Our country has been lurched so far to the EXTREME RIGHT, a conservative Eisenhower Republican would now be depicted as the equivalent to a “socialist,” someone far too liberal or progressive to be relevant.
"I am finding ideologues of the left as unrealistic as ideologues of the right. One says the US can do no wrong, the other says that the US is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Nuance be damned."
This phenomenon can be found in populist demagogues on both the left and the right, dating back at least to the 1930s, and particularly in foreign policy. The left thinks America is not good enough for the rest of the world, and the right thinks the rest of the world is not good enough for America. Both are laughably unrealistic.
Were NATO and the U.S. to abandon Europe, nukes would be unnecessary. Russian conventional forces would be more than adequate to accomplish the job handily.
I wouldn't rule out that the idea of selling some of ARAMCO stake to "big oil", came to this juvenile prince out of fear and insecurity. Having US companies owning "part of the rock" he thought, it will compel them to come to defend the KSA regime to protect their stake. Maybe they've done that before, even after 1973 when 100% of ARAMCO had become Saudi, but it won't happen again, not when oil is good for ointment. His plan is a pie in the sky and a mirage in the Empty Quarter. It will be good for the 1% of the world, though, through investment, fraud, and embezzlement.
The Democratic Party has rigged the election for Neo Con (Artist) Clinton. Trump is against NAFTA, and the Trans Pacific Patnership. Hillary and her female brethren Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, and Victoria Nuland have made war on Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Enough said, Trump is much more progressive than Clinton will ever be in her four year term. I have my doubts about American democracy if Clinton is elected in November.
You don't have a sense of proportion if you think any of that adds up to anywhere near invading a country of 26 million with 160,000 troops, occupying it for 8.5 years, killing tens of thousands, wounding millions and displacing 4 million. Bill Clinton has his flaws, but making war was not one of them
The bombing of Iraq in 1998 was because Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries locked on to US planes with hostile intent, which violated the no-fly zone. Republicans got up the phony impeachment and then accused him of wagging the dog; sorry to see you repeat their tactics.
"Juan Cole 2016.04.27 11:36
I consider warmongering to be, like, actually launching a war, sending troops in, armored convoys, etc. etc. Can’t see that he did any of that; his two military actions were to save the Kosovars from murderous ultra-nationalist Serbs and to try to kill Bin Laden. Both were very worthwhile."
despite its posting not providing the courtesy of a "reply" function and its snarky elocution ("...like, actually launching a war..."), seems to present a rather skewed and selective recollection of the Clinton administration's deployment of modern war-making. While the joining of NATO's belated efforts to end the genocidal "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia under the leadership of Gen. Wesley Clark certainly is deserving of praise, the notion that the Clinton administration was a wholly humanitarian enterprise not driven by NeoLiberal economic warmongering is revisionist fiction; and no amount of snarky obfuscation or dissembling serves any honest discussion well.
The stage that is being set for our 2016 election is not one that represents the interests and concerns of an informed electorate, rather it is a pseudo-political circus being orchestrated by competing brands of political snake-oil with identical ingredients; the only distinction being the coloring additive. The only thing unique this time around is that there is no "lessor evil" to choose from.
As Usual,
EA
Clinton's gestures are in the, "Throw them a bone," category. She will not be a reputable candidate unless she forswears military adventurism, but she's apparently in too deep to the Israel Lobby to do that.
George W. set a new standard on what a failed presidency is like. I can't imagine Donald Trump being an improvement on George W.
One failed presidency did a lot of damage to our country and our foreign policy. President Obama repaired some of the damage despite a Congress that was useless for six years. Another failed presidency so soon after George W. will not be good for the U.S., or good for the world.
Too bad Sanders is losing.
I do have to dispute the premise of this article however. Watching Clinton do a Bush/Cruz neocon run at AIPAC was sickening.
It is unclear to me (an economist) what Prince Muhammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Sa'ud really thinks he is up to with this partial ARAMCO IPO. Most of the publicity has been about the large amount of money that it might raise (or not) that will then be added to the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, which will presumably invest abroad and provide a flow of income. But this will be offset by the loss of a share of profits to the new partial owners. Not at all clear that there will be a net gain by all this.
Of course he may be looking at using some of that windfall to offset short term budget deficits. But that is not a sustainable policy, unless he continues to sell off more and more of ARAMCO and similarly uses the money. But again, while that would stretch things out, eventually that comes to an end.
Another argument might be that he has bought into general privatization ideology of private ownership is more efficient than state. Maybe, but this is a selloff of only 15% or something like that, which will not involve any change in management.
Finally it should be noted that this reverses a long history. At the Red Line Agreement in 1928 in Achnacarry Castle, Walter Teagle of then Jersey Standard (now Exxon Mobil) was granted Saudi Arabia (while now BP and Royal Dutch Shell took other parts of the Gulf with the red lines drawn around them on a map on a table). ARAMCO was initially Exxon, Mobil, Gulf, and Texaco and found oil in 1938. They owned it and they took nearly all the profits. Starting in 1948 (or thereabouts) King Abdulaziz gained a 50-50% profit-sharing agreement that was the model for later such agreements in many oil-producing nations. By the time of the OPEC price hike in 1973, the Saudis had nationalized ARAMCO and their oil to get 100% of the profits. Now Muhammed bin Sultan wants to undo all of that, and people are cheering him?.
Under UN supervision 600 metric tons of chemical agents used for making poison gas were destroyed from Syrian stockpiles. There have been no reported uses of poison gas in Syria since. Wikipedia has a thorough article on the use of this gas. I am not aware of anyone who said Turkey was behind it. Human Rights Watch, not affiliated with any government, placed the blame on the Syrian government. Only Seymour Hersh seems to think it was a false flag operation. The evidence is murky, but most evidence points to the Syrian government. I find it quite strange how people are so quick to blame the US for all the problems in the area, even to go to the extreme of seeming to support a war criminal like Assad. I am finding ideologues of the left as unrealistic as ideologues of the right. One says the US can do no wrong, the other says that the US is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Nuance be damned.
You do realize what will be lost if the Republicans take the WH? If you don't, you really don't get it. Bernie has NO power to actually make any of the changes he advocated without control of both Houses of Congress and those people ARE NOT there and WILL NOT be elected. The whole Bernie thing is backwards.
I have studied the history of Europe in the 20s and 30s in depth. I am very much aware that fascism was a right-wing phenomenon, and that liberalism as used in Gramsci's manifesto was not the U.S. "liberalism" of today.
In the European context, "liberalism" basically adhered to the tenets of John Locke, Adam Smith, and others who valued political freedom (such as it was defined at the time), free markets, and the individual.
That Italy and Germany became fascist was not due to "liberalism." It was primarily due to weak institutional structures within each country; and in the case of Germany, the crushing reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles and rampant inflation in the 20s. Liberalism as such had nothing to do with it.
Gramsci, of course was a communist and viewed liberalism and fascism both as obstacles to attaining his vision of a "Sovietized" Italy. Thus his manifesto, "Neither Fascism Nor Liberalism: Sovietism!"
I always say that Bill Clinton was a great Republican president (positively moderate by the standards of that party today), and he did have an aversion to US body bags. But I don't know why he joined a left wing party, mostly antiwar (since the 1970s anyway), because his record speaks for itself - Plan Colombia, the precedent-setting air attack on Serbia without a UN resolution which led to Europe's first change of borders by force since WWII, the bombing of Iraq in 1998 (to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal IMO) and the plan to move NATO into Eastern Europe while Russia was weak. I'll give him a pass over Somalia, and in Bosnia he genuinely hesitated as long as he could. But we shouldn't give him a thumbs up just because Bush was more gung-ho and worse at PR.
