Donald Trump’s runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican thinking for decades.
Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan — one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq War and an advocate for Syrian intervention — announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination, “the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Max Boot, an unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War, wrote in the Weekly Standard that a “Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power,” citing, among other things, Trump’s objection to a large American troop presence in South Korea.
Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week’s contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right.
“It serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy,” he said, pledging to take a neutral position in negotiating peace.
This set off his rival Marco Rubio, who replied, “The position you’ve taken is an anti-Israel position. … Because you cannot be an honest broker in a dispute between two sides in which one of the sides is constantly acting in bad faith.”
The Jerusalem Post suggested that Rubio’s assault on Trump’s views on the Middle East was designed to win Florida. If that’s the case, it’s apparently not working — in the Real Clear Politics averaging of GOP primary polls in the state, Trump is polling higher than he ever has.
In his quest to take up George W. Bush’s mantle, Rubio has arrayed a fleet of neoconservative funders, ranging from pro-Israel billionaire Paul Singer to Norman Braman, a billionaire auto dealer who funds Israeli settlements in the West Bank. His list of advisers is like a rolodex of Iraq War backers, ranging from Bush administration alumni Elliot Abrams and Stephen Hadley, to Kagan and serial war propagandist Bill Kristol.
Kristol also sits on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel — a dark money group that assails candidates it perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. The group started airing an ad this weekend against Trump portraying him as an ally to despots like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi — mostly because he argued that military invasions of Libya and Iraq left those countries worse off:
Even when Trump echoes certain elements of neoconservative orthodoxy — he repeatedly and emphatically calls for strengthening the military — he does so in a unique way. He talks not about spending more money but defying the “special interests” who make the Pentagon order “missiles they don’t want because of politics … because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor.”
Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, suggested in July 2014 that neoconservatives might be preparing to ally with Hillary Clinton.
With Trump’s ascendancy, it’s possible that the parties will reorient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.
I love what Trump’s saying from time to time and don’t believe it for a second. How short are our memories? The guy who accelerated the process of reducing the middle east to chaos ran on a platform of a ‘humbler’ foreign policy, condemning nation-building. How’d that work out for us? Trump is a demagogue, and this is what they do: say whatever gets them support, just like other politicians, but on steroids. Huey Long is an example of this, and he also took some positions that we would all have supported over that of the two major parties of the time.
The pain and anguish of the neo cons is highly entertaining, and so damn warranted, but let’s not get taken in. The man’s a monster, and the only good that might come of his election would be his impeachment. I know, that leaves us with horrible choices, and what else is new. But don’t be suckered by Trump. The degree really is worthless.
isn’t robert kagan the husband of state diplomat and cheney/h.clinton appointee victoria nuland? hillary is already as neocon as it gets.
Robert Kagan told the NYT last June that he “feels comfortable” with Hillary on foreign policy–and that she’s a neocon. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?src=xps
While it may be tempting to conclude the humanitarian interventionists are in fact neocons – – like the Clintons, Powers and NSC Director Susan Rice and many of the Responsibility To Protect believers – the humanitarians are always against intervention if American interests are served. Neoconservatives are always hot for intervention only when American interests are served.
As evidenced by Iraq. And, “American interests” is fatally malleable.
The U.S. Government violated my human, legal and constitutional rights by conducting a terror campaign that forced me to leave the U.S. and obtain political exile abroad. (See “Silent Terror: One family’s history of political persecution in the United States» – http://arnoldlockshin.wordpress.com)
For over 12 years, this same Government has further violated my rights by stealing my Social Security old-age benefits.
Although I used to be a Democrat, it is my considered opinion that
of the two potential POTUS candidates, Mr Trump is by far preferable
to Mrs Clinton. I’d rather have a free thinker than a dishonestly corrupt
neocon.
There’s always the Green party.
I am no HUUUUGE fan of Trump but presuming he is the R nominee, anyone who doesn’t’ vote for him as AS MUCH A SUPPORTER OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS CLINTON IS.
