Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 24, 2016

Clinton's Plan To "Defeat ISIS" Is A Threat

Hillary Clinton's three part plan to defeat ISIS is to:

  • Defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria
  • Destroy ISIS everywhere
  • Prevent ISIS attacks in the U.S.A.


That plan, to me, seems similar to George W. Bush's plan to defeat the Taliban which was to defeat the Taliban. Or maybe more like Nixon's plan to defeat drugs which had nothing to do with drugs but was actually a plan to criminalize blacks and antiwar hippies.

The real motive behind the above Clinton nonsense may be the interest of the powers-that-are to keep the war on ISIS going forever. Obama already did his best to establish ISIS. He refrained from fighting it in its infancy in 2012, refrained from holding it back in Iraq to "regime change" Prime Minister Maliki and kept its revenues flowing until Putin shamed him into finally bombing its oil infrastructure.

Clinton's plan, which declares only aims without any steps to reach them, would mean endless wars in this or that Middle East country and/or in Africa or Asia. It means further suppression of any privacy and opposition at home.

It is not a plan but a threat. Will she win votes with such nonsense?

Posted by b on March 24, 2016 at 6:22 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Hillary = moar war! Forever war. Yipee skipee...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Mar 24 2016 6:34 utc | 1

b; It is not a plan but a threat. Will she win votes with such nonsense?

So far so good; it seems to work, no?

Posted by: V. Arnold | Mar 24 2016 6:36 utc | 2

Did HRC mention IS in Sirte, Libya ... or is that inconvenient for the lady?

Posted by: Oui | Mar 24 2016 6:57 utc | 3

So here is a woman running to be the leader of the "free world" by showing how brutal she would manage the US war machine. BUT she would be the first (token) woman president. Supporting the first woman president is all that matters for many brainwashed Americans. They are clueless about the context of such a presidency in the bigger world and the hypocrisy of Clinton's feminine side.

Humanity has become a freak show managed by the global plutocrats ring masters. Some of us are entertained by the process and spew gobs of textual white noise about it on internet blogs hoping something good will come of it.

I hope the Gawds are entertained by humanity's flailings (OOPS, excuse me, except for the military plans of Hitlery which have no equal)

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 24 2016 7:09 utc | 4

Hillary is not remotely fit to serve in any government office because she is profoundly sociopathic, and dangerous. Her silly "statement" is not a plan, just a vacuous and entirely superficial "pearl of wisdom" that she offers to whom she believes to be the American swine.

Trump must be a thug/ mobster what with all his dealings in New York real estate and with casinos. But he doesn't look actually sociopathic.

Hillary should not even be trusted to work at a candy store. I hope people realize that.

Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 7:10 utc | 5

Yawn...... between Killary and Bernie in CA Democratic primary. I'll vote for Killary.

What the differences? If Bernie loose, he'll be Killary running mate. They're all the same - liars and murders!

Posted by: Jack Smith | Mar 24 2016 7:17 utc | 6

I've been holding back while you all discuss this election chimera - but now we're talking policy again. And I don't see a thing much mentioned, which is that it doesn't matter how bloodthirsty Clinton is, policy on the ground will be what it will be, regardless of who's in office, more or less - and it too will fail.

The Pentagon and State Department will not march into a guaranteed failure on her orders, and she can't make them go. They will only do this through their own incompetence - and this in turn would hugely influence the White House to give formal approval. She can't order them to disaster, but they can go crazy in their own right. Is it going to happen? I can't see it.

The US is no good at what it keeps trying to do around the world. There was a time we thought maybe the clumsiness was a supreme act to cover the resultant chaos. But time has shown it's not an act. Chaos results, but it splashes on the boots of the US too.

Russia has won. Militarily, Russia has defeated the US. With the cruise missile shoot-down, with Donald Cook, with its Kalibers, with its emerging generational lead in all aspects of ground maneuver, as well as regional and global nuclear attack and shield. Russia can bleed the US in any kind of warfare simply by being more cost effective in all aspects of war fighting. And some people in the US know this.

The rest, can follow at their own pace. Clinton, if she should become president, will be told at junctures where she needs to be told. Apart from these, she can wallow in ignorance and ignorant rhetoric. What I don't understand is, why does anyone here care? How many divisions does Clinton actually command, different from any other candidate?