To state that NATO countries "are under no conventional or nuclear military threat whatsoever..." demonstrates a lack of geo-strategic awarness. The three Baltic states--Estonia, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as Poland, have all been threatened by Putin. The Baltic states in particular were once a part of the Soviet Union and part of what Russia now calls its "Near-Abroad." Without a strong NATO presence, Putin would be sorely tempted to bring them back into the fold.
There is also Turkey, which has always had friction with Russia and the former Soviet Union. Without NATO backup, Putin would not necessarily invade Turkey, but he would most certainly apply strong pressure to bring Turkey under Russian influence.
Please. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq to protect his father's reputation. The Nader-ites keep repeating their litany of defenses. I understand their shame and bad conscience but they must take responsibility for helping to elect the worst president in history.
Fascism is a far right political model. What he meant that well meaning but weak liberal governments, as in pre-Nazi Germany, that can't solve the problems of society can drive a population to embrace fascist tactics of politics.
At the New Hampshire debate, Clinton spoke of counting family care work towards Social Security benefits, work of the greatest importance but it does not generate a capitalist profit.
He may be a bombastic snake oil salesman when he is in his off the cuff bloviator mode but when it comes to giving a serious scripted speech his delivery is akin to a first year divinity student. I'm sure the leaders of ISIS are quaking in their sandals right about now.
his two military actions were to save the Kosovars
I too believed that at the time.
Like Palestine, all one has to do is look at a map. Locate Kosovo and Belgrade. Then tell me why they had to bomb Belgrade intensively, taking out Danube bridges, power plants, factories, and such.
The right wing has a clear answer to that in terms of punishment and coercion. I have searched in vain for an answer in terms of "protection" from liberal supporters of the war.
Bulletins from Serbia offers a personal account how the air war felt like on the ground, in the form of e-mail reports by a political cartoonist well networked into the U.S. and Western Europe with no love for Milosevich. What to do when your elderly aunt does not have power and so the contents of her freezer are rotting but she lives across the river you can't cross anymore, that sort of thing.
At least Trump says he puts America first, even if he doesn't mean it. Over here in the UK our worthless politicians like Cameron and Corbin, quite openly want to sell us down the river to the European Union. We even have the American president over here fawning on Cameron and telling us all that we should give away our sovereignty to the EU. If Obama thinks its such a good idea that we over here in the UK stay as members of the EU and open our borders to all and sundry, then he should open his borders between America, Mexico and Canada. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
The argument that "the US pays an unfair share of direct costs" for NATO countries can be countered by a simple thought-experiment.
Q: If the USA stopped paying those costs then what, exactly, would those NATO countries do?
A: Nothing.
Those European countries are under no conventional or nuclear military threat whatsoever and therefore would see no need to increase their military spending even **without** Uncle Sam guarding their backs.
Indeed, the *only* reason that the current NATO countries would consider raising their military budget would be if they feared that the USA would attempt a few "color revolutions" against them.
Bernie Sanders would have to win about 80% of the California vote and sweep the other states in order to win. Do you even know how delegates are apportioned in California? Do you know that there is a large pro-Hillary block of minority voters in California? Do you know that Hillary beat Obama by 10 percentage points in California in 2008? Do you know anything?
Liberalism used in this context is not the same as current US liberalism. Liberalism in early 20th Century Europe meant what we consider today to be conservative economics. If you actually studied history and the history of Europe in the 20's and 30's and studied the rise of fascism in both Germany and Italy, you would realize that fascism was a right wing phenomenon. People who supported fascism in other countries were conservatives. People who supported it in the US were conservatives like Henry Ford. Sigh, so little understanding. Right wingers like to say Obama is a fascist because the Nazi Party's actual title was National Socialist and since Obama is a socialist, that makes him a fascist. Doesn't anybody study history and political theory anymore?
I find it hard to argue against opinions stated without any supporting evidence. That is what you think, but it doesn't make it so. Your prescription is basically burn down the village in order to save it. I suggest you read an article in today's Vox which gives a nuanced analysis of her foreign policy. Left wing ideologues seem to be as incapable of nuance as right wing ideologues. I'm curious, are there any Bernie supporters out there who have actually worked in government and/or studied political science? They all seem idealistic to the point of delusional. They don't live in the real world. There is a reason almost all Democratic office holders have supported Clinton and not Sanders. They realize what can and can't be done. Was Bill Clinton a disaster in foreign policy? No. Hillary Clinton won't be either. Trump would be a disaster. He knows almost nothing and understands even less.
There was an article on counterpunch that went into the comparison between the Native American tradition of the Potlatch and the spending on the military.
In short, the military is what 'we' in the west view as an acceptable form of potlatch.
I consider warmongering to be, like, actually launching a war, sending troops in, armored convoys, etc. etc. Can't see that he did any of that; his two military actions were to save the Kosovars from murderous ultra-nationalist Serbs and to try to kill Bin Laden. Both were very worthwhile.
Bernie still has about a 50-50 shot of winning. It all depends on the California vote. Remember what a huge percentage of the vote he got in Washington and Oregon? This is possible in California, though it wasn't possible in the east-coast closed-primary states.
The important thing to realize is that Clintonism is dead. She will probably govern as a right-winger just like Obama did, but she will have no support for it. She's probably so damn stupid she'll run for re-election in 2020, in which case she'll lose to the Republican Fascist candidate. 2024, if the fascists haven't abolished elections by then, the liberal candidate wins by a huge landslide.
To me it is a great mystery why anyone would have voted for HRC over Bernie in the primaries. Bernie's platform may be limited -- it is a great disappointment to me that he didn't include scaling American militarism way back and using the enormous savings that would result to build American infrastructure -- but at least he comes across as a real and decent human being. In contrast, HRC comes across as a totally inauthentic power-hungry person. She had the rug
pulled out from under her by Obama and is determined not to let it happen again. Little wonder she refuses to publish the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. It would
cost her the election if people really knew what she said. The only principles she apparently really has other than a dermination to be elected have to do with her wholehearted embrace of the principles of American
exceptionalism and the dreadful militarism that goes along with it. A vote for HRC is a vote for four more years of war
anywhere the possibility exists. I totally agree with all the comments expressing conviction that any seeming turn of her positions to the left because of Sanders will go out the window as soon as she no longer has to contend with him.
These arguments for realism are always worth considering. But Hillary has advocated war at every single opportunity, and gives everything to Israel and the oligarchy without so much as a fuss. She is a Judas-goat leading progressives to the slaughter, and nothing more.
Intelligent people want to show those who control the Democratic party that they will not be led to the slaughter. If the Dems had wanted a liberal platform they would have backed Sanders or Warren: they don't want it. They don't want it. They are the problem, not a solution.
Let's have a little realism in favor of telling the oligarchy controlling the Dems that their lies and hopey-changey scams don't sell any more, even if it means that they lose this one because they betrayed their people. Let's let them learn their lesson the hard way, because they don't learn any other way.
Just in case perceived decline also refers to the perceived tarnishing and denting of America's patina of Exceptionalism . . . perhaps perceived decline could be seized on by people who are tired of the burdens of American Exceptionalism and would like to guide Exceptional America down a managed decline path towards an Ordinary America endpoint.
Perhaps it is time to think of American Exceptionalism as just another Middle Kingdom Complex ( like "guess-who's" Middle Kingdom Complex) and like Russia's "Third Rome" Complex. Time to think of being an American Okayness Ordinarian. America Okay! We're Number Whatever! etc.
Engelhardt is totally missing Trump's point. The only reason America isn't great now is because it has been under a black president for eight years. When he is replaced by a white man/woman, the country will be great again. We don't need 21 paragraphs of gasbag analysis to understand that.
Trump will not be the gentleman that Bernie was. Clinton offers many areas for hard attacks, not the least of which are the Wall Street speech transcripts. Trump will hammer her on that without letup. Though he would probably agree with everything she said to the Banksters, he will nail her for being two-faced. It will come down to her trust deficit. In the best of all possible worlds, Trump will get "brokered" out at the Republican convention, thereby allowing both he and Bernie to run as independents. That would give us some real choices in a four-way race without the "Nader" problem.
