions_in_haiti_6_years_after_earthquake
 
 
+4 # EternalTruth 2016-04-18 06:47
"Bill and Hillary did more for Haiti than any other American in history. "

Finally, we agree on something. You're talking about how Bill, as POTUS, impoverished the Haiti through imposing "free-market" policies on the country beneficial to US corporate interests?
 
 
-6 # Barbara K 2016-04-18 12:39
Bernie has been in Congress for 40 years. I do not know of anything that he did for US. He talks about what is wrong with the country, but he had the position to do something to fix all those things, but did not. What reason do we have to think that after 40 years he might finally fix something he sees to be a problem?

..
 
 
+3 # crispy 2016-04-19 02:45
Quoting Barbara K:
Bernie has been in Congress for 40 years. I do not know of anything that he did for US. He talks about what is wrong with the country, but he had the position to do something to fix all those things, but did not. What reason do we have to think that after 40 years he might finally fix something he sees to be a problem?

..


Bernie has introduced many many amendments and denounced many neocon plans to destroy the country. In the minority of minorities he could not do more Barbara. some of his amendments were instrumental in lowering the impact of some policies on the poor.
He worked really hard UNLIKE Hilary
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 13:15
And Hillary? She authored three bills in her eight years in Congress, none of which was in the least substantive.

For her do-nothing, passive support of the neo-cons while in Congress, as well as her actions as SOS, she has been praised by Robert Kagan, who could give Richard Perle a run for the title of "Prince of Darkness"; Henry "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibilit y of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." Kissinger; and Laura Bush
 
 
+1 # crispy 2016-04-19 02:40
Thanks diamondmarge7
 
 
+33 # djnova50 2016-04-17 14:47
As I have written before, if Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, we will end up with a Republican as our President. Even if she calls herself a Democrat, Hillary comes across very much like a Republican.
 
 
-13 # Cassandra2012 2016-04-17 16:24
So you'd prefer a delusional neo-fascist misogynist bully with narcissistic personalty disorder? ... .
 
 
+7 # indian weaver 2016-04-17 16:53
Yes, Trump is actually preferred to Hillary, in my case, who has voted Democratic his entire life (now 67), until this coming election if Hillary is the nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, not sure what I'll do just yet, except the default option of writing in my own name for president!
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-04-17 19:56
It's just as easy to write in "Bernie Sanders". If you write in your own name, no one will know but you. If Sanders is eliminated by the MSM and Citizens United, but STILL gets 5% of the vote, THAT would send a message.
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-04-19 14:58
That post proves what I have been saying all along. There are a lot of Trump trojan horses in this group.
 
 
0 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-09 09:14
there are better options, indian weaver. I plan to vote for Jill Stein, Green Party. No. 1, I want to send a clear message to the corrupt DNC that I will not be manipulated by them and do not give them the power to decide for me. No. 2, if enough Bernie supporters vote for Stein, (and 30 to 40% of them will), it will make the Green Party a viable and recognized third party, which will give us a real choice 4 years from now, a choice we don't have right now. Right now our choice is between reocon war party R or neocon war party D, which is no choice at all.
 
 
+18 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 17:14
Actually, in this case, yes. The carnival barker you are referring to is MUCH less likely to get us into the types of misery that HRC is almost assuredly going to get us into. Between HRC and Cruz there isn't a whole lot of difference, more a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference. (HRC is part of the C St. Family, remember.)

Drumpf, on the other hand, is pure bombast. He is unable to actually DO what he says in all his bombastic glory. Hillary, on the other hand, has shown that she is able, ready and willing to get us embroiled in wars where we have no business sticking our noses with disastrous results for the poor slobs who actually have to carry out her plans. Don't forget that her good friend and role model, Henry Kissinger, operated on the premise that

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger

HRC has never shown that she disagrees with that sentiment.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:20
I hope you liked the 5-4 decision in Citizens United then because the potential 3 or 4 justices Trump or Cruz will appoint will poison the Sup Ct for decades to come.
 
 
+8 # dquandle 2016-04-17 18:46
Hillary's neocon/neolibs are now fully in support of Citizens United, since it enables her to raise staggering amounts secret corporate cash, because she can't get actual humans to support her vicious,sadisti c, and corporately criminal policies.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:23
She supports a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. She said the overturning the 5-4 decision of Citizens United would be a litmus test of her nominee.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:23
But she is not going to unilaterally disarm. I don't think you would want a president THAT dumb.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-04-17 19:57
She's a huge beneficiary of Citizens United. She likes things just the way they are. That's what has gotten her this far.
 