Posted by: Grieved | Mar 24 2016 7:27 utc | 7

Grieved | Mar 24, 2016 3:27:30 AM | 7

Your assessment of the U.S.'s abilities would seem to be pretty accurate.
But I do think you greatly underestimate her (Hillary's) influence on policy.
Russia's Putin and the U.S.'s Kerry have had a powerful influence in Syrian policies; especially regarding moar war; like them or not the peace talks are a reality...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Mar 24 2016 7:48 utc | 8

@ Grieved | Mar 24, 2016 3:27:30 AM | 7

As I mentioned, Hillary is actually psychopathic, completely. Trump and Sanders probably are not. Hillary would be significantly more dangerous than George W. Bush or Obama have been.

Can it really be appropriate to have a completely insane person as president? Especially at this point in history? She is not competent. Don't expect that to "not matter"! And this goes very far indeed beyond any questions of policy. She is actually whacked in the head.

Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 8:00 utc | 9

I simply thing Hillary is totally insane. Nothing more nor less.

Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 9:18 utc | 10

This three point plan is obvious, in fact it follows directly from any intention to defeat ISIS. But point number four is missing (and it should be number 1): namely stop supplying weapons and funds to ISIS so they will not be able to engage in any more offensive actions. That by itself would be sufficient to defeat ISIS. If that had been done five years ago her three point plan would have been unneeded in the first place. If that is what they did in the first place there would not be any war to speak of. I think Hillary wants (and likely needs) war for her own political ambitions.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 24 2016 9:28 utc | 11

There actually is a solution to the two-party spoiler effect dilemma which should have been described centuries ago.

Here is my description, which is a little long, but not very. It's from discussion in another blog. Please read this -- It is most important!:


Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 10:24 utc | 12

Of course the plan is to keep the war going forever. Fox News is reporting that US strikes on ISIS have fallen off. This is because Isis hasn't fulfilled its central task which is to spread the chaos into Central Asia.

Look at the facts: the Ukraine adventure has isolated Russia from Europe. The pivot to Asia is designed to box China in and isolate it. By then bringing Takafiri lunacy to Central Asia the Silk Road project is ruined and Russia and China, cut off from international trade, are stuck in a giant quagmire that will eventually destroy them. The key to creating this quagmire is ISIS. The only way to supply them is by being in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Secret Agent | Mar 24 2016 10:34 utc | 13

Thank you ToivoS@14. Excellent comment.

Posted by: Berry Friesen | Mar 24 2016 10:51 utc | 14

It's just like that "Mobile Strike" ad, that says:

"The best defense."

Killary's message has the depth of a joke in a video game advertisement...or any one of Trump's message. I guess she's trying to appeal to the Trump demo.

Posted by: vote for kodos | Mar 24 2016 11:26 utc | 15

Defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria = keep on destabilising governments in Iraq and Syria until the people learn to vote for the right candidate (ie the US-endorsed candidate) in general elections

Destroy ISIS everywhere = destabilise or destroy every country that shows signs of wanting its independence

Prevent ISIS attacks in the U.S.A. = turn the US into one giant concentration camp complex in which everyone is a prisoner

Ah, so that's the Klintonator's real plan!

Posted by: Jen | Mar 24 2016 11:34 utc | 16

Shrillary's 3-point non-plan plan is deeply alarming. Reading it in the light cast by Grieved's comment | Mar 24, 2016 3:27:30 AM | 7, which imo reflects the reality of the quandary the US has blundered into (dumbfuckery, anyone?), it suggests that Shrillary is excluded from the Realist Clique in the Halls of US Power.

Post-Syria, it is not possible that the subject of America's (present or looming) status as an ex-superpower, hasn't been discussed. And if it has, Shrillary either wasn't told, or didn't listen.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 24 2016 11:44 utc | 17

Remember when Vice President Joe Biden, who has a habit of occasionally telling the truth, revealed that Saudi Arabia, UAE, & Turkey were arming, financing, and controlling the fake terrorist group ISIS?
4 star US General Wesley Clark has gone further and said ISIS was created to destroy secular Syria & Hezbollah(and thus secular Lebanon)

Hezbollah is besides the protector of secular Lebanon, but also the allies of the Christians Google "Free Patriot Movement" & this link
Top US General Martin Dempsey has also stated that ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia & Co

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 24 2016 11:49 utc | 18

The women (especially black and Hispanics) will vote for Hillary in droves no matter what she does. There's a lot of men out here who say it's time for a woman President...but not her!
Her plan for eternal war while her and her allies supply the enemy we are supposed to be fighting is a joke, right?