The people behind this ad don’t get it- this video could easily have been issued and approved by the Trump campaign. To a lot of people, what this video accuses Trump of saying is the absolute, utter truth. The world would be a far, far better place, Iraq would be better off, Libya would be better off, and the United States would have a lot more money, and a lot less dead soldiers, if Saddam and Khadaffi were still alive.
They should have focus grouped this. Because it likely increases Trump’s numbers.
If Khadaffi were still alive Ambassdor Stevens and several more Americans would still be alive also. But then the press would have one less thing to whinge about and the MIC would have one less hotzone to expliot.
If Trump can survive the nomination process, in spite of what the MSN can muster-up against him, it will represent first time in the past 60 years that the Establishment did not choose and own the candidates of both parties. Which leads me to believe that if history serves as a guide, and I think it does, the Establishment will have him assassinated, while the resources are still available and in place to cover it up and have it white-washed by an official inquiry similar to the fake 9/11 Commission & Warren Commission Report.
Trump worries/offends the neo-cons in his perversity, but
the neo-cons know they can rely on Hillary Clinton.
So if HRC gets the nomination, all the neocon Rs will vote for her and lots of the lefty Ds and independents will vote for Trump. This is getting confusing.
Yep. And ain’t it sweet!?
TRUMP’s opponents offer nothing but their arrogant condescending attitudes towards the voting population. Their use of scare tactics on voters will no longer work. These cookie-cutter politicians and their obsolete powerful old-boy establishment handlers are wrong for today’s challenges and tomorrows solutions. Stop wasting voter’s time and energy trying to make this election about personalities, gender, race, minorities, religion, fear and hatred. TRUMP has faith and trust in the voters; TRUMP is the only candidate who doesn’t insult, scare or lie to voters; TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in and deserve.
All of Trump’s establishment opponents are begging for just one more chance. These opponent candidates squandered thousands of opportunities, for the past fifty years, at the expense of All Americans in America and abroad. Powerful corrupt insiders’, of every party affiliation, who discredit TRUMP, or any candidate, are also discrediting American voters’, the American voting process and the freedoms of democracies and republics everywhere. These discrediting efforts, to take down any candidate, will fail because this is America and in America the peoples’ choice for their next president must and will always prevail. American voters’ rights and choices must always be protected, respected and never ignored. Because America is not a dictatorship voters’ choices’ still count. We are lucky to live in a country where we can agree to disagree. This is the essence of freedom. Every American and every candidate should be upset when this kind of corruption goes on. Thank you, Donald Trump, and every candidate, for running for President and offering informed voters an opportunity out of this nightmare and a path to a better America for ALL Americans!
The debates heading into Super Tuesday continues to show voters TRUMP’s presidential qualities. Eminent Domain didn’t stick to TRUMP, neither will groundless tax allegations nor outrageous innuendos. TRUMPS opponents are doing themselves a disservice attacking TRUMP. TRUMP offers voters hope and a future ALL Americans can believe in. TRUMP will own Super Tuesday.
Very well stated. I agree whole-heartedly.c
Voters should be aware of politicks. Recall,after Bill Clinton’s 8 year term–GW Bush would change things to better then after he left another bigger mess,we thought Obama would clean up the bigger mess. Now again we have another big talker–DonaldT. I wish people would stop using phony labels like Neoconservatives(Neocons) or Zionists or ISIS….. Notice American reporters lump all Muslims as potential terrorists or evil Russians or Iranians or Chinese but never the tribe or Americans?
Did I miss it? Where in all of the author’s links do the neocons say they’re worried Trump “will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican thinking for decades — so vote for Hillary.
The article from Kagan in the Washington Post roasts the Republican party for creating Trump and saying that he’s strong enough to destroy the Republican party.
“Was it not the party’s wild obstructionism — the repeated threats to shut down the government over policy and legislative disagreements, the persistent calls for nullification of Supreme Court decisions, the insistence that compromise was betrayal, the internal coups against party leaders who refused to join the general demolition — that taught Republican voters that government, institutions, political traditions, party leadership and even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at? .”
“With Trump’s ascendancy, it’s possible that the parties will reorient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.” Jilani
oh yeah so vote Republican, lefty. Try to tell Trumps supporters that he’s Dovish.