Here are some links to back up what I said earlier: link to theroot.com
Why Are Democrats Still Chasing White Voters When Brown and Black Is Where It’s At?
Debt addiction relies on this:
"The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and through this status, the U.S. is able to enjoy persistent trade deficits, and become a global economic hegemony. The petrodollar system also provides the United States’ financial markets with a source of liquidity and foreign capital inflows through petrodollar "recycling."
link to dailymail.co.uk news/article-2007795/ Achievement-gap-Hispanic- white-students-unchanged- decades.html
'Sobering' report shows education achievement gap between Hispanics and whites remains unchanged in two decades
Saudis are going to be consumed by own incompetence. They misused fossil water and have misused oil bounty. The scary thing is US dollar depends on these incompetent people. For different reasons both US and KSA have badly educated their populations. Both will suffer the consequences. US in 20 years will be country of mostly poor old and young people so will be even more debt dependent than now and that is scary.
Antonio Gramsci did not say, "Liberalism paves the way for fascism." What you may be referring to is his 1924 manifesto entitled, "Neither fascism nor liberalism: Sovietism!"
In 1924 Italy was already fascist under Mussolini, and Gramsci was stating that liberal attempts to replace fascism, if successful, would result in a system no better than fascism.
In his clarion call for "Sovietism," Gramsci was calling for a Soviet style regime, run by committees of workers and peasants, "Soviets," which would, of course, be led by a "Vanguard of the Proletariat."
We see the horrors that led to when the Soviet Union, with its Leninist totalitarianism, was inflicted on the Russian people. Surely you are not suggesting that as an appropriate form of "government" for the U.S. or any other nation.
"Bill Clinton was many things but not by any means a war monger."
Prof. Cole, despite my genuine appreciation of your informed and cogent opinions, especially on matters concerning U.S. policy towards the middle east, this broad-brush declaration that Bill Clinton was "..not by any means a war monger." seems to seriously ignore his historical advocacy and actions in support of the use of military power to implement covert NeoLiberal colonialism in concert with the more overt NeoConservative practitioners of empire building and the resulting loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. How does one not consider such behavior "any means" of war mongering?
"Work is love made visible." KG
As Usual,
EA
Wearing a veil of any kind changes the perception of a woman from an equal to a sexual object. If you want to do that inside a mosque, that's your choice - tho of course you have to find a mosque that will LET women pray with men. But to wear a veil of any kind in normal public engagement is adopting a medieval view of the hierarchy of the sexes, control of women, the depiction of women as sexual objects, and has no place in a modern world. Every time a woman appears with a headscarf, she is signalling that women are DIFFERENT, that their identity is linked with SEX, that there is something 'immodest' (thus sexual) about their hair and their body. AND that this has an effect on MEN, so women must prevent this effect from occurring. This very twisted psychological state leads to unbearable acts against women, by men who are unable to see them as equal people, and as intellectual equals, firstly. So. No more veils in modern society in the marketplace. Do what you want when you are doing your social religious practices - but not in the commons. That is the absolute height of REAL barbarism, and we need to clearly state that the world does not accept the ranking of people by gender.
This info is not that recent...it's from December, 2014. from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report. There's also a link to a Guardian story at that time.
The crowing of one D. Trump brought this up again...not to mention the continuous usage in American media that Zubaydah was Al Qaeda, etc. As a matter of fact, after I had read this over on Tom Englehardt's blog that generated Rebecca's story, the next day an Associated Press story had the same repeated lie again deep in a MSN released story.
It's not that the fix on that shenanigans is in, it is in deep across US media even though the official US position is the opposite. This is not a spirited defense, it is a reiteration of the facts of the case from the SSCI and, strangely enough, by CIA's own admission.
He may not have been a warmonger, but the US back then gloated in it 'victory' in the Cold War and proceeded to contain Russia by moving the forces of NATO eastward, contrary to promises at the time. That led to the current resurgence of Russia and will pose real problems for the next presidency. I fear Clinton's reaction here even more so than Trump.
Just horrible. I am ashamed of America, to live here surrounded by deep racism and hate. I am ashamed to have such Nationalistic candidates running for the Republican presidential race. I am ashamed of our health care system , not universal but beholden to Insurance agencies. I am ashamed of the prison system, violently racist and dehumanizing. I am deeply ashamed of the silence in the face of Palestinian occupation and brutalization , painfully complicit and unjustified.
From an American perspective, elements of the Republican party indeed considered his presidency as a "lost decade" where the U.S. didn't throw their weight around enough and had the nerve to not increase the war budget.
Still, from the perspective of the rest of the world, invading Somalia, the protracted air war against Yugoslavia, and the bombings against Sudan and Afghanistan, and regularly against Iraq... may we be forgiven to consider this a little bit as war mongering? No matter how golden the tongue was that sold us these policies (especially in contrast to what followed)?
As Mario Cuomo said: You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose. Clinton will contribute nothing 'positive' to the US, its allies or the world at large. Within the US, however, the classic ingredients for a move towards fascism have begun to form and I suspect most of Trump's populist appeal is a reflection of that. It won't happen shortly, perhaps it never will, but it has some life in it which is stirring.
No. She is not by nature progressive and has proven she will change her verbal course dependent on what is expedient for her election.
I will not vote for her, but I will vote as progressive a downvote I can and hope my vote will be accurately counted -- which is actually the big news in this election: the overt suppression of votes and the many "inaccuracies".
First, Israel is not shy about saying the Palestinians aren't getting a homeland any time soon, and equally important, no country is acting as an honest arbiter in compelling Israel to fulfill its international obligations. This is a sure recipe for a real disaster. It's only a matter of WHEN!
The Iraq liberation act was passed under his watch. And to those who bring up Nader 2000 again and again, I will say how do you know Al Gore would have reacted if 9/11 happened under his watch? HRC is a hawk and neoconservative. I would worry if I were an Iranian - you could be annihilated.
The "tripwire force" IIRC was not vietnam but south korea and europe which was meant to trigger us involvement in the case of an invasion by communists i.e. the Nork's and Soviets respectively.
Your 'US Casualties leads to greater us involvement' theory seems to be contradicted by reality that the US is operating in a very casualty averse way. In addition, the republicans clearly want to have it both ways: they criticize obama for not doing enough, but are not willing to advocate for large troop numbers for a US led ground deployment.
Also I would not describe gary's or bob's comments as a "minimalist-aggression hypothesis", Gary describes the republicans as the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' who don't' want any responsibility except to later be able to constantly make bullshit complaints.
Bob's complaint seems to be that there is obama is not flag waving, war mongering, or carrier landing/mission accomplished moments and instead obama is downplaying the conflict. Bob's comment is free of substance.
Boy, can't believe these comments here. Bernie supporters hate Clinton as much as the right wing. Like most Bernie supporters, they seem to be extremely naive about politics and the political system. Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise is necessary. In case you haven't noticed, right wing Republicans control both houses of Congress and about two thirds of state government. The population is not mostly progressive; it is still a little to the right of center and slowly changing to a little left of center. Of course Clinton will move to the center after the nomination because she will want to attract the many moderate Republicans and independents who are turned off by Trump. By doing that she will win by about 10 to 12 percentage points and win about 350 electoral voters. How she governs will be almost totally determined by the makeup of Congress. Clinton was a strong liberal before most of Bernie's supporters were even born. The health care plan she developed in 1993 is more to the left than the adopted Affordable Care Act. The right wing can't stand her because they know she is a real liberal and they fear she will be successful. The right wing, for example, hate the ACA, not because they think it is a bad bill (it is mostly a Republican plan), but because they fear it will be successful and will promote the idea that government can make your lives better. Let's not forget what it will mean if Clinton loses. Trump is a racist, xenophobic, misogynist who thinks we should ban Muslims, is as pro-Israel as Clinton, wants to encourage nuclear proliferation, admires Putin, favors torture and the killing of the families of terrorists, encourages his supporters to beat up protesters, thinks Americans already make too much in wages, wants to lower taxes on the rich, wouldn't hesitate about using nuclear weapons in Europe, is incredibly ignorant about many issues and revels in insults. You want to take a chance at this man becoming president? What is wrong with you people?