Posted by: farflungstar | Mar 24 2016 11:58 utc | 19

@13 China won't take the bait and is politely defining its zone of influence.. Russia has proven that being surrounded by dinky USA military bases doesn't really mean crap outside of the general nuke threat.

The main threats are the allure of the West itself; when so many citizens want to run off to USA/West for the American dream, it can cause rampant sellout-ism.

There also of course is the threat of blatant aggression involving neighbors.. Ukraine was a huge threat to Russia, and the North Korean situation is a large threat to China.

Using ISILame-o-crazies as a force against any silk road can't last forever; Russia and Iran have successfully pushed back, and Turkey/EU/KSA are bearing real costs to their complicity.

Posted by: aaaa | Mar 24 2016 12:07 utc | 20

I agree with ToivoS @14. spot on analysis. Does anyone here read MidEastWire? Two articles dated 22 March from the Gulf newspapers translated into English about Brussels got me thinking, is it me or is their narrative contains some truth. But thankfully Abdel Bari Atwan nailed "what the heck is going on? " in Al Rai Al Youm.

Posted by: midan | Mar 24 2016 12:08 utc | 21


Posted by: aaaa | Mar 24 2016 12:09 utc | 22

This three point plan is obvious, in fact it follows directly from any intention to defeat ISIS. But point number four is missing (and it should be number 1): namely stop supplying weapons and funds to ISIS so they will not be able to engage in any more offensive actions. That by itself would be sufficient to defeat ISIS. If that had been done five years ago her three point plan would have been unneeded in the first place. If that is what they did in the first place there would not be any war to speak of. I think Hillary wants (and likely needs) war for her own political ambitions.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 24, 2016 5:28:19 AM | 11

It's got nothin to do with Killary

The Saudis just got themselves a French weapons pile big enough to [re]equip a sizeable army
Riyadh to receive French-made arms intended for Lebanon

Saudi Arabia will take delivery of French-manufactured arms originally ordered for the Lebanese army, following Riyadh’s recent decision to retract USD four billion in military aid to Beirut.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced the plan on Saturday during a visit to France.

Last month, the Saudi regime said it had suspended USD three billion in military assistance to the Lebanese military and another USD one billion to the country’s internal security forces.

The aid was cut after Lebanon refrained from endorsing Saudi-crafted statements against Iran at separate meetings held in Cairo and Jeddah.

The move also followed victories by the Syrian army, which is backed by fighters of Lebanon's resistance movement of Hezbollah, in its battle against Takfiri terrorists battling to topple the government in Damascus.

"We made the decision that we will stop the USD three billion from going to the Lebanese military and instead they will be re-diverted to the Saudi military," Jubeir told journalists in Paris, adding, "So the contracts (with France) will be completed but the clients will be the Saudi military."

Funny how these "French Arms Deals" always seem to "go wrong" at the last minute and the arms end up somewhere unexpected

Posted by: Kashoggi | Mar 24 2016 12:32 utc | 23

On China, keep in mind that the Globalist/Liberals/Cultural Marxists in the media,Clinton administration, Democrat campaign finance committee, and their liberal allied Neocons like CFR Gingrich & Co, helped to build up China at our expense with military tech transfers, and relocating our manufacturing infrastructure and technology over to China, so now they literally own us. This is a case again of what the great Antony Sutton documented in his books about our build up of the Bolshevik/Soviet Union to create a boogeyman to profit off of and social engineer the West.

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 24 2016 12:33 utc | 24

Hillery’s plan is just a revamp of the neocon response to 9/11. (Why is this not a surprise?) Insert Al-Qaeda for ISIS, replace Syria with Afghanistan and its identical. We’ve all seen how well that plan turned out. At the time of 9/11, government estimates had Al-Qaeda /jihadi forces totalling 200-300 fighters.

