As I had written months earlier, HRC is the presidential candidate to set forth a more agressive foreign policy and to support our military allies in the Middle East. Israel is their favorite to fight wars of choice. Propaganda will cover-up the pretense and assure home media will support any military adventure.
Earlier letters by a similar group of signatories in opposing Trump and earlier in opposition to president Obama and his policy towards Israel and Iran on the nuclear pact.
○ GOP ex-national security officials: Say no to Trump – March 2016
○ Neocons Jumping Ship, Will Likely Vote for Hillary Clinton
○ Obama Turncoats: CNN Facilitates UANI Advocate Pro-Israel – June 2015
50 GOP national security experts oppose Trump | CNN |
Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts — many veterans of George W. Bush’s administration — have signed a letter denouncing Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and pledging not to vote for him.
The letter, first reported by The New York Times Monday, warns: “We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”
Its signatories include former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Eric Edelman, who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and has worked closely with Michele Flournoy — a candidate for secretary of defense in a prospective Clinton administration — to forge a centrist group of defense experts on key military issues.
« click for more info
US Congress House Intelligence Committee stands firmly behind implementation of enhanced interrogation or torture techniques (Credit: Jerusalem Post)It also includes two Homeland Security secretaries under Bush, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Robert Zoellick, a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.
The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.
None of us will vote for Donald Trump.
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.
In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and its democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends.
Middle-East Events Turned Sour After 2006
Regime change in Iraq was never about dictator Saddam Hussein. Under Reagan and poppy Bush he was a useful idiot to fight the Mullahs of Iran with support from the medieval kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
After the first Gulf War, the UN sanctions put in place weighed heavily on the Iraqi population with unknown number of deaths as result. The Neocon agenda to back the State of Israel was clear what nations were next to face the wrath of regime change. The Libyan president Muamar Gaddafi got a reprieve under George Bush and Tony Blair to surrender oil contracts and depose of WMDs.
The secular Syrian president Assad was seen as a reformer by the EU, US and Israel. In the year 2010 Assad was visited by many representatives of Western democracies and Netanyahu was close to a peace deal over the Golan Heights.
However, the forces of the MIC and the neocon operatives in Washington DC, on the Hill, in US Congress and across Western funded think-tanks joined in to target Iran as the global power of terrorism. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Syrian president Assad should be seen as breaking Iran’s allies and Israel’s enemies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Just as the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a fool’s errand, so was the option of regime change in Libya and Syria. Stupidity reigned in foreign policy circles of the Atlantic Alliance.
My earlier diaries:
○ McCain In Jerusalem to Voice Opposition Kerry’s Peace Push
○ American Exceptionalism Good – Neocon Israel Policy Better
○ Will Trump’s Rise Leave Neocons Homeless?
The title of this post is “Happy Day for HRC–Gains Support from Neocons.” HRC is mentioned in the first sentence and nowhere thereafter. Weirdly, a post allegedly about Hillary Clinton has for an illustration a photograph of DUBYA surrounded by a group of senators. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in this post that relates to “gains support from neocons,” unless one counts a link. That link is to another of your own posts. Within that post, there is a quotation from Robert Kagan that he intends to vote for Hillary Clinton. Kagan is quoted as speculating that other Republican opponents of Trump may also vote for Clinton.
The recent open letter from Republican national-security types states that the signatories will not vote for Trump. I don’t see in that letter a statement that they intend to vote for Hillary Clinton. Who knows? Maybe they will, maybe not.
In other words, a statement from Robert Kagan that he intends to vote for Hillary Clinton has morphed into “Happy Days for HRC–Gains Support from Neocons.”
I appreciate the various links, not that I have time to look at more than a few.
My analysis over the years from 2006, HRC not only voted for the Iraq War, she implemented neocon doctrine/policy as Secretary of State.
Her friendly allies in the Middle East were Muslim Brotherhood advocate Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Israel’s PM Benyamin Netanyahu. She promised to visit the latter with urgency to reset US policy towards the Jewish State.
