Home | About | Donate

John Bolton and Liberals’ Irrational Hatred of Trump

The Clintons and Barack Obama certainly come to mind. Right-wing “liberals” like these specific Democrats are responsible for the deaths of well over a million Muslim innocents in Iraq and Syria alone:


And we should never forget President Obama’s long list of accomplishment on behalf of Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, our genocidal neocons, and the U.S. oligarchy:


In other words, as dangerous and monstrous as the Republican Party is – and has been for several decades – Black Agenda Report editor, Glen Ford, has a perfectly tenable thesis, for anyone remotely familiar with policy and modern American history: Democrats have proven to be not the “lesser,” but the “more effective” evil.

Trump’s a grotesque troll and a threat to humanity everywhere. But any fair-minded person, equipped with the facts, would have to concede that his warmongering has “only” killed scores of thousands, whereas the Clintons and Barack Obama slaughtered between 1.6 and 2 million Muslims.

And no president in living memory has done more harm to the rule of law than Obama, who “legalized” everything from torture to assassination to the surveillance society to the police state: Bush/Cheney on steroids… and I fought Bush/Cheney’s policies with everything I had. Only to see Obama normalize and exceed their worst policies – including when it comes to the environment, where Obama distinguished himself as a great champion of fracking, Arctic drilling, tar sands oil and pipelines – an enemy of legal carbon limits and legal liability for polluters (making the Paris Climate Accords toothless) – and the #1 president in U.S. history for domestic oil production, when human survival literally depended on a Green New Deal.


Attacking previous administrations does not make Trump any better.
I haven’t fact checked everything you say, but I suspect there are some inaccuracies, and certainly some loose interpretations.
One point that stands out is that neither of the Clintons, nor Obama, started the wars that killed 1.6 to 2 million Muslims.

I think Bolton’s characterization of the Republicans attitudesand Trump’s weaknesses among them is consistent with private conversations Ive had with some Republicans I know about Trump.

Please do check the links. There are no inaccuracies that have been pointed out previously. In my blogs, I’ve linked to articles in The Guardian, The New York Times, and other mainstream sources. Clinton’s sanctions killed “well over a million” Iraqi civilians. Obama’s Operation Timber Sycamore (regime-change op in Syria, using a second Mujaheddin army) killed at least half a million Syrians. The vast majority were women and children.

Trump, monster that he is, has killed a fraction of that number.

Although I supported him vigorously in 2008, Barack Obama rescued the neocon agenda (needlessly, under no political pressure, betraying his campaign promises) – whereas that Nazi-evoking agenda has largely stalled under Trump.

It’s ironic, but it’s true.

1 Like

Clinton - perhaps nt surprisingly - saw things differently. see his interview with Amy Goodman.

The rebels in Syria may have killed half a million women and children with secretly supplied US arms. But we have no way of knowing how many they would have killed without them. It is unfair to put the blame solely on Obama. Was he right to arm the rebels? Possibly not. But arguably better than invading the country.

The damage Trump has done extends far beyond casualties of war.

That much is clear.

(I hope that, in time, you will read my linked pieces and the linked articles in those posts supporting the specific claims I’ve made. In my political writing, I frequently cite Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, like Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, and Seymour Hersh, and respected, mainstream news organizations, from The New York Times to The Guardian to FAIR and beyond. No Fox News, no Alex Jones, etc…)

But getting to the heart of our discussion, please, review the history:

According to the World Health Organization and Denis Halliday (the career U.N. development worker who oversaw Clinton’s sanctions regime in Iraq before resigning in disgust), those draconian, potable water-denying sanctions killed “well over a million” Iraqi civilians, the vast majority of whom were babies and toddlers: ~https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

Clinton may not have “started a war,” but his extreme neoconservatism certainly paved the way for Bush/Cheney’s monstrous (and illegal) 2003 invasion, which killed well over a million more Iraqi civilians, nearly all of them Arab Muslims.

By any definition you like, that’s genocide, and the Clintons have played a large and critically important role in ramping up the mass-murder of Arab Muslims in the Middle East and Africa over the last few decades.

Like Bush, Cheney, and President Obama, Bill Clinton should be tried and sentenced by the International Criminal Court.

