Home | About | Donate

Adding Up the Costs of Hillary Clinton’s Wars


Adding Up the Costs of Hillary Clinton’s Wars

Conn Hallinan

The Greek playwright Aeschylus — who fought at Marathon in 490 BC, the battle that defeated the first Persian invasion of Greece — had few illusions about the consequences of war. No wonder, in the tragedy Oresteia, he gave his character Agamemnon these verses:

They sent forth men to battle.
But no such men return;
And home, to claim their welcome
Comes ashes in an urn.


Oded Yinon, Zbigniew Brzezinski, PNAC, Bush/Cheney, Obama, HRC: and the beat(ing) goes on...


"For War's a banker, flesh his gold" is Clinton Inc. in a nutshell.

Ever since they formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985 the Clinton's have pandered to Wall Street and its military industrial complex (MIC) and continue to reap 8 figure annual dividends including Clinton Family Foundation contributions, speaking fees and overflowing campaign war chests.

Follow the money.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


One constantly reads (or occasionally hears) contentions that HRC is smart. They are totally flawed assessments of her ability for insight and perspicuity. She is cleaver, but she has a very shallow ability for complex reasoning. Practically everything she touches tends to be judged in retrospect to be a disaster. Whether it was the long forgotten stab at universal healthcare when she was first lady in 1993 or more recent adventures in international policy and politics as Secretary of State, the results of her judgement have been fiascos. I don't know if she is a chess player, but I suspect that if she is then she is a shitty one at worst or mediocre at best. One of the chief attributes that sets homo sapiens apart from other primates is its ability to think more than one step ahead. I'm not sure she's reached that point of conceptualization.

Consider as an example of a possible proposal by HRC to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I think Putin needs a good ass kicking with a NATO invasion of the East Ukraine", to which any one of the members of the entourage with enough balls could respond, "But Miss (Mrs, I don't know) President, might that not result in the initiation of WWIII?"


The fact that this woman openly brags about her role in all these disasters and uses it as a reason to vote for her says all you need to know about mainstream Democratic voters and the DNC. HRC on foreign policy is still very much the Goldwater Girl of her roots.


The policy of Mrs. Clinton would continue current and recent past policy, which might reasonably be called the
"New Holocaust, New Genocide, and Final Crusade".


"This peculiar view of the role of the U.S. takes on a certain messianic quality in candidates like Hillary Clinton, who routinely quotes former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s line about America as “the indispensible nation” whose job is to lead the world."

IF the media wasn't controlled by a small group of broadcast corporations, the above statement could be taken to its logical conclusion: Lead the world to what? Precisely what is the STATE, outcome, and "fruit" of all this purported leadership? (Bible types can relate to: "Ye shall know them by their fruits.")

Then, with the help of pictures, graphs, and statistics, a GENUINE account of what all this "leadership" has led to could be shown to the public in the way of grotesque numbers of civilians killed--and within that context, reference made to all those UNBORN babies that Fundamentalist Christians are so interested in preserving; the numbers of persons rendered into refugee status, and massive footage of the vast destruction of previously functional infrastructure replete with Uranium traces and other dangerous imprints that have already shown up as genetic damage to newborns.

In other words, for all the talk of leadership--how about some PROOF of what this "leadership" consists of. For if it only engenders greater depravation, death, and misery... then the very definition MUST be challenged and seen for what it is.

I have argued for some time that if a similar case were to be made about the actual insecurity of most Americans due to reductions in their home equity, wages, and job benefits while so many costs (health care & food) are rising... and the net loss of meaningful investments in U.S. infrastructure was shown to be a DIRECT outcome of so much waste on overseas war... then the premise of so-called National Security could also be dissected for the murderous FRAUD that it is.


When it comes to foreign policy there is not much to chose from between Clinton and Sanders. One thing that came out of the debates is that Clinton wants a no-fly zone in Syria and Sanders doesn't. Other than that both seem to approve of Obama's policies and want to continue to pursue them. The wars in the Middle East are largely result of conflicts between the Sunnis and Shiites, particularly a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.


Ambitious women who seek power and influence within the paradigm that makes WAR its centerpiece become warriors. Of course, these women will self-identify as "Feminists," but the true Feminist is not a woman who supports the worst in all things patriarchal. And that worst thing is war.

It's fascinating how the MIC has now welcomed gays, and that Hollywood's merger with the CIA has led to such classics as the WOMAN acting as enthusiastic anti-"terrorist" killer in "Zero Dark 30."

Add in these 3 stooges to put a feminine face not just on Empire, but upon the entire war-oriented construct that archetypally comports with Mars rules and it would SEEM that "women do war as naturally as men."

A dangerous deception.

"Clinton, along with Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s national security advisor, has pushed for muscular interventions without thinking — or caring — about the consequences."


It's wrong to generalize that all Feminists salute Ms. Clinton.

But one thing that's totally lost on white males (part of their unexamined privilege) is what it feels like for Black citizens to SEE a Black man in the White House. For some women, seeing a WOMAN is enough. Unfortunately, largely as a result of centuries of asymmetric representation added to a media culture that's been conditioned by advertising's use of brand & packaging... a percentage of persons are satisfied just to see the OUTER image without placing enough emphasis on what it stands for: at essence.

There is a HUNGER on the part of groups that never had much power or influence to see "their" numbers rising into positions of significance. THAT is understandable.

Unfortunately, the elites who manipulate the masses (through religious lies told often, a rigged economy, a deceptive mass media, and the muscular power of all sorts of policing units) recognize that you CAN fool at least half of the people most of the time through SURFACE appearances. That explains the prominence of Hillary as TOKEN female and Obama as TOKEN Black citizen.

So long as these individuals retain their deference to Deep State powers... they get to enjoy great privileges. And they also sell-out those who presume that they will govern in ways that will reflect the diverse interests of a diverse nation.

WE have already seen how well that went with Obama.

But one must look to the tone of the times...

With all this emphasis on token leaders, behind the scenes, trade deals like TPP rob the public of ALL access and means of redress; and laws like NDAA and Patriot Act rob citizens of rights they don't even realize are under serious jeopardy; and economic systems rob people of fair wages and benefits and increasingly drive wealth to the top of an unsustainable pyramid.

The elites hope that by putting "minority" candidates front and center, all of the machinations going on behind the Great Curtain will go unnoticed. Then, with things like TPP and NDAA in place, God help those who dare to challenge their corporate masters.


The woman is the poster child for the Military Industrial Complex. Her JOB & ROLE are to justify foreign invasions. It's not that she lacks insight or is shallow. She is in the position that she is in mostly to substantiate, reinforce, and propel WAR PLANS.

This nation is governed not by a President, but by corporate chairmen of boards, head honchos of the MIC, big Banksters, and old ruling elite families. THEY want war. WAR is the primary "U.S. Product."

Hillary's job is to sell war.

It is sexist and disingenuous to lay onto this woman (flawed as she is, and lustful for power as she may be) the disastrous results of foreign policies that are hardly HER brainchild. She IS complicit; but hardly the "author of the doctrine."

Your analysis is shallow. You've turned Hillary into the Military Industrial Complex's scapegoat and/or shadow.

In fact, it's primarily due to males like you that women like Mrs. Clinton work so compulsively to PROVE that they can be just as bloodthirsty and tough as men.

You don't recognize the degree to which your own closet misogyny defines your "analysis."



Where would someone get the idea that the US has a "traditional leadership role in Asia"?

Let's see: China and Japan have cultures dating back some 3 to 5 thousand years, and the US is about 240 years old; it started pushing into Asia in the 1850s; some tradition. Leadership? The Asians did not ask the US to push into their countries, and usually opposed it.

It may be that HR Clint wants to re-invade Vietnam?

She said "Asia," and that would include all of eastern Russia and all of India, Pakistan, Burma, etc., and when did the US have any "leadership tradition" there?

I know the word I dare not speak here. It starts with an "i."


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The author calls HRC " intelligent " with which I vehemently disagree. Was her great lack of judgement about voting for the invasion of Iraq " intelligent"? When practically almost all intelligent, informed, people realized it was a horrible mistake!

HRC now says it was a "mistake" because of political pandering, not for any real lachrymose, remorse for all the death and destruction of not only US military soldiers, but untold numbers of innocent Iraqi's. Because if she really thought she made a horrible "mistake" she would make this statement: I am guilty of being a war criminal! No HRC is not intelligent unless you preface that statement with morally repugnant!


Hillary is not a feminist. Feminism means supporting women's values. War is against women's values. Is Hillary a feminist? Just ask the women in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya how well they are doing under her foreign policy decisions. She is a man dressed in expensive silk suits and fancy jewelry.


This is a very useful article to share with those 60 something Hillary fan clubber women. They need to wake up and see what she really is. The fact that about 500,000 people in the Middle East are dead because of her wars is really a great sin and a great evil. Enough already.


The "New Holocaust, New Genocide, and Final Crusade" label is also a perfect fit for Obama's TPP, TTIP and TISA !


Is the 20th century observation that women and gays who "supported the worst things patriarchal" were out to prove that they had huevos still OK to say or no longer PC ?


"Someone would get the idea" from watching Obama brag during the past two years about the new military bases the US will build in Southeast Asia (and Australia, for good measure).