Home | About | Donate

Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?


#1

Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

Robert Parry

The Democratic Party establishment seems determined to drag Hillary Clinton’s listless campaign across the finish line of her race with Bernie Sanders and then count on Republican divisions to give her a path to the White House. But – if she gets there – the world should hold its breath.

If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its “regime change” strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia.


#2

If hrc moves back into The White House I look forward to a long very cold nuclear winter.


#4

We can only hope:


#5

The author paints Clinton as some neutral and gullible entity to weak to resist the advice of the Washington war machine. Not so. Neocons and liberal interventionists won't be whispering in her ear; they'll be celebrating with her and, in fact, she'll be the one throwing the party. She is a member in good standing of that crowd and has been for her entire career. A vote for Hillary Clinton has never been anything BUT a vote for more war.


#7

With Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton on her team, all Hillary needs now is the endorsement of the Killer Tomatoes to round out her entourage of life-threatening barbarians.


#8

In a sense we are already at war with ISIS and both Clinton and Sanders have vowed to continue that war until the US destroys ISIS. What will the destruction of ISIS take? How do you even define the destruction of ISIS? Both Clinton and Sanders say at some point Assad has to go in order to ever get a peaceful solution in Syria. Both say that should happen through the negotiations that have been ongoing for some time. Both say they plan to continue drone strikes against jihadists in various countries. Neither has offered a plan to end the US involvement in Afghanistan. Voters should ask who can best deal with an unexpected crisis. Who would make the best commander-in-chief?


#9

I wonder if democratic-socialist Bernie is aware that Assad is a socialist and that is the real reason why the USA and minions insist that he has to go.


#10

Parry's statement that Clinton's AIPAC "pivot to the center finally freed her from having to pander to progressives" will define her actions if she is nominated. Each day will see Clinton reneging on another progressive stance that Sanders forced her to take during the primaries.


#11

I love Bob Parry but this is always where I've parted company with him. He has a view of leadership that is historically passive to the extreme; always favors the power of the advisory class. I think it's just an experiential bias with him and his experience with the Reagan era where this nation was essentially ruled by a cabal of cackling advisors.
I agree. Clinton won't be the recipient of those whispers. She'll be the originator of them.


#12

For all of the reasons mentioned here, I - a lifelong Democrat - will not vote for Hillary Clinton. And I don't care which piece of scat the other party craps out upon the electorate. Save your breath and your weary fingers you defenders of the big D establishment realm. I did not create Hillary Clinton, and am not responsible for foisting such an abominable candidate on the desperate party faithful. A vote for Clinton IS NOT a vote for the lesser evil, but for a more sinister and more assured continuance of all the present evils.


#13

If you're a fan of bad judgment, subversive Israeli/Zionist influence, more war, destabilization, and "regime change", and "malleable" moral compass, Hillary Clinton' s your candidate! Her service to the MICC war-machine and Israeli terrorist agenda (as demonstrated in her speech at the annual AIPAC bootlicking!) shows where she stands - not with America's best foreign-policy interests!

Older Robert Parry piece on NeoCon influence/relationship with pro-Israel war-hawk Clinton.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/16/how-neocons-banished-realism/


#14

“Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton has the wisdom to resist these siren songs of confrontation and war, even if she were inclined to?” (Robert Parry)

In a word NO! Hillary has never been anything but a neocon and as such she will appoint fellow neocons for “advice”, one can easily imagine Secretary of State Victoria Nuland advising President Hillary to reinvigorate the cold war and challenge Russia and China. All war all the time will be our new national motto.
Really, there is only one choice for President that offers any hope and that is Bernie. Quite simply, we must elect Bernie Sanders as our next President…


#15

Clinton's election could mean that ( HRC will be surrounded by) some of the most dangerous people in foreign policy?

Stop right there! Hillary rotten Clinton is ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE IN FOREIGN POLICY. HRC has so much foreign policy blood on her hands that it will be impossible to get it off!


#16

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


#18

I think earlier in the piece he's writing to inform those who think Clinton is well-intentioned. Later he makes her neocon aspirations clear.


#19

Clinton is more hawkish than Trump.

I don't want either of their fingers on the nuclear trigger.

Bernie 2016


#22

ISIS has been empowered by every action Clinton has supported and inflicted on the Middle East.

When she pushes for regime change in Syria and Iran it will be more of the same.

You're attempting to pretend her policies are the same as Sanders. That simply isn't true.

"I think -- and I say this with due respect -- that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after."

Bernie Sanders


#23

Hillary Clinton is Joe Lieberman with tits.


#24

To answer the title question, of course a Clinton win would mean more wars!!


#25

Military Historian Agrees with Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is an Unreconstructed Hawk
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/8/military_historian_agrees_with_bernie_sanders
Corroboration. BOTH these articles need to get out to thousands...