Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 16, 2014

Neocon Kagan: Hillary Clinton Is One Of Us

Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President of the United States.

A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has this on Clinton II:

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s 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.”

Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM | Permalink

Comments

If the United States is going bankrupt, then
Hillary Clinton is most certainly the right candidate to be leading America
in that direction, with perhaps Robert Kagan at her side.

Posted by: chris m | Jun 16, 2014 9:34:32 AM | 1

Where is this profile of the always right in an alternative universe, the kaganverse, of Robert Kagan?

Posted by: Christopher Fay | Jun 16, 2014 9:37:46 AM | 2

chris m, do not distract Robert Rubin from his job of being at Hillary's side while the country goes bankrupt. Robert Kagan's job is to lead her into paradise with the 47 virgins.

Posted by: Christopher Fay | Jun 16, 2014 9:39:44 AM | 3

I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter, I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge.

In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 16, 2014 9:44:15 AM | 4

Hillary that turkey won't make it past Thanksgiving.

Posted by: Christopher Fay | Jun 16, 2014 9:53:59 AM | 5

Personally,I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.Too much hatred of her by most Americans,from her serial lying to her terrible foreign policy,to her standing by bent dick,in her lust for power.She will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 16, 2014 9:54:05 AM | 6

"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."

Exactly.

Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise.

And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes."

There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate.

Posted by: Earwig | Jun 16, 2014 9:58:14 AM | 7

Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.

I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger, fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.

Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.

Fucking nonsense.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 10:01:53 AM | 8

Hillary's book was published to check the temperature. Its cool reception is a clear sign that he has got no chance to be elected.
She has been a pathetic loser in the first election, he has been a disaster as secretary of State, who wants that puffy old woman with a damaged brain as a president.
But in the USA anything is possible. They got Bush the cowboy why not Hillary the witch?

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 16, 2014 10:59:39 AM | 9

I actually believe Hilary Clinton has got quite a good chance of getting elected.
I keep checking her odds on oddschecker.com
and she has been the bookmakers favourite
for probably at least the past 12 months.
currently her odds are 6/4.

Rand Paul is currently 20/1
(from 100/1 , when i placed a $20 bet on him)

Posted by: chris m | Jun 16, 2014 11:15:07 AM | 10

The best option is always either third party or stay home.

It doesnt even matter what third party.

Its probably better to vote third party, if one is better than the other: Half the USA is already not voting and the electionss are still considered legitimate.

Only 10% or something of Haiti votes and the vote is still considered legitimate.

But its a personal opinion.

But please, please, for the love of GOD, no more lesser evil voting!!!

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:35:30 AM | 11

@6 Hey dont make fun of Satanists. Theyre good folks and I think most of them wont vote for Killary anyway.

You are talking about LaVeyan satanists right?

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:37:04 AM | 12

"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"

I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck.

I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and Im doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:40:18 AM | 13

@13

In continuation: I agree with Sorrentine and Lysander, though. The elections are meaningless. But if voting does nothing and not voting does nothing I may as well put in a protest vote to make myself feel better.

Anyway at least im not one of those 'lesser evil' schmucks.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 11:42:10 AM | 14

Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the Democrats have to offer.

What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening about as if they have been vindicated:

Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed “more willingness to rethink” neoconservatism, which he called “vindicated to some degree” by the fruits of Mr. Obama’s detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments “that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago.”
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.

Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 16, 2014 12:01:20 PM | 15

Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's vessel, Hillary Clinton.

That's what they've been voting for generations — why change the habit of a lifetime?

Clinton, by the way, is also a coward, unprincipled and greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would anyone vote for her?

Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her.

Dubhaltach

Posted by: Dubhaltach | Jun 16, 2014 12:07:31 PM | 16

OT:

Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world.

Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search - read: collective punishment for the residents of the illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.

Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped" the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!

Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would they? Nah.

Wait a second...they ALREADY DID (supposedly):

A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, saying it wanted to avenge Israel’s killing of three of its group in the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.

But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?


Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:10:24 PM | 17

Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her.
She's a sick, intellectually lazy, dumb, joke.
America deserves her.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 16, 2014 12:18:00 PM | 18

Hillary said her favorite book is the Bible? I mean the obvious answer is to discuss the importance of reading and announce a guilty pleasure of an author universally recognized, but geesh, she really is just out of her depth. It's really no wonder why the poor man's Mark Warner* beat her. The only people impressed by her answer already think she is satan. Do they not get this?

*If Obama were white, this is what I imagine his nickname would be in Illinois politico circles.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Jun 16, 2014 12:30:33 PM | 19

Here's Killary quoted in the NYT yesterday:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however, the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state.”

Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:

Here's from another NYT piece yesterday:

In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.

Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot status quo.

This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed, there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious region in the long run.

My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even drew up the new map of the ME!!

Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!

And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas Kristoff had this to say:

The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis while accepting decentralization of government.

If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already squandered far, far too much.

DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh

And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the NYT with this:

THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles, and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy’s enemy is my enemy. Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.

The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check

The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check

Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!

To review:

Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk, blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will probably be broken up.

Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?

Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?

Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 12:41:43 PM | 20

I am thirding Lysanders comment

Hillary is perfect for '(p)resident'

She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the women/whore

women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot

And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!

As president she's da bomb!

Posted by: Penny | Jun 16, 2014 12:45:13 PM | 21

These people aren't just measuring the drapes... they're counting corpses she's sure to order.

A most barbaric woman/human being, a terrible person, a terrible Governors wife, First Lady, Senator, SOS.... Obviously will be a perfect President.

She's a shoe-in. Hopefully it will be a presidency that once and for all sends the Demo party the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Jun 16, 2014 1:48:59 PM | 22

Will ISIS plan a 9/11-style terror plot against the U.S.? SCREAMS CBS!!!!

From the article:

"These are not monkey bar terrorists out in the desert somewhere planning some very low-level attack. These are sophisticated, command and controlled, seasoned combat veterans who understand the value of terrorism operations external to the region, meaning Europe and the United States. That is about as dangerous a recipe as you can put together," he [Retired General and current CEO of the suspicious and creepily named One Mind For Research Foundation(check out their program names: Gemini? Apollo? Oh, I get it, it's a "moonshot"...for the mind. Good thinking. Chortle.) Peter Chiarelli] said.

Man, if we could just fuse the ISIS and Ukraine narratives, we'd be golden, right guys? Looking at you, MOSSAD!!!

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 2:17:38 PM | 23

Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around.

Posted by: Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:38:11 PM | 24

A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today.

Posted by: Andoheb | Jun 16, 2014 2:47:02 PM | 25

lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist stooge."

I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand?

Posted by: ben | Jun 16, 2014 2:55:41 PM | 26

I'm a Liberal who will vote for Hillary.
The USA cannot be isolationist. If I was Prez, and saw 800 Jihadist amassed in Syria or Iraq, I would intervene. With B-1s!
It's not just that any Republican is unfit - true enough to vote against any one of them - I believe Hillary has the ability to learn and change. ( Hey! I didn't say "grow" or "evolve", or even "improve". I said "change".)This country will grow way more Liberal around 2018. In 2022, after the next census and redistricting, We will go quite Liberal. Hillary will respond to be a slow leading edge.

Posted by: Richard Crews | Jun 16, 2014 3:14:33 PM | 27

J Sorrentine @23

One Mind for Research? Like the Borg?
For the Collective?
Went to look at that place. Can you say super creepy, darpa like, mkultra???

"Garen has spent more than 30 years building and starting companies in the financial services and payment industries as a private equity investor and philanthropist. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Silicon Valley Bank, ExL Services, NVoice Payments, Profit Velocity Solutions, and Specialized Bicycle Corporation. He is also a Senior Advisor to FTV Capital"

The guy is a banker!

Posted by: Penny | Jun 16, 2014 3:21:59 PM | 28

It doesn't have to be like this. It could all be turned around on a dime ... if there were a 'demos' in democracy.

Posted by: john francis lee | Jun 16, 2014 3:23:55 PM | 29

Hillary - the GREAT liberal Red Sonia fighting for freedom and democracy, with Nuland and Kagan as her Power Rangers.I don't know what Liberal means anymore.

Posted by: kate | Jun 16, 2014 3:27:01 PM | 30

Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.

@18 You live in a dream world.

