I can see it now....

Loving and glorious editorials in the Weekly Standard about the hawkish Hillary.

Neocons Salivate Over Hillary

It should come as no surprise prominent neocons are gushing over Hillary Clinton, as noted by the Seattle Times. Fred Barnes of the neocon house organ, the Weekly Standard, couldn’t contain his admiration for the Bilderberger Queen. Ditto for Rich Lowry of National Review, David Brooks, and the Joseph Goebbels of the neocon movement, Charles Krauthammer.

She excels,Lory praised. Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president, that is to say any other neocon, or neolib, not that there is a whole heck of a lot of difference, as the neocons understand. Clinton has repeatedly indicated her desire to confront Iran, that is to say bomb the country, or at least starve it into submission, and that naturally warms the cockles of psychopathic neocon hearts, or lack thereof.

All this from a crowd that has spent the better part of two decades demonizing Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, writes a clueless Matt Stearns, corporate scribe for McClatchy Newspapers. Is the conservative chattering class just hedging its bets, wary that Clinton might win the White House and banish them all?

No, Matt. Point is, demonstrated well enough here, there is little difference between mainstream Democrats and neocon “conservatives, who take their pedigree from Trotskyites and Jabotinskyite, Arab-killing terrorists. Some of them are fond of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist, who wrote about dictatorship and the death machine of the state, while others admire Niccolò Machiavelli and the idea of principe nuovo, a pragmatic and ruthless dictator. A few of them gathered at the foot of Leo Strauss, who advocated the concept of Plato's noble lie, that is to say brazen deception, a common enough practice in government these days. Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky were students of Strauss, while Andrew Sullivan, Elliott Abrams, Alan Keyes, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and Irving Kristol studied under the Straussian Harvey C. Mansfield, who advocates a strong executive, that is to say the sort of decidership Schmitt wrote about. Democrats, while not explicit Straussians or stark raving fascists along the lines sketched out by Carl Schmitt, are indeed authoritarians, more socialist in a classical sense but despots nonetheless.

Hillary Clinton was selected by the ruling elite to be the next president, so it makes sense the neocons, who have made a career out of attacking and slandering Democrats, as part of the false left-right political paradigm, are enthusiastically onboard, praising the Bilderberger selectee Clinton now, same as the old communist politburo praised without hesitation the leader appointed by the Central Committee. If serious neocons understand anything it is that power from on-high must be respected and obeyed, lest they are led to the political wilderness, a dreaded prospect worse than death for most of the neocon megalomaniacs.

Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That's pretty much consensus by Republican insiders, the Seattle Times reports a Republican strategist with a top-tier GOP candidate as admitting. In other words, none of the Republicans currently strutting, preening, and bloviating have a chance, as the elite want a Democrat this time around, not that there is a lick of difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is interesting this admission comes from a strategist for a top-tier GOP candidate.

But then not so interesting or surprising, as little of substance will change under Queen Hillary. Of course, the masses will be fooled again, as usual, and that's why the corporate media is now trotting out letters Hillary Rodham wrote to high school friend John Peavoy while attending Wellesley College back in the day. The letters were written during a period when the future Mrs. Clinton was undergoing a period of profound political transformation, from the Goldwater girl who shared her father's conservative outlook to a liberal antiwar activist, reports the Boston Globe. In other words, lib Dems need not be concerned, as deep down inside Hillary remains a liberal antiwar activist. Meanwhile, Republicans may rest easy knowing Hillary got her start supporting Goldwater, not that the neocon Republicans of today follow the principles of Barry Goldwater, indeed a real conservative.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=940

If the only other choice is Barack Obama I can see why some people are pushing Hillary. If the bottom line is we're going to have a Democrat president I figure it's never too early to start pushing the least of evils. Though it's hard to believe Hillary is even in the running for that position.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I sure as hell can't vote for Hillary or Rudy McRomney, so I'll end up writing someone in or voting for the LP candidate. More compromise equals more of of the same, which this nation can no longer tolerate.