Concerning President Obama’s atrocities, I don’t mean to offend, but it appears that you are completely unfamiliar with the history of the U.S. regime-change operation in Syria – conceived under Bush/Cheney (as reported by multiple Pulitzer-winner, Seymour Hersh) and executed by Barack Obama: ~https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

That regime-change operation was called Operation Timber Sycamore, and it involved the creation of a second Mujaheddin army, trained, coordinated, and supported by Washington: ~https://fair.org/home/media-end-cia-training-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda/

The Obama administration – working with the Saudis, Qataris, Israel, Turkey, UAE, Kuwait, Dubai, and Bahrain – flooded a nation at peace with tens of thousands of suicide-bombing, head-chopping al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists, plunging Syria into a civil war (briefly), followed by several years of ethnosectarian cleansing and chemical weapons attacks perpetrated “our” Mujaheddin, attempting to frame the regime (meanwhile, Syrian minorities and the bulk of the population fled to Damascus for protection from the Salafist butchers): ~http://invitation2artivism.com/subcontracting-foreign-policy-to-gulf-countries-is-never-a-good-idea/

Once again, I invite you to familiarize yourself with the origins of the conflict in Syria. Once you do, you will truly understand that President Obama did to Syria something very like what George W. Bush did to Iraq: ~http://invitation2artivism.com/a-striking-lack-of-empathy-part-iii-the-neocons-keep-killing-americans-keep-snoozing-syriasly/

The conflict that this Nobel “Peace Prize” winner started in Syria led to rampant genocide and the deaths of over half a million human beings, predominantly Arab Muslims. Obama’s covert, CIA-orchestrated, terrorist-led invasion also created well over 10 million refugees, bringing the world’s total number of refugees to record levels, exceeding any number in recorded history.

Combined, the Clintons, Barack Obama, and George Bush are responsible for the deaths of over 3 million Muslims, a modern holocaust.

That you do not know this history is unfortunate, but unsurprising, considering the degradation of the mainstream media over the last two decades (thanks largely to the Telecom Act of 1996).

Nonetheless, some of our best remaining journalists have reported and documented that shameful history. The world will remember this holocaust, even if most Americans are presently doing the “Good German” thing (heads in the sand), or only blaming one party, when both representatives of our neo-fascist duopoly are equally responsible, as the history clearly shows.

In any case, I certainly hope you will take the time to investigate our country’s very recent history. Because you do yourself a disservice when you voice your “suspicions” about “inaccuracies” – concerning gravely serious matters – without actually examining the arguments being made or the facts underlying them.


i wanted to thank you for your continued struggle.

arrrrgh… the organization(s) she called „rebels“ were led, backed (or directly created) by the CIA and her „rebels“ were introduced into Syria to get the desired reaction. a „wonderful“ reaction that can be used for all kinds of „wonderful“ things the Pentagon desires and the press will love, love to dance with Washington and wip the public into a fury by presenting „atrocities“ that are either CIA orchestrated or more often downright lies — e.g „killed“ babies, WMD in „dangerous“ countries on the brink of collapse — lies that could’ve been debunked by monkeys will be used by the press to wip america into a frenzy for war — i call it the psyop 101 because it just works — however what i hate the most about the press is how the progressive establishment plays along!!! e.g the progressive establishment helped to fabricate Obama’s post presidential star dom arrrrrrrrgh. Amy Goodman et al washed Obama’s, bloody arse it’s appalling and absolutely ensane.

the Nobel prize committee who gave Obummer the Nobel prize ended up regretting their decision, and the Nobel prize committee is a fairly conservative institution… the progressive establishment washed the arse of war criminal!!! instead of sending Obama away into a lonely political after life complete with Valium, Xanax and snoop, instead they 'd chose to make a star out of him, thank you Amy and thank you mister Gonzales for focusing on skin color right when Obama left the office — to feed a insidious media narrative (1) that protects a war criminal — thank you Amy, but the problem is not limited to democracynow.

a few weeks ago i’ve read an essay on Counterpunch that dreamed up the redemption of Obama yes sir you’ve read correctly, his redemption not his burial place in a volcano… plz tell me, that i am not entirely crazy when i say: the obama-fanboi-zombie-journalist-mob is as guilty as Obummer and Killary!!! i want to thank them all — very mutch — for taking peoples eyes.

1: Obama’s departure from the Whitehouse was presented (by the press) as departure of black qualities, a black man and his progress had to go, so that the evils of history can return (2) to destroy Barry’s „astounding“ legacy of war, bank bailouts and his eight years of loving, caring sex with the neocons. i think, the narrative that comes out of the press is too bizarre for analysis, instead it would need to be satirized but even their supposed satire „analyzes“ skin color.

2: here is where the satire starts.

1 Like

First of all, thank you very much for your kind comment!

Secondly, I certainly agree with you about the extraordinary failures of progressive media during the Obama years (covering up his appalling crimes and shredding of the Constitution) – and now, in the Trump era (siding with the genocidal neocons and pushing WWIII and ludicrous, utterly debunked Russiagate, simply because they despise Trump).

