Friday, July 8, 2016

What Real War Hawks Think of Hillary Clinton

It is difficult to understand why Hillary Clinton should be considered a major threat to bring us to war with Russia, as some anti-Clitonites are writing.

To be sure, she would be a total wreck on the domestic front and would likely continue military actions at the far outposts of the Empire, but there is no indication she wants a military confrontation with Russia.

Indeed, serious war hawks consider her soft on Russia--and pretty much the entire world..

In today's WSJ, the neocon American Interest staff writer, reviews  Mary Thompson-Jones’sTo the Secretary: Leaked Embassy Cables and America’s Foreign Policy Disconnect and reports:
Ms. Thompson-Jones is a diplomat’s diplomat: She writes cautiously and precisely, with appreciation for the importance of hierarchy. Yet, in the book’s explosive final chapter, she lays into Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Both in foreign affairs and in intra-administration turf fights, Ms. Thompson-Jones writes that “Clinton tended to settle for too little and squandered her influence on the small stuff.” Mrs. Clinton shares responsibility for the disastrous “reset” with Russia and the subsequent failure of relations: “The cables leave a damning trail of evidence . . . showing that American diplomats on the ground were sending her plenty of information about Russian destabilization and aggression,” and yet nothing or not enough was changed. Mrs. Clinton, she writes, “had a penchant for racking up second-tier wins,” while critically important countries like Iraq, Syria and Russia, languished and fell into trouble. Mrs. Thompson-Jones is even critical of Mrs. Clinton’s championing of a project to bring “clean cookstoves” to the Third World: “Bravo, but was this the best and highest value use of her time?”
And, remember, this is what Breitbart wrote about her:
Clinton had the opportunity to face off against her Russian counterpart as Secretary of State in President Barack Obama’s first term. In 2009, she infamously championed the “reset” with Russia, which became a capitulation.
In an infamous press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Clinton presented Russia with a bright red button that purportedly said “reset”–except the State Department mistranslated it as “overcharge.”
During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. obeyed Russian demands and backed down from missile defense systems in Europe. The U.S. also signed the New START treaty, which included one-sided concessions by the U.S. 
In this crazy era, a President in office who  is focused on “clean cookstoves”for the Third World would be a blessing.

Please note, Hillary, as her first step in power, would not send US troops to the Middle East, Donald Trump would.



  1. Each day you plumb new depths of desperation in your campaign to elect Hillary Clinton President. This is fundamentally incompatible with your claim to be a libertarian. It's one thing to oppose Trump. That is perfectly consistent with libertarian principle. But shilling for a career criminal and sociopath like Clinton is disgraceful and ethically degenerate. Your Trump derangement syndrome has badly compromised your intellectual and ethical faculties.

    Just to reiterate what should be obvious to even you - Donald Trump has never voted to send troops to preemptively invade and occupy sovereign nations like Hillary. Trump has never waged illegal, immoral and unconstitutional regime change wars like Hillary has in Libya, Syria and Honduras. Trump has never sold political influence for cash and profits like Hillary has. Trump has never cozied up to repugnant regimes like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States like Hillary and her husband have. Trump never got an American ambassador killed and then lied to the American people about it like Hillary has. Trump never privately threatened and harassed and publicly villified rape victims like Hillary Clinton has. Trump doesn't support Californicating the entire nation by allowing uncontrolled immigration which will hand exclusive control of the entire nation over to the same degenerate DemocRat fascists who run your home town of Sodom by The Sea. Trump most likely will not nominate SCOTUS appointees who will destroy what is left of our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights which Hillary Clinton will surely do. Trump never compromised national security with a hack prone and illegal private server while in high political office like Hillary has. I could go at great length about Hillary's other offences against integrity, ethics and justice but I think this suffices.

    You are in danger of becoming a complete fraud Wenzel so please pull back from the brink of insanity and try to act like a libertarian instead of a debased Clinton shill.

    1. That can be said about Trump only because he hasn’t held public office before. It’s not evidence the US would be less interventionist and deadly abroad, and authoritarian at home, with Trump as President than Hillary.

  2. ^^^ what he said

    RW - Are you a Hillary Fanboy?

  3. First, let me state that I don't think you, Robert, are trying to elect Hillary.

    However, Hillary was a huge part of why we meddled in Libya -- causing a huge problem in the aftermath of Gaddafi's assassination, so I don't see how you can make this particular call.

    In my mind, Trump or Hillary are both unimaginably dangerous in too many ways to say which is more dangerous. One of the biggest threats to our health and our future is the continuation of Obamacare, which has been, and will become even progressively (sic) more, disastrous. There is absolutely zero chance it will be reversed in any way under Hillary, and maybe not under Trump either, but there's at least some chance. Both are disasters in foreign and domestic policies with slightly different "flavors".

    I agree Trump will be a more effective leader, but he also flails, so some of that might be good even though most will be bad. The BEST we can hope for under Hillary is gridlock, but history has shown that Republican warmongers will at least go with her warmongering, and they'll probably cave on some of the socialism.

    I just don't see how any libertarian can say one of these disasters is any better than the other one. It's like you are always (correctly) warning us about using ABCT as a guide to short-term actions -- there are just too many variables. Even long term with H vs T, it's impossible to know.

  4. Dyspeptic said it very well. This is inexplicable. Have you been hired to support the Clinton campaign and have not disclosed it to your readers? Or did Trump offer you some offence on a personal level? Because what you are saying makes no sense.