2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNeocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton
Kissinger is retired, but this jackass is unfortunately not.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israels interests.
In a Washington Post op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trumps rise and then asked, So what to do now? The Republicans creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out.
Then referring to himself, he added, For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.
While many of Kagans observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.
The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented an aggressive regime change strategy against governments and political movements that dont toe Washingtons line or that deviate from Israels goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.
Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and liberal interventionists who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
eridani
(51,907 posts)Back in 2001, there was no such thing as a member of DU who thought that PNAC was a wonderful group.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
leveymg
(36,418 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I'm surprised he hasn't just gone to work for RT, and dropped all pretence at independence.
Sid
Raster
(20,998 posts)...it's about Kagan endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Do you have anything - other than attacking the messenger?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/08/18/with-democrat-hillary-clinton-likely-2016-neoconservative-standard-bearer-republicans-should-offer-a-real-alternative-such-as-rand-paul/#78deadbb5353
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/35/countering-the-neocon-comeback/
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)This entire thread is literally spawned by Parry's opinion.
Sid
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If so, there are certain vitamins that I believe help with improving memory.
If not, go back through the archives about PNAC and what most DUers thought of it back then.
Raster
(20,998 posts)and if you have a link showing otherwise, then produce it.
Again, all you have is attack the messenger... and your pithy, little one-liners. I didn't see an LOL in your post...you're slipping.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)By Robert Kagan February 25 at 11:08 AM
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.
So what to do now? The Republicans creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.
Not opinion, fact.
Also fact that Kagan co-founded PNAC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[7]
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)the poster chose to create a thread using Parry's opinion piece.
IMO, Parry's opinion isn't worth spit.
Sid
suffragette
(12,232 posts)There aren't enough LOLs in the world to minimize that.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)and what he writes would still be true or false. Claiming it was false because he works for the Devil would be fallacious, especially if he doesn't. Then it becomes libelous.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)except for those who usually express their deepest thoughts with emoticons and one-liners. It's hard to take someone seriously whose DU tag-line read, "This place needs an enema".
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I'm astounded that any Democrat could find humor in this horrifying endorsement.
Being in bed with a nest of neocons should probably disqualify her from the Presidency. She's a warmonger.
Kagan was one of HRC's closest Middle East foreign-policy advisers while she was Secretary of State.
Kagan outlined in the now-famous PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" the countries that the neocons wished to destabilize, overpower and control. These are the countries in order: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya.
And while she was SOS, with neocon Kagan at her side, Hillary led the charge on Libya. Obama called Libya, "Hillary's project". Now, Libya is a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism. Exactly as they wanted.
Now, a Democrat is endorsed by the godfather and founder of the neocons--a group that has invaded, plundered and destabilized the entire Middle East--for profit and greed.
HRC was instrumental in cheerleading us into the Iraq war. She saber rattled for war with Iran when Bush trial ballooned the idea. HRC pushed to arm the Syrian rebels. And of course, she handed them Libya on a platter.
So many innocent men, women and children killed for profit. So many American soldiers dead and disabled for profit.
So much comedy. So fucking funny.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It fails, every time.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)When Bush was in office, there wasn't a Democrat on the planet who found humor in George Bush lying us into a war--while murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers.
As Democrats discovered the truth about that war--that it was all a pack of lies--Democrats grieved.
Democrats were united in horror through that entire nightmare.
Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld. They were upper-management neocons who carried out the plans of the neocon upper brass.
Robert Kagan, the man who just endorsed Hillary Clinton--founded the neocon movement. He's the CEO.
This picture is the face of what the neocons did.
democrank
(11,098 posts)Gimme a P............P!
Gimme an N............N!
Gimme an A............A!
Gimme a C.............C!
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)That some people think that the fact that Clinton could attract votes from moderates and even conservatives (while Sanders clearly could not) is an argument against her would be jawdropping if I didn't have prior experience of DU.
And no, it doesn't show that she's a closet rightwinger. Clinton will be the second most leftwing candidate the democrats have ever run.