 
+7 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-18 00:10
Yes and after she is out of office she intends on continuing to wield power however she can. She will do this by controlling the party and the money that funds it.
 
 
+18 # Anonymot 2016-04-17 14:48
You lay the case out very well, as usual. I think that Trump, Cruz, and Hillary Clinton Trumplite have gone beyond the neocon term into neofascism.

There is a strong, old, dictionary defined term that the world public already knows. Oxford U.S. refers to it as: “Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.”

Oxford defines neo-fascist as: "A member of an organization similar to the Italian Fascist movement of the early 20th century." That seems to be where we are.

Since these three stooges function slightly differently than the dictators of the Thirties I add the neo (for New) and it seems to fit. We've not had anyone comparable in the heights of American politics since Joe McCarthy or Hillary's mentor, Barry Goldwater.
 
 
-31 # rocback 2016-04-17 15:23
Try as he may to put words in Hillarys mouth, misinterpret her statements and ignoring her own words that contradict Perrys thesis, he just makes things up to suit his preconceived notion of what he "thinks" she means.

And of course these isolationists on this thread who are so blinded with their Bernieblinders on, they swallow this up hook, line and sinker.
 
 
+1 # RMDC 2016-04-18 08:47
Here's hillary's own words -- "“Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians "

Only she does not say that a "no fly zone" is all out war of aggression against a nation that has never done anything bad to the US. A "no fly zone" will kill more Syrians than the current Obama terrorist proxy war has. It will finish the destruction of the entire civilian infrastructure of Syria.

I'd be for a "no fly zone" over Washington and New York. This is the real axis of evil. Keep the mother fuckers pinned to the ground.
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-04-17 15:20
calling GOP troll alert! on - # diamondmarge7 2016-03-01 00:13 "... I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein ... pledge (to write in) BERNIE or (vote) Green ... give him leverage"

marge, note that your pledge amounts to GOP catfishing for undemocratic progressives! - "leverage" bernie NEVER ASKED FOR AND DOESN'T WANT! DO THIS ONLY IF YOU INSIST ON RUNNING AND LOSING BERNIE'S CAMPAIGN FOR HIM!

outing false-flag ops! - our local hill-haters have been self-identifyin g here as GOP trolls for months and months! - # Inspired Citizen 2016-02-01 05:42 "Bernie needs leverage and Convention insurance (HE DETESTS; SO WE'LL DO IT FOR BERNIE, AGAINST HIS EXPRESS WISHES!) Have YOU taken the Bernie or bust pledge?"

- citizen, at long last! thanks! outs RAP! - Republicans Against Progress - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- and says - # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton ... It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution!"

- humbug! as says # Scott Galindez 2015-10-20 10:28 “Its not leverage; threats backfire, especially empty ones. Bernie will not run as an independent. Bernie needs enough delegates at that convention to win, not signers on a petition making an undemocratic threat.”

marge's is false-flag attack on hill! and false-flag support for bernie! - listen to bernie! - down with RAP! - down with GOP! - go bernie!
 
 
-18 # Robbee 2016-04-17 15:32
hit pieces like this are designed to inflame our holier-than-tho u, hill-hater purists - like - Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon, By Robert Parry, Consortium News, 17 April 16

- you won't see mindless dribble like this on topics hi-lighting womens' rights, black lives, latino rights or union rights - there hill gets her well-deserved, free pass as a lifelong progressive!

i'm bernie's biggest fan and vastly prefer him to hill - but - # diamondmarge7 2016-04-17 14:19 “… Hillary … is a Republican neocon …” - c'mon! really?

hill toes obama's carefully-limit ed-engagement line almost as carefully as bernie does - all the rest is hype! and GOP envy!

we live in war-mongering times - with a war-mongering public eager to war on muslims!

if hill clears bernie, she will be our nation's "peace" candidate - that is, unless the repugs nominate someone other than crud or rump, or another warhead!

behind door #1! - “i will carpet-bomb isis into oblivion!"

behind door #2! - "i will bomb the shit out of isis! - on my first day in office, i will tear up the (no-nuclear-bom b-making) treaty with iran! ... a bad deal! the worst ever!” - meanwhile note that bernie and hill both support obama’s iran treaty!

behind door #3! - "war is never a first choice!"

