Consultants affiliated with a small Washington, D.C., firm called Beacon Global Strategies hold the unique privilege of providing high-profile foreign policy guidance to Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, among others.
The bipartisan firm was founded in 2013 by former senior officials from the State Department, Department of Defense, and Central Intelligence Agency, and quickly had more than a dozen clients, primarily defense contractors, according to Defense News.
Philippe Reines and Andrew Shapiro, both considered part of Clinton’s inner circle of foreign policy advisers, are founders of the firm. Reines served as a longtime spokesperson for Clinton and Shapiro served as her assistant secretary of state for military affairs.
Eric Edelman, a former Bush administration Defense Department official, is an advisory board member to Beacon Global Strategies and a leading foreign policy adviser to Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “It’s mostly about defense, but I’ve talked to him about the authorization of military force. I’ve talked to him about the campaign against ISIS, about Russia and Ukraine. There’s not a shortage of issues right now,” Edelman told Reuters. The news wire noted that that Edelman “regularly briefs the senator.”
The Beacon Global Strategies advisory board, which includes retired Adm. James Stavridis and CNN contributor Fran Townsend, was established to “provide guidance to the BGS team on the full range of the firm’s activities, from particular projects to larger strategic initiatives,” the firm announced in 2013.
Brian Hooks, another veteran Bush administration official and advisory board member to Beacon Global Strategies, teamed up with Edelman to form a foreign policy prep effort for Republican candidates, called the John Hay Initiative. Hooks and Edelman have reportedly provided private briefings to help shape foreign policy ideas to candidates including Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham, encouraging them to take on hawkish positions.
Bryan Smith, the former budget director of the House Intelligence Committee who now works at Beacon Global Strategies as a technical adviser, is also helping lead the John Hay Initiative.
Multiple inquiries from The Intercept to Beacon to disclose its clients and what services it specifically provides went unanswered.
Beacon Global Strategies promoted its influence over the 2016 presidential field on its website with an item touting Brian Hook’s work to advise Republican candidates.
Though the firm says it does not lobby and is not registered as a lobbying firm, lack of registration is becoming increasingly meaningless in Washington as thousands of lobbyists have simply deregistered while continuing to peddle influence on behalf of clients. Under federal lobbying law, lobby registration is only required under very narrow guidelines that are rarely enforced.
While Beacon Global Strategies’ clients and services are a mystery, the firm maintains strong ties to Washington influencers. Politico Playbook headlined the launch of the group: “HOT NEW NATIONAL-SECURITY FIRM.”
After the launch, Jeremy Bash, the managing director of the firm, joined the advisory board to Paladin Capital Group, a private equity firm that provides funding for start-ups that serve as contractors to the National Security Agency.
Beacon Global Strategies’ seed funding came from Claude Fontheim, a former Clinton adviser who now serves as a lobbyist to the U.S.-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons to shape American policy toward China.
No more first generation american presidents.
Eric Edelman sits on the board of the Foreign Policy Initiative aka Project for the New American Century Pt 2. Other board members include Hillary Clinton appointed Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol and Paul Bremer errand boy Dan Senor.
Made a documentary film specifically about this very dangerous/influential group of neocons called A Very Heavy Agenda here: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda
Special Briefing
Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs
Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Washington, DC
October 20, 2010
Unknown tag could not be displayed.
MR. TONER: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. It’s our great pleasure to have in our briefing room today the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro as well as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow. Both are with us today to announce a major arms deal and to – or arms sale and to answer any of your questions. And with that, I’ll hand it over to you, Assistant Secretary.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Thank you, everyone, for coming and we are here – Ambassador Vershbow and I are here to officially announce the Administration’s plan to sell to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a significant defense package that will promote regional security and enhance the defensive capabilities of an important Gulf partner with whom we have had a longstanding and close security relationship. There have been a number of press reports since the summer anticipating this sale. And for those of you who tried to question us about it, you know that it is U.S. Government policy not to comment on any possible arms sales until formal congressional notification has taken place. Often for major arms sales such as this one, a lot of work has to be done before we can notify, including discussions within the U.S. Government, interagency bilateral discussions with the receiving government, not to mention pre-consultations with congressional staff and members.