The Redheaded Guy
(90 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)by attracting "moderates and conservatives," any more than Kissinger. There is nothing moderate or strictly speaking conservative (in the conventional sense) about him - he's an elite war engineer. Do you really think it's PNAC writers who should be attracted? The lobby for going to war with Iraq (and Iran, and whatever else is seen to be in the way of total U.S. military dominance)?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There's an obvious exchange that could go here where someone suggests I mean that the Democrats should adopt right-wing policies , and I explain that no, I don't think they should do that, but let's just not, shall we?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to adopt rightwing policies, don't elect rightwing democrats.
eridani
(51,907 posts)No one who voted for the Iraq war is on the left by any stretch of the imagination. She's only left wing on social issues, and that merely reflects the fact that very few in DC give a flying fuck about the fact that there has been no recovery for the 99%.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Get ready to Get Your War On because they'd love us to be neck deep in Syria, Iran and wherever American Supremacy is in jeopardy.
Think Dick Cheney because that's what they represent.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)She's always been a right winger.
She's the one who brought her toe sucking friend, Dick Morris into the Whitehouse.
And the source for that wasn't Robert Parry, but her other good buddy, Sidney Blumenthal, in "The Clinton Wars".
You're known by the company you keep.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)That link you provided is skewed by the liberal contributors. A liberal giving her money doesn't make her liberal.
Look at the difference between her voting record and what she says in public.
Voting record is less liberal than the average democrat.
but sh obviouly says what she needs to so liberals will give her money.
yardwork
(61,670 posts)Noted.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--the Middle East. Small fry Repubs will never vote for Clinton, but some of thethink Sanders is at least honest.
It is utterly disgusting that anyone on a Dem board would defend PNAC.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)No wonder we're in trouble.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)going to Flint a few weeks ago now applauding Sanders for going.
eridani
(51,907 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)There is NO comparison between winning over grass roots people who were misled by the GOP, but who now realize that the Corporate Conservative agenda is not in their interests and the PNAC, which is a bunch of Ultra Hawks who would love us to be neck deep in Iran and Syria.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And to think just about everyone on the board was against the Iraq war in 2003. Sad, isn't it?
yardwork
(61,670 posts)I was also one of the few not flicking to support w on 9/11/2001. I have a long memory.
I was against PNAC before most here knew what it was.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Sanders attracting moderate Republicans---and Hillary courting the extreme-right warmongering faction of the Republican party?
These are the sociopaths who engineer war for profit. They use lie-based schemes to fool the American public into war. Their justification for the Iraq war has been outed as colossal lies. They're murderers.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children are dead because they wanted to make a buck. They've destabilized an entire region for greed.
Courting the neocons is the same as courting moderate Republicans who voted for Obama?
I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
The Next Act of the Neocons
By JACOB HEILBRUNN JULY 5, 2014
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
WASHINGTON AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movements interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the drivers seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.
But others appear to envisage a different direction one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
Its not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clintons time at the State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, hes a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article magisterial, in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Trumans secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons favorite president: It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Some have already started like Kristol. They want jobs.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's 90% Trump for the nom, at this point, and most PNAC will be sitting it out. Outside chance of Kasich or a brokered candidate if Trump should implode.
Of course, it may all look different in two weeks. I've been wrong before.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)
...Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Comes as a bipartisan warmaking power-duo with his wife and Clinton State Department appointment, Victoria Nuland.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Neocons and Liberals Together, Again
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security...
Tom Barry, last updated: February 02, 2005
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter's signatories call for increasing the size of America's global fighting machine.
SNIP...
Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons
The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.
Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone-those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors-must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings' foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.
CONTINUED...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Neocons_and_Liberals_Together_Again
FTI: Victoria Nuland, our woman in Ukraine, is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan, whose brother is Frederick Kagan. Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan. Brilliant people, big ideas, and a lot of PNAC, which spells out the neocon/neolib approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to peace, justice, and democracy.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a hell of a lot easier to change the minds of your friends than it is to change the minds of your enemies.
I can just as easily hear Hillary leaning over whispering, "look, this all war, all the time is bankrupting us. So unless you want your tax rates to go back up to around 70% and your kids and grandkids to get drafted, we've gotta come up with a way out of this mess."
Ok, let the shitstorm resume....
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Commercial interests are very powerful interests," said George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007 White House press conference in which he added, "Let me put it this way, ah, sometimes, ah, money trumps peace." And then he giggled and not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.
Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention back in 2007. I don't recall even one reporter from the national corporate owned news seeing it fit to comment. Certainly not many have commented on how three generations of Bush men -- Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil. While prices were high, it became Ukraine's natural gas. What a hoot war is -- and profitable.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)
They've got the next war warming up in the wings.
Well I'll tell you what, this widow of a 100% disabled Viet Nam dead-way-before-his-time combat vet, is not at all confused about who-the-fuck Hillary Clinton and her country club are.