- what passes for intelligent comment around here is falling into the trap of thinking that, if hill becomes our dem nominee, she will not be our nation's "peace" candidate!
 
 
0 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-09 09:29
Robbee -
"i'm bernie's biggest fan and vastly prefer him to hill - BUT"

this is how I recognize the recently hired Hillary trolls paid from the $1 Million fund set aside to troll for HRC and against Bernie. Apparently they have all been trained to come on as if they were Sanders supporters to prevent being rejected outright. Doesn't work. $1 Million wasted.
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-04-17 15:34
purists, pt. 2

unsaid above, we all prefer bernie's muslim armies plan! - but bernie is not our nation's only "peace" candidate! - go bernie! - then, whether bernie or not, go dem nominee!

some here wring their hands and ask "in what world is hill a peace candidate?" - well! only in america! sorry!
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-04-17 19:24
Triple threat spammer.
 
 
0 # rocback 2016-04-19 15:00
This is the Trump Trojan Horse site.
 
 
-1 # progressiveguy 2016-04-17 15:51
As bad as HRC is (she is very bad) she is still better than any of the republican candidates. Her domestic and foreign policies are not as good as those of Bernie and what I resent the most about her is her apparent enthusiasm for war without caring how many deaths occur. With her money rules and yes she certainly is a neocon.
 
 
+15 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 17:26
How is she any better than Drumpf? She is capable of doing everything that has been described, whereas Drumpf is just a tin horn circus ring master. While Drumpf may sound scary, his ability or even desire to do the things he claims is limited. Hillary is not limited in how she will get us involved in wars and military conflicts we don't belong in.

And her history of always doing the politically expedient thing means that there is no way that she will stand up to anyone with power. Remember that she flipped on Keystone after it became obvious that it was a loser. The same thing with the Iraq war and same sex marriage. She used to be in favor of sending all refugees back to where they came from as "a message" even when the bloodbath that they are fleeing is the result of HRC's own agenda. Now all of a sudden she realizes that this agenda won't win her votes, so she switched.

She will never enter the Profiles in Courage Hall of Fame, more likely the Warmonger Hall of Infamy.
 
 
+3 # mim 2016-04-17 16:20
Can anyone explain this to me?

In explaining why HRC is a neocon, Robert Parry refers exclusively to foreign policy. But the first generation of neoconservative s, in the 1970's, e.g. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, went rightward on domestic policy as well; they rejected the welfare state.

How, when, and why did "neocon" come to refer only to foreign policy?
 
 
+11 # jdd 2016-04-17 18:09
She has proven again and again, including in the Brooklyn debate that she is austerity minded. She evaded the simple question regarding the removal of the Social Security cap, lied about her support for a $15 minimum wage, and opposes tuition free public university education (which, along with free medical care was a right in Qaddafi's Libya!) Her lies about the benefits of medicare for all are right from the Republican playbook. In the end, she is no Democrat, certainly not in the tradition of FDR-JFK, but rather still that "Goldwater Girl" of 1964.
 
 
-29 # rocback 2016-04-17 16:35
I just saw Laura Ingram on Fox "news" with Cris Wallace. She said Bernie is becoming the Republicans best friend and went on to explain why he is hurting her. She said his campaign is worth millions to the GOP come November.

Wake up people!
 
 
+17 # danireland46 2016-04-17 16:45
"Wake up people" ??
Rocback, sounds like you're warning Bernie to tone it down, or back off all together. You sound like the DFL establishment, doing it's best to sabotage Bernie's campaign.
As far as I'm concerned, it looks more like the establishment has separated itself so far from it's mainstream base that it's time for a new Progressive Party to be born
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:28
That's EXACTLY what I am "warning". I lived through Bush v Gore when Nader cost him the election, put W in office, which gave us Alito and Roberts and the 5-4 Citizens United decision along with the Iraq war.
 
 
+7 # BettyFaas 2016-04-17 21:46
Rocback: Nader did not put Bush in office. The Supreme Court did after a mess of voter suppression and all sorts of hankypank. Nader has spent his life looking out for our citizens and doing a great deal for us over the years.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-04-18 09:15
I agree about Nader. In fact I was one of his Nader Raiders. But thee is no denying he cost Gore the election. Just look at the New Hampshire results. That alone would have given Gore the election.