But I ask you, what kind of “liberal” sides with Bolton, Brennan, Clapper, William Kristol, David Frum, and the rest of those Nazi-esque “resistance heroes?”

How have Democrats become the new McCarthyites, every bit as conservative, reckless, and dangerous as the previous generation of McCarthyites?

How is it that the “liberal” class has failed to notice the complete takeover of the Democratic Party by Bush/Cheney-era neocons, Wall Street, and the intelligence agencies?

Actually, I think we know the answers to those questions: It’s because over 90% of American journalism, including that coming from once-progressive sources, has collapsed in recent years.

It breaks my heart that DemocracyNow!, in particular, has fallen so far – and I have so little use for the show, these days. I very much admire the work of Aaron Mate, who has clearly been disappointed by Amy Goodman’s new alignment with the neocons and McCarthyites – and her general refusal to publish journalism that challenges official narratives, re: Russia, Syria, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and more. Mate worked for DemNow! for a decade, if memory serves, and he’s at least as baffled as I am by the show’s descent into partisanship, putting politics over principle, even when it means siding with the worst war criminals of the last half-century!

But I also miss the more progressive incarnations of Mother Jones, Daily Kos, HuffPo, and a few other sites that once provided useful information and quality journalism… rather than official propaganda with a partisan spin.

(And yes, the bastardization and corruption of Identity Politics has played an enormously destructive role in the collapse of the left’s integrity and moral/intellectual coherence.)

Thanks again for the supportive comments. Good luck continuing the struggle on your end!

1 Like

Do you have any idea if any of the publications that are suppressing news that doesn’t paint the DNC in a positive light are getting paid to do so?

Maybe in the form of phony subscriptions?

Rather than a “phony subscription” scheme or an actual quid pro quo pay-off for suppressing specific stories exposing DNC/Democratic Party corruption, I think it’s more about self-censoring – journalists and publishers strictly adhering to the agendas of mega-donors (plutocrat donors that even progressive outlets like DemNow and CommonDreams depend on for their funding).

Money/power corrupts, and when the Democrats and Republicans allow themselves to be bought off and corrupted by the billionaire class, there’s not much hope for the future of our once-constitutional, semi-democratic republic.

And when journalistic organizations succumb to those same pernicious influences – the billionaire class that’s revived fascism and put the planet’s biosphere on life-support – reliable information becomes very, very difficult to find.

One has to be pretty experienced and savvy, these days, to recognize which journalists are still speaking truth to power on a regular basis… and which ones have been totally co-opted by the establishment (Rachel Maddow/Glenn Beck II comes to mind).


How much does it cost to have a news program, really, besides salaries and bandwidth? If one wants to spend practically nothing, it could be done on almost nothing. (apart from the time)

I personally watch Democracy Now and still think they MIGHT be redeemable if they simply devoted a bit more quality time in getting to the real roots of stories.

It would help us all so very much if we held politicians and NGOs to a standard dictated by fact.

It does not help for them to repeat things that they know are not true, simply because the real facts make it clear that nobody is blameless in creating the mess we’re in today.

That puts us in a terrible situation .

1 Like

Not certain about Common Dreams, but they are not crystal clear in their “about” section so i wonder.

"By relying on our readers and tens of thousands of small donations to keep us moving forward—with no advertising, corporate underwriting or government funding—Common Dreams maintains an editorial independence our readers can count on.
“Common Dreams is a 501©3 nonprofit organization. And in order to ensure our independence, we accept no corporate or governmental financing or advertisements of any kind. Common Dreams is funded by the pooling together of thousands of small donations from our readers.”

So CD plainly says they accept no corporate money, no government money, and no advertising money. But they do not say that they accept no foundation or other NGO money (although technically these would be corporations too, just not for-profit corporations), and they do not say they reject large personal donations. But, they close by saying that CD “is funded by the pooling together of thousands of small donations from our readers.” But, they do not specify that it is SOLELY funded by small donations.

i suppose we could ask them. Also as a 501c3 they have some reporting requirements, so there might be public information accessible.

Do you have any specific info on whether CD does take foundation money, or large personal donations, or any specific info on these funding sources if they exist? It would be good to know.

i know that CD co-founder Craig Brown came out of the Democratic party, as a former staffer for a Senator i believe. And they obviously walk on two sides of a line, offering hard critiques of the Democratic establishment, but also compromising and throwing some red meat to party adherents in their coverage, and investing tons of space on detailing Trump’s outrageous statements. They clearly want the Democrats to move to the left, and have served as a sort of Bernie Sanders Central for the past four years.

It would be good to know if they do have any large funders.