Nixon in a pants suit is dead-on.
Edit:
This was playing in my thoughts earlier this morning, the more so now; only my man Malmsteen can cope with what the politics of the fallen icons has come to...
I cast my pearls before the swine
Sealed and delivered
Then I drink your toast of wine
Though it's bitter sweet
I'm eating from your hand so neat
Pennies from heaven
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
Sightseeing through the lights and shades
Of your mighty colonnades
Now I got the picture
Of the beauty and the beast...
I am the lamb,
You are the priest to crucify me
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
To make a living makes no difference
Friends, you are what you do
Some are false, and some are true
You haven't got the glue...
I'd rather reign in hell some said,
Than serve in heaven
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
You say you give, you say you love
But yet you live just like Judas... Judas
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)but when they endorse HRC it's a statement about how right wingy she is. Got it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)From someone who obviously can't tell the difference between Dick Cheney and some random gun-collecting culture warrior. If Cheney ever endorses Sanders, I'm out of politics for good. Know what? The 25% of Repubs in VT who consistently vote for Sanders have never been war leaders with influence on public policy. But you knew that, right?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)...all you need to know.
There won't be anyone from the PNAC crossing anything to vote for Bernie Sanders. But evidently the "centurions of New Rome" have found themselves a new Caesar... and she wears a pantsuit.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)don't start by calling their reply "garbage". That's an indicator that one is interested in getting into a back and forth insult match. Some days I would take the bait. Today is not one of them.
As such, a dismissive note of concern is warranted.
Thanks, and have and awesome day!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you really believe in the Peace part of your screen name you might look up PNAC
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sorry, that isn't serious.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)A founder of the neo-con movement is far, far different from average Joe voting Republicans. Which Establishment Republicans (or neoconservatives for that matter) are openly endorsing Bernie Sanders?
And, Robert Kagan is not just an endorser, Hillary CHOSE him to be her advisor on foreign policy. It says an awful lot about Hillary Clinton. Hillary also has the open support of Henry Kissinger. These aren't little things. When Hillary critics point out that she seems like a neo-con on foreign policy we can point to her actions specifically. In addition, we can point to actual neoconservatives that openly endorse her. We have plenty of reasons to believe she'd be a disaster on foreign policy. Plenty.
It is extremely sad for me that she is the current front-runner for the Democratic nominee. I know you feel differently, and you are very lucky in that sense.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There is a difference between grass roots oridinary folks and these creeps
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Lets put it this way, are there young people (male or female) in your family: 18 -25 years of age (younger)?
If so, I would be worried about their physical and mental well-being.
This is an issue of a biblical size and disaster. The philosophy Robert Kagan's and company represents the death of millions so far. Giving this group a platform to exercise wrath onto the world will be the death of many more.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I don't recall doing that or touting it or beaming with pride over it at all. Certainly not in the post to which you replied and definitely no place else. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)People on board, in this nation and around the world have had their lives changed forever because of Kagan and his ilk.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Thanks and have a good evening.
marmar
(77,084 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)It doesn't matter what they believe in, I just look at it as one less vote for Team GOP.
eridani
(51,907 posts)It is his being a vicious amoral sociopath who is advising Clinton on foreign policy.
Working against Putin in the Ukraine is a good thing, for example.
Not everything a neocon may say is automatically wrong and terrible; being the President means that you are the President of the entire country, not just your base. It is the sort of inflexibility that makes Sanders a distant 2nd to Hillary for whom I want to be President.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Now we're cheering the total refusal of the coup perpetrators to call an election. And the Neo-Nazi brigades slaughtering civilians. Nuland is as vicious as her husband.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...not just any reich-winger, but one of the founders of the PNAC... you know, the good folks behind "the new Pearl Harbor."
And seriously, do you really see this as Team Hillary vs. Team GOP?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Nope. No thanks.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Democrats in this thread justifying Robert Kagan's endorsement of Clinton.
Yeah, Kagan is just another moderate Republican. No wait, he is just like a poor Christians in VA who has decided that maybe Sanders will help save his family from economic ruin than a GOP candidate he usually votes for.
No sweethearts, Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, that centrist think tank that supported GW Bush's policies on a near daily basis. Kagan is the co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, the neo-con organization behind the illegal invasion of Iraq.
You can't expect us to accept a Clinton apology on her disastrous cheerleading of the Iraq War while she is gaining endorsements form the assholes who were behind the actions that led us to that illegal invasion.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)When a prominent member of the goddamn PNAC is endorsing a Democrat, we've got problems.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Believing in Hillary can wipe all your sins away, according to other believers.