That said, we are undertaking this sale because it supports our wider regional security goals in the Gulf by deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly 70 years. Let me just take a couple of minutes to describe how this potential arms – we view this potential arms sale package as benefiting the United States and advancing U.S. national security. The Administration analyzed Saudi Arabia’s request for these new aircraft within the context of the U.S. Government’s conventional arms transfer policy, which outlines a criteria that includes the country’s legitimate security needs and broader security objectives.
In accordance with the Arms Export Control Act, the Secretary of State is responsible for providing continuous supervision and general direction of arms sales. This includes determining whether proposed arms sales or export of defense articles and services are authorized and ensuring that they best serve U.S. foreign policy. In practice, this responsibility falls to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher and is enacted by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs is the Department’s lead for arms sales request and has worked closely on this sale with counterparts at the Department of Defense who are responsible for implementing foreign military sales such as the proposed Saudi package. I’m happy to say that we have accomplished all the hard work necessary to complete this package and this interagency effort has been a top priority for both Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton and reflects the strong cooperation between our departments to support our wider national security goals.
This morning the Defense Security Cooperation Agency transmitted to Congress four formal notifications. The most significant items in these potential FMS sales include 84 F-15 aircraft, 70 upgrades of existing Saudi F-15s to a more advanced configuration, 70 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters, 72 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, 36 AH-6i light attack helicopters, and 12 MD-530F light training helicopters.
We have hard copies of DSCA’s press release available describing in more detail the aircraft platforms and the accompanying weapons systems. DSCA plans to publish these releases on its website very shortly.
I do want to emphasize that the dollar value of these potential sales reflects only estimates. We have worked closely with the Saudi Government to identify their full requirements and believe the proposed packages, which include aircraft munitions, support, and training services are sufficient.
Given the defense requirements being pursued by Saudi Arabia, it may choose not to fully fund all four of these programs. The final amount of the sale may well be less than the not-to-exceed estimate provided by DSCA as it will ultimately depend on what the Saudi Government decides to purchase and on the outcome of contract negotiations with industry.
This proposed sale has tremendous significance from a strategic regional perspective. It will reinforce our longstanding security partnership with Saudi Arabia, as Ambassador Vershbow will briefly discuss after my comments.
It will send a strong message to countries in the region that we are committed to support the security of our key partners and allies in the Arabian Gulf and broader Middle East. And it will enhance Saudi Arabia’s ability to deter and defend against threats to its borders and to its oil infrastructure, which is critical to our economic interests.
At the same time, we took into account how this sale is appropriate from a regional political-military perspective and concluded it would not negatively impact Israel’s security interests or Israel’s qualitative military edge, QME.
I’ll now turn it over to Ambassador Vershbow, who will have more to say about the benefits of the sale and how it advances U.S. security interests.
AMBASSADOR VERSHBOW: Thanks very much, Andrew. It’s good to see you all. After many months of work, the Department of Defense is pleased to have the Saudi aviation package now moving forward in the Congress. As Andrew said, over the last 70 years, the United States and Saudi Arabia have worked closely to establish, maintain, and develop very strong bilateral defense ties. With that seven-decade period as background, DOD takes great pride in advancing our defense relations with the Saudis through this proposed sale. Secretary Gates was pleased to have played a direct role in his engagement with King Abdullah and other Saudi leaders in coming to agreement on the proposed configuration for the F-15SA.
Before taking your questions, I’d like to just make a few specific points about why this program is important to U.S.-Saudi defense relations. First of all, we welcome Saudi Arabia’s decision to continue to strategically align itself with the United States. If approved, this program will be implemented over 15 to 20 years, which means that our defense bond with the Saudis will only continue to grow deeper and stronger.
Second, we’re pleased that the Saudis look to the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army for meeting their defense requirements. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia and we believe the capabilities being offered will provide Saudi Arabia with a strong defensive capability for generations to come.
As many of you know, for the past 20 years, the F-15 has been the cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force and Royal Saudi Air Force relationship. The procurement of the new F-15SA, which stands for Saudi Advanced aircraft, and the conversion of the Saudis’ existing F-15S fleet to a common configuration and the possible training contingent in the continental U.S. will provide sustained professional contacts as well as common training and support well into the 21st century.
As for the helicopters – the Apaches, Blackhawks, and Little Birds – we believe that these versatile platforms will be able to conduct a number of critical missions in Saudi Arabia that are essential for the Kingdom’s self-defense. We foresee these helicopters providing area security for Saudi military forces, protecting the borders, and defending critical energy infrastructure sites and installations.