1 Like





There literally hundreds of articles detailing how the Democrats and Liberals now portray Bolton as some sort of hero.

Here Rachel Maddow boo-hooing about how poorly Bolton treated.



And yes they did the same thing with George Bush all buddy buddy now with Obama…John Brennan made the rounds on the TV as the democrats sang his praises.


Here is how Obama promoted Brennan to the head of the CIA in 2013 even after it revealed he was involved in the torture program during the Bush Presidency.


Here an article on the Democrats embracing George Bush.


This last article describes YOU perfectly.

You should read more then the talking points the DNC sends out to you each month.


this is sorta good to hear… i am not very familiar with the McCarthyites but a lot that came out of the Obama administration reminded me at the stories i heared (so far) about the McCarthyites e.g the witch hunt against Julian Assange it sounded familiar — the McCarthyites apparently witch hunted „communists“ and all kinds of other things — anyway the chase after Julian Assange sounded very McCarthyish to me, err it might be worse than what the McCarthyites pulled off, but it’s hard to measure because i don’t know what might lurk in the deep end of the gruesome pool of McCarthyisms.

but why did i bring up Julian Assange? easy answer: he might mark a turning point in history.

virtually all grand establishment publications played along with the mmm public butchering of Julian Assange — my „friends“ (1) from the Economist magazine literally labeled him as that odious — the liberal elites savagely butchered him (or rather his reputation) with random accusation so after „they“ couldn’t take down his homepage they started to play it dirty. so far the basics but here is where it gets scary… not the pentagon hunted Assange well they hunted him too but here a more relevant MVP enters the game. virtually the whole assembled media establishment (NYT, economist magazine etc) joined the hunt and they all were willing to go after Julian Assange as a person, they couldn’t kill Wikileaks so they hunted their leader. for me the message was crystal clear: cross the liberal elites and you’re dead and there is more bad coming… for me, it didn’t look like Wikileaks published content, news, leaks etc that were outside of the „normal“ horizon of atrocities that come out of Washington. so what was the big deal about Wikileaks for the enemies of Julian Assange? i think there was something special about how Wikileaks could publish, Julian Assange could by pass the framing, filtering (and narrative spinning) of the establishment media — i think that’s why they want to kill him — and this is what makes it so scary: they didn’t hunt him out of necessity (to prevent leaks) they hunted him to keep their superiority over the „presentation“ of Washington, the masters of all narrative spinner cannot be crossed by a mere mortal, too bad that he could cross 'em with nothing but the truth — this got to be as depressing as it goes (from a perspective of say a teacher or journalist).

how many idealistic journalists entered the profession with the naive idea that truth will (eventually) win… turns out truth will lose the hardest after the greatest achievement of the field is won — by passing the „reality filter“ governed by the NYT et al, to me it sounded like a hell of an achievement — it’s also an impossible dream (of mine) and the guy who actually achived it was quckly axed, yet the axing came from the very elites that teach their people that all people should reach for the stars and then somebody reached for the stars and achieves the impossible to get locked away forever… Julian Assanges case isn’t merely depressing it’s above all a master class in organized cynicism.

so are the new McCarthyites already worse than „traditional“ McCarthyites? i’d say only the future will show.

1: describing them as „friends“ represents my sense of humor but they aren’t friends, the Economist magazine is more than an enemy it’s an evil that shouldn’t be around anymore.

I also read the NYT and The Guardian and several aggregator sites like Common Dreams. I am not familiar with Greenwald’s work. I think Hedges is always worth reading, but Hersh has some pretty loony ideas which could almost be described as conspiracy theories. He is no longer taken seriously by fellow journalists. Yet your view of Syria seems to be based largely on his views, so I do voice suspicions. The civil war in Syria began in 2011 and the situation is extremely complex, with an extremely restrained response from the US.
While investigating “our country’s very recent history” I came across an article from the Wharton School, about the origins of the civil war in Syria. (I’m not allowed to post a link so you will just have to find it yourself().
I find it a lot more credible than anything written by a journalist.

FYI, if you put a tilde directly in front of the link, that makes it no longer a “live” link, but allows others to cut-and-paste (leaving out the tilde) and open the link in their browser. Like this:


One lives and learns. That is quite a useful tip.

1 Like

Evil doesn’t care what twisted logic you use to justify your bowing down to Evil, bend the knee to evil and you are furthering the cause of evil regardless of what End you strive to achieve, evil methods make you, and your goal, evil.

Especially, as there simply isn’t enough time left to save our nation, nor our global civilization, as it is, and there may not be enough of humanity left after the collapse to survive the hell we are creating in our planet’s biome