Posted by: Knut | Jun 16, 2014 3:27:22 PM | 31

In her heart she knows she's right.

Posted by: Albertde | Jun 16, 2014 3:37:34 PM | 32

@
"I'm a Liberal who will vote for Hillary.
The USA cannot be isolationist. If I was Prez, and saw 800 Jihadist amassed in Syria or Iraq, I would intervene. With B-1s!

It's not just that any Republican is unfit - true enough to vote against any one of them - I believe Hillary has the ability to learn and change. ( Hey! I didn't say "grow" or "evolve", or even "improve". I said "change".)This country will grow way more Liberal around 2018. In 2022, after the next census and redistricting, We will go quite Liberal. Hillary will respond to be a slow leading edge."

How old are you child? Change? Didn't we get enough of hopey, dopey change the last 8 years? Liberal? You ARE? Well, you'd 'liberally' sprinkle B-1s over Syria & Iraq... probably as close as you'll ever get to being a 'liberal' (in the old days my ol' Dad would say, get the dictionary... you you youngster, you can just google it)...

The country will move... liberal? <'scuse my coughing, 'bout to choke on these words> This country is fascist (better google that up too) How many light years do you think it will take... never mind.

Posted by: crone | Jun 16, 2014 3:53:31 PM | 33

HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.

That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim. That she is a
famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known. Der Prevaricator.

What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts. 'Bicycling'.

Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency $3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.

In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin

But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.

That's the Levant Way.

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 16, 2014 4:30:18 PM | 34

@28

Yup, the hole thing stinks like caca. Why, just imagine what great warrior-humanoids we could develop if we could erase all those feelings of fear and/or pesky memories that contribute to PTSD, huh?

Awesome!

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 16, 2014 4:33:44 PM | 35

And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy.

Posted by: lysias | Jun 16, 2014 4:36:24 PM | 36

@27

This is some kind of clever satire right?

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 5:07:33 PM | 37

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 5:07:33 PM | 36

My thought also but I'm afraid the person might be serious

Posted by: jo6pac | Jun 16, 2014 5:22:27 PM | 38

Posted by: Richard Crews | Jun 16, 2014 3:14:33 PM | 27

I would intervene. With B-1s!

Good choice to save the world with.

About Clinton, I would think any opposing candidate could make campaign advert showing the video of Clinton bragging about murdering Gaddafi, then cut to a photo of Vince Foster with voice over about questions of his death, then cut back to the video of Clinton's laughing after she bragged about murdering Gaddafi.

I think that would pretty much sink her presidential aspirations back into the swamp from which she rose. ;D

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 16, 2014 5:54:41 PM | 39

Why all the fuss about Isis? Truth is they will be history soon. There are large powers at work now that have shaken off the sleep of ages...if you write your agenda down they will eat it , you morons.

Posted by: bridger | Jun 16, 2014 6:10:28 PM | 40

b quote "Why would anyone vote for her?"

she is a women and a lot of women will vote for her on the basis of this. the other reason is many people won't be able to stomach voting for jeb bush. think about it. usa bipolar politics is very fucked up and the people appear to get what they deserve, even if they deserve neither of these 2 losers.

Posted by: james | Jun 16, 2014 6:11:12 PM | 41

OT

SYRIAN AIR FORCE RULES IRAQ’S SKIES KILLING ISIS NIHILISTS

Read more at http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/06/syrian-air-force-rules-iraqs-skies-killing-isis-nihilists.html#2KDjuA3ufPC35Md6.99

Posted by: crone | Jun 16, 2014 7:07:58 PM | 42

@38

Other than some on the far right and far left, including us, most people would think Killary killing Gaddhafi was a GOOD thing, regardless of what Vince Foster has to say.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 16, 2014 7:08:45 PM | 43

Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash?

And to think, she was once a Goldwater Girl. So many faces, so many more to come.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jun 16, 2014 7:40:23 PM | 44

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 16, 2014 5:54:41 PM | 38

There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
Female voters are not stupid.
People do not vote on foreign policy. As US household incomes are decreasing there should be a lot of economic policy to vote on.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:25 PM | 45

"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative, the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.

Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after 9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.

Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?

Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and Israel is longterm DOOMED.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 7:51:40 PM | 46

Posted by: bridger | Jun 16, 2014 6:10:28 PM | 39

You mean Saudi Arabia and Qatar will be history, soon? ISIS ideology is exactly what they believe there.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 16, 2014 7:53:26 PM | 47

So are you nitwits ready to rally around the new People's Front?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/world/middleeast/us-and-iran-signaling-new-joint-effort-in-iraq-crisis.html

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Jun 16, 2014 8:24:42 PM | 48

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Jun 16, 2014 8:24:42 PM | 47

Female voters might as women are allowed to drive in Iran (and teach at university)

Posted by: somebody | Jun 16, 2014 8:31:25 PM | 49


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/16/resisting-the-stupid-shit/

Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview

"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound.
Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'"

Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel.
Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 8:45:57 PM | 50

Louis, if I believed a particular tactic represented a defensive gambit on the part of the hegemon, I would not oppose
the tactic if I believed it was advantageous to forces culminating in the vanquishing of a unipolar world.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 8:54:48 PM | 51

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 16, 2014 8:45:57 PM | 49

The Obama quote continues

You have failed states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can control resources, populations, territory… . And failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security.

Now all he has to admit is that his policy was the reason of the failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement of Libya and Syria thereby having an impact on US long-term security.

It is his failed Muslim Brotherhood policy and the reversal to Wahhabi proxy forces that caused all this.

And you can add this latest Iraq adventure to the list as it is nothing but Mc Cain's "Maliki regime change".

Not to mention Ukraine - it is the country of militia's, warlords, refugees and displacement now.

American voters may not be pacifist, however I don't think they will stand for this.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 16, 2014 9:07:19 PM | 52

via The Saker

http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/06/the-inner-core-of-isis-the-invasive-species.html

Brilliant analysis. Informed comments too. My sense that ISIS is a sort of super criminal org in the pay of Saudi/US/Zio masters, confirmed.

Don’t believe for a moment that the Pentagon isn’t pleased with the ISIS performance. If the U.S. had plans to stay in Iraq for an infinity of time with a huge military, this would seem to be the time to reassert that desire.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 16, 2014 9:54:28 PM | 53

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 16, 2014 9:54:28 PM | 52

Whatever. Something definitively is going on.

Jordan Releases Zarqawi's Spiritual Mentor From Prison - Some Jihadists Hope Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi Can Help Unify Factions

AMMAN, Jordan—Jordanian officials released the spiritual mentor of a former top al Qaeda leader, prompting some jihadists to suggest he would help unify the movement as militants fight in Syria's civil war and try to hold on to power in Iraq.

Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, also known as Isam Mohammad Taher al-Barqawi, was released from a Jordanian prison Monday, according to his lawyer, after serving a half-decade sentence on suspicion of aiding terrorists, following earlier stints in prison, according to Joas Wagemakers, a scholar who has written a book on Mr. Maqdisi. The Jordanian minister of information couldn't be reached to comment on the release....
In his statement, written in May, before ISIS's breakthrough in Iraq, Mr. Maqdisi called the organization now led by Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi a "deviant group, an aggressor of the mujahedeen," and urged jihadists to leave the organization and join the al-Nusra front, a Syrian organization.

Back to Al Qeida in Syria, good, Al Qeida in Iraq, bad? Or, ISIL Turkey, Al Nusra Saudi?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 16, 2014 10:40:31 PM | 54

My comments don't seem to be going through. It's okay, I suppose; I'm not saying much except that I agree with the general appraisal of Ms Clinton here. What stumps me, though, is why any of you think it makes the first tiny bit of systemic difference for whom you cast a vote.

TL;DR version: Lysander's #4 fourthed.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 17, 2014 12:49:07 AM | 55

Bagdad's boy army:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/16/article-2658858-1ED2AD9600000578-524_964x1193.jpg

Posted by: crone | Jun 17, 2014 12:49:34 AM | 56

Interesting, my anti-virus picked up an attempt to infect my computer with a virus while I had this site open.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 2:30:58 AM | 57

bridger @39, your not the only one with your opinion:

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/future-isis-sectarian-response-isis-picked-fight-win/

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 3:36:34 AM | 58

also:

Some good points to keep in mind from Juan Cole. These are especially important as the urge to "do something" grips the American political class.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24275-7-myths-about-the-radical-sunni-advance-in-iraq

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 3:38:44 AM | 59

Boris Johnson asks Tony Blair to 'put a sock in it' over 'unhinged' comments on Iraq crisis

"Boris Johnson has launched a scathing attack against Tony Blair, declaring that the former leader’s insistence that the West should exonerate itself of blame for the violence engulfing Iraq is “unhinged.”

