Home | About | Donate

Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks


Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks

Gareth Porter

As Hillary Clinton begins her final charge for the White House, her advisers are already recommending air strikes and other new military measures against the Assad regime in Syria.

The clear signals of Clinton’s readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as U.S. policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives concerned about Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.)


I'm so proud to live in a country that is afraid of an ophthalmologist.


Whoop there it is. Everything we speak about Clinton and her war hawk ways is summed up in this article. She's not elected yet but the Defense Department is already doing her bidding. The three harpies, Clinton, Flournoy, Nuland will have us in wars immediately after she takes office. They broke the glass ceiling a long time ago. Aren't you so proud a woman will be president though?
I read Greenwalds talk about the rush to blame Russia for the DNC hacks. With the defense shield being set up at Russia's border and the U.S. sponsored coup in Ukraine you get the feeling she is going after Russia as well. Her no fly zone will put us in direct opposition to Russia in Syria. Obama has kept a lid on it but those in the Defence Dept. want all out Libya styled involvement and more if they put more boots on the ground.
I get the feeling Clinton plans on stealing the general election too as those in the know seem to be acting on inside information about her winning.
We are watching a terrible turn to the right in this country that will bring us closer to the brink of war with Russia. I fear this was our last chance to save our country from perpetual conflict. God help us when one of the two maniacs takes office.


Lots of profit to be made on occupations and wars. Its the Murkin way.


Gimme an F.....!

"Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong" - Country Joe - 1967

The more things stay the same, the more they stay the same........


So . . . . I'm sitting here this morning wondering what is it that makes this person (won't use the W word) tick?

She has a daughter and grandchildren who she supposedly loves-----is she capable of love? Probably not . . . .

Is it her pathological need for power that has corrupted her absolutely?

As if figuring out what makes her tick will thwart this descent into hell!!

What completely blows my mind is how many people are blind to this.
It is like witnessing the rise of Nazi Germany all over again---saying this is almost becoming cliche----that is scary too.

The cheers of "USA, USA" during the d. convention were terrifying in addition to the CONTROL of the whole process.


The behavior of a powerful person and some of the unsocial things they may do include (my comments in parentheses):

  1. Being disinterested in the welfare of others ("Single-payer health care will never, ever happen" quote from HRC, 2016----just one example)

  2. Stereotyping others, including showing bias ("super predators" and HRC's stereotyping Sander's supporters---- particularly millennials)

  3. Acting as if they are entitled to get what they want (exhibit A: doing whatever it takes to be president which includes lying and stealing)

  4. Expecting others to comply with their requirements without question.

  5. Acting in untrustworthy ways, but expecting to be trusted.

  6. Having different rules and values for themself vs. other people.

  7. Being more prone to anger than others (see angry outburst at environmentalist replete with wagging finger)

  8. Acting outside company policy or creating it for their own purpose (private email server etc. etc. etc.)

  9. Breaking the law (I believe there will be irrefutable evidence of this someday)

  10. Believing they are untouchable and above the law

  11. Colluding with other powerful people in immoral and illegal acts (regime changes, Iraq war, promoting fracking around the world etc. etc. etc.)

I was going to list more examples of HRC's behaviors that fit perfectly into each of these categories but it would take all day and I have to work!

How can people not see this?

"Power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies"

Shall we talk about HRC ethics or lack thereof?

Get me out of here!!!!


And will the real lesser of two evils please stand up? Anyone who regards war as a major issue in this campaign needs to think twice about swallowing the upcoming constant barrage of Democratic lesser of two evil propaganda. This doesn't mean voting for Trump, but a vote for Clinton is a guarantee of more war, more blood being shed, mote refugees, more murder and an ever more empire building at the point of a gun. A vote for Clinton is to vote with blood on your hands.


Had a most distressing conversation with my younger brother Monday night. He was beside himself that I would not hold my nose and vote for her because Trump!!! His politics have always tended towards the conservative, libertarian, meritocracy, etc. When he mentioned the "extreme left" I stopped him immediately. Where do you see an extreme left of any visibility in this festering morass of empty promises? Said, if he was referring to Sanders, that he is nothing more or less than a New Deal Democrat (as many of FDR's advisors and functionaries were Democratic Socialists) and it is indicative of just how low we've sunk for him to imply that Sanders or his supporters were "extreme."

