Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/11/would-clinton-win-mean-more-wars

The Washington foreign policy establishment is now so profoundly in the hands of the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks that the sitting President presumably couldn’t find anyone but a neocon to give those interviews to, even as he complained about how the U.S. capital is in the hands of warmongers.

Given this neocon domination of U.S. foreign policy – especially in the State Department bureaucracy, the major media and the big think tanks – Clinton will be buffeted by hawkish demands and plans both from outside of her administration and from within.

Already key neocons, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, are signaling that they expect to have substantial influence over Clinton’s foreign policy. Kagan, who has repackaged himself as a “liberal interventionist,” threw his support to Clinton, who put him on a State Department advisory board.

There is also talk in Washington that Kagan’s neocon wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, another Clinton favorite and the architect of the “regime change” in Ukraine, would be in line for a top foreign policy job in a Clinton-45 administration.

So, Clinton’s election could mean that some of the most dangerous people in American foreign policy would be whispering their schemes for war and more war directly into her ear – and her record shows that she is very susceptible to such guidance.

At every turn, as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton has opted for “regime change” solutions – from the Iraq invasion in 2003 to the Honduras coup in 2009 to the Libyan air war in 2011 to the Syria civil war since 2011 – or she has advocated for the escalation of conflicts, such as in Afghanistan and with Iran, rather than engaging in reasonable give-and-take negotiations.

[Joob]

1. Yes, if there's money to be made for corporations. She's a SELLOUT nt

[Baobab]

12. War is the fastest way of shoveling money into your backers bank accounts.

with the minimum possible waste in wages.

[revbones]

2. Yes. This is why neocons like her. nt

[Half-Century Man]

3. Yeah

[msongs]

4. bernie votes to pay for all our endless wars so if she does she will have his vote for the cash lol

[eridani]

5. He votes for soldiers and veterans

War is just a laff riot for you--wonder if Iraqis fee the same way?

[VulgarPoet]

11. So like your chosen candidate,

You support sending us to war, but don't support y'know, making sure we go over there with more than body armor from Desert Storm and M-16s from the Vietnam era?

Cause I dunno if you realized this or not, but that is what Bernie voted for. You're being intellectually dishonest, and it comes off as not giving a fuck about our servicemen and veterans. Which y'know, makes you the perfect Clinton supporter anyway.

[Zira]

6. Yes, specifically Iran.

[7wo7rees]

7. Does the sun rise in the East? Do we have a full moon once

a month?

Probably.

[John Poet]

8. "Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses...."

"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.

"If Bashar al-Assad is still president of Syria, there will be demands that she finally go for the knock-out blow; there will be pressure, too, for her to ratchet up sanctions on Iran pushing Tehran toward renouncing the nuclear agreement; there are already calls for deploying more U.S. troops on Russia’s border and integrating Ukraine into the NATO military structure.

"President Clinton-45 would hear the clever talking points justifying these moves, the swaggering tough-guy/gal rhetoric, and the tear-jerking propaganda about evil enemies throwing babies off incubators, giving Viagra to soldiers to rape more women, and committing horrific crimes (some real but many imagined) against defenseless innocents."

(Originally published at https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/would-a-clinton-win-mean-more-wars/ )

[Fast Walker 52]

14. this seems like a gross exaggeration... but sadly it isn't

[Cobalt Violet]

9. her judgement is so poor that it would mean a lot more war.

plus she love to smooze up to war criminals. We won't get anything like peace.

[bvf]

10. Definitely. Each one followed by an apology years later. n/t

[Fast Walker 52]

13. By far, this is my biggest issue with Hillary and her international policies are simply evil

I just can't imagine how Hillary supporters justify this evil.

[LondonReign2]

15. There is a reason PNAC has endorsed her

[riderinthestorm]

16. Yes absolutely nt

[PADemD]

17. Yes, with Henry Kissinger's advice.

[John Poet]

19. Hillary's supporters remind me of Scarlett O'Hara.

She was sure that all the talk of war was just talk....