I am not understanding why people are thinking Trump is somehow anti-war – the guy is a lunatic supporting torture and even more torture
The Reps dont like Trump as he is too erratic
Trumps parents never hit him. Trump never hit his children. He’s not about initiating violence. All he knows is negotiation. I think that most of his rhetoric is about setting up future negotiations.
It’s my understanding that Jews do not hit their children, but they are certainly good at initiating violence, with the wars now raging in the middle east serving as a good example. And there have been many others over the years, including WW 1 & 2.
You’re understanding? My understanding is that a large percentage of Jews cut off the end of young male’s penises and are verbally abusive to their children. Neither are negotiated.
This explains the virulent dislike of Trump by the lamestream media. Hillary, an unindicted war criminal based on her central role in instituting the Khaddafi overthrow and her role in starting the Syrian war, is without a doubt the greater evil in comparison with Trump. Since Trump in the fall campaign won’t hesitate to highlight the fact that the jihadis in Libya put in as largely as a result of Hillary’s initiative liquidated tens or hundreds of thousands of black Africans who had settled in Khaddafi’s Libya as hostile to Jihadi elements, this will likely dampen Afro-American ardour for Hillary’s campaign. Hopefully this will be a torpedo which sinks her campaign.
Truth is the enemy of the Zionist serial liars.
I’ve been saying for awhile that Trump is probably the least bad of the Republican candidates. He’s definitely not as bad as Rubio or Cruz would be. For one thing, he’s opposed to the TPP and similar crap. Now this.
Make no mistake, the only candidate left who wouldn’t continue the same awfulness would be Sanders, who doesn’t stand a chance (for those who don’t understand how the 15% super delegates rigs the election for Clinton and other establishment candidates, do the math, not to even mention the money and power behind Clinton). I don’t support Trump in any way, but I also find it laughable how some so-called progressives are wetting their pants over him. Yes he’s racist, but so are the Republicans in general. At least Trump has a few good positions, making him about the same as Clinton.
Are the black voters of SC anti semites?One might think so after that SC election.And the worst racists in this world are the Zionists,who call all others racists.A complete mockery of reality.
Damn, this totally throws a monkey wrench into my prediction just two days ago that Trump would kick Hillary’s ass in the general. I mean, why would conservatives back a right leaning Hillary Clinton when they can have the real deal with one of their own? Because she’s the most conservative candidate of either side in the race. It’s incredible. Some are predicting a Hillary/neocon alliance. It makes my head spin.
If Trump and Sanders are denied the nominations of their parties, there will be a lot of angry voters who would be loath to support Clinton, Cruz or Rubio. The Sanders voters will find a lot to like in Dr Jill Stein; in fact her platform is superior to Sanders’s. Even some of the Republicans, if they take a look at her, might support her instead of the neolib-neocon alternative.
Perot was up to 39% in the polls before he withdrew in 1992, and he still got almost 20% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton won the election with 42% of the popular vote. The US was in better shape then than now, and the duopoly were not nearly as discredited.
I reject the self-fulfilling prophecy, support by lesser evilism, that alternative parties can’t win. It’s time for real change.
The Hell Bitch and Rubio ticket.
Bernie and Donald are simply two-fisted middle fingers enthusiastically directed at the paid enforcers of the oligarchy’s desired status quo, the Republican and Democrat political machines. Donald, unlike poor Bernie, has the advantage of being able to avoid the oligarchy’s mega-cash-fueled vetting process intended to weed out true boat rockers by funding his own campaign.
When Reps threaten to vote for Dems and I see headlines like “Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group,” I have hope that both party machines will, deservedly, become increasingly irrelevant. The facade has come off and we finally see the truth, which is there is no loyalty within the establishment of either political party to anything but the continued power of the oligarchy they BOTH defend.