I'll keep my sins, thank you.
andrewv1
(168 posts)Everybody @ this point seems to be more concerned about her ties to the Banks/Wall Street or her dishonestly in general....
But I would start thinking about whether this World would survive with her in the White House.
Would somebody show me a difference between her & the Rethugs on this issue?
eridani
(51,907 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Hillary is a hawk and has always been aligned with neocon goals. No surprise with this endorsement.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)to support Hillary. Are you ready for the Democratic party to be the party of neocon foreign policy?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)However, I don't see average Americans jumping ship from the Republican party to the Democratic party--just because Hillary Clinton is now out of the closet as being an official member of the sociopathic neocon brigade.
Kagan's endorsement makes it official--clinching the fact that she is ready to tell the world that she's the neocon go-to gal for murder and war-for-profit.
The Republican establishment loves this, for sure. I think this is an overture to the Republican establishment. I think she clearly sees that half of the Democratic party will never vote for her--so she's going for the upper brass in the Republican party, to add to the establishment Dems who are in her corner.
The "average Joes" in the Republican party, will never be on her side. The Trump supporters, who would follow the neocons down a rathole--hate Hillary even more fervently than the Democratic base (and for different reasons). Her love of all things war and murder won't be enough to bring them around. That cake has been baked.
However, if the Republican establishment joins forces with the Democratic establishment--that is a juggernaut of power, influence and money. The Establishment also has a powerful force on their side--a cadre of corrupt corporations that has purchased our democracy. If the establishment politicians on both sides are joined with Wall Street, the energy cabal, big Pharma, the for-profit prison system--there's nothing that these Fascist assholes can't do.
And that's not name calling. That's what Fascism is--the marrying of corporate interests with state interests.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Very few Republicans know what neoconservativatism is or consider themselves neocons, even if they vote for them. I was referring to the prominent neocons. I actually think some of these neocons like Bill Kristol will endorse Hillary.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)She's going after the top establishment brass in the Republican party.
As you said, this won't earn HRC support from Republican voters.
However, it sends a signal to the Republican establishment (the top brass) that she is "all in" when it comes to further warmongering in the Middle East.
It's obvious that HRC has written off the base of the Democratic party. In fact, I think this is a big, "Fuck you!" to the base.
She's signaling that she's got the Dem establishment brass and the Republican establishment brass behind her now--and half of the Democratic voters. This is their strategy going forward--to elect HRC and to try and defeat Trump.
It will be interesting (and utterly horrifying) to see who lines up behind her next. As you said...Bill Kristol.
Maybe Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz won't be too far behind?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Yes, yes it is.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-offer-unsolicited-support-bernie-sanders
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was asked last week which Democratic presidential candidate hed prefer to face in a general election. The RNC chief said Bernie Sanders is probably the tougher candidate. Its obviously difficult to take Priebus assessment at face value even if he has a firm opinion, the Republican has no incentive to tell the truth and his comments are all the more curious given what his party has been up to lately.
During Sundays Democratic debate, for example, reporters received emails from the candidates campaigns and their allies, but in a remarkable twist, the Republican National Committee also issued statements two during the event, two after defending Sanders against criticisms from Hillary Clinton and endorsing Sanders arguments.
Bloomberg Politics Sahil Kapur reported that Republican operatives have a strange crush on Bernie Sanders, and it goes beyond the RNCs pro-Sanders rapid-response during Sunday nights debates. After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate . Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore cant be trusted to crack down on big banks.
Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire, a narrator in the ad says. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?
Yep, Karl Roves operation is not only complaining about the bailout his former boss signed into law, Team Rove is also suddenly worried about Wall Streets influence in DC just like Bernie Sanders.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Hillary has consistently derailed Obama's foreign policy initiatives by pursuing reckless regime change in the ME
Trajan
(19,089 posts)And Hillary is their hero?
Awesome! ... The world is SOOOOO lucky!
More wars in the Middle East ... Yay!
Extreme
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)that we should support Bernie because Republicans will vote for him, while they will crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary.
I don't like Kagan, but I can see why some Republicans of his ilk will rather support Hillary than Trump. I don't see his kind of Republican voting for Bernie, though. I've long said that both our candidates attract some Republican voters: Bernie the anti-establishment types, Hillary the slightly more sane types. Especially against Trump.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)PNAC, the organization that lobbied first and most effectively for the Iraq war and provided most of the key Bush regime personnel (war criminals), has been a central concern on DU since its inception. You should know who Kagan is and not think of him as "more sane." (That "more sane" is not the opposite of "anti-establishment" should also be obvious.)