And as for Fla. the only way W got away stealing the election was that because of Nader, it was close enough to let them steal it by vote rigging by Katerine Harris and the GOP U S sup ct that stopped the vote count.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 13:48
What about Tennessee? Nader wasn't even on the ballot there, and yet Gore could not carry his own home state -- which equally would have given him the presidency.

The stealing of the 2000 election was planned from 1998 onwards, by a cabal headed by George "[Reagan's opposition on Nicaragua is] so far left they've left America" Schultz. The evidence is plentiful and right out in the open for anyone who cares to research it.

If Nader had not run, Gore would have lost due to the presence in Florida of the Workers World Party, whose candidate got 1,500+ votes. (The difference between Gore and Bush, trending toward the former, at the time that Tom DeCay's thugs stopped the count was less than a thousand votes.)

The DLC establishment, which under Clinton 1 completed the destruction of the old workers' and minorities' coalition that had held both houses of Congress for all but a few years since the first election of FDR, likes to blame Nader for their own ineptitude and criminal bent, but those of us who pay attention and prefer reality to the fantasists of the CorpoReich know better. The unraveling of our political republic/incomp lete democracy was visualized and started during the late sixties and early seventies, and the cat was let out of the bag by "the big Enchilada," Attorney General John Mitchell, when he said, "This country's going to move so far to the right, you won't recognize it."
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:05
Quoting rocback:
I agree about Nader. In fact I was one of his Nader Raiders. But thee is no denying he cost Gore the election. Just look at the New Hampshire results. That alone would have given Gore the election.

And as for Fla. the only way W got away stealing the election was that because of Nader, it was close enough to let them steal it by vote rigging by Katerine Harris and the GOP U S sup ct that stopped the vote count.


BUT WAIT rockback GORE WON the vote as shown in the Guardian after the counting was done (unofficially) and Americans did not go on the streets showing they did not care (neither did Gore obviously)
 
 
+3 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-18 00:16
Well what Bernie is dishing won't even begin to compare to what Trump will bring to her. She has a bad record. He has no record to defend. He can say he will do anything as can she, but the difference is she has a record of lying.
 
 
# Guest 2016-04-17 16:45
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # Wally Jasper 2016-04-17 17:11
Fox (faux) news and the elites it represents would be just fine with a Hillary presidency. In fact, the shadow emperors are most likely setting up the whole election circus, assuming Hillary will win. It's Bernie and the people he represents (us!) they are terrified of. So this information does not surprise me in the least. They are playing whatever games they can to try to sabotage Bernie's campaign. With fear tactics, of course. What else? (It's all they got.)
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:23
Oh Puleeze. Fox trashes Hillary 24/7. They barely mention Bernie.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-04-17 20:00
They don't want Sanders to be president. If they mention his name they advertise him. They're no different than the rest of the MSM. Hillary Clinton is pretty pissed off that you just mentioned his name. She really wouldn't shed to many tears if he were just "eliminated". She didn't expect to have to actually TRY to get nominated. She considers it "her turn" - just like Nixon did in '68.

You said it yourself. They barely mention Sanders. And that's EXACTLY what the fuck is wrong with this picture.
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-04-19 15:03
Bive me a break. They are salivating to run against a 75 year old self described socialist.
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:12
rockback, MSN (Main street news) claim they fear Hilary so they trash her hoping to get Bernie whom they will defeat easily by calling him a socialist = (in their mind)communist. ..propaganda? oh and I gave U a green hand up cause I think U are unfairly targeted at least on this comment
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:08
and yet Wally MSN (Main street news) claim they fear Hilary and will defeat Bernie easily by calling him a communist...pro paganda?
 
 
+14 # Texas Aggie 2016-04-17 17:31
Wouldn't it be nice if Hillary's backers weren't so eager to trash Bernie? Wouldn't it be nice if Wasserman Schultz played fairly instead of bending the rules to favor HRC?

Just think what this primary season would have been like if the Powers that Be in the Democratic party were even handed. Then there would be a lot less need for rancor and HRC would have the graciousness to accept that her program isn't at all good for America and that she should support a program that really benefits the rest of us, not the 1%.
 
 
-24 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:26
No one forced Bernie to change his stripes less than a year ago and become a Democrat for his own personal political gain.

He knew or should have known the rules when he qualified. They haven't changed. Do you want cheese with your WHINE? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 14:28
According to a source in New York, three days before today's voting, the New York state elections outfit reduced the voting hours by six, starting the voting in rural upstate Ne York, which is strongly pro-Sanders, at noon instead of early a.m. -- thus making it difficult if not impossible for working people to vote in the primary.

