Parry writes: "What the next U.S. president can do to bring endless warfare
to an end is one of the most important issues of Campaign 2016, but it is
getting only a cursory treatment in debates as politicians seem to fear
neocon wrath if they seek peace."
Hillary Clinton gestures during 'A Conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton'
at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan, New York, June 12, 2014.
(photo: Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
Giving Peace Very Little Chance
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
06 February 16
What the next U.S. president can do to bring endless warfare to an end is
one of the most important issues of Campaign 2016, but it is getting only a
cursory treatment in debates as politicians seem to fear neocon wrath if
they seek peace, writes Robert Parry.
After nearly 15 years of Mideast war with those conflicts growing ever
grimmer you might expect that peace would be a major topic of the 2016
presidential race. Instead, there has been a mix of warmongering bluster
from most candidates and some confused mutterings against endless war from a
few.
No one, it seems, wants to risk offending Official Washingtons
neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment that is ready to castigate any
candidate who suggests that there are other strategies besides more and
more regime changes that might extricate the United States from the
Middle East quicksand.
Late in Thursdays Democratic debate when the topic of war finally came up
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued toeing the neocon
line, calling Iran the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world, when that
title might objectively go to U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Turkey, all of whom have been aiding Sunni jihadists fighting to overthrow
Syrias secular regime.
Israel also has provided help to Al Qaedas Nusra Front, which has been
battling Syrian troops and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters near the Golan
Heights and Israels mistreatment of Palestinians has played a key role in
stirring up hatred and violence in the Middle East.
But Clinton has fully bought into the neocon narrative, not especially a
surprise since she voted for the Iraq War, pushed the disastrous Libyan
regime change and has sought a limited U.S. military invasion of Syria (to
prevent the Syrian army from securing its border with Turkey and reclaiming
territory from jihadists and other rebels).
Blasting Iran
In Thursdays debate coming off her razor-thin victory in the Iowa
caucuses Clinton painted Iran as the big regional threat, putting herself
fully in line with the neocon position.
We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor
of terrorism in the world, Clinton said. They are destabilizing
governments in the region. They continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas in
Lebanon against Israel.
If we were to normalize relations right now [with Iran], we would remove
one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change
Iranian behavior.
I believe we have to take this step by step to try to
rein in Iranian aggression, their support for terrorism and the other bad
behavior that can come back and haunt us.
Iran, of course, has been a longtime neocon target for regime change along
with Syria (and before that Iraq). Many neocons were disappointed when
President Barack Obama negotiated an agreement to ensure that Irans nuclear
program remained peaceful (an accord reached after John Kerry replaced
Clinton as Secretary of State). The neocons had been hoping that the U.S.
military would join Israel in an air war to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran as Sen.
John McCain once famously declared.
Yet, there were other distortions in Clintons statement. While its true
that Iran has aided Hezbollah and Hamas in their resistance to Israel,
Clinton ignored other factors, such as Israeli acts of aggression against
both Lebanon, where Hezbollah emerged as resistance to an Israeli invasion
and occupation in the 1980s, and the Palestinians who have faced Israeli
oppression for generations.
Silence on the Allies
In the debate, Clinton also avoided criticism of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Turkey for their military and financial assistance to radical jihadists,
including Al Qaedas Nusra Front and Al Qaedas spinoff, the Islamic State.
At the urging of Clinton, the Obama administration also approved military
shipments to Syrian rebels who then either turned over or sold U.S. weapons
to the extremists.
Irans role in Syria has been to help support the internationally recognized
government of Bashar al-Assad, whose military remains the principal bulwark
protecting Syrias Christian, Alawite, Shiite and other minorities from
possible genocide if Al Qaeda-connected jihadists prevailed.