In a few brief minutes we touched on many truths, but when he begged me - patronizingly - to see the bigger picture (again, and only Trump!!!) I found it hard to continue. Never-the-less I found the fortitude to give him my bottom line. Clinton will continue the endless wars, and maybe even worse - cause the final, last war. Like so many are posting here today, this for me, is what it's all about. Everything flows from there.


I'm 67 and graduated in '67. Things haven't changed much since then politically. Why is it so hard to spread some Truth and Love? My own kids, ages from 21 to 43, want to pay no attention to politics. If anything they blame me and my generation for what we have now. Time is running out for me and it's harder than ever to be positive. I fear for the future of our country. Still, I have enough Hope left to try helping the Greens to gain some traction. 49 years of doing so for the Democrats didn't bring me much satisfaction apart from Obama's first inauguration speech. I Hoped for Change...once.


I know I'm having a very hard time distinguishing which of these two is worse. As gawd awful as Trump is, Clinton's record is completely stained with blood and hubris. If this movement keeps building, a Trump presidency would ignite the fight for economic, social, and environmental justice among the masses. But that's a scary proposition. World War III is an even scarier proposition, though. War with Syria will lead to war with Russia, despite Putin's resistance to it. (This man knows he's being played by Clinton and the neocon class she represents.)

But like me, the readers of these pages, are much better informed than the average bear. Unfortunately, a huge chunk of voters don't understand that in their support of Clinton, they are expecting her to deconstruct policies she and her husband spent their lifetimes building. This section of voters don't see the wolf in sheep's clothing because of a carefully constructed narrative that Trump is basically Mussolini and Hitler rolled into one, nevermind that Clinton puts Machiavelli to shame and actually has the blood of thousands and the suffering of millions on her hands.

On the other hand, there's reason to be concerned about Trump, along with the people he is surrounded by. Trump is a racist bully, who would never got the traction he did if it weren't for the corporate-owned news. He was less dangerous before the Republican Party sort of embraced him. Mike Pence for heaven's sake? Still, Trump is the undoing of the GOP whether he wins or not. But a Clinton win will secure the status quo of US (and DNC) policy for at least eight more years, and it will try to suppress and co-opt the movement as well. I simply will not vote for Clinton, and I won't be shat upon again by the Democratic Party. I look forward to the day when the Clintons are pariahs in the Democratic Party.

I'm keeping track of the polling in my state of Utah. Utah's DNC delegation was 80% Sanders delegates, so there's no love lost to Mrs. Clinton. With Stein and Johnson on our ballot as well, it could end up being a very tight race, as center right Republicans move to Johnson or Clinton, lefties move to Stein, and a disgusted religious electorate, opposed to hateful rhetoric and composed of both parties, just stays home. I will vote to ensure Clinton loses. I may be able to vote my principles with Stein (here's hoping), or I might have to actually pull the lever for Trump (god forbid).


... Well, sh*t people. I came here for a little pep talk and cheering up after our four-day love fest, preparing us for our next four year descent into further center/right triangulation (sounds like strangulation) politics. C'mon people -help a brother out here!... :-p


From the article: "The news of Clinton’s advisers calling openly for military measures signals to those critics in the administration to continue to push for a more aggressive policy on the premise that she will do just that as president."

So it's that, or maybe it's a push for Barry to get World War III started so that Hillary won't have to. That way she can just jump into office and start cackling right away---no worries about having to fabricate messy reasons, justification, or excuses.


To label someone a hawk, is akin to calling another a liberal. These terms have lost their meaning and serve only to obscure the facts. A hawk thus labelled is entitled to ask, who is the target, and who the beneficiary of my violence? Therein lies a story not often addressed.

In 2010, the State Department of Hillary took upon itself to define the offense 'anti-Semitism' for the entire U.S. government. In a section entitled, 'What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?' it sets forth, not just the traditional prejudice against a people or religion that the term is commonly taken to mean, but includes any attempt to blame the state of Israel for policies that produce 'political tension'. As further examples of anti-Semitism, it cites efforts by multilateral organizations which focus 'on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.'

By one stroke of the pen, written by candle light late at night, when no one is watching, Hillary managed to exonerate a foreign state from all criticism of its policies, now and forever. But what if the Likud were to be replaced by another more belligerent government, are we prohibited from criticizing it? What if the criticism comes from someone wishing Israel's citizens well, as in 'cut out the cola and brush your teeth'. Indeed, what if the criticism comes from someone with impeccable Jewish credentials? Hillary is silent on these points.

