Home | About | Donate

Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party


#1

Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

Robert Parry

The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.


#2

These selections are made in deference to the MIC and the battery of War Profiteers who have been made FAT on the endless continuum of illegal Wars of Choice.

When a pundit makes the case that it's mere statecraft or the mark of a particular Presidential personality that makes for the seamless continuum of pro-war entities (left in positions of high authority) it hides the fact that our nation as been gutted and is no longer a functioning Democratic Republic.

"However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

"This “Team of Rivals” – named after Abraham Lincoln’s initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment..."

The above framing reminds me of those pundits who insisted that Bush, Jr. went to war in Iraq to avenge his father's unfinished business there.

Seriously?

It's an Inverted Totalitarian system with corporations and the military running the show, setting the agenda, and calling the shots. To pull this off and retain their (Deep State) cover, Power makes use of its loyal tools.

THAT is why these people are set (and kept) close to the apparent throne.


#3

Make way for... The American Lady Thatcher:

"Privately, Clinton’s senior aides viewed the Libyan “regime change” as a chance to establish what they called the “Clinton Doctrine” on using “smart power” with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi’s government collapsed."

Hillary is a proud and loyal water carrier for the military-media industrial complex. They need her, so they used all their show power, false branding, and megaphones to anoint her the winner... before the race was won.


#4

This is why it a fools errand to think that Ms Clinton can have her "feet held to the fire" in some grand bargain with what is said to be the progressive wing of the party.

If Ms Clinton can not get support for war from Democrats like a Barbara Lee or a Bernie Sanders she need only cater to the Republicans. They will fall in line and with the number of Democrats already co-opted by the Corporate State and the MIC she will have plenty of support to advance her policies. She will not need the Progressives.

What she WILL do is go to that group if there something she wants that the Republican Senators and members of Congress not so keen on and those same progressives will believe they are effective even as there more wars and more advancement of the Corporate State.


#5

Do you agree with me that the Clintons may have been "tapped" decades ago to fulfill this very thing? Turn both parties' objectives into those subject to the whims of Big Business and the MIC?

Paul Craig Roberts recently pointed out that the U.S. imperial juggernaut depends both on military muscle AND financial coercion.

The Clintons' (now mostly Hillary) eager support for foreign wars and things like NAFTA fulfill both objectives.

They were the ones that gave so much influence to the DLC and turned the Democratic party into another corporately funded counterfeit... leaving no party standing to represent the real needs of American citizens.

Jill Stein speaks about what's going on eloquently on Democracy Now--today.

Here is the clip:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/9/green_partys_jill_stein_what_we?autostart=true


#6

Yes.Bill Clinton moved at a very young age to a place called Hot Springs which was a headquarters for organized crime. The entire area was under the thrall of the mob. The mob and CIA work in conjunction. According to the author Roger Morris , Mr Clinton was an informer for the CIA. He was than taken under the wing of Senator William Fulbright and groomed for a future in Politics.

When he ran for office his first time against a very powerful Republican and a number of Democrats with much more experience and connections , he received FUNDS from somewhere and outspent his rivals 7 to 1. Two of his backers had links to bookie operations which were extremely lucrative.

I believe he was helped along the way and groomed for office.


#7

Meanwhile we're getting more and more reports like these:

http://justicegazette.org/bernie-defrauded-in-ca.html

http://www.gregpalast.com/california-stolen-sanders-right-nowspecial-bulletin-greg-palast/


#8

This excellent article explains in detail the reason for the feeling of foreboding in the pit of my stomach since yesterday. That so very little has been written about this history - more could be unearthed, I'm sure - and what it presages during this primary season is a blot of shame on our country.


#9

The information in this article frightens me. What is so foolish about the current primary mess are the Democratic lemmings rushing to jump off the cliff. Unfortunately they have the whole World on their coattails and are pulling it over with them. Just perhaps the Republican candidate can win in November and save us all from a nuclear death. If not sayanora!


#10

Here's more: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/09/where-are-the-missing-california-primary-votes/


#12

The horror that this woman brings back into the White House is palpable in progressives or anyone that takes the time to research her true history.
Trump supporters and Hillary supporters both get a glassy stare when asked why they support him or her. They don't know and cannot name a date, an action or a solid belief upon which their devotion is based.
I feel like Bernie knew if he didn't do this no one would when he got into this race. He one of the bravest men I know of and will have my full respect, money and support as long as he needs it. He's a breath of fresh air in this viper pit of a Democratic party. Knowing what he must know it must have been hard for him to switch from Independent.
This is the saddest time in America I can remember in a long time.
It's Bernie or Bust.