Both Osama and Saddam must be laughing in their graves.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Mar 24 2016 13:17 utc | 25

I initially believed that Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was pilfering evidence of the Clinton Administrations illegal campaign contributions to get China PNTR & into the WTO & military technology transfers, but upon closer inspection and later events & evidence coming to light, I lean more toward the Clinton Administrations collaboration with Al-CIA-duh was the evidence he was poaching

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 24 2016 13:24 utc | 26

One should not underestimate Clinton. She 'crazy' like a fox.

b pulls some punches wrt ISIS. USA and allies are playing double games. Seymour Hersh described how they conspired to use extremists as a weapon in "The Redirection". "Fighting ISIS" is a neocon canard.

ISIS are the shock troops of the Empire. We will fight them wherever they are, could be said another way: we will follow where they lead. Africa and Central Asia await.

ISIS is also a means of intimidating and controlling the public. We MUST HAVE an unaccountable police state ... because ISIS.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 24 2016 13:28 utc | 27

It is amazing--well, not really, but certainly telling--how vigorously many "progressive" phonies I know here in the US quickly joined in on Hillary's attack on Trump for "weakening" Nato, complete with the ritual demonizing of Putin.

It's frightening the ease with which voters can lurge evermore rightward in her defense--she who on foreign policy outflanks the repubs to the right.

But she's a feminist! She supports gay rights!

Posted by: sleepy | Mar 24 2016 13:38 utc | 28

All I KNOW is that the Zionists must be chortling over the destruction of their neighbors,Europe and their absolute lock on American pols.
HRC is a bubblehead.Nothing more to be said about her,it's just too bad so many of our citizens are also such.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 24 2016 13:38 utc | 29

You mean if we just leave ISIS alone, it will go away and not bother anyone?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 24 2016 14:08 utc | 30

@29 dahoit

All I KNOW is that the Zionists must be chortling over the destruction of their neighbors,Europe and their absolute lock on American pols.

Not only chortling, they’re laughing all the way to the bank. So much of Israeli’s economy is based on war/terrorism , they would go broke if peace ever broke out. According to Max Blumenthal there are more than 150,000 upper class families directly supported by the arms industry. Throw in the numerous corporate spinoffs from its military and its supposed expertise in state security (ex. providing security at major airports globally) and you have an economy highly dependant on the GWOT and therefore have a vested interest in it continuing interminably.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Mar 24 2016 14:33 utc | 31

May 24, 2016 Today's 'you cannot make this stuff up entry'

In this day of digital imaging it is very easy to fabricate photo ops to fit the narrative. I cannot verify the veracity of this piece but it not only states that Isis is a false construct but that Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsey Graham deal directly with Kurd Barazani stealing and diverting oil from Iraq. These so called Americans have campaigned and been in the running for the highest political offices in the United States ...

Posted by: ALberto | Mar 24 2016 14:38 utc | 32

Hillary Baldrick Clinton: I have a cunning plan!

Posted by: Pnyx | Mar 24 2016 14:44 utc | 33

psycho @ 4 said:"Supporting the first woman president is all that matters for many brainwashed Americans. They are clueless about the context of such a presidency in the bigger world and the hypocrisy of Clinton's feminine side."

Yep, that's bottom line.

Here's my one point plan...

Quit fukin' with people around the world in the name of profits!

Posted by: ben | Mar 24 2016 15:06 utc | 34

It's important to remember this is part of Hillary's plan to become president of the United States.

1. Say anything to become president of the United States
2. Do anything to become president of the United States

Posted by: WG | Mar 24 2016 15:12 utc | 35

I understand not many people read links, but this is a must read..

A world war has begun. Break the silence – John Pilger

Posted by: ben | Mar 24 2016 15:50 utc | 36

Hedges: "We Bomb Them, They Bomb Us"

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 24 2016 16:12 utc | 37

Meanwhile, Must see video! - US dept. dont want to see ISIS destroyed!

Posted by: Checkit | Mar 24 2016 16:12 utc | 38

Foreign policy brought to us by the *Underwear Gnomes* 1. Collect Underpants 2. ? 3.Profit. (from South Park) In other words, nobody understands how banks get from something no one *Profit.* Since it works with banking, why bother positing any causal relationship in foreign policy. It's all magic. Americans will believe anything.