Election 2016 is turning out to be a rare popcorn worthy event because voters are now TOTALLY fed up with THIS:
From the 2014 Princeton University study:
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Excerpts:
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
…the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
—–
From “Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-America Century” by Dmitry Orlov, someone who experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various effects of that collapse on life there:
People in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet Union. In the U.S., this is often referred to as “voter apathy”, but it might be more accurately described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In Soviet-era Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the Communists: paying attention to them, whether through criticism or praise, would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement, making them feel as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with regard to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and elephants?
—–
“Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger. – — Jimmy Carter, former president, in 2015.
So one of the principal founding members of PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century (and Victoria Nuland’s husband), R. Kagan, says vote for Hillary?
And this just weeks after Hillary is bragging about receiving complements from Henry Kissinger, mass murderer?
Are there still fools in America who believe HRC is some kind of liberal?
And who did HRC appoint as SecState?
Marc Grossman, Bush inner circle guy and Bush family relative; Victoria Nuland, former defense policy advisor to Dick Cheney, and her husband, Robert Kagan.
This has to be a WTF moment for anyone with a brain?
I don’t think the neoconservatives should purchase a one way ticket into the Hillary camp. Trump could be quite amenable to the ‘Ledeen Doctrine’ that: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business”. My understanding is that Trump has no objections in principle, but as a prudent businessman, questions whether it’s worth shelling out 1 trillion dollars just to show you mean business.
I believe the neoconservatives may have had some self-esteem issues and perhaps tended to overcompensate by splurging on vanity wars. Trump will return the Republican party to its conservative roots of fiscal responsibility and insist on getting good value for his wars. A Trump campaign will completely dispense with ‘shock and awe’. Instead, he’ll cut straight to the chase: “Where are the oilfields and how long will it take to pump them dry?” The neoconservatives could benefit from that sort of discipline.
However, if the neoconservatives decide to return to the party they abandoned in the 1960s, then I wish them well. They had a good run with the Republicans and certainly left their mark on foreign policy. Sometimes a change of scenery is good; it may be all they need to rekindle their enthusiasm for the third (or is the fourth?) Iraq war.
Someone’s going to get hurt at one of his rallies. We came close today.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/29/trump-rally-photographer-secret-service-protests
……which is probably what Trump would like, as long as it is not him…
…..would like to hear about who the protesters are, their funding, their personal reasons for protesting…..
……awaiting to hear more about the fraud cases filed by the N.Y. Attorney General against Heir Trump…..
I think the reporter was trying to exercise his First Amendment rights outside the designated pen area. That’s obviously reckless.
They don’t call it a “cage” for nothing, Duce. Frankly, they could just stay in the office and have Trump’s media people send them campaign footage. Easier to meet deadline and no complaints from the occupational-safety people.
Black lives matter knuckleheads at the wrong venue,they should be at Shillarys racist rallies for Zion and permanent incarceration,disrupt the rally,a SS guy tackles a reporter who tried to document the protesters for his crummy Zionist rag,who hates Trump,and its Trumps fault?
You have lost it.
It be fitting for the neocons who were originally leftist followers of Trotsky to go back home to the Democratic party. Maybe then the old non-interventionist anti-war right can rise again in amongst the Republicans.
Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency.
So they’ve never exactly had a set ideological compass, they’re happy to back anyone who’ll do their bidding on Israel and the Middle East. With Trump, I can’t imagine they (or anyone else) knows what they’re getting; Hillary meanwhile is a known quantity, and hawkish enough for their tastes.
“……..Perhaps worth noting that the Neocons originally found influence with interventionist Democrats like Dan Moynihan, they went on to develop alliances with fiercely nationalistic Reaganites (like Cheney and Rumsfeld), but only truly came to the fore as policy-makers within the GW Bush presidency…..”
True, but they lost favor in the Bush White House after the invasion of Iraq turned south.
Somewhat true,but how does that explain the demoncrats embracing them in Obombas administration?
I don’t believe that Obama has embraced the neocons.. Obama has alienated our allies in the ME including Israel, Saudi arabia and Egypt. His large disagreements with Netanyahu flag Obama as anything but a neocon.
The Neocons are like parasites that jump from host to host. When they’ve killed one host they move on to the next. I’m reminded of the old Sci-Fi movie, “The Hidden”.