Yep, that's an old quote, and I probably won't vote for Hillary in a general election, but since I'm still registered as a Democrat I could vote for her in a primary. Unfortunately more compromise is often the only choice. I make protest votes when I can, but I'm not about to elect Obama because I refuse to vote for Hillary under any condition. American elections are not about choosing your favorite candidate in theory, they are about choosing between the viable candidates left on the ballot.

These people will continue to destroy this nation, so I won't be voting for any of them. There is no difference between any of these creatures -- they are dangerous for America.

until the system is changed, votes won't matter nearly as much as public opinion.

its who the military wants, and that's who we'll get.

Unless Ron Paul runs independent you aren't going to get much chance to make a real vote for your guy. You can write him in, but that isn't even going to get him on a future ballot. I hate calling it a wasted vote, but that is really what it is.

Pure BS.

not at all

follow the money and power

At this point my dark horse candidate is the Governor from New Mexico. He has a strong international record. I mean the man was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times because of international negotiations that he lead or mediated. He helped get a cease fire in Darfur. He negotiated with the North Koreans and had them give up on their nuclear program only to have it restart when Bill Clinton left office.

He has done a fairly good job as the Governor of New Mexico from what I've read. He seems to have the best environmental record of anybody in the field. He served in Congress long enough to know how to work the hill. He is the only Democratic candidate with executive experience, and he is working hard in Iowa and New Hampshire. Most people aren't even paying attention to the election yet and the only people they hear about are Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If Richardson beats either, or both of them in Iowa, he moves to the top of the heap, and I suspect he will beat at least one of them because that is where his focus has been and he has been spending money there too. Joe Trippy is heading Edwards campaign this time, and seems to have learned the lesson from the Dean campaign about the importance of Iowa. I only hope that Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have to start slinging mud at each other so that Richardson can Gephardt the lot of them.

He has the executive experience edge, for sure. His Iraq policy really is only cut and run, and that is just silly. He ought to know better.

I think if you look at the value of our cut and run experience, i.e. Vietnam, where you can go to a Baskin Robbins in Hanoi -granted Baskin Robbins is now owned by a European company, but at one time it was American- we will probably gain more from a cut and run approach than we will lose.

Could have been that way 30 years and many piles of skulls ago.

Changing our foreign policy is the only option. If the US stays, more soldiers will die, in an war which serves no purpose, other than some sick geo-political experiment. The same people who claim there will be chaos if the US leaves, are the same people who said this war would take weeks and the US would be welcomed as liberators. The whole "cut and run" propaganda is used by GOP talking heads, most of whom have never worn a uniform and embody the very nature of Chickenhawk.

Change policy anytime except for during a war.

Yeah, I do seem to remember somebody, actually a lot of somebodies saying this was going to take 6 months.

I also remember calling bull sh*i*t on them at the time.

You won.

Now you can collect the chips.

Can I donate those chips to the can we please elect somebody worthy of the Presidency pile.

The chances that you, yourself, and your individual vote one way or the other (or your abstaining) will have an actual impact on who is elected President and Vice President of the U.S.A. are so extremely small as to be negligible.

And your post sounds like lefty talking points. So what?

BTW: My uniform was blue in the winter and tan in the summer. What color was yours?



What does that mean? What if noboby voted at all? Would that make a difference?

Like my individual actions will affect abortion, gay marriage, national healthcare or anything else. That's why I prefer to discuss issues, policy and strategy as opposed to just making everything a personal battle with permanent animosities and repurcussions.




I don't think any worldwide war requiring a sea-change in opinion from a whole religion is ever going to take 6 months. I think you all mistake one battle with the whole war. We did take out Saddam in short order, same with the Taliban. That doesn't make the whole problem of Islamic terror go away.

I'm just pointing to the rhetoric of October 2002 through March of 2003 when Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Powell, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Ms. Rice all seemed to be saying we will go into Iraq and be out in 6 months. I said it was horse puckey then, it is clear today that it was and remains horse puckey.

I also said that taking out Saddam would make the problem worse. That seems to have come to pass. At the time I said that the only way to create a sea change in the whole region was to change our approach.