Clinton also ignored her own role in creating a haven for these terror
groups across the Middle East because of her support for the Iraq War and
her instigation of the 2011 regime change in Libya which created another
failed state where Islamic State and various extremists have found a home
and started chopping of the heads of infidels.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who battled Clinton to a virtual tie in
Iowa, took a somewhat less belligerent position at Thursdays debate,
repeating his rather naïve idea of having Sunni states lead the fight
against Sunni jihadists. On the more reasonable side, he indicated a
willingness to work with Russia and other world powers in support of an
anti-jihadist coalition.
It must be Muslim troops on the ground that will destroy ISIS, with the
support of a coalition of major powers U.S., U.K., France, Germany and
Russia, Sanders said. So our job is to provide them the military equipment
that they need; the air support they need; special forces when appropriate.
But at the end of the day for a dozen different reasons
the combat on the
ground must be done by Muslim troops with our support. We must not get
involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.
Sanders continued, We cannot be the policeman of the world. We are now
spending more I believe than the next eight countries on defense. We have
got to work in strong coalition with the major powers of the world and with
those Muslim countries that are prepared to stand up and take on terrorism.
So I would say that the key doctrine of the Sanders administration would be
no, we cannot continue to do it alone; we need to work in coalition.
Sounding Less Hawkish
While Sanders clearly sought to sound less hawkish than Clinton and did
not repeat his earlier talking point about the Saudis and others getting
their hands dirty he did not address the reality that many of the Sunni
countries that he hopes to enlist in the fight against the jihadists are
already engaged on the side of the jihadists.
Clinton, as she seeks to cut into Sanderss lead in New Hampshire polls, has
been stressing her progressive credentials, but many progressive Democrats
suspect that Clinton could become a neocon Trojan Horse.
Arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American
Century, has praised Clintons aggressive foreign policy.
Kagan, who was made an adviser to Clintons State Department (while his wife
Victoria Nuland received big promotions under Clinton), said in 2014: If
she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
its something that
might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to
call it that; they are going to call it something else. [For more, see
Consortiumnews.coms Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?]
Not only did Clinton vote for the Iraq War and support it until it became
a political liability during Campaign 2008 but she rejoined the
neocon/liberal-hawk ranks as President Barack Obamas Secretary of State.
She routinely sided with neocon holdovers, such as Gen. David Petraeus,
regarding Mideast wars and Israels hardline regime in its hostilities
toward the Palestinians and Iran.
In 2011, Clinton pushed for regime change in Libya, chortling over Muammar
Gaddafis torture-murder in October 2011, We came. We saw. He died. Since
then, Libya has descended into a failed state with the Islamic State and
other jihadists claiming more and more territory.
Clinton also favored an outright (though limited) U.S. military invasion of
Syria, setting up a safe zone or no-fly zone that would protect
militants fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government. Over and over
again, she has adopted positions virtually identical to what the neocons
prescribe.
But Sanders, although he opposed the Iraq War, has hesitated to challenge
Clinton too directly on foreign policy, apparently fearing to distract from
his focus on income inequality and domestic concerns. He apparently has
chosen fuzziness on foreign policy as the better part of political valor.
GOP Neocons Score
On the Republican side, the first week of the presidential
delegate-selection process saw two candidates who mildly questioned the
neocon conventional wisdom face reversals. Billionaire Donald Trump was
upset in the Iowa caucuses and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul shut down his
flailing campaign.
Trump has noted his opposition to the Iraq War and his willingness to
cooperate with Russia in the fight against jihadist terror, while Paul
pushed a libertarian-style approach that questioned neocon interventionism
but not as aggressively as his father did, apparently hoping to avoid Ron
Pauls marginalization as an isolationist.
While Trump and Paul stumbled this week, neocon favorite Marco Rubio surged
to a strong third-place finish, catapulting past other establishment
candidates who while largely me-too-ing the neocon orthodoxy on foreign
policy are not as identified with pure neoconservatism as the youthful
Florida senator is.
However, even the non-neocons have opted for visceral warmongering. Tea
Party favorite and winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses, Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz, has vowed to carpet bomb Islamic State strongholds and promised to
see if sand can glow in the dark, as he told a Tea Party rally in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. The phrase glow in the dark popularly refers to the
aftermath of a nuclear bomb detonation.