I don't believe a word she says. Nothing about her smacks of authenticity. From her shrill tones to her u-turns on apologies issues. With her we're likely to get into a HOT war with Russia as well as more nightmares in the ME. I'm going GREEN!
Even if Hillary makes major concessions in the official Democratic Party platform, she will not honor them - just as she will not honor her current fingers-crossed opposition to the TPP. Even if Queen HIllary chooses a strong progressive for Vice President, he or she will spend 4 or 8 years cutting ribbons and doing ceremonial duties and have no real impact on policy, foreign or domestic.
Does anyone really believe that Hilary Clinton won't switch back to the centre right as soon as she is elected? The Clintons were hard-line warmongering, 'War on Drugs' neo-liberals last time they were in office, and I don't see anything from Hilary's time as Secretary of State to make me think that has changed. Bill Clinton trashed welfare, pushed NAFTA and let loose the orgy of mergers in the financial sector that caused the 2008 crash. I shudder at the thought of him and his wife back in the W/H again.
That being said if I were an American (which I am not) I would still vote for her, as she is better than Trump. The crook before the fascist as the French said in 2002. Oddly enough I was in the same mindset in 2004 back when McCain the Insane was running for President and I reluctantly thought Obama was the better man. He's grown on me since 2013, but though he was always better than 'W' it was a slow start. La Clinton otoh looks likely to be worse when she gets in (barring a catastrophe). I continue to believe that you could mount a corpse on a wooden post and it would have more chance than Trump of getting elected President.
You really do want the Republicans to win, don't you?! If Sanders bolts the Democrats for the Green Party, he will split the Democratic vote, taking his followers with him, just as Nader did in 2000. A recipe for a likely Republican win.
"As for the sovereign wealth fund, let’s say the ARAMCO partial IPO actually realizes $2 trillion. Let’s say it gets 5% on its investments after overhead and that all $2 trillion are invested around the world. That would be $100 billion a year, or 1/6 of Saudi Arabia’s GDP last year. It doesn’t replace the oil."
Are we appraising 5% of Aramco to be worth $2tr? Sounds like a pipe dream to me. I doubt if the entire company would fetch that sum. Who is going to buy it?
After winning 5 northeast states on 26 April, Tromp can say "Alea iacta est" because he has reached the point of no return. If he wins his Rubicon (California), he will be the GOP Convention nominee on the first ballot.
President Hillary will be Dick Cheney in a pant suit. She is certainly a career politician who would reject the populist approach for one designed to cater to powerful lobbies. When Hillary is president I'm sure the price of sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom will rise significantly from the days when Bill was in the oval office.
It indeed looks like the left will have to try to find tricks to tie her down and to overcome the usual response ("what are they going to do - vote Republican?"). These tricks would have to include either persistent mass mobilization or running progressive candidates locally that put the fear of God into Democratic reps (who have taken massive contributions from the corporate class).
However, US presidents have historically not not been beholden to either the masses or even to "their" party, i.e. Bill Clinton passed NAFTA with Republican votes. So we would have to directly disrupt business as did the civil rights movement.
The optimism of the article seems premature, as the corporate class already has their tricks in place to tie HRC down to her center-right promises using a wide array of non-illegal instruments such as direct and indirect money contributions, speaking fees, favors to family members, money-for-access, money-for-positions, advisors, lobbyists, lobbyists who have been advisors, advisors who used to be lobbyists, prepared policy papers, focus grouped talking points, preferential access for groomed journalists, and so on.
Rather than to touch the "center"-right economic and "foreign" (i.e. military) policies which enable the very business models of the corporations who have funded HRC, they will try to buy us off with mere words, token identity politics, and symbolic environmental decisions. Unfortunately they will not be able to address inequality with polite conversation nor global warming with hot air.
Still, it may be true that HRC will not have to (openly) belie her feint to the left already during the campaign season, by sticking to her singular advantage ("I am not Donald Trump").
No one has been pushed to the Left - especially hrc; on every single point mentioned above, hrc will bounce back/return to the corporate lockstep in true psychopathique hypocritical nature.
As isræl sidles up to ECR.
Oligarchy all around.
Of course Hillary will offer hopey-changey on all of these points after the election. Realism, you know. Just can't fight those oligarchs who pay the bills.
Sanders supporters themselves could have done a lot better than Sanders. Better people are out there all over. But they don't get the critical oligarch support to get visibility.
Sanders people don't need hope. If they don't have the courage to take direct action, they will do better to vote for one of the Repub loonies who will bring down the oligarchy much faster.
Yes, he pushed her to the left, for a minute. When she runs against Trump, he will pull her back to the right. Bernie needs to get the Green party nomination for President.
The Royal Family have looted hundreds of billions and will deal with the change by moving to their London and New York townhouses. The average Saudi will be left living in a nation which can not grow or import enough food. Starve or flee are the choices.
How could Saudi Arabia exist without oil revenues?
The only change I perceive is in her rhetoric. I can't imagine her in any substantive way biting the hands that have fed her and Bill for all these years. Great corruption comes from rubbing shoulders with those folks, taking their money, and not seeing a problem.
Not a second too soon when Middle East oil becomes a remedy for crotch rash and a cure for hemorrhoids.... No oil means no more wars... sand does not burn well. Law degree from a local college? that means his grades in high school were so low he had to be be a prince to get admitted to college at all.... IQ? you guessed it! SA is not Korea, or Japan, or Germany.... Development needs culture and freedom and creativity and transparency in government.... by the time these are developed.....well.... maybe the rest of the world will be schmoozing with Martians.
According to natural-born Canadian citizen Senadate Ted Cruz of Texas, "There is no alliance.”
Our country has been lurched so far to the EXTREME RIGHT, a conservative Eisenhower Republican would now be depicted as the equivalent to a “socialist,” someone far too liberal or progressive to be relevant.
With the entire fossil fuel distribution network in Mesopotamia up for grabs, uncertainty will continue.
Former speaker of the House John Boehner owes Lucifer an apology.
"I am finding ideologues of the left as unrealistic as ideologues of the right. One says the US can do no wrong, the other says that the US is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Nuance be damned."
This phenomenon can be found in populist demagogues on both the left and the right, dating back at least to the 1930s, and particularly in foreign policy. The left thinks America is not good enough for the rest of the world, and the right thinks the rest of the world is not good enough for America. Both are laughably unrealistic.
A must read, just ordered.
Were NATO and the U.S. to abandon Europe, nukes would be unnecessary. Russian conventional forces would be more than adequate to accomplish the job handily.
I liked Noam Chomsky's response when asked "What should we do about terrorism?" He replied "Stop participating in it." Precisely!
I wouldn't rule out that the idea of selling some of ARAMCO stake to "big oil", came to this juvenile prince out of fear and insecurity. Having US companies owning "part of the rock" he thought, it will compel them to come to defend the KSA regime to protect their stake. Maybe they've done that before, even after 1973 when 100% of ARAMCO had become Saudi, but it won't happen again, not when oil is good for ointment. His plan is a pie in the sky and a mirage in the Empty Quarter. It will be good for the 1% of the world, though, through investment, fraud, and embezzlement.
The Democratic Party has rigged the election for Neo Con (Artist) Clinton. Trump is against NAFTA, and the Trans Pacific Patnership. Hillary and her female brethren Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, and Victoria Nuland have made war on Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Enough said, Trump is much more progressive than Clinton will ever be in her four year term. I have my doubts about American democracy if Clinton is elected in November.
