For instance, take a progressive like Senator Warren (D-MA)'s recent endorsement of HRC. This shows Warren's willingness to sell out progressive causes and working classes under the convenient banner of "party unity" and fighting the greater evil Trump. But, does that suddenly invalidate Warren's criticisms of the TPP and the banking cartel that holds a barrel over the government and the taxpayers? No it doesn't. But, what about infamous neocons who once served Bush 43 who now endorse HRC? Maybe such neocons' endorsements reflect changes to their worldview? Not in this case. These neocons endorse HRC because she supports their worldview as evidenced in both her rhetoric and more important her record.
A review of some GOP notables reasons stated for ditching their party to support HRC show that they believe in a perpetual empire.
Career elite insider General Brent Scowcroft whose career includes stints as National Security adviser to Republican U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. Walker Bush has endorsed HRC. Scowcroft states his reasons for supporting HRC accordingly:
"Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader," Scowcroft said in a statement, touting her experience as secretary of state. "She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage, but that force must only be used as a last resort." [1]The experience term is probably the most excessively used and meaningless when summarizing a candidate's foreign policy experience. Scowcroft and others who have made careers in the U.S. Establishment live in their own isolated echo chamber thereby conditioning their conflating experience with their worldview.
What experience is he referring to in HRC's case? By what means or mental trick does Scowcroft twist reality to conclude HRC believes "that force must only be used as a last resort?" In Libya? Syria? Honduras?
Maybe Scowcroft is too busy to read some of HRC's declassified emails about Libya in particular? And, if so, Scowcroft is probably too distracted by being offended at Trump's inconsistent fidelity to the U.S. Establishment in order to read other of HRC's declassified emails about her supporting the regime change in Syria for the sake of Israel.
If you read her emails and agree with HRC's views, then its difficult to deduce she believes force must only be used as a last resort. She advocates constantly trying to impose conditions on other nations. In that context using force as a last resort still implies a preemptive right to dictate other nations' affairs. That viewpoint by itself is dangerous. Of course the "last resort" reason could occur in a context of fighting for the greater good of humanity or of something more tangible like U.S. national security. Neither the content of her emails cited above nor the tragic results though reflect no excuses for resorting to force in those subject nations.
Also, do her views expressed in those emails reflect a belief that America must remain the worlds' leader? If so, what kind of leader? So such leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous? I doubt Scowcroft makes such comments as an invitation to a debate why the U.S. leadership is indispensable to promoting stability and prosperity. He just assumes that U.S. indispensability as a self-evident truism.
Another Republican foreign policy establishment member Richard Armitage is abandoning the GOP at least for 2016 because by its nominating Donald Trump they have forsaken their rich legacy of nominating articulate, ethical, and wise men like Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Instead, Armitage is endorsing a candidate whose record of shilling and serving the military industrial complex matches more closely with his own.
Armitage was one of several notable signatories on a letter sent to U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1998 that warned of a fatal danger warranting immediate and forceful action:
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. [2]He signed a letter that intended to scare Bill Clinton into adopting regime change as official policy on what we later learned to be false reasons. Who cares about the blood and suffering inflicted on Iraq? We must stop Trump now!! Got that! Their being tragically wrong though about these issues has so far created no impediment to their remaining in power. WMD? Libya? Syria? Iran-Contra? These repeat offenders seem to maintain a support group for each other, which occurs while they remain in power. Armitage's endorsement of HRC raises other questions.
Will Armitage advocate that HRC if elected act on the internal memo signed by 51 diplomats in the U.S. State Department recommending that President Obama "carry out military strikes against the government of Bashar al-Assad?" [3] I assume yes but I obviously don't know if he has explicitly called for or supported regime change in Syria as Hillary did in one of her declassified emails published on Wikileaks.
Armitage and HRC do share a willingness to profit from their respective, formal positions in the U.S. government. Armitage's public service created at least one profitable opportunity in the post 9-11 aftermath:
Moreover, Armitage was a director at ChoicePoint, which provided DNA testing on 9/11 victims through its subsidiary, Bode Technology [4]I know someone needs to provide such technology to assist with the recovery efforts following 9-11. So what is wrong with his benefiting from his experience and connections? If he doesn't someone else will. I believe this is another case of the members of the club taking care of each other. HRC as well has no qualms about using her formal position to benefit her own private organization.
HRC's legacy as U.S. Secretary of State shows her making diplomatic decisions favorable to certain regimes who curiously took actions beneficial to her interests. For instance,
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday. [May 26, 2015 my insertion] [5]Clinton's and Armitage's use of their positions to help benefit their private endeavors shows their party labels are left at the door when entering the Military Industrial Complex.
So far Armitage hasn't given any indication that he has moderated his aggressive neocon mindset, making his endorsement of HRC in my view not too surprising.
In addition to Scowcroft's and Armitage's indignation at the prospect of Trump being the GOP nominee, another concerned Republican voice has emerged. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary for Bush 43 and Goldman Sachs' Chairman and CEO, and all around benevolent oligarch member Henry (Hank) Paulson has endorsed HRC. Trump's rhetoric and record tugs at Hank's conscience too much. Thus, he's voting for HRC for the best interests of the U.S.