However, as hardline as Cruz is, he still received a tongue-lashing from the
neocon-flagship Washington Post for not doing a full-neocon when he
suggested that the United States should not focus on regime change in
Syria. Cruz has worried that overthrowing Assads government might pave the
way for a victory by the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist terrorists.
In a Dec. 31, 2015 editorial, the Posts editors instead hailed neocon
favorite Rubio for arguing forcefully for Assads removal and castigated
Cruz for saying Assads ouster was a distraction at best and might even
empower the jihadist.
A Beloved Group Think
It is one of Official Washingtons most beloved group thinks that Syrian
regime change a neocon goal dating back to the 1990s must take
precedence over the possible creation of a military vacuum that could bring
the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda to power.
After all, it wont be the sons and daughters of well-connected neocons who
are sent to invade and occupy Syria to reverse the capture of Damascus by
the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda. So, the Posts editors, who in 2002-03
told the American people as flat fact that Iraqs Saddam Hussein was hiding
WMD, engaged in similar exaggerations and lies about Assad in demonizing
Cruz for his apostasy.
Mr. Cruz is arguing for a stridently anti-American and nakedly genocidal
dictator who sponsored terrorism against U.S. troops in Iraq and serves as a
willing puppet of Iran, the Post wrote.
That is typical of what a politician can expect if he or she deviates from
the neocon line, even if youre someone as belligerent as Cruz. Any apostasy
from neocon orthodoxy is treated most harshly.
There is, by the way, no evidence that Assad is nakedly genocidal his
largely secular regime has never targeted any specific ethnic or religious
group, indeed his government is the principal protector of Christians,
Alawites, Shiites and other minorities that have been targeted by Sunni
extremists for death.
Nor did Assad sponsor terrorism against U.S. troops in Iraq. By
definition, terrorism is political violence against civilians, not against a
military occupation force. Assad also sought to collaborate with the Bush-43
administration in its war on terror, to the point of handling torture
assignments from Washington.
But distortions and falsehoods are now the way of the modern Washington
Post. The newspaper will say anything, no matter how dishonest or unfair, to
advance the neocon cause.
But the most dangerous outcome from these pressures is that they prevent a
serious debate about a most serious topic: what the next president must do
to bring the costly, bloody and endless wars to an end.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parrys trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes Americas Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader
comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No
one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time
everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by
encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the
moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid
remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any
illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
+5 # Shades of gray matter 2016-02-06 23:20
Bernie has had amazing courage on other issues. I hope he presses her some
on this. She is playing the long game, & is worried about getting "Iraned"
next fall.
+6 # lfeuille 2016-02-07 00:29
Well, Hillary's not worried about pissing off neo-cons, she is a very
enthusiastic neo-con herself. I really don't know what Bernie is thinking
about this. If he is afraid of upsetting anyone, I don't think it is neocon
politicians. but voters who may have been influenced by them, but in any
case he position is an improvement on Hillary's and all of the Repub.
candidates.
+5 # jimallyn 2016-02-07 01:58
Hillary Clinton never met a war she didn't like. That's why she's so beloved
by neocons like Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger.
+4 # grandlakeguy 2016-02-07 04:41
Please Google: Hillary Clinton cluster bomb vote.
This will tell you all you need to know about her lack of compassion for
anyone, even children!
+2 # jdd 2016-02-07 06:34
The warmongering policies of Wall Street's puppet are well described here,
but one only need to witness the anti-Russian tirade by Hillary in the last
debate to realize how dangerous it would be for her to be in the White
House. As you look your children or grandchildren in the eye, consider her
personal hatred for the President of the world's other nuclear superpower,
matching or exceeding that of her mentor President Obama, which should send
a chill down one's spine. This past week, Obama's Sec.of Defense Ashton
Carter announced a massive arms buildup of the "nuclear triad," and 25 years
after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact, declared
not ISIS but Russia and China to be our greatest threat. A Clinton
presidency will ensure that this insanity is institutionaliz ed in the White
House.