The London mayor said that he had “come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad.”

His comments in his Daily Telegraph column come two days after Mr Blair penned an essay on his website saying that the escalating crisis in Iraq would still have happened without the US-led invasion in 2003."

As both men are well known, no need to comment about what this means. ;)

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 3:42:49 AM | 60

also:
Washington seeks alliance with Tehran as civil war in Iraq intensifies
By Chris Marsden
17 June 2014
US Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that Washington was willing to talk to Iran about collaborating to beat back a Sunni insurgency led by the Al Qaeda offshoot Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has already gained control of most of Iraq’s Sunni regions in northern and central Iraq and is threatening Baghdad.

In an interview with Yahoo!News, Kerry said he “wouldn’t rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability.” He added, “I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together—the integrity of the country—and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart.”

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/17/iraq-j17.html

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 3:50:40 AM | 61

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 3:50:40 AM | 60

They are hedging. Keeping their lines open with all players. Should someone win, they will back their opponents. It is a rerun of the Iraq/Iran war.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 17, 2014 4:09:22 AM | 62

"Washington seeks alliance with Tehran as civil war in Iraq intensifies"

That reminds me of Jewish zionists seeking leadership positions among leftwing political organizations, Palestinian support groups, the anti-war movements, civil rights groups, environmental groups and all sorts of other socially oriented and grass roots movements. "Hey, we got the expertise to get you guys everything you are working for..."

One sees how effective that leadership has been with the west now going full bore into nazism with little or no objection from said infiltrated movements who should be raising holy hell.

These are the nazi freaks offering Iran an alliance.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 4:10:21 AM | 63

somebody @61; scalawag @62, I agree - both correct.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 4:22:15 AM | 64

Most commentators have a profound compunction to trash the US and US foreign policy. That's fair enough, I suppose. However, the US is an imperial power and thus behaves like any of the imperial powers that came before. They meddle to extend their power, try to keep their top spot and suppress any potential up-comers. That's the name of the game.

We like to pretend that, nowadays, we are much more civilized, but that is just a nanometer thin veneer to cover up the powerful forces that have ruled us since we emerged from the caves. We are mammals, like any other, with a sliver of capacity for rational thought. The old rules are thus the new rules, for the time being.

In this respect, Obama has been, and still is, the least interventionist US President of the last 30 years, and I state this confidently while keeping the NSA revelations, Libya, Ukraine and the drone campaigns in mind. b is right in assuming that Hillary will be worse. Any next President is highly likely to be worse.

Think about it:

- Dubya: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus all that economic mess he left behind. The aftereffects are still forthcoming and growing.

- Clinton: Wars in Kosovo and former Yugoslavia. The instigator for most of US behavior that led to the development of the Cold War 2.0

- Bush the Elder: War in Iraq.

- Reagan: Iran-contra, Mujaheddin in Afghanistan and master of the race for military superiority.

In light of all this, one can only state that Obama has been a relative blessing so far and I fully expect that the future US President will be much more inclined to reaffirm US military hegemony in a much more overt fashion once again.

Nobody has to like the way an imperialist power behaves, but Obama is the least interventionist US President the world could have realistically hoped for. Pies in the skies and global saviors exist in fairy tales but, unfortunately, not so much in human politics, never mind in the guise of US Presidents.

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 4:30:40 AM | 65

hilary,merkel,livni,lagarde......................

Posted by: mcohen | Jun 17, 2014 4:34:26 AM | 66

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 4:30:40 AM | 64

Your marketing spiel reminded me of Edward Bernays bragging about how he got American to smoke tobacco for his tobacco company clients.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 4:42:05 AM | 67

American women.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 4:42:52 AM | 68

scalawag, while searching RT for what I "missed" I ran across that video you asked about in another thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2KYuQtlMVRc

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 4:50:31 AM | 69

That's not marketing, but the hard-nosed reality.

You don't have to like it, and it is certainly not my intention to waste my energy to convince you to adopt my point of view. I just like facts and I like to use historical precedents to get a proper perspective on present day situations.

Bernays used propaganda to sell the products he was tasked to promote. If you have any substantive arguments to support your rhetorical and emotive reply, then go on and use this comment board as your canvas.

I'll even promise to concede your argument, if it is of any substance at all.

So, once again: "Obama has been, and is, the least interventionist US President of the last 30 years. As such his election has been a relative blessing for the rest of the world, and the next US President is highly likely to be worse." If you disagree, please discuss.

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 5:04:35 AM | 70

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 4:30:40 AM | 64

I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
The withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by Bush. It was an election campaign deceit to pretend Obama's foreign policy was any different.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.

He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
The substance never changes and is cooked by the Council of Foreign Relations.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 17, 2014 5:06:26 AM | 71

It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 17, 2014 5:45:44 AM | 72

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 17, 2014 4:50:31 AM | 68

"I ran across that video you asked about in another thread."

That's the video I saw. From the trajectories it looks much more like that of air burst artillery/rocketry than air dropped bombs. Also, all the reports I've seen about the phosphorus attacks described them as shelling, not air attacks.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 5:50:46 AM | 73

Obama's foreign policy cynical? Possibly, but still better by miles than before.

Your comment on nation building "stuff" shows that we have differing opinions on that. In my mind, if you break it, you own it. Nation building is the bells and whistles to an invasion. Otherwise, how would you be able to reap the benefits of appropriating the invaded nation's natural resources and riches (which is the common denominator for any kind of invasion)? From that perspective, I view nation building as an absolute necessity, since the population of that country also desperately needs it. Too bad that nation building is not something the US excels in.

The war on Libya was, unfortunately, a much more collaborative effort by France, the UK, the US and other European nations. The majority of the fighting was done by France and the UK, whose politicians were positively slavering at the opportunity to show off the capabilities of their war gear.

The US provided cover and, as a total embarrassment for France and the UK, a lot of cruise missiles and munitions after the French and British stockpiles were depleted. Very little fighting was done by US military forces. I still can't fathom how the UK and French war efforts always seem to fall under the table when discussing Libya, because that mess is even more their responsibility than that of the US.

"Color revolutions" have been the US standard modus operandi since the 1990's. The upheavals in the Ukraine have been in the making since 20 years, with Ms. Nuland confirming that for everyone to hear.

An indication of how little of an interventionist Obama has been, is also the frustration in Riad and Tel Aviv over his lack of commitment to force. Everything that frustrates Israel and Saudi Arabia is a major plus in my book.

Then there is also the reduction of the US military budget. While it was clearly not sustainable, no interventionist would have been able to see this through. I fully expect that military expenditures will rise once again, after the inauguration of the next US President; despite all protestations to the contrary.

So yes, Obama might be a cynical one, but much less interventionist nonetheless and as such a relative blessing for the rest of the world. I would be very surprised if Obama will not be viewed in a much more positive light, when people see what his successor will heap on the world. Many outraged commentators from today are more likely to pray for the return of his foreign policy style than the can imagine today, after they have had a taste of what is highly likely to follow after him.

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 5:53:19 AM | 74

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 5:53:19 AM | 73

The Israelis still support Obama, aparently. ;)

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 17, 2014 5:59:26 AM | 75

The war on Libya was, unfortunately, a much more collaborative effort by France, the UK, the US and other European nations. The majority of the fighting was done by France and the UK, whose politicians were positively slavering at the opportunity to show off the capabilities of their war gear.

Yep. But that was Obama's idea of being "clever", "leading from behind", form alliances. Libya was all the way on the Bush map of the seven countries in five years.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 17, 2014 6:13:12 AM | 76

Yep. But that was Obama's idea of being "clever", "leading from behind", form alliances. Libya was all the way on the Bush map of the seven countries in five years.

True on all counts. However, there is a reasonable likelihood that an attack by the US would not have occurred without these eager allies. The UK abstention from a war on Syria and the evaporating momentum, along with Obama's halfhearted promotions (why would he otherwise have asked the antagonistic Congress for support?) is a testament to that.

This is a far cry from how previous US administrations have handled similar situations.

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 6:31:08 AM | 77

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 17, 2014 5:45:44 AM | 71

You mean the tail wags the dog :-)) Let's face it, the American colony that has taken over.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 17, 2014 6:33:57 AM | 78

ISIS is a "stay behind" Army aka Operation Gladio, like after WW2
The concept worked, so it didn't go away.
Why would it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it

They (ISIS) were birthed by the US invasion. Invasion 2 by the prodigal son of a CIA man.

They were created with all the missing money the US expropriated from Iraq- IMO Billions of dollars for training, weapons and more
Billions!
I wrote an entire blog post to this effect, if interested
Including reminding my readers of the largesse of the US in getting Iraq's odious debt mostly forgiven, so the money could be used to build a terror army.

Posted by: Penny | Jun 17, 2014 6:55:01 AM | 79

39

Here's how you would do it in 30 seconds, ala Barry Goldwater's daisy picking girl:

Scene 1: Raw footage from final days of Gaddafi, blood, josting camera, jump cuts to ...
Scene 2: Hillary Clinton laughing, "We came, We saw, He died, haw, haw, haw, cuts to ...
Scene 3: Crackling flames in silence at US compound in Benghazi ... hold for three beats
Scene 4: Picture of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens over footage from his funeral ...
Scene 5: Hillary pounding hearing desk, "At this point, what difference does it make!?"
VFX burning font fade in over fluttering American flag: '...and she wants your vote?'
Fade to black with SFX fade out: HRC cackling '...we came, we saw, he died...'

Sheesh, maybe I should work for Karl Rove? This is solid gold!

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 17, 2014 7:08:37 AM | 80

@ somebody, no, I mean the dog wags the tail and the dog is the Empire, now as then. America is and has always been a colony of the Empire, bare a few brief periods where it could be avoided, thanks to the few real patriots that sometimes end up in politics.

Just read up on the american history and the discussions and problems the founding fathers and some of the later presidents had. And then go re-read the DoI and the constitution, using a judical dictionary instead of english. That might make things a bit clearer.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 17, 2014 9:14:17 AM | 81

H. Clinton will be 69 or 70 at the next election. I actually doubt she will stand, because she knows she would lose, as presumably does the Democratic Machine. No amount of ballot stuffing, district re-arrangement or Diebold machines can fix this. She might stand though as a ‘filler’ who is set to loose or whatever.

The winner will be a younger male Republican if they can scrape someone up, they can win, but I doubt they are willing to do what it takes (abandon part of their core electorate with a broader, more inclusive platform. Possibly Romney would give it another shot?) The Dems (or rather the PTB) pulled the new face thing which has failed, can’t work again, don’t know what they can dream up. Another possibility is a strong third (or non) party candidate who sucks a good chunk of voters, thereby throwing the election to the pre-designated winner.

All this murkiness goes to show that the US is not a ‘democracy’ - which it never was - and electoral politics are run, and determined, behind the scenes. In a way it doesn’t matter who wins, that is why it is all so bizarre and unpredictable, and made purposely ‘full of suspense’ for the public. (see particularly >> Lysander at 4, Sorrentine at 8.)

It is theatre for the masses, with real fights for funding, control, deals, influence, power, etc. which are underground, hidden, which is why the election does count - unfortunately not for the voters.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 17, 2014 10:07:50 AM | 82

@HnH says "least interventionist "

Laughing. Rehashing the eleven dimensional chess phrases - lessor evil, or perfect being enemy of good? Least war criminal?

You are a sick puppy.... I'm sure all those tens of millions around the world suffering less intervention approve your messaging.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Jun 17, 2014 10:56:32 AM | 83

@45

Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 11:53:21 AM | 84

@HnH

Hey everyone, Stockholm Syndrome is strong in this one. He thinks theres a difference between Obama and Bush still.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 11:54:50 AM | 85

@HnH

Let me give a different reply.

Obama is no less imperialist than Bush. He just does it in a more evolved fashion. Quite frankly im far more afraid of Obamas new style drone strike operations and what it will mean for the future than Bush the Lessers 19th century style bumbling across the world with troops. Obama is a new evolution of imperialism, a new step on the ladder to something worse than before.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 11:59:20 AM | 86

@81

You are a sick puppy.... I'm sure all those tens of millions around the world suffering less intervention approve your messaging

Call me what you will, but your maximalist positions have never panned out anywhere in the illustrious history of humankind. Just think about that conversation in 4+ years' time, as I predict that a more "liberal" application of the US military will be all but inevitable. US might is declining precariously and Obama has shown *some* restraint in its use, despite the political clamor for more violence.

However, an even more precarious global economy with ever more social pressures, along with high oil prices and declining fresh water resources, will make the next US administration more aggressive, regardless of what the voting public might think.

As an aside, neither Russia or China would act entirely different. Russia has already shown us that during its USSR phase, and China used its power to extract tributes from neighboring nations during its time at the top of the heap. Nothing that either Russia or China have done so far let me conclude that they would be any better.

So yes, I am thankful for any suffering masses that have not been hurt by that seriously deadly struggle for hegemony and power that all three major players are currently engaged in. In my view, the rest of the world is just collateral, and we will all be affected by it since it is going to heat up in the next few years.

Call me a cynic, but the days or relative peaceful coexistence since the second World War are all but over and we should all enjoy the remaining moments of respite while they last. That's what I am doing now and hop off to watch the World Cup

Posted by: HnH | Jun 17, 2014 12:21:56 PM | 87

I will always remember when Hillary threatened the unarmed aid workers on the Mavi Marmara and the result of those threats:

Clinton said the flotilla would be "[provoking] actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/30/debunking_the_israeli_us_effort_to

Is that what we want in the White House?

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 17, 2014 12:33:54 PM | 88

"and as such a relative blessing for the rest of the world"

WTF ooh, thanks for not murdering us, Merka!

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 17, 2014 1:09:21 PM | 89

"There are large powers at work now that have shaken off the sleep of ages...if you write your agenda down they will eat it , you morons."

Assuming I write "my agenda" on paper those "large powers" are going to get mighty hungry.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 17, 2014 1:29:48 PM | 90

If the republicans and the dems were as far apart as we are told, ie, one are knuckle-dragging fanatics lusting for pillage, the other, urbane sophisticates at ease with big-time stars, they would be at each others throats and not so damn chummy. They would be glaring at each other across the aisle, not nodding and winking.

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 17, 2014 1:42:49 PM | 91

"Call me a cynic" How bout "smug, self-righteous buffoon"?

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 17, 2014 2:08:04 PM | 92

@85

Youre a little smug, but I wish to apologize. I understand your position whereas I had not understood it previously. I apologize for my insensitive statements.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 3:11:24 PM | 93

@86

Thats not as bad as her giggling when hearing that Gaddhafi got analraped-with-knife/beheaded.

"We came, We Saw, He Died!" *Smug obnoxious spiteful smile*

Peoples deaths arnt something to joke about, regardless of whether the person in question was a good person or not, especially when the demise was so... Horrific.

That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 3:15:05 PM | 94

funny how I used that word and it appears once in the two following posts buy a different author. Is there an in echo in here?

Posted by: ruralito | Jun 17, 2014 4:02:17 PM | 95

@93 Yes

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 17, 2014 4:26:25 PM | 96

"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath."

Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?

the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:

"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are a danger to the survival of the rest of us.

Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing so they compromise the survival of the whole species.

Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held, though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another 10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.

The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in a different environment or a different society. The second group act out of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5% and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed. And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.

Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently break."

James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of you may want to give it a read:

http://winterpatriot.com/node/894

psst... imho TPTB are psychopaths as are the puppets whose strings they pull.

Posted by: Crone | Jun 18, 2014 12:23:56 AM | 97

@97

My bad... Im not even sure what the difference between the two is.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jun 18, 2014 1:29:31 PM | 98

sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath

psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants"

see also http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself! Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.

btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often new sources... which is great. Thanks!

Posted by: crone | Jun 18, 2014 4:47:48 PM | 99

#99

Don't underestimate the danger to others from an individual with anti-social behavior who lacks a conscience.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jun 18, 2014 6:20:16 PM | 100

The comments to this entry are closed.