… just in case y’all are not aware, the view from outside the walls of Empire U$A, when we see the audience holding up placards declaring “MAKE AMERICA’S MILITARY GREAT AGAIN” we’re all thinking – ‘you guys are truly the most manipulated, compromised and fucked up people on the planet’.
“Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan announced that if Trump secures the nomination “the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”
i hope Sanders runs with that, uses it in his ads, cites that quote during the debates, makes the electorate aware of the fox (weasel?) in the chicken coop…
The US has become the laughing stock of the world.
Oh wait, we’ve been that for decades.
“worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy”
No, he will pursue a different bellicose foreign policy relying on banning Muslims from the US, torture, filling up Guantanamo, threatening Mexico and ‘hitting’ the families of ‘terrorists’.
The Intercept is actually starting to scare me.
So drone warfare killing thousand+ innocent people isn’t “starting to scare” you? Overthrowing governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria isn’t “starting to scare” you? ISIS forming out of those overthrows isn’t “starting to scare” you?
I believe you are giving what Glenn Greenwald calls the ‘Yes, but’ response. Yes, Trump is bad, but look how bad other people are. Cuts no ice with me. There are no circumstances – none – that I would vote for Donald Trump. And the biggest reason is that I believe with every bone in my body that the world would be less safe with him as president. Not just the US, but the world.
Nuclear War not so much…
Wow,the only guy to critique the Iraq war,Libya,trade steals,getting along with Russia and stop being the policeman of the world gets critiqued by alleged liberals as the bad choice in a world of crazy Ziomonsters.
Hang it up children,you’ve lost your minds.
The best would be that both Sanders and Trump run independently from their party. That would be fun to watch. Otherwise they stand no chance in party elections, because it will be up to party leaders and superdelegates and their financial backers who will choose Hillary and Rubio. At least the elections would look more democratic, since the democratic part and republican party seem to be just two factions of one party.
“Their” party? Interesting to think that Sanders was an independent or socialist, and the Donald was various times a Democrat, an independent and a Reform Party. (Okay, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat too, but switched and remained GOP consistently).
Couldn’t agree more, Jay. I would like to see a vote so divided between independent and mainstream candidates that the next president wins with less than 40%. That would be the lowest percentage since Lincoln’s 1860 election.
We need to shake things up a bit. No matter who runs, I’ll be voting third party.
The 2nd war on Iraq wasn’t a mistake.
“The 2nd war on Iraq wasn’t a mistake.”
what did it accomplish?
Tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis who died in the ‘war that wasn’t a mistake,’ and the same number injured, or the millions displaced. What arrogance.
Um, I think Vivek Jain’s assertion is the destruction of Iraq and destabalization of the region was 100% intentional, i.e. “wasn’t a mistake.”
Thanks nfjtakfa. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted.
Remind me just where and when we found the nukes Iraq was supposed to have, then. Or the mobile bioweapons labs. Or Hussein’s al-Qaeda collaborators.
As you see, the Iraq war wasn’t a mistake, but a deliberate fake.
They created Donald Trump and thanks to the Supreme Court any rich ass—- can run for office they don’t need to fund a particular political republican bigot.
Trump is a professional actor as are all the cons but he is better at it. Read his book, TAoTD and you may change your mind a lot on him as POTUS. He certainly is no conbot and IMHO would make a much better POTUS than any of the dwarf wall st. sucking varlets competing against him. I’m still hoping Senator Bernie Sanders will take the gloves off and start attacking the war mongering, wall st. courtier Clinton before it’s too late but, if my choice was Clinton vs. Trump I would hold my nose and vote Trump. Rubio is so hollow he is unqualified for his present job. Good luck USA.
@Bob
So should I assume that you believe that the people he’s conning are the bigots from the old southern strategy, that will be disappointed by his actions once in power?
Should I assume his strategy is to woo centrist democrats by using surrogates to reassure them he’s just taking advantage of his current base as a vehicle to power?
If that’s your acceptable level of real politic, give me Putin any day. You guys are headed for a post modern screwing over of biblical proportions.