0 # DrD 2016-02-07 08:21
I support Bernie's overall stance against promoting regime change everywhere
(i.e. Invasions) but agree that his statements of drawing the Saudis in to
police the region are unwise. Our support of the Saudi government with
massive weapons sales are a big part of the problem and therefore an
unlikely part of the solution. How can we appeal to the Bernie campaign to
seek the advice of non neocon experts like Robert Naimon (sp) from
JustForeignPoli cy to help Bernie devise a strategy to get us out of the
quagmire that we have caused in the Middle East by decades of intervention
and invasions? This is the area that Bernie needs to work on the most.
Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post
________________________________________
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are
ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing
and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader
Supported News community.
Name: * Username: * E-mail: * Password: * Confirm
password: * Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
FOCUS: Who Hatched Rubio?
Greg Palast, Greg Palast's Website
05 February 2016
FOCUS: The Vampire Squid Tells Us How to Vote
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
06 February 2016
Ten Things You Should Know About Marco Rubio
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
06 February 2016
FOCUS: Dear Hillary, Do You Really Believe You Are "a Progressive?"
Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
04 February 2016
Cruz Victory Gives Hope to Despised People Everywhere
Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
04 February 2016
Will Donald Trump Deflate Like a Big Fat Balloon After Losing in Iowa?
Frank Rich, New York Magazine
04 February 2016
FOCUS: An Idiot's Guide to Prosecuting Corporate Fraud
David Dayen, The Intercept
04 February 2016
That Was the Best Debate Yet
Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
05 February 2016
Goldman Sachs Thinks We Are "Dangerous"
Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
05 February 2016
PRIVACY POLICY
TERMS OF USE
CONTACT US
WHO IS THIS?
© 2016 Reader Supported News
https://secure.readersupportednews.org/contribute.phphttps://secure.readersu
pportednews.org/contribute.php
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
http://readersupportednews.org/
http://readersupportednews.org/
/who-is-this
/who-is-this
/godot
/godot
/contact-us
/contact-us
/events-page
/events-page
https://secure.readersupportednews.org/contribute.php
https://secure.readersupportednews.org/contribute.php
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reader-Supported-News/138345506195109http://ww
w.facebook.com/pages/Reader-Supported-News/138345506195109
http://twitter.com/RSN_Godothttp://twitter.com/RSN_Godot
http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://readersupportednews.org/o
pinion2/277-75/35040-giving-peace-very-little-chancehttp://www.facebook.com/
sharer/sharer.php?u=http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35040-giv
ing-peace-very-little-chance
addcommentsaddcomments
/opinion2/277-75/35040-giving-peace-very-little-chance?tmpl=component&print=
1&layout=default&page=/opinion2/277-75/35040-giving-peace-very-little-chance
?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
Hillary Clinton gestures during 'A Conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton'
at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan, New York, June 12, 2014.
(photo: Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/05/giving-peace-very-little-chance/https:
//consortiumnews.com/2016/02/05/giving-peace-very-little-chance/
Giving Peace Very Little Chance
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
06 February 16
What the next U.S. president can do to bring endless warfare to an end is
one of the most important issues of Campaign 2016, but it is getting only a
cursory treatment in debates as politicians seem to fear neocon wrath if
they seek peace, writes Robert Parry.
fter nearly 15 years of Mideast war with those conflicts growing ever
grimmer you might expect that peace would be a major topic of the 2016
presidential race. Instead, there has been a mix of warmongering bluster
from most candidates and some confused mutterings against endless war from a
few.
No one, it seems, wants to risk offending Official Washingtons
neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment that is ready to castigate any
candidate who suggests that there are other strategies besides more and
more regime changes that might extricate the United States from the
Middle East quicksand.
Late in Thursdays Democratic debate when the topic of war finally came up
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued toeing the neocon
line, calling Iran the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world, when that
title might objectively go to U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Turkey, all of whom have been aiding Sunni jihadists fighting to overthrow
Syrias secular regime.