#14

Robert Parry is one of the most insightful journalists currently publishing on American foreign policy. He broke Iran Contra, FFS. And you are?


#17

Can I see some evidence?


#19

I don't know that it's true, but once you propose the hypothesis, feasible narratives jump out all over, don't they?

  • JFK - Irish Mafia, shot by foreign mafia abetted by CIA group under Dulles
  • LBJ rides in on assassination
  • LBJ abdicates, RFK shot by _________?
  • Nixon in with Dulles' Cubans
  • Ford on Nixon's resignation
  • Carter, not sure of special connections
  • Reagan, nuke shill with CIA director Bush, son of 1934 coup conspirator
  • Bush, as above
  • Bill Clinton, Dem from "solid Democratic South" that split up in '68, Republican wife with ---- I don't know the older connections, but someone might make this interesting.
  • Shrub, stolen election under Cheney
  • Shrub steals #2
  • Obama authors neoliberal essays as student at U of Chi, Milton Friedman's old haunts
  • Hillary Clinton, clearly overlapping connections with husband, above, and appointee of Obama.

This is not something that I have been working on. However, a few probably related things have been documented that move right through Republican and Democratic presidencies.

  • Bush arranges with Ayatollah K to retain US hostages until after 1980 election so as to sink Jimmy Carter.
  • US gov't running arms and drugs, disinformation and murder through Central America: Iran-Contra
  • US State Dept head lures Saddam Hussein into Kuwait.
  • Clinton elected after pro-labor campaign, responds with NAFTA, continued bombing and destabilization of Iraq
  • Several months before 9/11, Taliban leaders inform Johan Galtung that they will be invaded by the USA later that year. s
  • 9/11 attack is a false flag, but outsourced: Bush-->Saud-->Bin Ladin-->people motivated to attack US, believing that they might reduce American influence in the area.
  • WaPo, NYT, black ops, executive converge to pretend that Afghanistan and Iraq bear some appreciable relationship to the false flag event. Bill of Rights hamstrung, wars started
  • Obama enters pleading partial anti-war, transparency, humanity, but continues with torture, so-alled "bailout" theft, IRS as collector for false health insurance, US government as supplier of arms to Mexican drug cartels, coups in Honduras and Ukraine in connection with Clinton's people, accellerated prosecution and persecution of journalists foreign and domestic, accelerated development of population control technology (most notably drones and phishing). Also, Obama and Clinton, with a good deal of help, have purged the party of almost all elected officials with left leanings. Consider who was vying for candidacy in the early running leading to 2008, and who was running in the Democratic Party before Bernie entered as an outsider.

Why did Trump have no reasonable competition within the Republican Party? The party's presumed pony was Jeb Bush, exactly the person who would fit most conspiracy theories most easily except arguably Hillary Clinton, who is at least in the same. Would it not make some sense to run Bozo the Bigot to scare people into the neocon fold assembled within the Democratic Party?

The idea makes enough sense to be testing my own personal paranoia, though I have no direct evidence of it. .


#23

Note that FDR's social VP, Henry Wallace was replaced by Harry Truman, who went on to deploy nukes, start the Cold War, and invade Korea, in a backroom deal engineered by the Chairman of the Democratic Party, who later went into business with GHW Bush. Now explain the difference between the two corporate war parties.

Vote Green Party, but don't expect national elections to change anything. Organize your neighborhood to become democratically socialist.


#25

In 1944 FDR was making headway with his second bill or rights that was even more progressive than his New Deal. Wallace was instrumental in helping FDR craft and promote the bill. The Party therefore prevented Wallace from running for re-election in 1944, knowing that the bill would go nowhere with Truman as VP.


#26

That is an excellent article about the utterly fraudulent shenanigans that went on in CA, which is more of the same that had happened all over the country only on a much larger scale, apparently. Hillary Clinton may be claiming the nomination but I'll never believe she honestly "won" it. Fraud is the only way she could get it, which she apparently knew from the start. What a damn, shameful racket. IF she becomes president, there is NO TELLING the extent of dishonest & corrupt behavior she will sanction and engage in.

Take a look at ClintonEmailsOnFilm.com. It's pretty fascinating.


#27

The willing cooperation of Congress is part of what makes Clinton the more effective evil.

SUPPORT THE MOTHERLAND! VOTE WAR. VOTE CLINTON.


#28

"The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out"

The assumption that post-WW3 there will be any historians is open to question.


#32

Yet nothing appears on RT.com

Any other fantasies you want to push?