The wars we are liable to fight under Hillary issue from unthinking support of the policies of a foreign state. And objections to them would be, by Hillary's odd definition, anti-Semitic.


“…To label someone a hawk, is akin to calling another a liberal. These terms have lost their meaning and serve only to obscure the facts…”

… To label someone a hawk is akin to acknowledging a left/right dichotomy. What truly does obscure the facts is when someone declares; “There are no red states, or blue states –only the United States.” Now ‘that’ is truly obscuring the facts…
… One might argue that a certain liberal/conservative dichotomy might seem a rather ‘limited’ way to experience reality -from a purely metaphysical sense- but it would be hard to argue that such a reality does not in fact exist…
… Keep it simple Ian. Don’t try and confuse us any more than we already are… :slight_smile:


I'm grateful that most of my peers are understanding enough when I tell them my intentions to vote for Jill Stein. I have, however, been told once to "think of other people for a change."

To that, I say that I am thinking of others when I make this choice. Though I have next to no chance of winning what I want, I choose to represent those countless people who are not even granted one meager voice in the process. People around the world whose lives are affected by US policy in ways far more onerous than the ways Britain's policy affected those that founded my country. Either directly, or just as often indirectly through the allies this government gives endless and unquestioning support to.

"The first thing is that, it is true that when there's a drone attack, those–the terrorists are killed, it's true, but 500 and 5,000 more people rise against it, and more terrorism occurs, and more bomb blasts occur. So for that reason, I think the best way to fight against terrorism is do it through peaceful way, not through war, because I believe that a war can never be ended by a war." - Malala Yousafzai


ok. Point well taken. Thanks.


… I was reading a screed from Robert Reich on another website a few days ago, where he was trying to convince us lefty purists, yet again, why our not voting for Hillary is only an extra vote for the Donald. One of the posters' take on his message was so profound that I am extremely happy to share it with those here, who will truly appreciate its deep and insightful perspective. This is what he/she stated;

“… What he (Robert Reich) is really saying is… if you go ahead and vote for Hillary, you’ll only be hurting yourselves. If you vote for Donald, you’re hurting me, and all my friends. So, don’t hurt me, and all my friends… only hurt yourselves…”

…Is that brilliant, or what?... :slight_smile:


It's abundantly clear now that the Democrats are the most dangerous party in Washington. The Democratic Party convention was basically an open declaration of war. The Dems and their neocon advisors are in full regime change mode, but this time it’s not about a 2-bit dictator without functioning weapons. This time we’re talking about escalating in Syria, attacking Iran, and going after Russia. It boggles the mind that fearful pro-Hillary liberals – you know, those “love trumps hate” folks -- do not seem at all bothered by Clinton’s war fever. And make no mistake, these regime change wars are racist wars. Frankly, I’m more concerned with Clinton’s actual bellicosity and racism than I am with Trump’s rhetorical racism.


So who are the Hillary voters? It seems to be fair game to characterize Trump supporters based on the views of The Donald, so let’s apply the same criteria to Hillary’s followers. Clearly they are comfortable with wars of aggression, drone killings and imposing sanctions that kill women and children in great numbers. Her threats against Iran and Russia, which could escalate into a nuclear war, don’t seem to bother her supporters either. They probably have to suspend their “feminist” values to swallow Hillary’s neocon militarism, but there seems to be no lack of denial in the Clinton camp.

Trump’s racism bothers them. Hillary’s racism – not so much. Maybe it’s all in the definition. Does embracing Israel’s apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians count as racism? How about cheering on the bombing of Libya’s civilian Muslim population? The Clintons’ prison and welfare reform targeted minority men, women and children.

Hillary wants to work closer with her BFF, Netanyahu, even though he is responsible for some of the worst human rights violations on the planet, and he has just secured the most far right pro-genocidal government Israel has ever had – even scaring the Israel military to publicly oppose him. But Hillary will stand by her man, as she has done in the past, and Hillary supporters will stand by her and exercise their incredible ability to tolerate her racism while trashing Trump’s. Let’s face it, all that’s left of the Democratic Party, after the monied interests have purged it of progressives, are warhawks, racists and hypocrites. Time to make a clean break.


"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off.

"We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!" – Donald Trump