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I used the relative expression "more sane" and not just "sane." As I said, I don't like Kagan.
My point is a simple one: several Bernie supporters here have made the point that we should welcome racist Republicans who would potentially support Bernie in the GE, even if we don't agree with them. Yet now people want to get upset because another breed of scumbag prefers Hillary over Trump.
Give ma a break.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)His name is Kagan. It seems he's a more effective liar to you than Trump, who has yet to help murder a million people.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)It's just expanding the base.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Why would we want our base to include a jackass who has done nothing but advocate permanent war? As opposed to Joe Schmoe Republican who might eventually come to realize that the 1% do not mean him well.
dr60omg
(283 posts)If any SCOTUS member does something overtly political like the late zombie Antonin Scalia they ought be removed from the court it is that simple.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I've GOOGLED, but can't find a link between the neocon Robert Kagan and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. One thing I know:
Bernie Sanders doesn't have a PNAC bone in his body or PNAC skeleton in his closet.
Take PNAC, please.
Flashback: What Neocons Told Us about Iraq
Dick Cheney
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." June 20, 2005 (Source)
"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." March 16, 2003 (Source)
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. (Source)
"If we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing. September 13, 2006 (Source)
What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action. October 5, 2004 (Source)
Bill Kristol
Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president. July 15, 2007 (Source)
"This is going to be a two month war, not an eight year war." March 28, 2003 (Source)
"There has been a certain amount of pop sociology... that the Shi'a can't get along with the Sunni... there's almost no evidence of that at all. April 4, 2003 (Fox News w/ Bill OReilly)
"The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. April 28, 2003 (Source)
there are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath. March 22, 2004 (Source)
the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise. March 22, 2004 (Source)
Paul Wolfowitz
There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. March 27, 2003 (Source)
On weapons of mass destruction: There's no question in my mind that there was something there. There are just too many pieces of evidence and we'll get to the bottom of it. August 1, 2003 (Source)
Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam (Hussein) Iraq, are wildly off the mark. February 27, 2003 (Source)
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddams security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." Feb. 27, 2003 (Source)
"Peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than historical experience in the Balkans suggests. There's been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another that produced so much bloodshed and permanent scars in Bosnia along with the requirement for large policing forces to separate those militias. Feb. 27, 2003 (Source)
These are Arabs, 23 million of the most educated people in the Arab world, who are going to welcome us as liberators. Feb. 27, 2003 (Source)
"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. March 11, 2003 (Source)
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." May 28, 2003
SOURCE: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/flashback-republicans-iraq-cheney-wolfowitz-kristol
Others, also, have noticed: Bernie Sanders has INTEGRITY.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429?page=2
Please compare with the bi-partisan PNAC crypto-fascist corporate interests bent on fracking Ukraine and making money off war four ways to Super Tuesday:
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Fri, Feb 7, 2014
By ORIENTAL REVIEW
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Yesterdays leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Batkyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as Yanukovychs project. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week to glue things together. Referring to the European role in managing Ukraines political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: Fuck the EU.
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: this is a new low in Russian tradecraft), Mrs. Nuland made her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washingtons repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the strategic Transatlantic partnership is more worthy of an apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nulands diplomatic collapse which was made public, it was unlikely an unfortunate misspelling. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago describing Mrs.Nulands blatant lack of professionalism and personal integrity. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian independent NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.
CONTINUED w/LINKS...
http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/07/what-about-apologizing-to-ukraine-mrs-nuland/
If you've time, there's great video at the link, too.
Neocons and Liberals Together, Again
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security...
Tom Barry, last updated: February 02, 2005
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter's signatories call for increasing the size of America's global fighting machine.
SNIP...
Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons
The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.
Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone-those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors-must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings' foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.
CONTINUED...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Neocons_and_Liberals_Together_Again
That's from Rightweb. They're full of facts, for those who take the time to read and learn. One name to pay attention to is Victoria Nuland, our woman in Ukraine, who is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan. Robert Kagan's brother is Frederick Kagan. Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan.
Brilliant people, big ideas, etc. The thing is, that's a lot of PNAC and the PNAC approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to democracy, peace and justice.
Bernie has none of that.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)What a pant load!
Trying not to puke on my keybo