Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRobert Parry's Consortium News on whether Clinton is a Neocon.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/16/yes-hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon
April 16, 2016
Exclusive: The argument over whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon may have been settled by her hawkish debate performance on Thursday, which followed her Israel-pandering speech before AIPAC, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursdays debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and if she becomes President Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons signature goal of regime change in countries that get in their way.
Beyond sharing this neocon regime change obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or perception management to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called gluing white hats on their side and gluing black hats on the other.
So, in defending her role in the Libyan regime change, Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi genocidal though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafis efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a Gaddafi apologist.
Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a Saddam apologist.
Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.
She talks about the need for safe zones or no-fly zones for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syrias President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe, Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israels mowing the grass operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.
In Clintons (and the neocons) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel.
So, I dont know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.
April 16, 2016
Exclusive: The argument over whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon may have been settled by her hawkish debate performance on Thursday, which followed her Israel-pandering speech before AIPAC, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursdays debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and if she becomes President Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons signature goal of regime change in countries that get in their way.
Beyond sharing this neocon regime change obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or perception management to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called gluing white hats on their side and gluing black hats on the other.
So, in defending her role in the Libyan regime change, Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi genocidal though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafis efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a Gaddafi apologist.
Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a Saddam apologist.
Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.
She talks about the need for safe zones or no-fly zones for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syrias President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe, Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israels mowing the grass operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.
In Clintons (and the neocons) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel.
So, I dont know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.
... (encourage you to read full article...a little more below)
Pleasing Phrases
In selling her neocon policies to the American public, Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like safe zones and no-fly zones. Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push regime change, following much the same course that she used to persuade a reluctant President Obama to invade Libya in 2011.
The Libyan operation was sold as a humanitarian mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi.
As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies.
In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafis government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency that would be an alternative to the French franc.
Blumenthal added that this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozys decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libyas oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.
But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under Frances thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafis snipers were intentionally shooting children.
With Americans fed a steady diet of such crude propaganda, there was little serious debate about the wisdom of Clintons Libyan regime change. Meanwhile, other emails show that Clintons advisers were contemplating how to exploit Gaddafis overthrow as the dramatic moment to declare a Clinton Doctrine built on using smart power.
In selling her neocon policies to the American public, Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like safe zones and no-fly zones. Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push regime change, following much the same course that she used to persuade a reluctant President Obama to invade Libya in 2011.
The Libyan operation was sold as a humanitarian mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi.
As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies.
In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafis government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency that would be an alternative to the French franc.
Blumenthal added that this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozys decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libyas oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.
But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under Frances thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafis snipers were intentionally shooting children.
With Americans fed a steady diet of such crude propaganda, there was little serious debate about the wisdom of Clintons Libyan regime change. Meanwhile, other emails show that Clintons advisers were contemplating how to exploit Gaddafis overthrow as the dramatic moment to declare a Clinton Doctrine built on using smart power.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 480 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Robert Parry's Consortium News on whether Clinton is a Neocon. (Original Post)
EndElectoral
Apr 2016
OP
Richard Perle and the Neocons all love Clinton. Spreading Democracy with bombs. Heaven
rhett o rick
Apr 2016
#5
Octafish
(55,745 posts)1. Neocon or Neoliberal. It's for Empire.
Parry is TOPS!
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)2. Yes, she's a neo-con.
If one couldn't tell by her war-mongering, then surely her embracing of Kagan and Kissinger should have been a clue.
mythology
(9,527 posts)3. I'd find his claims to be concerned about international intervention
If he wasn't so twitterpated with Putin and shoveled so much bullshit about Russia not being the aggressor toward Ukraine. It's hard to take him seriously at this point.
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)4. Kickin' for the truth!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)5. Richard Perle and the Neocons all love Clinton. Spreading Democracy with bombs. Heaven
help our troops. I heard she is bringing back, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
reddread
(6,896 posts)6. a neocon who gets things done
things like Libya