Lastly, this sale will enable Saudi Arabia to be more interoperable with the United States and its partners in the region. By increasing our collective capabilities, not only will our partners be able to take on greater multilateral roles, but specifically the Department of Defense will be able to free up U.S. forces in the region, maximizing the effectiveness of our global force posture.
So with that, Andrew and I are ready to take —
QUESTION: Can I just —
MR. TONER: Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, just – Andrew, you mentioned a couple times the specifics, but you didn’t – and then you were very cautionary about the not to exceed and you didn’t tell us how much it was.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Well, I think that you can add up the totals. I believe it comes to not to exceed 60 billion.
QUESTION: Right, okay. Now, there’s another package in the works, correct, a naval package? Is that right?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: We are not notifying a naval package today.
QUESTION: I understand. But is there a naval package in the works? I’m not asking –
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: I’m not prepared to comment on anything that we’re not notifying today.
QUESTION: All right. And then the last one is: Who does Saudi Arabia need to defend itself against with these – with this hardware?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Well, I think that they’ve got a number of threats in the region. We’ve worked together closely with them on counterterrorism. It’s a dangerous neighborhood, as you know, and we want to ensure that they have the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves against all manner of threats in the region.
QUESTION: So – well, you’re not saying that they’re going to – the Saudis expect to use F-15s against al-Qaida, are you?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Well, I think that —
QUESTION: Or, actually, here – let’s just – let’s not beat around the bush. This is about Iran, right?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: It’s not – no, this is about support —
QUESTION: It’s not?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: It’s not solely about Iran. It’s about helping the Saudis with their legitimate security needs, and they have a number of legitimate security needs. Obviously —
QUESTION: Is that one of them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Sure. There’s – this is – they live in a dangerous neighborhood, and we are helping them preserve their – and protect their security in a dangerous neighborhood against legitimate security threats.
QUESTION: I’m intrigued by what you said about freeing up forces in the region. Which forces exactly? I mean, what does that mean exactly? How is this package going to help the United States free up forces? Are you expecting the Saudis to step in and do some of what you’ve been doing?
AMBASSADOR VERSHBOW: I think, again, you have to put this in a long-term perspective. This will ensure the continued modernization of the Saudi Air Force. In some ways, this is a kind of a reinvestment on their part. When the program for the F-15s is completed, they’ll have roughly the same aircraft but of greater capability. And I think that when one looks at future challenges, having allies throughout the Gulf region who are interoperable with U.S. forces who are capable, have trained together with our forces. It means that we have partners and allies we can look to in future contingencies. So it means we may have to station fewer forces on a continuing basis in the region.
But I think that’s speculative as to what exactly might play out in the future, but I think it’s important to see that a lot of our friends and allies in the region share a perception of the security risks that we face today. And I think this demonstrates the Saudis’ commitment to continuing to play their part in support of the common objectives of our two countries and their other GCC neighbors.
MR. TONER: Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah. Israel was opposing this deal. Have you made them any guarantees?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Well, as I said before, as part of our process we assess whether we conduct an independent assessment of what the impact would be on Israel’s qualitative military edge. And our assessment is – is that this would not diminish Israel’s qualitative military edge, and therefore, we felt comfortable in going forward with the sale.
AMBASSADOR VERSHBOW: Just on the same question, I would say, without being able to address this in specifics, we have consulted with Israel as this sale has taken shape. And there have been high-level discussions as well as working-level discussions, and I think it’s fair to say that based on what we’ve heard at high levels, Israel does not object to this sale.
MR. TONER: Jill Dougherty.
QUESTION: Spinning off from that same idea, Mr. Shapiro, you said that you assessed the impact, potential impact of this. In the region in general, is there the possibility that this might spark a conventional arms race, increase the tension in that region rather than guaranteeing it?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: No, and that’s a very good question. And indeed, I made reference to our conventional arms transfer policy, and that’s one of the things that we look at, is we do not want our arms sales to be destabilizing. But we – in our view, this arms sale has the opposite impact by providing greater security capability for a key partner in the region, and that we think that it will enhance regional stability and security rather than diminish it.
MR. TONER: Lach.
QUESTION: Yeah. The helicopters, are they designed to help the Saudis deal with that threat they had on the border with Yemen? They had trouble putting down a rebellion there?
AMBASSADOR VERSHBOW: I think there’s – there are potential roles for the helicopters that are going to the Saudi land forces in scenarios that we saw in the conflict with the Houthi rebels who did cross-border operations. Some of the helicopters are going to the Saudi National Guard, others are going to the Royal Guard. So they’ll have different roles. But yes, border security is one possible role.
MR. TONER: In the back, (inaudible).
QUESTION: Two questions if I may. One is just a simple technical one. Why would the helicopters and similar sales split into three separate packages at the end? Is that because of different destinations or other reasons, since you’re selling similar hardware? And the more fundamental question is: At a time when Europe has embarked on big defense cuts, does the fact that the U.S. is involved in so many arms sales to autocratic Middle Eastern countries give you pause about where these arms may be in 10 or 20 or 30 years’ time?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: On the first question, I mean, there are various – the way DSCA constructs its packages conforms to its procedures and practices, which includes the fact that there will be different customers within Saudi Arabia for different of these arms sales. In terms of where these arms are going to be, I mean, it’s – I’m not sure I fully understand the question, but from my —
QUESTION: What – the nature of the Saudi regime in 20 or 30 years’ time, it’s such a – the biggest arms sale, I believe, in U.S. history to an autocratic country like Saudi Arabia, does that give you any pause?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Well, as I said, when we conduct an arms sale, we go through an extensive analysis of what impact it’ll have on the region, its potential impact and its actual impact. And we’re comfortable that this sale will serve to enhance U.S. national security.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: Why don’t you go ahead?
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Can you give any details about what sort of weapons packages will be on the new F-15s, whether it includes the standoff systems that Israel saw as its red line? Will those be on the planes?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: The full systems will be on the DSCA press release that’s going on the web and that which we are distributing. Again, all I’ll say is we don’t anticipate that there will be any – as Ambassador Vershbow said, we don’t anticipate objections from the Israelis, but – and at the same time, our own assessment and analysis, we conduct an independent assessment of the impact on Israel’s qualitative military edge, and in that independent assessment, we believe that this sale will not diminish Israel’s qualitative military edge.
MR. TONER: Just a couple more questions. Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: Mr. Shapiro, what was the purpose of your visit to Libya?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: It was designed to discuss regional security issues as well as potential demining efforts. And it is just one more step of continuing the communication and development relations with Libya.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion whatsoever in Libya about the possibility of eventual U.S. arms sales to Libya?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: I’m not going to go into the substance of the discussions, other than to say that I thought it was a productive visit that helped move the relationship forward.
MR. TONER: Nicole.
QUESTION: Do you expect any congressional opposition to this deal? And if so, have you been doing preliminary work on the Hill? Can you tell us about it?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: As I mentioned, as part of preparing a package for congressional notification, we do extensive pre-consultations with the oversight committees which oversee the Arms Export Control Act. And so we have been conducting, with staff and members of those oversight committees, extensive pre-consultations. I can’t speak – Congress is a big place and there is a lot of members, and there may be differing opinions about the sale. But we feel comfortable that we have done adequate pre-consultations with members of Congress that there will not be a barrier to completing this sale.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Dmitry in the back.
QUESTION: Thank you. I was wondering if I can ask both of you gentlemen to comment on the potential sale of Mistral ship by France to Russia. What’s your position on that now? You used to say that you wanted to consult France on that, and maybe you can say anything more on that?
AMBASSADOR VERSHBOW: I think that Secretary Gates commented on that sale when he visited Paris earlier this year. I think more with respect to – is the message that such sales send them about the military impact as such. I think – I’m personally not familiar with the final details of this deal and whether it’s actually been finalized, but I sort of – I think we may have to defer comment until we know more about the sale.
MR. TONER: Last question.
QUESTION: You —
MR. TONER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Congress actually has pretty few working days, though, to consider this kind of thing. You’ve said you’ve got oversight committee – or you’ve been working with them, at least for consultation. Do you feel like you’ve got support across the Hill?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: And my – again, my belief is – is that our consultations have been adequate with oversight committees, members of leadership, staff and others, that we feel comfortable that Congress will not be a barrier to the completion of this sale.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: All right. Thank you all.
PRN: 2010/1493
[This is a mobile copy of Briefing on Pending Major Arms Sale]
Short URL: http://m.state.gov/md149749.htm
Vol. 10, No. 11 4 November 2010
Arms for the King and His Family: The U.S. Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia
Joshua Teitelbaum
[Excerpt]
On October 20, 2010, the U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history – an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The package represents a considerable improvement in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces.
(cont.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20110814154242/http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=5177&TTL=Arms_for_the_King_and_His_Family:_The_U.S._Arms_Sale_to_Saudi_Arabia
Hillary Clinton (a/k/a Hillary Rodham Clinton)
67th United States Secretary of State
In office:
January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013
President Barack Obama
Deputy James Steinberg
William Joseph Burns
Preceded by Condoleezza Rice
Succeeded by John Kerry
Thanks for the heads up in the article from DefenseNews (Joanne). I have found very interesting points of view from commenters on Defense “Procurement” (true, thats what it used to be called) articles and debates in the DefenseNews. If we really want defense spending to go down we need to change the players on a fundamental level. While the fact that they are consulting from the same group of people that they worked with before, the fact that a “revolving door” exist between DC and the defense contractors is not news. The fact that this “intimacy” between our real defense as a nation and the defense contracting in the private sectors who are actually the only ones that know what anything costs is just business as usual. No bid contracts during both wars is just more of the same. Their are groups out their that are trying, but they get little media attention. (see POGO) Because the spigot is open to full, no matter who gets in office, we are spending trillions of our children’s and grandchildren’s future on “The Forever War”. (see Joe Haldeman 1974)
I think there are a few people on this site that lived through that era. Like that era, this era is still based on profit at the expense of millions of lives. So if some in the older generation see some of the same themes repeating themselves don’t be surprised. All wars are fought for profit of a few at the expense of the many.
What to do? Protest, vote, speak out for a victory over violence. Don’t be hooked by media’s description of war. It is not sanitized, it is not entertaining, it is not humane, and you don’t get extra body part or lives. It involves massive of expenditures of lives and money. Your and the world’s children’s lives and all our money. It is the suicide of our species if we don’t say no to war.
Thank you, bk, for your thoughtful and informative response. (I imagine we might enjoy each others company engaging in a lively discussion while enjoying a scrumptious meal ;-). Cheers!
Clinton Allies Join Bush Alum To Form New Consulting Group
Sep. 3, 2013 – 03:45AM | By ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS
[Excerpt]
The group is being set up to focus on several hot areas in national security: international sales, potential vertical integration in the defense industry, and cyber.
But the firm is clear that it will help only with items that align with US policy.
“We want to be sure that what companies are doing is consistent with US national security policy, to begin with,” Bash said.
And since the group has no plans to do any lobbying, that help will be concentrated in strategic thinking, such as how to handle a complicated weapons sales picture in the Middle East, Shapiro said.
“The political currents are obviously of great concern to a lot of defense companies, but it’s not as if they’re going to turn to us to help change the administration’s mind on a major policy issue,” he said. “What they want to know, is they want to understand what the implications are: What are the potential outcomes? How do we plan our business? How do we measure risk?”
And in cyber, they see a chance to help companies both in terms of understanding the complexities of security and policy, as well as the cyber business.
“We can feel people coming to us grappling with this, trying to understand the implications,” Allen said. “Everyone is obsessed with trying to figure out where the cyber market is heading.”
[End]
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130903/DEFREG02/309030006/Clinton-Allies-Join-Bush-Alum-Form-New-Consulting-Group
Clinton Allies Join Bush Alum To Form New Consulting Group
Sep. 3, 2013
Article closes with this:
“We can feel people coming to us grappling with this, trying to understand the implications,” Allen said. “Everyone is obsessed with trying to figure out where the cyber market is heading.”
My comment: This mindset, and/or business model, much like the military industrial complex is geared toward three primary objectives. EXPLOITATION … DESTRUCTION … OFFENSE.
(The exact opposite of protection, preservation and defense.)
Now you’re gonna see how it feels to have America come down on you. – George W. Bush (January 2002)
What a waste of money that they are having to pay for such horrible and delusional advise. They could get their foreign policy advise for free by just reading George Washington’s farewell address.
When our great country was established, the leaders at that time advised our future leaders in regards to foreign policy “to not get involved in the affairs of other nations needlessly, to establish peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with non and to have with them as little political connection as possible, so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
Wow, how we have done a 180 from the words of these wise men of the 18th century.
The Generals and Admirals are not able to win wars anymore so the Washington bubble is now turning to retired “experts” to win the nomination for the next war leader. Evidently their high incomes received from taxpayers during their active work period now needs further supplement from think tanks and advisory organizations.
This is the way to become a millionaire on the taxpayers dime.
Democrats behaving badly, again:
“On Wednesday, a vendor error created a security breach that several Sanders staffers, including its top data official, exploited to access valuable Clinton campaign data. The DNC responded by barring the Sanders campaign from the database entirely, which includes data generated by the campaign itself.
“Appearing on MSNBC earlier in the day, Wasserman Schultz said the campaign downloaded and exported the data, in contradiction to earlier Sanders statements. (The tech vendor, NGP VAN, said the Sanders official ‘was able to search by and view, but not export or save or act on’ the data.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-campaign-declares-war-the-dnc
Beneath contempt.
And why should not all the Party’s candidates get the same sage advice? Otherwise some among the electorate might become distressed, that the Republic might turn away from the policies that have served us so well, earning us dear friendship and admiration throughout the world. Why should we not continue those tried and true policies that have so benefited our primary export industry, and many of our citizens thereby, not to mention the corporations that employ so many of our executives?
Marco Rubio would be a better match for Hillary Clinton’s running mate, as would a number of Republicans, then any liberal Democrat.
Let’s see, we vote for Hillary, we go to war. We vote for any GOP, we go to war. Yeah, another endless fucking war in a long string of endless fucking wars. Will any of this ever stop?? The planet is going down in flames and all they can talk about is endless fucking war. I’m reading about ancient Egypt, guess what? Lot’s of endless fucking war, mostly, a few off years but lot’s of war. This is a human condition that could change if they all stopped making endless fucking war. Sadly, it won’t be in my lifetime, but of course, endless fucking wars.
In a recent thread, there was some discussion and confusion about the proper attribution of one of the saddest and finest musical statements about our endless wars — this one referring back to the early 20th-century. Eventually, proper credit was sorted out.
There have been a lot of fine versions of this moving and heart-rending song performed over the past 40 years, but you won’t find a more powerful one than this, by its author and composer, singer-songwriter Eric Bogle:
“And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda”
Nothing, IMHO, more compellingly tells the real truth of the results of the endless warmongering virtually all of our national leaders and the wannabes engage in for the benefit of their Owners.
“And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda”
PLEASE fix the HTML parsing, TI.
A lovely tune, Doug, but the Party’s candidates will be quick to inform you that there will be no Gallipolis because unlike those poor brave ANZACs all our soldiers will be fighting the wars from above, dropping their bombs from beyond the range of the paltry weapons of those who oppose us, or from afar, piloting their drones from the comfort of a bunker deep within the grounds of a US military base, or like thieves in the night, sneaking up on their unwary targets and taking them out with a hurricane of automatic weapons fire before vanishing again, plucked out of harm’s way by stealth helicopters. Very few body bags, very few wounded, so the public feels no pain. Certainly they feel no pain for the so-called collateral damage, and equally certainly they are unable to identify with the innocent multitudes caught between the warring factions. So, no, I don’t think Waltzing Matilda is the appropriate song here. May I suggest this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UWTRnzKXG8
As the 2005 London bombings and the more recent revenge attack in CA show, these brave soldiers are making sure their offensive wars come home as they stay safe in their drone op rooms.
How very right you are, Jeff.
May I share your response with Bogle, who is still writing and performing (only on Oz, I think)? Perhaps the Muse will inspire a new verse or two.
I think Eric could work with that theme as well, Torturestan.
As my very devout Catholic friend is wont to say, “God help us.”
If I could find and adopt a god, I would, just so I could be a faithful and believing supplicant.
Jus Sayin,
Try not voting before developing your own candidates. Forget that padded bird cage called electability and that superficial charisma of the sort exhibited by Reagan, Bushes, Clintons, and Obama.
The 2016 national election will be another in a very long string of self inflicted debacles. Being complicit in this by voting in Nov. will be a truly nasty act of self flagellation, and for others, mass slaughter. Oh, and the extra judicial torture too.
Don’t do it. Restrain yourself, please.
TI: formerly disabled reply links are working again, so far, for whatever reason. Thanks!
This.
Absolutely.
It’s Friday, so that means time for more analysis.
– – –
The PBS NewsHour is made possible by the Bonnie Parker & Clyde Barrow Charitable Trust; by the Pétain Foundation; by Bybee, Yoo, Nazgûl, Holder, Sméagol & Grond, a public-interest law firm; and by viewers like you! Thank you!
GWEN IFILL: … this week’s revelation that the Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio presidential campaigns shared the same foreign relations advice from the same Washington law firm. For analysis we’re joined by Grima Wormtongue, former national-security adviser to Théoden King of Rohan, and now a senior fellow at the Brooktrout Institute; the late Alan Pinkerton, intelligence adviser to the Lincoln Administration; and former Gov. Pontius Pilate, now with the Plato Institute in Washington. Welcome, gentlemen.
WORMTONGUE: Thank you, Gwen.
GWEN: So, three campaigns, the same firm and the same advisers.
PILATE: And three paychecks for the same product. Which is nothing but advice.
PINKERTON: Talk is cheap.
PILATE: Not for who’s paying for it.
WORMTONGUE: The adviser has it easier, since he – or she – isn’t the one actually responsible for what happens when the king takes your advice.
PINKERTON: Well, as the lead story said, the firm “regularly briefs” the candidates.
WORMTONGUE: Certainly, if the candidates are paying good money for the advice, they’re apt to take it. As you did with Lincoln, Alan. Of course, the advice doesn’t have to be valid.
PINKERTON: Well, at least I wasn’t trying to get old Abe to take hawkish positions, as these guys are doing.
PILATE: No, you kept telling the President and Gen. McClellan that Lee’s army was two, three times the size it really was. Froze McClellan like a rabbit in front of a snake. If the Union kept taking your advice, Lee would still be camped at the Manassas Metro station.
WORMTONGUE: And Mary Todd Lincoln would still be in the White House. Now that’s an existential threat for you.
PINKERTON: At least I know what it is to be a Washington insider, you two don’t. Just try loitering around the U.S. Senate and see just how many would-be advisers and lobbyists are lurking.
PILATE: We know about bad advice. I get the lobbying firm of Caiaphas & Ananias for religious advice, I mishandle a case involving a Galilean preacher, and I get 2,000 years of bad press. And you didn’t do Théoden any favors either, Worm.
WORM: By the way, what the HELL would a Washington law firm know about national security?
GWEN: Beacon Global Strategies’ advisory board includes a retired admiral, a CNN contributor, and a veteran Bush administration official.
PILATE: (snort) A CNN contributor?
WORMTONGUE: CNN had a lot to say about invading Iraq.
PILATE: And a Bush official? Someone who advised George Bush into Operation Iraqi Fiasco? Oh, they know about national security, all right. Might I add that the root of the word “warmonger” is “monger,” as in sales? Like fishmongers?
WORMTONGUE: Dead fish.
PINKERTON: Say, is it a registered Washington lobby?
GWEN: No. They don’t have to. Their “clients and services are a mystery,” says the story.
WORM: A mystery, my precious. (peers at paper) Beacon Global Strategies’ seed funding came from a lobbyist to the U.S.-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons “to shape American policy towards China.”
PINKERTON: Maybe that explains the candidates’ conduct. Manchurian candidates!
PILATE, WORM, PINKERTON: [evil laughter]
PILATE: How long before the PBS NewsHour will be in Chinese, Gwen?
GWEN: Speaking of China, correspondent Fred de San Lazaro reports from Beijing on the current pollution crisis. Fred?
FRED: (uncontrollable coughing) …
“primarily defense contractors”
Nice to know the candidates and contractors are drinking from the same well, are on the same page, most reassuring.
At least it wasn’t Stratfor.
I wonder who was advising Hillary when she knocked over the table in Libya?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/bernie-sanders-isis-libya-gun-control-wall-street-hillary-clinton
Never mind Benghazi, what about the whole thing? Look for fireworks at the next debate.
That is their whole point. The dark occultists and globalists who manage O and HRC want destruction, instability, and chaos in the region.
Do you not seeing it playing out again, in real time, in Syria today? Do you agree with them that al-Assad must go?
Just one more brick in the wall demonstrating both parties are just part of the Corporate state that has a stranglehold on all areas of the government of, by, and for the oligarchs.