Israel also has provided help to Al Qaedas Nusra Front, which has been
battling Syrian troops and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters near the Golan
Heights and Israels mistreatment of Palestinians has played a key role in
stirring up hatred and violence in the Middle East.
But Clinton has fully bought into the neocon narrative, not especially a
surprise since she voted for the Iraq War, pushed the disastrous Libyan
regime change and has sought a limited U.S. military invasion of Syria (to
prevent the Syrian army from securing its border with Turkey and reclaiming
territory from jihadists and other rebels).
Blasting Iran
In Thursdays debate coming off her razor-thin victory in the Iowa
caucuses Clinton painted Iran as the big regional threat, putting herself
fully in line with the neocon position.
We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor
of terrorism in the world, Clinton said. They are destabilizing
governments in the region. They continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas in
Lebanon against Israel.
If we were to normalize relations right now [with Iran], we would remove
one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change
Iranian behavior.
I believe we have to take this step by step to try to
rein in Iranian aggression, their support for terrorism and the other bad
behavior that can come back and haunt us.
Iran, of course, has been a longtime neocon target for regime change along
with Syria (and before that Iraq). Many neocons were disappointed when
President Barack Obama negotiated an agreement to ensure that Irans nuclear
program remained peaceful (an accord reached after John Kerry replaced
Clinton as Secretary of State). The neocons had been hoping that the U.S.
military would join Israel in an air war to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran as Sen.
John McCain once famously declared.
Yet, there were other distortions in Clintons statement. While its true
that Iran has aided Hezbollah and Hamas in their resistance to Israel,
Clinton ignored other factors, such as Israeli acts of aggression against
both Lebanon, where Hezbollah emerged as resistance to an Israeli invasion
and occupation in the 1980s, and the Palestinians who have faced Israeli
oppression for generations.
Silence on the Allies
In the debate, Clinton also avoided criticism of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Turkey for their military and financial assistance to radical jihadists,
including Al Qaedas Nusra Front and Al Qaedas spinoff, the Islamic State.
At the urging of Clinton, the Obama administration also approved military
shipments to Syrian rebels who then either turned over or sold U.S. weapons
to the extremists.
Irans role in Syria has been to help support the internationally recognized
government of Bashar al-Assad, whose military remains the principal bulwark
protecting Syrias Christian, Alawite, Shiite and other minorities from
possible genocide if Al Qaeda-connected jihadists prevailed.
Clinton also ignored her own role in creating a haven for these terror
groups across the Middle East because of her support for the Iraq War and
her instigation of the 2011 regime change in Libya which created another
failed state where Islamic State and various extremists have found a home
and started chopping of the heads of infidels.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who battled Clinton to a virtual tie in
Iowa, took a somewhat less belligerent position at Thursdays debate,
repeating his rather naïve idea of having Sunni states lead the fight
against Sunni jihadists. On the more reasonable side, he indicated a
willingness to work with Russia and other world powers in support of an
anti-jihadist coalition.
It must be Muslim troops on the ground that will destroy ISIS, with the
support of a coalition of major powers U.S., U.K., France, Germany and
Russia, Sanders said. So our job is to provide them the military equipment
that they need; the air support they need; special forces when appropriate.
But at the end of the day for a dozen different reasons
the combat on the
ground must be done by Muslim troops with our support. We must not get
involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.
Sanders continued, We cannot be the policeman of the world. We are now
spending more I believe than the next eight countries on defense. We have
got to work in strong coalition with the major powers of the world and with
those Muslim countries that are prepared to stand up and take on terrorism.
So I would say that the key doctrine of the Sanders administration would be
no, we cannot continue to do it alone; we need to work in coalition.
Sounding Less Hawkish
While Sanders clearly sought to sound less hawkish than Clinton and did
not repeat his earlier talking point about the Saudis and others getting
their hands dirty he did not address the reality that many of the Sunni
countries that he hopes to enlist in the fight against the jihadists are
already engaged on the side of the jihadists.