Yes but Putin has not brandished nukes at any of them.
You don't have a sense of proportion if you think any of that adds up to anywhere near invading a country of 26 million with 160,000 troops, occupying it for 8.5 years, killing tens of thousands, wounding millions and displacing 4 million. Bill Clinton has his flaws, but making war was not one of them
The bombing of Iraq in 1998 was because Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries locked on to US planes with hostile intent, which violated the no-fly zone. Republicans got up the phony impeachment and then accused him of wagging the dog; sorry to see you repeat their tactics.
Re: Juan Cole Apr 27 @ 11:36 AM
Your response,
despite its posting not providing the courtesy of a "reply" function and its snarky elocution ("...like, actually launching a war..."), seems to present a rather skewed and selective recollection of the Clinton administration's deployment of modern war-making. While the joining of NATO's belated efforts to end the genocidal "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia under the leadership of Gen. Wesley Clark certainly is deserving of praise, the notion that the Clinton administration was a wholly humanitarian enterprise not driven by NeoLiberal economic warmongering is revisionist fiction; and no amount of snarky obfuscation or dissembling serves any honest discussion well.
The stage that is being set for our 2016 election is not one that represents the interests and concerns of an informed electorate, rather it is a pseudo-political circus being orchestrated by competing brands of political snake-oil with identical ingredients; the only distinction being the coloring additive. The only thing unique this time around is that there is no "lessor evil" to choose from.
As Usual,
EA
Clinton's gestures are in the, "Throw them a bone," category. She will not be a reputable candidate unless she forswears military adventurism, but she's apparently in too deep to the Israel Lobby to do that.
George W. set a new standard on what a failed presidency is like. I can't imagine Donald Trump being an improvement on George W.
One failed presidency did a lot of damage to our country and our foreign policy. President Obama repaired some of the damage despite a Congress that was useless for six years. Another failed presidency so soon after George W. will not be good for the U.S., or good for the world.
Even today on trade deals Obama is relying on Republican votes in Congress.
Sanders should threaten to bolt for the Greens unless HRC signs on the dotted line that her action will match her newfound rhetoric.
Too bad Sanders is losing.
I do have to dispute the premise of this article however. Watching Clinton do a Bush/Cruz neocon run at AIPAC was sickening.
And oh TPP has to be stopped.
It is unclear to me (an economist) what Prince Muhammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Sa'ud really thinks he is up to with this partial ARAMCO IPO. Most of the publicity has been about the large amount of money that it might raise (or not) that will then be added to the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, which will presumably invest abroad and provide a flow of income. But this will be offset by the loss of a share of profits to the new partial owners. Not at all clear that there will be a net gain by all this.
Of course he may be looking at using some of that windfall to offset short term budget deficits. But that is not a sustainable policy, unless he continues to sell off more and more of ARAMCO and similarly uses the money. But again, while that would stretch things out, eventually that comes to an end.
Another argument might be that he has bought into general privatization ideology of private ownership is more efficient than state. Maybe, but this is a selloff of only 15% or something like that, which will not involve any change in management.
Finally it should be noted that this reverses a long history. At the Red Line Agreement in 1928 in Achnacarry Castle, Walter Teagle of then Jersey Standard (now Exxon Mobil) was granted Saudi Arabia (while now BP and Royal Dutch Shell took other parts of the Gulf with the red lines drawn around them on a map on a table). ARAMCO was initially Exxon, Mobil, Gulf, and Texaco and found oil in 1938. They owned it and they took nearly all the profits. Starting in 1948 (or thereabouts) King Abdulaziz gained a 50-50% profit-sharing agreement that was the model for later such agreements in many oil-producing nations. By the time of the OPEC price hike in 1973, the Saudis had nationalized ARAMCO and their oil to get 100% of the profits. Now Muhammed bin Sultan wants to undo all of that, and people are cheering him?.
From corporate-controlled media •••clown to magically morphing into Presidential material will require some truly amazing “special effects.”
You could take everything Trump knows about foreign policy, put it in a thimble, and have room left over for all his knowledge of domestic policy.
What has been, by far, the largest single CONTINUOUS military expenditure since WWI?
Who actually benefits?!!
Under UN supervision 600 metric tons of chemical agents used for making poison gas were destroyed from Syrian stockpiles. There have been no reported uses of poison gas in Syria since. Wikipedia has a thorough article on the use of this gas. I am not aware of anyone who said Turkey was behind it. Human Rights Watch, not affiliated with any government, placed the blame on the Syrian government. Only Seymour Hersh seems to think it was a false flag operation. The evidence is murky, but most evidence points to the Syrian government. I find it quite strange how people are so quick to blame the US for all the problems in the area, even to go to the extreme of seeming to support a war criminal like Assad. I am finding ideologues of the left as unrealistic as ideologues of the right. One says the US can do no wrong, the other says that the US is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Nuance be damned.
Nothing the Trumpster said was half as scary and tone deaf as was Sec. Clinton's umprompted bragging about what buddies she and Henry Kissinger are.
You do realize what will be lost if the Republicans take the WH? If you don't, you really don't get it. Bernie has NO power to actually make any of the changes he advocated without control of both Houses of Congress and those people ARE NOT there and WILL NOT be elected. The whole Bernie thing is backwards.
I have studied the history of Europe in the 20s and 30s in depth. I am very much aware that fascism was a right-wing phenomenon, and that liberalism as used in Gramsci's manifesto was not the U.S. "liberalism" of today.
In the European context, "liberalism" basically adhered to the tenets of John Locke, Adam Smith, and others who valued political freedom (such as it was defined at the time), free markets, and the individual.
That Italy and Germany became fascist was not due to "liberalism." It was primarily due to weak institutional structures within each country; and in the case of Germany, the crushing reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles and rampant inflation in the 20s. Liberalism as such had nothing to do with it.
Gramsci, of course was a communist and viewed liberalism and fascism both as obstacles to attaining his vision of a "Sovietized" Italy. Thus his manifesto, "Neither Fascism Nor Liberalism: Sovietism!"
Perfectly stated!
Trump and Cruz are merely taking full advantage of the “Dumbing-down of America” which has been a work-in-progress since Reagan.
I always say that Bill Clinton was a great Republican president (positively moderate by the standards of that party today), and he did have an aversion to US body bags. But I don't know why he joined a left wing party, mostly antiwar (since the 1970s anyway), because his record speaks for itself - Plan Colombia, the precedent-setting air attack on Serbia without a UN resolution which led to Europe's first change of borders by force since WWII, the bombing of Iraq in 1998 (to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal IMO) and the plan to move NATO into Eastern Europe while Russia was weak. I'll give him a pass over Somalia, and in Bosnia he genuinely hesitated as long as he could. But we shouldn't give him a thumbs up just because Bush was more gung-ho and worse at PR.
Trump supports Sisi.
To state that NATO countries "are under no conventional or nuclear military threat whatsoever..." demonstrates a lack of geo-strategic awarness. The three Baltic states--Estonia, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as Poland, have all been threatened by Putin. The Baltic states in particular were once a part of the Soviet Union and part of what Russia now calls its "Near-Abroad." Without a strong NATO presence, Putin would be sorely tempted to bring them back into the fold.
There is also Turkey, which has always had friction with Russia and the former Soviet Union. Without NATO backup, Putin would not necessarily invade Turkey, but he would most certainly apply strong pressure to bring Turkey under Russian influence.
Please. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq to protect his father's reputation. The Nader-ites keep repeating their litany of defenses. I understand their shame and bad conscience but they must take responsibility for helping to elect the worst president in history.
Fascism is a far right political model. What he meant that well meaning but weak liberal governments, as in pre-Nazi Germany, that can't solve the problems of society can drive a population to embrace fascist tactics of politics.