There will be no “third term” for Obama’s policies. Simply look at HRC’s advisors on military matters and foreign policy.
She may turn out to be the most pro-Israeli president we have ever had. Even Bill, back in the day, had some problems with Netanyahu.
The Bushes were a refreshing surprise with their willingness to say “no” at times.
From my earlier diary in 2012 – 20 Years of Failed Middle-East Peace Policy.
○ Bibi Netanyahu Stands By Song Wishing Death to President Obama
○ ‘Old Warriors Never Die’ … Bill Clinton Should Just Fade Away!
She’s going to risk a shooting war with Russia to overthrow Assad, in the belief that it’s the only way to protect Israel from Iranian proxy attacks after Israel loses its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.
Now that’s friendship.
Well, her participation in taking out Israel’s other big, scary enemy was a smashing success. Except it didn’t put the US on the road to crushing that next big, scary enemy of Israel. So, the route had to be redrawn through Damascus. Guess they figured that Tehran and Moscow wouldn’t see the real road they were on until way too late.
Remember McCain / Bush and the Rose Revolution of Georgia with ideal son-in-law Saakashvili … he is now Ukrainian citizen and proud governor of Odessa … still fighting the Russies over there.
In 2006, Hadley / Cheney were looking for a replacement of president Bashar al-Assad … following the PNAC playbook. Where George W. Bush didn’t succeed, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama made a true mess using Tunesian / Libyan fighters and massive tons of weapons shipped into Northern Syria through Turkey in support of the “citizens’ revolution” in Homs and Aleppo. The new R2P doctrine of regime change which started under Bill Clinton with Kosovo and perfected under Rice-Clinton-Obama in Libya with the overthrow and death of Gaddafi.
Under Republican president Bush, the world opinion was divided which changed with the Obama presidency, hopes / expectations and the foolish award of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got a free pass from the European leaders and even initiatives of support from UK and France, the old colonial powers in North Africa and the Middle East.
○ Obama ‘Connived’ with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement
Yes, I know. But both parties have been “Cold War Warriors” since at least 1945. The collapse of the USSR just wasn’t enough for them because it wasn’t the result of a shooting war.
Instead of the insane chanting of “We’re the only superpower!”, which only humiliated a proud nation, the USA should have started a CARE program for the Russian pensioners and maybe even a Marshall Plan, certainly for the freed provinces of the USSR. The Russian Federation should have been welcomed into the fellowship of free nations, perhaps given status in a restructured NATO. Then we may never have had Putin. The USA,Europe, and Russia might have been able to show a united front to Islamic terrorists.
But schoolboy braggadocio and the sinister influence of those with a vested interest in perpetual war necessitated a second Cold War.
Have you read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine?” The section Russia after the collapse of the USSR is an eye opener. GHWB promised Gorbachev that in allowing the USSR to splinter that NATO wouldn’t be expanded and none of the newly independent USSR states would be granted membership. Clinton promptly reneged on that as waves of his neoliberal buddies invaded the Russia and the other states to privatize state assets.
ClintonCo sent CARE to Russia to ensure the re-election of the drunk Yeltsin and continue the wholesale theft. They may have screwed up a bit because their local partners (later oligarchs) got the big bucks. Have no idea how financially well their western partners did. Maybe they are satisfied with managing the money and assets purchased in the west that the oligarchs expropriated.
(btw CARE is another rotten charity NGO. Actual aid that gets to people in need is only a few pennies on the dollar.)
Meanwhile the standard of living and financial security of those in Russia plummeted. Along with their life expectancy. IMHO, the Clintons can’t wait to kill off the place and take out Putin who turned out the lights on their party. Putin is also a thief, but doesn’t demand as large a cut as the Yeltsin/Clinton cabal did.
Really? According to NPR (on the 50th anniversary), CARE packages fed 1/3 of the Japanese population in 1946. Or are we talking about two different programs?