Hank implied in an editorial in the Washington Post that a greater America awaits if we embrace inclusiveness and avoid scapegoating:
Hank cautions against the "politics of grievance." In one way he has lead by example because his former employer Goldman Sachs never makes grievances. Nope, they just demand and receive. As ungreedy banks triggered a global economic meltdown his putative Goldman Sachs in 2008 changed their capital structure from investment bank to bank holding company, making them eligible for FDIC $$$$$. I know Goldman paid back their TARP money as its apologists assure us. Such repayments only refer to just the TARP money and not the state capitalism model (aka too big to fail) that creates a vast safety net for them to operate and plunder and profit with impunity. Focus on their fiduciary discipline by repaying TARP money but ignore the notional value of their outstanding derivatives relative to their total assets. These derivatives create potential liabilities that the global economy simply cannot absorb. But, such discussions only invite the "politics of grievance."Today’s challenges include economic stagnation and disruptions in the labor markets — driven to a large extent by technological advances moving at warp speed — that are widening income disparity, destroying jobs and hollowing out the middle class. And populists on each side are playing to fears and frustrations, pointing fingers at scapegoats and creating boogeymen: blaming the banks, greedy companies or foreigners for our problems. But the politics of grievance is not the answer. [6]
Therefore, such facts should convince us that Hank's track record uniquely qualifies his identifying and warning us about the dangers of a demagogue like Trump. HRC's words echo Hank's wise warning against our believing that banks are just bogeyman that we bash in order to avoiding our addressing more important problems.
Hillary informs an audience to avoid wasting excess energy and indignation at banks gambling on trillions of $$ of derivatives that could plunge our economy into insolvency. Sure she says the banks should be broken up if necessary but meanwhile our primary focus should remain on issues like racism and sexism. As she preached to her supporters in Nevada asking questions worthy of the most engaged social justice warriors:
Forget all that bullshit about flat wages, increasing economic inequality, and wealth being concentrated within fewer hands. Of course a dynamic and vibrant society can promote social and economic equality. Her speaking as though we must prioritize addressing one set of social causes over reforming the banking system is a disingenuous diversion. But, if such multitasking overwhelms us, then we should prioritize outreach to the LGBT community. U.S. banks holding over $235 trillion of derivatives deserve less attention than her making public appearances with the LGBT community. And, so what if J.P. Morgan, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs hold roughly $150 trillion of these derivatives. It is just a number. "Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" If HRC breaks up these banks for holding such high concentrations of derivatives contracts, what insensitive jingoist would welcome increased economic stability if 3rd generation feminists still feel chagrined by some form of patriarchy??? Also, if only the U.S. were less homophobic in 1999 when her spouse Bill signed into law the abolishing of the Glass-Steagall Act and Bank Holding Act, the subsequent bank-induced economic meltdown beginning in 2007 would have felt less painful. Right????????"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?""No!" shouted her audience."Would that end sexism?""No!""Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?""No!""Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?""No!""Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, and the young?""No!" [7]
But what about the elites? Do they suffer pain? Their melodramatic editorials suggest so. But in reality they just seamlessly shift their associations accordingly to promote their interests.
Robert Kagan, neocon "visionary" and former GOP supporter whose resume includes serving as an adviser to McCain, Romney, and who also co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), explains in hysterical prose why he is supporting Hillary for 2016:
When the plague descended on Thebes, Oedipus sent his brother-in-law to the Delphic oracle to discover the cause. Little did he realize that the crime for which Thebes was being punished was his own. Today’s Republican Party is our Oedipus. A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party’s own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy. [8]Neocons' rhetoric often includes their use of pedantic historical analogies to prepare you for the major thrust of their arguments. Next, his comments suggest the GOP lost its mind and soul by embracing such destructive practices as developing a "racially tinged derangement syndrome," a mode of "conservative criticism that has taken a dark and paranoid form" and "mindless Islamophobia" Strawman much??
Regardless how much of Kagan's editorial is simply a strawman argument, he is still diverting focus away from the consequences of his own foreign policy advice. But, instead of discussing such tragic consequences he would rather cite the cliched insults against what he sees is a party of troglodytes. It is more convenient for him to focus on the neo-barbarians represented now by Trump instead of the neocons' war in Iraq that has killed over one million people. Instead, he just ignores that real tragedy as opposed to the metaphorical one he cited above and endorses Hillary Clinton.
The GOP/Dems divide is a myth. Both "parties" rely on theatrics like congressional filibusters and exchanging insults on social media to exaggerate the size and substance of their differences. Their staged antics only place a thin foil over that axle comprised of the Military Industrial Complex and banking cartel that are the two main pillars of the U.S. Empire.
Neocons and Neoliberals of the World....Unite for more regime change, hegemonic preservation, and masses subject to the discipline of central banks and their patron investment banks.
1. Gass, Nick. "Brent Scowcroft endorses Hillary Clinton." Politico. June 22, 2016. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brent-scowcroft-endorses-hillary-clinton-224677
2. Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "PNAC letters sent to President Clinton." January 26, 1998. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm
3. Landler, Mark. "51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria." The New York Times. June 16, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-assad-obama-airstrikes-diplomats-memo.html?_r=0
4. Ryan, Kevin Robert. Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects Microbloom. Kindle version. 2013. location 811.
5. Schatz, Bryan. "Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors." Mother Jones. May 28, 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
6. Paulson, Jr. Henry. "When it comes to Trump, a Republican Treasury secretary says: Choose country over party." The Washington Post. June 24, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-it-comes-to-trump-a-republican-treasury-secretary-says-choose-country-over-party/2016/06/24/c7bdba34-3942-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
7. Weigel, Dave. "Clinton in Nevada: Not everything is about an economic theory." February 13, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/13/clinton-in-nevada-not-everything-is-about-an-economic-theory/
8. Kagan, Robert. "Trump is the GOP's Frankenstein monster. Now he is strong enough to destroy the party." Feb 20, 2016. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment