Home | About | Donate

Will Michele Flournoy Be the Angel of Death for the American Empire?

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/09/22/will-michele-flournoy-be-angel-death-american-empire


I encourage people to research Flournoy and then consider the worldwide, and long term impact of Flournoy could have as head of the US War Department. Do to the anti-democratic electoral process, only those US citizens in swing states have the ability to sway outcome. For those people, there are very real considerations of the degree to which the world will be impacted if Biden is elected and he appoints Flournoy as leader of the US War Department.


Yeah Steve, what a country, sh!tty choice #1, or sh!tty choice #2.

Flournoy proves with out a doubt, the great divide there is between D’s and R’s on this subject. /s

1 Like

The blue-no-matter-who and noseholder brigades around here will hail the Michele Flournoy pick as an advancement for women. And they’ll excuse the coming austerity as the price we have to pay to keep us safe from terrorists.

As far as I’m concerned, the American Empire can’t die soon enough.


------or, if not Michele Flournoy, will it be some other person of similar history and views?

This is why I do not vote Biden.

I am curious what people feel it does to the women’s movement to have Gina Haspel appointed to direct the CIA or, potentially, to have Flournoy appointed to head the war department, known as the Department of Defense.


I agree we must vote for him in a race against Trumplicans and Trumplicanism. But there’s more than a little of that Privatization=Wealth Concentrating at the top mojo from the previous Dems…With whom our current currency signer at the U.S. Treasury, Hollywood Steve Mnuchin had most cordial relations before he joined the Trumplican raid on the U.S. Mint!

The Biden campaign’s first hire as with his former boss Obummer was Summers who doesn’t come cheap. Although Larry Summers slummed as Secretary of Treasury so he could sign the money printed for his clients at Citi Group.

Just like his predecessor in the Clinton Cabinet, Robert Rubin the De-Regulator In Chief, who after his term as U.S. Treasury Money Signer which saw him roughing up the last real regulator in Brooksley Born, who Summers also slapped silly for trying to enforce regulations when she headed the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Rubin left for the Global Counsel job at Citi Group’s Supermarket of Tax-Payer Bailed Out Financial Services

Meanwhile Summers went back to run Harvard, claim women are intellectually inferior to men and rise as high as they deserve to in academia when he wasn’t consulting with the Oligarchs who run our kleptocratic Feudal Financial System and make sure no law is ever enforced that bars the conflicted interests of federal workers or those working in the Free Market of Ideas in academics and as Economic Advisors. Especially our elite Ivy League Golden Passport institutions:


Wonder why the leader of the Alt White Supremacist Right Richard Spencer would’ve switched his Presidential endorsement to Biden-Harris? Daddy Warbucks knows the tune…hummm a’long with our Nationalism Anthem:

Ah, Liberals=Competence, now there’s a supreme formulation.
2020 Minimum wage in Pennsylvania=$7.25

Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters and Atonement Seekers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion and Looksee List

1 Like

This is really a poor example of gender bias and the role of democracy. It is still all patriarchy and that includes Medea who seems to have slipped off the deep end.

Yes the entire world is mostly a patriarchy. I read this article twice and totally disagree with your comment.
The second paragraph mentions that a female as secretary of defense would break the glass ceiling but every other paragraph gives very specific details why Michele Flournoy should be called “The Angel of Death” (for american imperialism) and just the Angel of Death.

1 Like

I did too, read it several times, then read the other comments here.

It is fine with me if you disagree. Without some of the more obvious biases (cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.) it was strongly taken how it would affect the outcome within the frame work of patriarchy as viewed though that lens.

The article also uses the old laundry list of past deeds without taking in some of the more salient considerations that she just ignores. Flournoy fully understands this is an empire in decline, she headed a group that focused on deterrence. Whatever, I just thought the article a more of the same piece that missed the boat.

It means women have finally achieved equality…with power-mad, bloodthirsty men.


Note how seamlessly these types of people move from one administration to the next be it Republican or Democrat? Just as with those bankers that created that banking crisis under Bush and then hired on by Obama.

There is no difference between those two parties.


Just as the attempt to turn our First nations peoples by extinguishing their cultures and language so as to turn them into little white men was the ultimate form of subjugation , so is turning women into power mad blood thirsty men.


Seems to me it is you who have slipped off the deep end. What exactly are you objecting to? Are you attempting to defend someone who literally argues against the UN charter of using military force for approved UN actions or for direct self defense only? Do you not believe that claim? Or do you actually agree with Flournoy on this? No progressive can possibly agree to this. For me, that’s all I need to hear, but of course everything else I read about her on top of that sentiment just makes her an even worse pick.

I will take a progressive woman over any neoliberal man for any position in the government.
I will take a progressive man over any neoliberal woman for any position in the government.
I don’t see any justification to take any other view.

1 Like

I can’t believe you said that. If you read my post the objection is clear. My opinion on the issue of Flournoy as Secretary of Defense has not been determined by me. This is a discussion about that process.

I’m not a progressive in the sense that I can’t travel around that circular ideological rut and consider it truly progressive. I do value some of the ideology and people within that domain.

I haven’t vetted Flouroy, but when it comes to Foreign Policy, I haven’t vetted the progressive alternative either. Kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it.

Not to me. I don’t think to @Mary_Grayeske either.

I don’t see how the word oxymoron applies here.

This is a pretty simple issue as I see it:

  1. The stance that we can use our military outside the UN charter is not justifiable. Are you trying to justify it?

  2. I can think of plenty of men I could pick for Secretary of Defense who would be better than Flournoy by a longshot. Two Republicans in fact come to mind: Andrew Bacevich or Lawrence Wilkerson (probably only the latter would be deemed to have enough experience by the powers that be) . Neither of these two would call themselves progressive, but I trust them way more than Flournoy who gives me every reason to doubt her restraint. I don’t happen to know of a woman for the job who would be tolerable - but I’d be interested to hear one. For anyone to support Flournoy because she is a woman in this very critical job is playing identity politics in the worst possible way on a critical appointment. Why any progressive would disagree is to me unfathomable.

1 Like

If you don’t think oxymoron applies here, try seeing Jill Stein in the position.

The UN charter is pretty broad and a good deal of the world operates outside of its charter. I’m not trying to justify it, neither would I ignore it. Are you saying that is your yardstick, the UN?

"Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations. The UN Security Council, under powers granted in articles 24 and 25, and Chapter VII of the Charter, may authorize collective action to maintain or enforce international peace and security. Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter also states that: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a state.”

I don’t agree or disagree with you, I thought the article poorly articulated.

I realize the UN has many faults. On this, I would say it is an envelope I would not tolerate exceeding, but I am aware that just because the UN approves of a military action that is not self defense doesn’t make it necessarily the right thing to do. But in the case of Iraq, the UN did not allow for it (from ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War):

The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in September 2004 that: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it the war was illegal”, explicitly declaring that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

I suppose this topic will be revisited if Biden wins and if he makes this lousy pick. I’ll see what you say then I guess.

I agree that Iraq was the mother of all screw ups, and Flornoy was a part of that but I think it important to look at her participation at more than one level.

If you use the U.S. rules of engagement it was illegal and unjustified and cause for moral outrage.

I won’t comment on the big picture because I haven’t really looked at it so far.

1 Like