Clinton, as she seeks to cut into Sanderss lead in New Hampshire polls, has
been stressing her progressive credentials, but many progressive Democrats
suspect that Clinton could become a neocon Trojan Horse.
Arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American
Century, has praised Clintons aggressive foreign policy.
Kagan, who was made an adviser to Clintons State Department (while his wife
Victoria Nuland received big promotions under Clinton), said in 2014: If
she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
its something that
might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to
call it that; they are going to call it something else. [For more, see
Consortiumnews.coms Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?]
Not only did Clinton vote for the Iraq War and support it until it became
a political liability during Campaign 2008 but she rejoined the
neocon/liberal-hawk ranks as President Barack Obamas Secretary of State.
She routinely sided with neocon holdovers, such as Gen. David Petraeus,
regarding Mideast wars and Israels hardline regime in its hostilities
toward the Palestinians and Iran.
In 2011, Clinton pushed for regime change in Libya, chortling over Muammar
Gaddafis torture-murder in October 2011, We came. We saw. He died. Since
then, Libya has descended into a failed state with the Islamic State and
other jihadists claiming more and more territory.
Clinton also favored an outright (though limited) U.S. military invasion of
Syria, setting up a safe zone or no-fly zone that would protect
militants fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government. Over and over
again, she has adopted positions virtually identical to what the neocons
prescribe.
But Sanders, although he opposed the Iraq War, has hesitated to challenge
Clinton too directly on foreign policy, apparently fearing to distract from
his focus on income inequality and domestic concerns. He apparently has
chosen fuzziness on foreign policy as the better part of political valor.
GOP Neocons Score
On the Republican side, the first week of the presidential
delegate-selection process saw two candidates who mildly questioned the
neocon conventional wisdom face reversals. Billionaire Donald Trump was
upset in the Iowa caucuses and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul shut down his
flailing campaign.
Trump has noted his opposition to the Iraq War and his willingness to
cooperate with Russia in the fight against jihadist terror, while Paul
pushed a libertarian-style approach that questioned neocon interventionism
but not as aggressively as his father did, apparently hoping to avoid Ron
Pauls marginalization as an isolationist.
While Trump and Paul stumbled this week, neocon favorite Marco Rubio surged
to a strong third-place finish, catapulting past other establishment
candidates who while largely me-too-ing the neocon orthodoxy on foreign
policy are not as identified with pure neoconservatism as the youthful
Florida senator is.
However, even the non-neocons have opted for visceral warmongering. Tea
Party favorite and winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses, Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz, has vowed to carpet bomb Islamic State strongholds and promised to
see if sand can glow in the dark, as he told a Tea Party rally in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. The phrase glow in the dark popularly refers to the
aftermath of a nuclear bomb detonation.
However, as hardline as Cruz is, he still received a tongue-lashing from the
neocon-flagship Washington Post for not doing a full-neocon when he
suggested that the United States should not focus on regime change in
Syria. Cruz has worried that overthrowing Assads government might pave the
way for a victory by the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist terrorists.
In a Dec. 31, 2015 editorial, the Posts editors instead hailed neocon
favorite Rubio for arguing forcefully for Assads removal and castigated
Cruz for saying Assads ouster was a distraction at best and might even
empower the jihadist.
A Beloved Group Think
It is one of Official Washingtons most beloved group thinks that Syrian
regime change a neocon goal dating back to the 1990s must take
precedence over the possible creation of a military vacuum that could bring
the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda to power.
After all, it wont be the sons and daughters of well-connected neocons who
are sent to invade and occupy Syria to reverse the capture of Damascus by
the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda. So, the Posts editors, who in 2002-03
told the American people as flat fact that Iraqs Saddam Hussein was hiding
WMD, engaged in similar exaggerations and lies about Assad in demonizing
Cruz for his apostasy.