OK OK OK - you've made your point!
Article is missing explanation. Embrace of bigotry and hate is not inevitable outcome of fear, but one of many possible reactions.
At the New Hampshire debate, Clinton spoke of counting family care work towards Social Security benefits, work of the greatest importance but it does not generate a capitalist profit.
He may be a bombastic snake oil salesman when he is in his off the cuff bloviator mode but when it comes to giving a serious scripted speech his delivery is akin to a first year divinity student. I'm sure the leaders of ISIS are quaking in their sandals right about now.
his two military actions were to save the Kosovars
I too believed that at the time.
Like Palestine, all one has to do is look at a map. Locate Kosovo and Belgrade. Then tell me why they had to bomb Belgrade intensively, taking out Danube bridges, power plants, factories, and such.
The right wing has a clear answer to that in terms of punishment and coercion. I have searched in vain for an answer in terms of "protection" from liberal supporters of the war.
Bulletins from Serbia offers a personal account how the air war felt like on the ground, in the form of e-mail reports by a political cartoonist well networked into the U.S. and Western Europe with no love for Milosevich. What to do when your elderly aunt does not have power and so the contents of her freezer are rotting but she lives across the river you can't cross anymore, that sort of thing.
At least Trump says he puts America first, even if he doesn't mean it. Over here in the UK our worthless politicians like Cameron and Corbin, quite openly want to sell us down the river to the European Union. We even have the American president over here fawning on Cameron and telling us all that we should give away our sovereignty to the EU. If Obama thinks its such a good idea that we over here in the UK stay as members of the EU and open our borders to all and sundry, then he should open his borders between America, Mexico and Canada. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
The argument that "the US pays an unfair share of direct costs" for NATO countries can be countered by a simple thought-experiment.
Q: If the USA stopped paying those costs then what, exactly, would those NATO countries do?
A: Nothing.
Those European countries are under no conventional or nuclear military threat whatsoever and therefore would see no need to increase their military spending even **without** Uncle Sam guarding their backs.
Indeed, the *only* reason that the current NATO countries would consider raising their military budget would be if they feared that the USA would attempt a few "color revolutions" against them.
Bernie Sanders would have to win about 80% of the California vote and sweep the other states in order to win. Do you even know how delegates are apportioned in California? Do you know that there is a large pro-Hillary block of minority voters in California? Do you know that Hillary beat Obama by 10 percentage points in California in 2008? Do you know anything?
Liberalism used in this context is not the same as current US liberalism. Liberalism in early 20th Century Europe meant what we consider today to be conservative economics. If you actually studied history and the history of Europe in the 20's and 30's and studied the rise of fascism in both Germany and Italy, you would realize that fascism was a right wing phenomenon. People who supported fascism in other countries were conservatives. People who supported it in the US were conservatives like Henry Ford. Sigh, so little understanding. Right wingers like to say Obama is a fascist because the Nazi Party's actual title was National Socialist and since Obama is a socialist, that makes him a fascist. Doesn't anybody study history and political theory anymore?
I find it hard to argue against opinions stated without any supporting evidence. That is what you think, but it doesn't make it so. Your prescription is basically burn down the village in order to save it. I suggest you read an article in today's Vox which gives a nuanced analysis of her foreign policy. Left wing ideologues seem to be as incapable of nuance as right wing ideologues. I'm curious, are there any Bernie supporters out there who have actually worked in government and/or studied political science? They all seem idealistic to the point of delusional. They don't live in the real world. There is a reason almost all Democratic office holders have supported Clinton and not Sanders. They realize what can and can't be done. Was Bill Clinton a disaster in foreign policy? No. Hillary Clinton won't be either. Trump would be a disaster. He knows almost nothing and understands even less.
There was an article on counterpunch that went into the comparison between the Native American tradition of the Potlatch and the spending on the military.
In short, the military is what 'we' in the west view as an acceptable form of potlatch.
I consider warmongering to be, like, actually launching a war, sending troops in, armored convoys, etc. etc. Can't see that he did any of that; his two military actions were to save the Kosovars from murderous ultra-nationalist Serbs and to try to kill Bin Laden. Both were very worthwhile.
Not hard to understand why. Especially for the people in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza.
Cruz is the worst most dangerous candidate, being a religious fanatic. We must hope Trump beats him in the primary.
Trump's anti-Muslim statements are not deeply held, they're demagoguing.
Cruz really truly believes Muslims are evil. He is much much more dangerous.
And what do you bet she will reverse all of those positions as soon as her hands slips of the inaugural bible?
The campaign isn't over until California votes.
Bernie still has about a 50-50 shot of winning. It all depends on the California vote. Remember what a huge percentage of the vote he got in Washington and Oregon? This is possible in California, though it wasn't possible in the east-coast closed-primary states.
The important thing to realize is that Clintonism is dead. She will probably govern as a right-winger just like Obama did, but she will have no support for it. She's probably so damn stupid she'll run for re-election in 2020, in which case she'll lose to the Republican Fascist candidate. 2024, if the fascists haven't abolished elections by then, the liberal candidate wins by a huge landslide.
To me it is a great mystery why anyone would have voted for HRC over Bernie in the primaries. Bernie's platform may be limited -- it is a great disappointment to me that he didn't include scaling American militarism way back and using the enormous savings that would result to build American infrastructure -- but at least he comes across as a real and decent human being. In contrast, HRC comes across as a totally inauthentic power-hungry person. She had the rug
pulled out from under her by Obama and is determined not to let it happen again. Little wonder she refuses to publish the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. It would
cost her the election if people really knew what she said. The only principles she apparently really has other than a dermination to be elected have to do with her wholehearted embrace of the principles of American
exceptionalism and the dreadful militarism that goes along with it. A vote for HRC is a vote for four more years of war
anywhere the possibility exists. I totally agree with all the comments expressing conviction that any seeming turn of her positions to the left because of Sanders will go out the window as soon as she no longer has to contend with him.
When the oil money runs out, the rest of the Muslim world will not long tolerate KSA's control of the Holy Cities. Expect the government to collapse.
Expect most of the princes to have moved to London, New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, or whereever before that.
@cenkuygur no
Not by any means, but by all means available to him.
These arguments for realism are always worth considering. But Hillary has advocated war at every single opportunity, and gives everything to Israel and the oligarchy without so much as a fuss. She is a Judas-goat leading progressives to the slaughter, and nothing more.
Intelligent people want to show those who control the Democratic party that they will not be led to the slaughter. If the Dems had wanted a liberal platform they would have backed Sanders or Warren: they don't want it. They don't want it. They are the problem, not a solution.
Let's have a little realism in favor of telling the oligarchy controlling the Dems that their lies and hopey-changey scams don't sell any more, even if it means that they lose this one because they betrayed their people. Let's let them learn their lesson the hard way, because they don't learn any other way.
Just in case perceived decline also refers to the perceived tarnishing and denting of America's patina of Exceptionalism . . . perhaps perceived decline could be seized on by people who are tired of the burdens of American Exceptionalism and would like to guide Exceptional America down a managed decline path towards an Ordinary America endpoint.
Perhaps it is time to think of American Exceptionalism as just another Middle Kingdom Complex ( like "guess-who's" Middle Kingdom Complex) and like Russia's "Third Rome" Complex. Time to think of being an American Okayness Ordinarian. America Okay! We're Number Whatever! etc.
Engelhardt is totally missing Trump's point. The only reason America isn't great now is because it has been under a black president for eight years. When he is replaced by a white man/woman, the country will be great again. We don't need 21 paragraphs of gasbag analysis to understand that.