So he "should have known" that the Clintonistas, having no ethics whatsoever, would cheat whenever they could, and if they succeed in stealing the election through similar shenanigans, the progressives, just like in every election since 1972, should just "get over it." I see.
 
 
+10 # jdd 2016-04-17 18:17
Do you really think Trump will give her a free pass on her secret email server, her Goldman speeches, her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State, her lying about Benghazi, her support of bailouts. Seriously, this woman is a terrible person, a campaigning disaster, and is mistrusted by the majority of voters. Better it come out now before she become the nominee. Every poll, I'm sure you're aware, shows Bernie a significantly stronger candidate against each Republican opponent, so why bring up the nonsense from Fox news? After all, they see the poll results as well.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:34
That's because no one is attacking Bernie because they know he doesn't have a chance. I can promise you if that changes , he will be hit from all sides. He hasn't really been vetted in a national race. Just mention the word socialist and you lose half the country right there.

All you mention above has been tried over and over and she's still standing. When I saw her kick an entire Republican committee's ass in the Benghazi committee and withstand 11 hours of grilling, It became clear she is one tough gal.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 16:14
"He hasn't really been vetted in a national race. Just mention the word socialist and you lose half the country right there."

As this article ("http://www.hu ffingtonpost.co m/tony-brasunas /there-is-a-mod erate-republica n-in-this-race_ b_9704194.html" ) makes clear, Bernie's "socialism" is the sort of policies that the mainstream Democrats supported from FDR through LBJ, before the Party joined the helter-skelter dash to the Right as a means of siphoning corporate cash. Those policies, which Clinton does *not* support, served the Democrats well for 40 years, during almost all of which they controlled both houses of Congress.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-04-17 20:11
Hillary has stuff in her closet that really has not yet been discussed and I know what some of it is. Trump will say it quite clearly.
 
 
+2 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-04-18 00:21
He will destroy her in the general. He knows where the bodies are buried so to speak. He will tell everything he knows.

I also think he will jail her if he wins. I think that is why they are trying to stop him. There is a detente in the duopoly. Don't indict mine and I won't indict yours. Well Trump is not in the club he will probably have the justice department enforce the laws.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-04-17 23:52
Quoting rocback:
I just saw Laura Ingram on Fox "news" with Cris Wallace. She said Bernie is becoming the Republicans best friend and went on to explain why he is hurting her. She said his campaign is worth millions to the GOP come November.

Wake up people!


BE AFRAID ..... BE *VERY* AFRAID

Dude - the fact that you even *quote* sources such as the female Rush Limbaugh (Ingram) and Faux News at *ALL* is the VERY reason that your comments become so generously festooned with all of that attractive red ink on this site.

You really *can't* tell when you are a fish out of water - or you just get off on attention, regardless of whether it's positive or negative? Sure sign of arrested emotional development - that last one!
 
 
+16 # Vermont Grandma 2016-04-17 17:02
In reports about the death of Libya's Gaddafi, it is stated that he was sodomized with a bayonet as he was led away from his hiding place and, within minutes, brutally killed, all the while "in custody" and not fighting to get away.

Can anyone who is knowledgeable about international law clarify whether this is a violation of international law and/or Libyan law re the treatment of military prisoners? It would seem that if Gaddafi were captured, then those who had captured him had a responsibility to assure his safety under international law.

Why did HRC not speak out against the treatment of this prisoner, rather than saying, with laughter, "we came, we saw, he died." This indicates acquiescence with this brutal outcome.

It is also claimed that HRC and Nato forces had negotiated an agreement for Gaddafi to surrender under white flag & that this was later used to locate and assassinate Gaddafi.

Regardless of the details of the truth re Gaddafi and HRC, it has been clear long before last week's debate that chosing HRC as a president means embracing endless war.
 
 
+11 # dquandle 2016-04-17 18:51
Why didn't Hillary speak out against treatment of this prisoner?
Because she was to busy crowing in ecstasy at his rape by bayonet, and then murder. She is a sadist, and will continue to applaud and enact these heinous policies, because thats what she, and empire, want.
 
 
-17 # rocback 2016-04-17 19:36
America was not in charge of that. There was not a single American there. But it is touching your concern for a man who killed so many innocent people in the Lockerbie bombing.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 17:46
The Lockerbie bombing, despite the verdict, left may loose ends. And as for innocents killed, Qaddafi was a relative piker compared to the U.S., which may have killed up to two and a half million Iraqi civilians in the course of the "war" that Hillary fulsomely supported and the sanctions imposed by her husband, along with the war crimes committed by the senior Bush.
 
 
+1 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:20
Quoting rocback:
America was not in charge of that. There was not a single American there. But it is touching your concern for a man who killed so many innocent people in the Lockerbie bombing.

gaddafi always denied being behind Lockerbie and only agreed to pay money to get back into the "club of nations"
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:19
enforcing ANY law in a civil war would have been nearly impossible but she could have been quiet at least
 
 
+13 # lfeuille 2016-04-17 17:45
"Soon, Libya slid into anarchy and Western nations abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. President Obama now terms the Libyan fiasco the biggest mistake of his presidency. But Clinton refuses to be chastened by the debacle, much as she appeared to learn nothing from her support for the Iraq invasion in 2003."

If Obama thinks this was the worst mistake of his presidency why is he supporting Clinton now? He's got to know it would just mean more of the same"
 
 
+14 # jdd 2016-04-17 17:59
There will not be a "big enchilada." The neo-con wet dream of "regime change" in Moscow or Bejing ain't happenin'. Vladimir Putin has the support of 80% of Russian and China's Xi is not far behind. However, as Mr. Parry has demonstrated with the facts, not what "he thinks," a HRC White House represents a grave security threat to our country. However, should the Congress succeed in forcing a recalcitrant Obama to release the 28 pages of the 911 Joint Inquiry Report detailing Saudi complicity in that atrocity, the entire Obama/Hillary/n eo-con policy in the Middle-East will collapse and with it the Clinton candidacy.
 
 
-10 # MadKate 2016-04-17 18:27
I think it is more and more obvious that we have reached the height of SILLY SEASON! When, oh when will this madness end?

Yes, I am talking to ALL of you!
 
 
+8 # Dred Pierce 2016-04-17 19:41
It will end when we Americans put the yellow stripe on our backs in the closet and CONFRONT our CORPORATIONS, PENTAGON, and conduct citizen's arrests on guilty bankers and other assorted scum. Our worst enemies do not live in Muslim Countries.

Meanwhile pretending that we can just allow NEOCON HILLARY to play out her James Bond fantasy is not an option. Russia and China could unite against us and BLOW US ALL AWAY. We cannot afford any more weapons merchants like Clinton. PRISON FOR MURDER. OBEY THE LAW. This is for All of you as well.
 
 
+9 # Majikman 2016-04-17 19:59
"Silly"??? You are indeed mad if you think your very future, safety, well being and that of the entire plant is "silly".
 
 
+4 # Wally Jasper 2016-04-17 21:11
Thanks, Mad Kate. I see your point. We're all here arguing with each other over cyberspace, defending our favorite candidate and defaming the other. And one side is not convincing the other so we just rattle on and on. I guess it will all end when we get tired of posting and reading and responding to comments. Then we can quiet our minds and breathe and simply vote the way our hearts guide us. It is quite a mad world and it doesn't really help things that we are adding our voices to the looney tunes. So goodnight, everyone. Hopefully the Good will prevail in this strange, fascinating and beautiful world.
 
 
0 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-09 09:58
Wally Jasper, voting "the way our hearts guide us" sounds very nice on its face, but we should also let our brains and our reason and judgment guide us. Americans are probably the most brainwashed people on earth, and based on the non-stop propaganda machine from our politicians and especially our corporate media may lead our hearts to vote the wrong way. We need to allow debate in order to clear the cob webs they are pulling over our eyes to look at the truth, and judge based on facts and reason, not on emotion alone.
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-04-17 18:54
Look these people like Parry and Frank think everyone is a hawk, even Bernie has been accused of being a militarist by Josua Frank. Here's an exact quote from earlier thsi year when Sanders qualified:

"he’s is a militarist that isn’t about to challenge U.S. supremacy. He supported the ugly war on Kosovo, the invasion of Afghanistan, funding for the endless Iraq disaster as well as the losing and misguided War on Terror. He voted in favor of Clinton’s 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which expanded the federal death penalty and acted as the precursor to the PATRIOT Act.

As for Israel, Bernie has been a hawkish advocate that would never halt the $3 billion the U.S. government sends to the country every year. Last summer he backed Israel’s murderous bombing of Gaza. He’s even had some nasty words about Palestine’s right to resist. It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that several former members of Bernie’s staff have also been employed by AIPAC, including Israel apologists David Sirota and Joel Barkin. His is a disgusting record. Want to change in the U.S.’s meddling in the Middle East? Bernie isn’t your guy.

If the Senator’s support for ongoing war and the occupation of Palestine don’t make you squeamish, then you may as well stop reading..."

No one will satisfy these guys.
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2016-04-17 20:18
I follow politics pretty avidly and I don't know what keyhole you listen to, but I've never heard of Josua Frank. Is he a Cruzer or a Trumpet man or your boss?
 
 
0 # rocback 2016-04-18 09:20
JOSHUA FRANK is managing editor of CounterPunch. He is author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland and Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, both published by AK Press. He can be reached at brickburner@gmail.com. You can follow him on Twitter@brickbu rner.
 
 
-8 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-04-18 02:26
"Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs."

If you start a fight with someone you know toi be bigger, stronger, and a better fighter, don't whine whenyou get the shit kicked out of you.

The purpose of these rocket attacks are to get Gazan children killed for PR purposes so Liberal wusses wil care
 
 
+5 # dsepeczi 2016-04-18 10:01
Quoting bettysdad@yahoo.com:

If you start a fight with someone you know toi be bigger, stronger, and a better fighter, don't whine whenyou get the shit kicked out of you.

The purpose of these rocket attacks are to get Gazan children killed for PR purposes so Liberal wusses wil care


You lost me with "If you start a fight". With those few words, you demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the history of this conflict. If you knew that history, you'd realize that Israel started that fight and continues it to this day. Try placing yourself in the shoes of the modern day Palestinian. Let's say that you owned a home and an occupying military came over and said you have to leave because they are moving "one of their own" in. Let's say an occupying military came into your neighborhood and razed it with bulldozers to give to their people. Would you not feel the urge to seek revenge ? This is what's happening over there. You can read articles both for and against Isarael and you will not find ONE article that denies Israel keeps pushing further into the West Bank and Gaza, which just happens to be where the Palestinians live. Pro-Israel apologists make excuses for it but even they never deny this is what's happening over there. Palestinians didn't start this conflict. Israel did.
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-04-19 21:30
OMG Bettysdad are you re-writing history?
Israel has been the aggressor since day one and zionists have clearly expressed their goal to eliminate every single Arab from Israel and any territory they CHOSE to control.
Palestinians are rightfully upset and revengeful. The time for a "two state" solution is long gone - as 1 Palestinian told us - NOW Israel must be destroyed as a country and all the land be under Palestinian rule. ALL settlements MUST be returned to Palestinians
 
 
+2 # Salus Populi 2016-04-19 22:54
Also, Israelis have a habit of provoking rocket attacks every couple of years by violating cease fires, assassinating or kidnapping HaMaS leaders, etc. They call it "mowing the grass," and during the most recent Operation, Israelis brought lounge chairs and beers to watch and cheer the one-sided slaughter.

Independent inquiries found that although the Gazans did *not* use their children as shields, as Israeli propaganda fabricated, the IDF did in fact on occasion use Palestinian children as shields.

Palestinians are not moral monsters, despite Israel's comparison of them to cockroaches and the like, but the Israeli government, which now openly talks of a "final solution" of genocide to the "Palestinian problem," have, through their almost 70 years of brutalizing and "other-izing" the people they are ethnically cleansing, devolved into moral monsters and out and out fascists, as Einstein, near the beginning of their terrorist state, predicted they would.

It is true that Sanders voted in support of the crime against humanity; but then, so did every other U.S. Senator without exception. That includes Jeff Merkey, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, Sherrod Brown, and so forth. 100 to 0, not a single dissenting vote, or even an abstention or "present."

You really ought to read something besides Hasbara, assuming you read at all. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but the crap you spout will only convince other evidence-proof dittoheads.
 
 
+2 # Anarchist 23 2016-04-19 19:28
Considering that Vickie Nuland, who helped engineer the coup against yanukuvich and place Neo-Nazis in high-level post in the new Ukraine government is married to Robert Kagan of PNAC fame, who supports Hillary, I doubt that HRC as president would have a more open progressive policy toward the rest of the world; peace is not her forte.
 

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