That would have been when CARE was building its reputation/brand — only set up in ’45
Not seeing any indication of packages sent to Japan.
My comment was dated — back from when it principally delivered foods. Now they deliver programs; so it gets a good rating from Charity Navigator. Even CARE acknowledges:
Probably does more good than harm and has moved away from monetizing the food aid that is sent (other charities haven’t). (The disaster aid program was Haiti — but that’s not a subject we’re supposed to talk about because of you-know-who.) Give to whichever organization you feel does the work you want to support. (MSF seems to be at the top of most lists as to effectiveness and delivering to impact zones. Except when the USG bombs a MSF facility.)
Neglected to include that there should have been a peace dividend in this country with the end of the Cold War. But Clinton has the vision of a gnat and therefore, instead of redeploying those dollars into public projects that people here need, he continued to squander the money on non-existent enemies. All those lovely assets that GWB/Cheney are only to happy to consume in Iraq.
Bush’s & Clinton’s both to blame, but you expect it from Republicans. Now I expect it from both parties. rotten to the core.
○ Morrell and Negroponte Endorse HRC for President
[Some links added are mine – Oui]
○ The ever-growing list of Republicans endorsing Hillary Clinton | WaPo |
Oh, but he and Kissenger et. al will have no influence on US FP under a HRC presidency. According to the Democratic partisans who enthusiastically support whatever candidate their “betters” choose for them.
Rationalized by US State Department.
And we wonder why cops shoot unarmed AA boys and men in this country. The cops are following the prevailing morality/ethics of BOTH political parties. (Although one does give lip service to the notion that cops shouldn’t shoot so many unarmed people.)
Indeed. And, conversely, BLM has geopolitical implications
Running for a NY Senate seat, HRC makes nice with Rupert Murdoch.
○ Learning Curve of the Clinton Dynasty, 8 Year Drought for Palestinians
From HRC’s selected advisor on policy towards Iran and the Middle-East, Ross got a second chance to foil any peace plan …
○ Dennis Ross says Bill Clinton was the only president to stamp down anti-Israel forces inside the White House
To be perfectly fair, Israel was always mostly a Democratic Party project. That was diminished somewhat by the warhawks that began moving to the GOP in the 1970s. The traditional GOP elites have never actually been in bed with the Israeli Zionists but are okay with situational common cause alliances. KSA wasn’t enthused about the Bush/Cheney Iraq adventure, but they didn’t nix it either. And while US and Israeli Zionists supported it, had the major resource in Iraq been sesame seeds and garbanzo beans, Bush/Cheney would have looked elsewhere to get a war on.
I just hope the relative foreign policy sanity of the Obama years has gained enough inertia
Gonna need all that hope you’ve got. Negroponte is now “with Her.” And this is a big cheese in Operation Hillary:
As scary, nutso as Angleton was but not as literate.
While Obama gave HRC a lot of rope (a big mistake IMHO), she didn’t have the free hand she wanted. And Bill was constrained by a military that wasn’t inclined to follow orders from him. Who will say no to Hillary? Fear there is nobody.
HRC is a politcial ally until voting day. Then she becomes a political adversary. I think Bernie’s actions reflect this: he endorsed her forcefully, but will remain an independent in the senate
We’ve got neocons for Hillary, Republicans for Hillary…now we need an entire category for “War Criminals for Hillary”:
John Negroponte endorses Clinton, and she brags about it
Hope someone is keeping a tally on that as it could be a large faction. As is Billionaires for Hillary. (Only one of whom is honest enough to mention the war on workers and that his side is winning.)
SEIU for Hillary because we liked her $12 minimum wage figure more than Bernie’s $15 and prefer Presidents like Obama and Hillary that won’t do nuthin for unions.
Oh, and Hollywood for Hillary because a woman president will mean pay equity for actresses.
○ Morrell and Negroponte Endorse HRC for President