If you look at the policies and are truly a progressive independant thinker and not a partisan it pretty obvious Hillary is worse than Trump on all things that really matter.
That she is more PC is really beside the point
Bigots come in all shapes color and form.Ask the black voters of SC why they didn’t vote for the NY Jew?
Trump is the only candidate to say he can get along with Putin,whom I respect greatly.
It’s an interesting shift of perspective in this crazy year, although the question with the Donald is (1) whether he has a coherent ideology from one speech to the next and (2) whether the GOP would become more dovish (or less neocon) under a Trump administration, or whether the GOP would simply abandon him.
As for Hillary, sir, your coda begs another article: ” … and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.”
With whom?
Okay, Iran is a definite possibility, given her pro-Israel stance. But what about China? That situation in the South China Sea is ratcheting up. And what about Russia? Washington’s talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.
“And what about Russia? Washington’s talking like the west bank of the Dnieper is our east coast.”
Surrounding and dismantling Russia has been the goal since the collapse of the USSR. And Killary and the neocons (including the large contingent she and Obama installed at State) are definitely crazy enough to push it.
On the list of Big Dumb Mistakes, this would be very close to the top.
“dismantling Russia”
what exactly does that mean?
Ask the Syrians or the the Libyans, or the Iraqis or the Sundanese, or the Yemenis or … or ….
Really? You post on political blogs yet have to ask about such a well documented and discussed US strategy?
How embarrasing for you.
Dougs usually waaay out on right field but on this he’s spot on.
“Dougs usually waaay out on right field but on this he’s spot on.”
I’m afraid you’re quite confused about my positions. Recently, this has usually happened when I’ve been critical of Sanders (who is as phony as a three-dollar bill when it comes to his “socialism” and at least as phony when it comes to his alleged opposition to America’s permanent war and obscene funding for the MIC). Folks who are enamored of Sanders but ignorant of, or in denial of, his real record often mistake my criticism for that of a right-winger.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
It means exactly what I said, Dave. Surrounding, weakening and (ultimately, hopefully) dismantling and absorbing the pieces of the Russian Federation has been at the core of American foreign policy aims since the collapse of the USSR.
See, for instance, the pre-revised version of the 2/18/1992 Wolfowitz (and Scooter Libby) Memo:
And then, refer to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard:
. . . and . . .
Hope this helps. ;^)
In the short tem it means replacing Putin by another Eltsin-like stooge. In the middle term, it meant dismantling the USSR. In the long term it means defending Capital against the threat of Socialism.
Yes…..the South China Sea has become one of those creeping situations that has dire consequences because, seemingly, there is no possible resolution in our favor…..too many players with many cards, i.e., goal orientated with prior planning, military might, strong alliances….
…..perhaps something that will come up with the debates between HRT and Heir Trump?
Great article. I wrote something similar in my blog post last week titled, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s Worst Nightmare President Donald Trump.
http://patriciabaeten.blogspot.com/2016/02/nato-turkey-and-saudi-arabias-worst.html
Excerpt:
The beneficiaries of Bush and Obama’s Evil American Empire invading and destroying nations throughout the world have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Along with their NATO allies, America has spent trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex while our roads and bridges fail and jobs have been shipped to third world countries.
The unparalleled destruction of Syria as well as all of the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa will come to an end under President Donald Trump and the world is taking note.
My greatest fear is that a full hot war against Russia and China will commence before the election.
Love your writing, thanks.
Patricia
What was that blog address again? (Only kidding)
I hope you meant NOT commence. I really don’t want to die and these things have a habit of escalating.
Um, she said her greatest FEAR is that….
She is intimating the Zionists will start war with Russia before Trump takes office,a quite possible scenario when dealing with the insane Zionists.
The chaos Trump will bring to the neocon’s imperialist project is probably the only good thing that might come out of a Trump presidency.
Interesting blog. I like the art work. At first I thought it was The Dresden Files then I realized it was Alice in Wonderland. The Grimalkin threw me a bit.
Trump said he would declassify the 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11.
Why hasn’t that happened yet?
http://28pages.org/
Uh,he’s not in government?sheesh.