Trump will not be the gentleman that Bernie was. Clinton offers many areas for hard attacks, not the least of which are the Wall Street speech transcripts. Trump will hammer her on that without letup. Though he would probably agree with everything she said to the Banksters, he will nail her for being two-faced. It will come down to her trust deficit. In the best of all possible worlds, Trump will get "brokered" out at the Republican convention, thereby allowing both he and Bernie to run as independents. That would give us some real choices in a four-way race without the "Nader" problem.
Here are some links to back up what I said earlier:
link to theroot.com
Why Are Democrats Still Chasing White Voters When Brown and Black Is Where It’s At?
link to artvoice.com
Detroit is America
USA IS #7 IN DEBT TO GDP, BUT #2 IN DEBT TO REVENUE
link to visualcapitalist.com
link to washingtonpost.com
We can’t save the economy unless we fix our debt addiction
Debt addiction relies on this:
"The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and through this status, the U.S. is able to enjoy persistent trade deficits, and become a global economic hegemony. The petrodollar system also provides the United States’ financial markets with a source of liquidity and foreign capital inflows through petrodollar "recycling."
link to investopedia.com
link to dailymail.co.uk news/article-2007795/ Achievement-gap-Hispanic- white-students-unchanged- decades.html
'Sobering' report shows education achievement gap between Hispanics and whites remains unchanged in two decades
link to nextcity.org
Report: Poor U.S. Students Receive Developing-World Educations
link to cnbc.com
Most older Americans fall short on retirement savings
link to money.cnn.com
Millennials turn up heat against low wages
link to washingtonpost.com
Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty
Saudis are going to be consumed by own incompetence. They misused fossil water and have misused oil bounty. The scary thing is US dollar depends on these incompetent people. For different reasons both US and KSA have badly educated their populations. Both will suffer the consequences. US in 20 years will be country of mostly poor old and young people so will be even more debt dependent than now and that is scary.
Antonio Gramsci did not say, "Liberalism paves the way for fascism." What you may be referring to is his 1924 manifesto entitled, "Neither fascism nor liberalism: Sovietism!"
In 1924 Italy was already fascist under Mussolini, and Gramsci was stating that liberal attempts to replace fascism, if successful, would result in a system no better than fascism.
In his clarion call for "Sovietism," Gramsci was calling for a Soviet style regime, run by committees of workers and peasants, "Soviets," which would, of course, be led by a "Vanguard of the Proletariat."
We see the horrors that led to when the Soviet Union, with its Leninist totalitarianism, was inflicted on the Russian people. Surely you are not suggesting that as an appropriate form of "government" for the U.S. or any other nation.
Re: Juan Cole Apr 27 @ 01:38
Prof. Cole, despite my genuine appreciation of your informed and cogent opinions, especially on matters concerning U.S. policy towards the middle east, this broad-brush declaration that Bill Clinton was "..not by any means a war monger." seems to seriously ignore his historical advocacy and actions in support of the use of military power to implement covert NeoLiberal colonialism in concert with the more overt NeoConservative practitioners of empire building and the resulting loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. How does one not consider such behavior "any means" of war mongering?
"Work is love made visible." KG
As Usual,
EA
Gramsci: liberalism paves the way for fascism.
Wearing a veil of any kind changes the perception of a woman from an equal to a sexual object. If you want to do that inside a mosque, that's your choice - tho of course you have to find a mosque that will LET women pray with men. But to wear a veil of any kind in normal public engagement is adopting a medieval view of the hierarchy of the sexes, control of women, the depiction of women as sexual objects, and has no place in a modern world. Every time a woman appears with a headscarf, she is signalling that women are DIFFERENT, that their identity is linked with SEX, that there is something 'immodest' (thus sexual) about their hair and their body. AND that this has an effect on MEN, so women must prevent this effect from occurring. This very twisted psychological state leads to unbearable acts against women, by men who are unable to see them as equal people, and as intellectual equals, firstly. So. No more veils in modern society in the marketplace. Do what you want when you are doing your social religious practices - but not in the commons. That is the absolute height of REAL barbarism, and we need to clearly state that the world does not accept the ranking of people by gender.
This info is not that recent...it's from December, 2014. from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report. There's also a link to a Guardian story at that time.
The crowing of one D. Trump brought this up again...not to mention the continuous usage in American media that Zubaydah was Al Qaeda, etc. As a matter of fact, after I had read this over on Tom Englehardt's blog that generated Rebecca's story, the next day an Associated Press story had the same repeated lie again deep in a MSN released story.
It's not that the fix on that shenanigans is in, it is in deep across US media even though the official US position is the opposite. This is not a spirited defense, it is a reiteration of the facts of the case from the SSCI and, strangely enough, by CIA's own admission.
He may not have been a warmonger, but the US back then gloated in it 'victory' in the Cold War and proceeded to contain Russia by moving the forces of NATO eastward, contrary to promises at the time. That led to the current resurgence of Russia and will pose real problems for the next presidency. I fear Clinton's reaction here even more so than Trump.
But he managed to do a lot of damage to Iraq before the invasion by W.
Just horrible. I am ashamed of America, to live here surrounded by deep racism and hate. I am ashamed to have such Nationalistic candidates running for the Republican presidential race. I am ashamed of our health care system , not universal but beholden to Insurance agencies. I am ashamed of the prison system, violently racist and dehumanizing. I am deeply ashamed of the silence in the face of Palestinian occupation and brutalization , painfully complicit and unjustified.
That depends on one's perspective.
From an American perspective, elements of the Republican party indeed considered his presidency as a "lost decade" where the U.S. didn't throw their weight around enough and had the nerve to not increase the war budget.
Still, from the perspective of the rest of the world, invading Somalia, the protracted air war against Yugoslavia, and the bombings against Sudan and Afghanistan, and regularly against Iraq... may we be forgiven to consider this a little bit as war mongering? No matter how golden the tongue was that sold us these policies (especially in contrast to what followed)?
Not a chance she will keep any of these policy positions after the coronation.
puh-leeze
hillary is more of a republican than any of the republican candidates.
she will zoom rightward as soon as she is in the oval office.
get real.
As Mario Cuomo said: You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose. Clinton will contribute nothing 'positive' to the US, its allies or the world at large. Within the US, however, the classic ingredients for a move towards fascism have begun to form and I suspect most of Trump's populist appeal is a reflection of that. It won't happen shortly, perhaps it never will, but it has some life in it which is stirring.
Quarter of a million dead Iraqi children because of the Clintons (I read it here). If that is not war, I don't know what is.
No. She is not by nature progressive and has proven she will change her verbal course dependent on what is expedient for her election.
I will not vote for her, but I will vote as progressive a downvote I can and hope my vote will be accurately counted -- which is actually the big news in this election: the overt suppression of votes and the many "inaccuracies".
First, Israel is not shy about saying the Palestinians aren't getting a homeland any time soon, and equally important, no country is acting as an honest arbiter in compelling Israel to fulfill its international obligations. This is a sure recipe for a real disaster. It's only a matter of WHEN!
The Iraq liberation act was passed under his watch. And to those who bring up Nader 2000 again and again, I will say how do you know Al Gore would have reacted if 9/11 happened under his watch? HRC is a hawk and neoconservative. I would worry if I were an Iranian - you could be annihilated.
I see obama/clinton as leading the effort to clean up the republican mess.
The "tripwire force" IIRC was not vietnam but south korea and europe which was meant to trigger us involvement in the case of an invasion by communists i.e. the Nork's and Soviets respectively.
Your 'US Casualties leads to greater us involvement' theory seems to be contradicted by reality that the US is operating in a very casualty averse way. In addition, the republicans clearly want to have it both ways: they criticize obama for not doing enough, but are not willing to advocate for large troop numbers for a US led ground deployment.
Also I would not describe gary's or bob's comments as a "minimalist-aggression hypothesis", Gary describes the republicans as the 'nattering nabobs of negativity' who don't' want any responsibility except to later be able to constantly make bullshit complaints.
Bob's complaint seems to be that there is obama is not flag waving, war mongering, or carrier landing/mission accomplished moments and instead obama is downplaying the conflict. Bob's comment is free of substance.
Boy, can't believe these comments here. Bernie supporters hate Clinton as much as the right wing. Like most Bernie supporters, they seem to be extremely naive about politics and the political system. Politics is the art of the possible. Compromise is necessary. In case you haven't noticed, right wing Republicans control both houses of Congress and about two thirds of state government. The population is not mostly progressive; it is still a little to the right of center and slowly changing to a little left of center. Of course Clinton will move to the center after the nomination because she will want to attract the many moderate Republicans and independents who are turned off by Trump. By doing that she will win by about 10 to 12 percentage points and win about 350 electoral voters. How she governs will be almost totally determined by the makeup of Congress. Clinton was a strong liberal before most of Bernie's supporters were even born. The health care plan she developed in 1993 is more to the left than the adopted Affordable Care Act. The right wing can't stand her because they know she is a real liberal and they fear she will be successful. The right wing, for example, hate the ACA, not because they think it is a bad bill (it is mostly a Republican plan), but because they fear it will be successful and will promote the idea that government can make your lives better. Let's not forget what it will mean if Clinton loses. Trump is a racist, xenophobic, misogynist who thinks we should ban Muslims, is as pro-Israel as Clinton, wants to encourage nuclear proliferation, admires Putin, favors torture and the killing of the families of terrorists, encourages his supporters to beat up protesters, thinks Americans already make too much in wages, wants to lower taxes on the rich, wouldn't hesitate about using nuclear weapons in Europe, is incredibly ignorant about many issues and revels in insults. You want to take a chance at this man becoming president? What is wrong with you people?
Bill Clinton was many things but not by any means a war monger.
I don't believe a word she says. Nothing about her smacks of authenticity. From her shrill tones to her u-turns on apologies issues. With her we're likely to get into a HOT war with Russia as well as more nightmares in the ME. I'm going GREEN!
Even if Hillary makes major concessions in the official Democratic Party platform, she will not honor them - just as she will not honor her current fingers-crossed opposition to the TPP. Even if Queen HIllary chooses a strong progressive for Vice President, he or she will spend 4 or 8 years cutting ribbons and doing ceremonial duties and have no real impact on policy, foreign or domestic.
Does anyone really believe that Hilary Clinton won't switch back to the centre right as soon as she is elected? The Clintons were hard-line warmongering, 'War on Drugs' neo-liberals last time they were in office, and I don't see anything from Hilary's time as Secretary of State to make me think that has changed. Bill Clinton trashed welfare, pushed NAFTA and let loose the orgy of mergers in the financial sector that caused the 2008 crash. I shudder at the thought of him and his wife back in the W/H again.
That being said if I were an American (which I am not) I would still vote for her, as she is better than Trump. The crook before the fascist as the French said in 2002. Oddly enough I was in the same mindset in 2004 back when McCain the Insane was running for President and I reluctantly thought Obama was the better man. He's grown on me since 2013, but though he was always better than 'W' it was a slow start. La Clinton otoh looks likely to be worse when she gets in (barring a catastrophe). I continue to believe that you could mount a corpse on a wooden post and it would have more chance than Trump of getting elected President.
You really do want the Republicans to win, don't you?! If Sanders bolts the Democrats for the Green Party, he will split the Democratic vote, taking his followers with him, just as Nader did in 2000. A recipe for a likely Republican win.
I think you're overly optimistic here. She'll turn hard right as soon as she doesn't have to worry about her left flank
You really believe she'll stay on the left?
You're kidding, right? She'll put the left turn signal on, but only the naïve don't see her steering into neoliberalism all the way
nobody believes she'll stay there. We're not stupid.
"As for the sovereign wealth fund, let’s say the ARAMCO partial IPO actually realizes $2 trillion. Let’s say it gets 5% on its investments after overhead and that all $2 trillion are invested around the world. That would be $100 billion a year, or 1/6 of Saudi Arabia’s GDP last year. It doesn’t replace the oil."
Are we appraising 5% of Aramco to be worth $2tr? Sounds like a pipe dream to me. I doubt if the entire company would fetch that sum. Who is going to buy it?
After winning 5 northeast states on 26 April, Tromp can say "Alea iacta est" because he has reached the point of no return. If he wins his Rubicon (California), he will be the GOP Convention nominee on the first ballot.
Bernie may be forcing her to campaign to the left, however, I think that if elected she will govern to the right.
@joshua_landis Don't forget Europe. Quite happy to see us in flames too.
President Hillary will be Dick Cheney in a pant suit. She is certainly a career politician who would reject the populist approach for one designed to cater to powerful lobbies. When Hillary is president I'm sure the price of sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom will rise significantly from the days when Bill was in the oval office.
It indeed looks like the left will have to try to find tricks to tie her down and to overcome the usual response ("what are they going to do - vote Republican?"). These tricks would have to include either persistent mass mobilization or running progressive candidates locally that put the fear of God into Democratic reps (who have taken massive contributions from the corporate class).
However, US presidents have historically not not been beholden to either the masses or even to "their" party, i.e. Bill Clinton passed NAFTA with Republican votes. So we would have to directly disrupt business as did the civil rights movement.
The optimism of the article seems premature, as the corporate class already has their tricks in place to tie HRC down to her center-right promises using a wide array of non-illegal instruments such as direct and indirect money contributions, speaking fees, favors to family members, money-for-access, money-for-positions, advisors, lobbyists, lobbyists who have been advisors, advisors who used to be lobbyists, prepared policy papers, focus grouped talking points, preferential access for groomed journalists, and so on.
Rather than to touch the "center"-right economic and "foreign" (i.e. military) policies which enable the very business models of the corporations who have funded HRC, they will try to buy us off with mere words, token identity politics, and symbolic environmental decisions. Unfortunately they will not be able to address inequality with polite conversation nor global warming with hot air.
Still, it may be true that HRC will not have to (openly) belie her feint to the left already during the campaign season, by sticking to her singular advantage ("I am not Donald Trump").
No one has been pushed to the Left - especially hrc; on every single point mentioned above, hrc will bounce back/return to the corporate lockstep in true psychopathique hypocritical nature.
As isræl sidles up to ECR.
Oligarchy all around.
not hard to understand why?
Of course Hillary will offer hopey-changey on all of these points after the election. Realism, you know. Just can't fight those oligarchs who pay the bills.
Sanders supporters themselves could have done a lot better than Sanders. Better people are out there all over. But they don't get the critical oligarch support to get visibility.
Sanders people don't need hope. If they don't have the courage to take direct action, they will do better to vote for one of the Repub loonies who will bring down the oligarchy much faster.
Yes, he pushed her to the left, for a minute. When she runs against Trump, he will pull her back to the right. Bernie needs to get the Green party nomination for President.
The Royal Family have looted hundreds of billions and will deal with the change by moving to their London and New York townhouses. The average Saudi will be left living in a nation which can not grow or import enough food. Starve or flee are the choices.
How could Saudi Arabia exist without oil revenues?
Surely you would, too, if you were Palestinian youth. It's a (sad) truth about all of us.
The only change I perceive is in her rhetoric. I can't imagine her in any substantive way biting the hands that have fed her and Bill for all these years. Great corruption comes from rubbing shoulders with those folks, taking their money, and not seeing a problem.
Not a second too soon when Middle East oil becomes a remedy for crotch rash and a cure for hemorrhoids.... No oil means no more wars... sand does not burn well. Law degree from a local college? that means his grades in high school were so low he had to be be a prince to get admitted to college at all.... IQ? you guessed it! SA is not Korea, or Japan, or Germany.... Development needs culture and freedom and creativity and transparency in government.... by the time these are developed.....well.... maybe the rest of the world will be schmoozing with Martians.