Evil people can kill unarmed civilians in droves, but they become much harder pressed to find people to swell their ranks than when shooting at armed soldiers who can correctly or incorrectly be called "occupiers," and "invaders."

I still think my plan for how to change the region from back in the day, a plan that certainly takes considerable amounts of courage is the only one to likely create the sea-change in my opinion that you speak of Art.

I think the only way we can accomplish the goal is for a massive government effort directed at precisely that kind of policy.

The policy is the same one I spoke of before the war, non-violent resistence to our enemies in the region, on the ground.

I won't sign up to go kill people for this country, but if they want to change the mission of the Peace Corp so that it is no longer just a volunteer force, but a real instrument of American diplomacy, a massive, I'm talking million or more member unarmed civilian force dedicated building infrastructure, spreading education, and on working one-to-one as an on the ground diplomacy tool, I would gladly sign up to get shot at for that mission, whether it be in the heart of downtown Baghdad, the hills outside Kabul, the middle of the Sahara, or where ever else in the region American civilians on the ground building things, running schools and just talking with people on the ground on a one-to-one basis will allow us to win hearts and minds and change our national perception in the region.

You show me a Presidential candidate who will support that policy change and I'll show you the guy or gal who will lead us to victory in the war on terror.

If there is anything that Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr. taught the world, it's this, the better angels of our nature won't long let us support oppressors who kill those who stand against them empty handed, especially if they keep coming and keep doing good works.

Out in 6 months? I don't recall that.


Yeah, protest in Baghdad, under Saddam. I agreed, but nobody showed.



Sanctions can kill as well.



The people who need an attitude change are the bombers.

I think the only way we can accomplish the goal is for a massive government effort directed at precisely that kind of policy.



.

The mideast has plenty of manpower, and it isn't being utilized, ours is. Better they provide the labor and we help with money and expertise/




That works better in a country where the government isn't wildly authoritarian. A Ghandi or King in some places wouldn't live till sunset of the first day they went public.

rummy said "six months, tops"

At this point achieving our ends, isn't about a leading a protest movement like Ghandi or King, but leading an effort at humanitarianism to win friends.

I don't disagree that the people whose minds we need to changer are bombers, but those who are already preparing to attack, aren't likely to change their minds because of our continued applicaiton of force. Changing tactics might cause them to second think their agenda, but even that is unlikely in terms of people who are already committed to violence. Winning this kind of conflict doesn't necessarily require that we beat the people who are already committed to violence today, rather that we change the zeitgeist of the region in such a way that becoming our enemy becomes an unappealing option.

If somebody thinks that flying a plane into a building and dying to kill us is a better option than the others they have, then we aren't going to change these people's minds through force and coersion. If you would rather die, than reach a peaceful settlement of your grievances with the United States, then we aren't likely to reason with you, but we can win the hearts and minds of those who haven't reached the same conclusion. The way to beat a suicide bomber isn't to engage them directly, it is to disengage them militarily and make their cause seem ludicrous, not give it legitimacy by gnashing your teeth at people who share a culture with them.

When it comes to the individual bombers, certainly we need to use all of our intelligence and police resources to identify and interdict them, but using the brute force of the military, rather than the surgical capabilities of police forces creates enemies. That's not to say there is no place for military personnel in a response. Covert operations in surgical strikes lead by special forces on the ground can be beneficial in these kinds of situations, but it would really require the sort of face to face engagements that SF were created to handle. It doesn't help in these kinds of scenarios to send in forces that are likely to cause collateral damage. It's better to hit with pin point force against the actual bad guys. Which means somebody that can point and shoot at the actual bad guy, and miss the innocent bystander standing next to him.

Intelligence and police can only use what we allow them. As far as I can tell the left doesn't want to allow them anything but the same techniques that only got Al Capone for tax evasion.

I used to think you could negotiate anything and make peace with anyone, but I got some real world lessons.

Humanitarianism isn't what they want. They blow up progress, they don't embrace it.

what planet are you on?


http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=397

Klingon?