Good comment,don’t mind the idiots stuck in their false narrative.
Mr. Jilani
“……Neoconservative historian Robert Kagan — one of the prime intellectual backers of the Iraq war and an advocate for Syrian intervention — announced in the Washington Post last week that if Trump secures the nomination “the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”…..”
The Intercept is clearly confused on quite a few issues. First, the Republican Party generally supports a strong leadership role for the US in foreign policy (as do the Democrats). Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests. Of course, this is not limited just to the Neocons. Second, the entire Republican establishment opposes Trump for obvious reasons. Again, this is not limited to the Neocons, and it is not too surprising that Republicans may cross party lines to vote for Hillary who more closely mirrors some of their foreign policies. She is a hawk. Third, the Republican and Democratic Parties are strong supporters of Israel – not just the Neocons. In general, Republicans support Israel even to a greater degree than the Democrats – and again, this is not limited to the Neoconservatives.
Finally, how important is the Israel-Palestinian conflict to the Intercept? Obviously very important since the Intercept seems willing to forget that Trump has been called a xenophobe and an anti-Muslim bigot by many on the left. Have you ever heard the saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
I fully agree with Jilani and this Summers is an obvious neocon sycophant of Wall Street.
sgt_doom
What is extraordinary to me is that Jilani seems to value the Israel-neutral stance of Trump over Hillary (and her obvious support for Israel) despite Trump (initially) not even being able to disavow support from the KKK. Maybe that is not so remarkable considering that Jilani tweeted the term “Israel firsters”.
“Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests.”
Jesus. Have you been in a coma since 2003? Or I guess maybe since the 1980’s, cough Iran-Contra cough cough.
I’m not saying there aren’t differences, but generally speaking both the Democrats and the Republicans have maintained strong policies which favor US interests. Obama had some confusing policies which alienated long term allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
You mean US “corporate” interest and Israel’s interest don’t you? For the past 30 years, both parties have pursued policies that are in direct conflict with the interest of the American people.
Bravo. I was going to reply to his first post, in which he said ” Both parties will ensure that the US pursues our geopolitical interests”, and ask just who “we” are.
Donald Trump is a Neocon’s pipe dream…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/
https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/02/26/donald-trump-counters-criticism-of-neutral-israeli-palestinian-conflict-stance-interview/
Donald Trump on Homeland Security (Military Industrial Complex)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Homeland_Security.htm
Neocon pipe dreams are current sop.
Yes, an especially bitter sop to those who harbor the manufactured illusion that trump is concerned with the sovereign rights of the individual.
Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…
“Truly, this tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton…”
Well, that and the fact that Killary and Obama named Kagan’s wife, Victoria Jane “Cookie” Nuland to the post of Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, where she led the sponsorship and underwriting of a coup against the elected leadership of Ukraine.
Well yeah, true enough.
Fascinating that Trump has the warmongers nervous. Heading Hillary’s way where they know their rearrangement of the middle east (PNAC, JINSA) no matter how many thousands are killed or refugees are displace is safe with Hillary. She has demonstrated her commitment to the death and destruction in the middle east.
This is no bs…know some multi millionaire Republicans here in Colorado who are going with Hillary if Trump gets nomination. They know their capital gains are safe with her. Yes indeed
Seems like Marco is saying Trump cannot be an honest broker because Israel is acting in bad faith.
We’ve known that for decades.
And Kagan spewing at least Hillary isn’t totally against Israel …
Hillary has openly stated she supports “Israel as the Jewish state!”
Fuckers.
nuf said
“……Hillary has openly stated she supports “Israel as the Jewish state!”……”
Can you imagine that? I’m totally shocked nuf:
“…….At least 149 countries officially recognize Israel…….Twenty-five countries have never recognized Israel……”
Most of the 25 are unsurprisingly from the greater Middle East…….Fuckers.
And none cowtows and enables that little pariah like the US.
Israel … a biblical menace.
Israel … a European menace.
Israel slaughters civilians by the thousands.
They fuck everybody around them and whine while they do it.