Mr. Cruz is arguing for a stridently anti-American and nakedly genocidal
dictator who sponsored terrorism against U.S. troops in Iraq and serves as a
willing puppet of Iran, the Post wrote.
That is typical of what a politician can expect if he or she deviates from
the neocon line, even if youre someone as belligerent as Cruz. Any apostasy
from neocon orthodoxy is treated most harshly.
There is, by the way, no evidence that Assad is nakedly genocidal his
largely secular regime has never targeted any specific ethnic or religious
group, indeed his government is the principal protector of Christians,
Alawites, Shiites and other minorities that have been targeted by Sunni
extremists for death.
Nor did Assad sponsor terrorism against U.S. troops in Iraq. By
definition, terrorism is political violence against civilians, not against a
military occupation force. Assad also sought to collaborate with the Bush-43
administration in its war on terror, to the point of handling torture
assignments from Washington.
But distortions and falsehoods are now the way of the modern Washington
Post. The newspaper will say anything, no matter how dishonest or unfair, to
advance the neocon cause.
But the most dangerous outcome from these pressures is that they prevent a
serious debate about a most serious topic: what the next president must do
to bring the costly, bloody and endless wars to an end.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parrys trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes Americas Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socializehttp://e-max.it/posizioname
nto-siti-web/socialize
Comments /component/jcomments/feed/com_content/35040Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader
comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No
one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time
everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by
encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the
moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid
remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any
illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/Shades of gray
matterhttp://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/Shades of gray
matter
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.+5
# Shades of gray matter 2016-02-06 23:20
Bernie has had amazing courage on other issues. I hope he presses her some
on this. She is playing the long game, & is worried about getting "Iraned"
next fall.
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/lfeuillehttp://reade
rsupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/lfeuille
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.+6
# lfeuille 2016-02-07 00:29
Well, Hillary's not worried about pissing off neo-cons, she is a very
enthusiastic neo-con herself. I really don't know what Bernie is thinking
about this. If he is afraid of upsetting anyone, I don't think it is neocon
politicians. but voters who may have been influenced by them, but in any
case he position is an improvement on Hillary's and all of the Repub.
candidates.
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/jimallynhttp://reade
rsupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/jimallyn
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.+5
# jimallyn 2016-02-07 01:58
Hillary Clinton never met a war she didn't like. That's why she's so beloved
by neocons like Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger.
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/grandlakeguyhttp://r
eadersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/grandlakeguy
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.+4
# grandlakeguy 2016-02-07 04:41
Please Google: Hillary Clinton cluster bomb vote.
This will tell you all you need to know about her lack of compassion for
anyone, even children!
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/jddhttp://readersupp
ortednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/jdd
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.+2
# jdd 2016-02-07 06:34
The warmongering policies of Wall Street's puppet are well described here,
but one only need to witness the anti-Russian tirade by Hillary in the last
debate to realize how dangerous it would be for her to be in the White
House. As you look your children or grandchildren in the eye, consider her
personal hatred for the President of the world's other nuclear superpower,
matching or exceeding that of her mentor President Obama, which should send
a chill down one's spine. This past week, Obama's Sec.of Defense Ashton
Carter announced a massive arms buildup of the "nuclear triad," and 25 years
after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact, declared
not ISIS but Russia and China to be our greatest threat. A Clinton
presidency will ensure that this insanity is institutionaliz ed in the White
House.
http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/DrDhttp://readersupp
ortednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/DrD
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.0
# DrD 2016-02-07 08:21
I support Bernie's overall stance against promoting regime change everywhere
(i.e. Invasions) but agree that his statements of drawing the Saudis in to
police the region are unwise. Our support of the Saudi government with
massive weapons sales are a big part of the problem and therefore an
unlikely part of the solution. How can we appeal to the Bernie campaign to
seek the advice of non neocon experts like Robert Naimon (sp) from
JustForeignPoli cy to help Bernie devise a strategy to get us out of the
quagmire that we have caused in the Middle East by decades of intervention
and invasions? This is the area that Bernie needs to work on the most.
E