I hate to make light of Lee’s hard work, but there’s really nothing new or surprising here.
We do not have the two-party system people keep talking about: we have a one-party system with two right wings. In the case of foreign policy, both wings are far-right and pretty much always have been.
Emma Goldman was absolutely right:
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Emphasis added.
If making things illegal changed anything, we wouldn’t be dancing.
said another way…
Be wary of people who talk in their sleep.
https://soundcloud.com/theglitchmob/drive-it-like-you-stole-it
I am fascinated by the 11th dimensional chess argument of government. No matter what the government does–they win.
When they lose–they win. When they expand–they win. When they contract-they win. When they are created–they win. When they are dissolved–they win. When they are unleashed–they win. When they are constrained–they win.
No matter what they do–11th dimensional chess.
And this just isn’t the Obama administration. This is every government in the history of the world. All of them 11 dimensions of all powerful.
Somehow this eleven handed tugpull passes as anti-government.
So thats why string theory requires 11 dimensions…
In Doug Salzmann World, immigration reform, and gun control, and Equal Rights, and income inequality concerns, and health insurance mandates, and Big Governments, are right wing.
Keep working on it: you can become even more clueless and mean-spirited with effort.
More reasons to make sure Bernie is elected! Not perfect, but not corrupt either!!
“More reasons to make sure Bernie is elected! Not perfect, but not corrupt either!!”
The credulous, clueless, pretend-left in the US learned absolutely nothing from the experience of the Clinton and Obama frauds.
Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders’ Longstanding Deal with the Democrats
I know all of this.
Now draw a parallel list for the rest of the candidates!
The lesser of evils. You cannot possibly be voting for Hillary??
I won’t be voting for any of them.
And it doesn’t matter that I won’t and it doesn’t matter who gets your vote. We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Anyway, the lesser of two evils is still evil. In my view, that makes people who knowingly vote for what they perceive as lesser evils as enablers — facilitators of evil. I’m pretty sure that my long years of insisting that this is true is one of the reasons I have so few friends.
There are literally hundreds who stopped communicating with me and asked to be removed from my address book because I told them Obama was phony, a shill for the banksters and a warmonger, beginning in summer 2007.
I’m used to being dismissed and disliked.
Neither will I. I am voting for Jill Stein again. Thanks, Doug, for so clearly documenting Sanders’ position as a hawk. The man is progressive on domestic issues but indistinguishable from the others in the area of foreign policy.
He calls himself a democratic socialist. Well, that might fly in the US, but he would not make it in any real social democratic party. I can just imagine what the dear late Altkanzler, Helmut Schmidt, would say!
I respect your sentiment. At least you are not a Hillary voter and have elected not to vote.
We do live in a de facto oligarchy. In my view we need to begin to shift the terms of the discussion. Sanders will not be the end; just a start. Hillary Clinton would be a giant gift to the oligarchy, Sanders would be smaller gift!
In my view we need to slow the rapid erosion of democracy before we turn thing around. We may not get this chance if Hillary is elected.
“In my view we need to slow the rapid erosion of democracy before we turn thing around.”
I agree, but I think our best chance of doing this effectively is at the local (and, now and then, state) level. I think the larger system is going to have to crash before it can be fixed (rebuilt). (Remember, I don’t believe global industrial capitalism has much chance of outlasting this century).
I still always vote in those elections and it often makes a difference.
Here’s one of the most thought-provoking books on economics (by a non-economist) that began to shape my views of these things:
Cities and the Wealth of Nations
Of course, Jacobs had been one of my heroes since I first read Death and Life of Great American Cities,, and I don’t think she fully understood the realities of globalism and little matters like population limits, net energy, etc. when she wrote Cities, but I think you may find it an eye-opener.
And everyone who cares at all about the built environment and the way it shapes our lives and culture absolutely must read Death and Life.
P.S. I remember Burlington when Bernie was mayor. He was a great mayor.
It was the deals he had to make, the pieces of his soul he had to trade, to move “beyond” that in the system that controls our politics at “higher” levels that moved me to assign him to the “just another phony” pile.
I would have added “Dark Age Ahead” to the list of books.
I believe that all “systems” collapse – eventually. The practical and humane question for me is: “can we make the collapse less damaging to the average Joe or Jane of the planet?”
Sanders is a softer landing.
Yup again!