Who wouldn’t want to wipe that shit off the face of the earth?
You fell right into the trap.
Only the democracies(Iran,Leb)in the ME don’t like Israel,while our thug ruled nations do.Clown.
So you should support the caliphate right,as whats good for the goose is good for the gander?
Good to see that all those neoconservative prayer breakfasts Sen. Hillary Clinton attended at the Geo. W. Bush White House aren’t going to waste.
Of course, the neocons embrace “Wall Street Hillary” as they always have, regardless of all the silly political theater to the contrary.
BTW, isn’t Robert Kagan the hubby of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?
I believe so . . .
Of course, we haven’t had a legitimate government in the USA since the Coup of 1963 (the JFK assassination, reinforced by the murders of Rev. King and Bobby Kennedy), so evidently Trump represents the first break in a long line of illegitimate administrations.
Trump really appears to be giving the nervous willies to the oligarchs – – – glad to see those swine who gave us — and profited from — the global economic meltdown being shaken up for a change!
With Hillary they have nothing to fear, she’s the perfect Wall Street running dog lackey, but with Trump they could end up in jail — or worse . . . .
It’s good to see that Hillary is finally being openly welcomed into the fold of neo-conservatives. Also, pardon my lack of modesty for a certain pride in having been proven right about her. She is not a progressive, not liberal, but rather a fascist in the true sense of representing the corporatists.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the New York Times has chosen now to start a series on her role in the overthrow of Qaddafi and the subsequent conversion of Libya into a failed state? Had the articles started appearing a couple of weeks ago, it might have helped Sanders in Iowa and Nevada. No, it would not have helped Sanders in South Carolina, and he is foredoomed in the rest of the deep south as well, not only because of his being a social democrat (on domestic issues) but also because he is a Jew.
Good call on the timing of the NYT series, Jeff. And kudos on having recognized her early on for the fascist she has always been.
I’ve not caught up with the Times series; does each installment open with this video clip?
“With Trump’s ascendancy, it’s possible that the parties will re-orient their views on war and peace, with Trump moving the GOP to a more dovish direction and Clinton moving the Democrats towards greater support for war.”
Right because “bomb the shit out of them” is a well known rallying cry of pacifists.
You’ve got a point; the Donald isn’t exactly another Gandhi. The diff between him and Hillary is that she would act according to longstanding neocon policy, concerted war. The Donald would attack impulsively. Picture him as the Groucho Marx character in “Duck Soup” and there’s a possible simile, but not funny.
What scares me the most about President Trump is him taking a look at the nuclear arsenal and thinking “we have these awesome weapons and they are just sitting here collecting dust. Well lets show everyone that a real leader isn’t afraid to use his best tools!” and then wiping Mosul and and Raqqa off the map.
Some pundits have seen similarities between him and his GOP rivals, at least in ferocity. This SF Chronicle columnist notes, “When it comes to human rights, Trump, Rubio and Cruz seem to be jockeying for who can commit more war crimes.”
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/The-Millennial-View-Trump-Cruz-Rubio-aren-t-6856466.php
Trump is different in that he talks different and apparently is more persuasive with Main Street, in this view. Zaid’s main point is still valid in that he’s something of a heretic in terms of choosing wars. He’s unpredictable to the neocon establishment, and Hillary apparently is not.
LOL..quite funny to imagine intellectual lightweight like Drumf would really think like that!!!
Donald Duck Soup?
Heh. I was thinking of the 1933 antiwar film.
Glad Robert Kagan’s neoconservative re-branding attempts have started to garner headlines.
Kagan was hand picked to be on Hillary Clinton’s defense policy board while at the State Dept and for those who don’t know who Kagan is, he’s the husband of the assistant secretary of state for eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland.
Here is a video of Kagan explaining his appointment by Hillary Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRV-N0bI_LY
That would be Victoria Fuck the EU Nuland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
Or, Victoria “let’s spend $5 billion to overthrow the democratically elected administration in the Urkaine” Nuland.
These people will do anything to further their cause – just as they always have – up to and including eliminating an opponent in the most forceful permanent manner…