Posted by: S.H.E. | Mar 24 2016 16:18 utc | 39

Simple solution arrest her for the treason and murders.
Investigate the cia and the state dept. arrest those complicit with her, investigate the congress critters, And while investigations are being conducted cut off all funding to the gov. as a whole. Investigate the corporations that abetted the crimes. and the uglyarchs.
How, peoples tribunal and investigative teams with powers of arrest and imprisonment.
I know it'll never happen. Was fun thinking about it though. And could only hope.


Posted by: noman | Mar 24 2016 16:30 utc | 40

@11 toivo.. yes, but then stopping the supply of weapons to isis would be dismantling us foreign policy which is to create chaos and profit off of it..

@13 secret agent.. i agree with you..

@16 jen... i agree with you too!

isis is a central part of usa foreign policy.. the usa thrives off of it... why would they try to stop it?

@23 Kashoggi.. i concur that this has very little to do with hillary.. if you are going to win the us election, you have to support this platform of endless war in faraway lands, creating chaos or dominating other countries around the world..

@27 jackrabbit.. ditto your comments too.

@36 ben.. i did happen to read that a few days ago.. it was interesting but not bang on.. worth the read..

Posted by: james | Mar 24 2016 16:39 utc | 41

Ask your doctor about voting!!!

Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 16:43 utc | 42

The war-mongering (Killary, Dick Cheney, G. Bush, etc.) has more to do with profits in arm sales and Big-Corp-clout than foreign policy.

If a country, Nation, is to be ‘strong, great’ as Trump says, only one path: Education, Basic health care (living conditions..) and Defense, cannot be run for profit. Must be a communal effort, agreed upon I wouldn’t quite venture to say (pragmatically speaking in the present scene.)

The war-military-industrial .. security .. prison industry in the US is designed to offer staggering profits for shareholders, for the cos. that produce arms etc., sell ‘solutions’ at high price, and thru corruption rewarding the pols that support them. The business model creates perpetual need, impulse, to invade, kill, massively bomb, fight, accuse, imprison, render, murder.

The strife created encourages others to buy and deal (arms, patronage, etc.), protect themselves, and do the same. The US now does not halt whatever war is going on (e.g. Iraq). If it ‘ends’ some conflict, support for one faction or another is rapidly forthcoming.

>> Endless war, and endless profit...

Killary is of course lying about any strategy to defeat ISIS, as it is a creation of the US/West, designed to provoke war all over the ME, and elsewhere.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 24 2016 17:13 utc | 43

@Oui #3 is right, Libya is a glaring omission in the plan; Clinton would like the world to forget she took "credit" for that disaster

Posted by: claudio | Mar 24 2016 17:38 utc | 44

Scam as in illegal oil smuggling ring run by governments in US and Turkey to bypass Baghdad.

Posted by: Les | Mar 24 2016 18:37 utc | 45

@ Les and to benefit Israel.

Posted by: Shadyl | Mar 24 2016 19:20 utc | 46

With someone so evil and bloodthirsty as Hillary Clinton you know for sure there is no outside influence with her bloodlust. Its all Hitlery

Posted by: tom | Mar 24 2016 19:36 utc | 47

Consortiumnews -- Hillary’s Double-Standard on Protests -- March 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton has excoriated Donald Trump for failing to stop a supporter from roughing up a protester during a speech, saying “This kind of behavior is repugnant. We set the tone for our campaigns — we should encourage respect, not violence.” Yet, in 2011, she did nothing to stop security personnel from brutalizing a 71-year-old veteran who stood silently with his back to her during a speech.

The protester, Ray McGovern, a retired Army officer and CIA analyst, was wearing a black “Veterans for Peace” T-shirt, when he was set upon within sight of Secretary of State Clinton, who ironically was delivering a speech about the importance of foreign leaders respecting dissent. The assault on McGovern left him bruised and bloodied but it didn’t cause Clinton to pause as she coolly continued on, not missing a beat.

Hillary's goons beat the hell out of this poor guy. The web page has pictures at the bottom.

Posted by: blues | Mar 24 2016 19:45 utc | 48

Hillary bears all sign of a dormant hysteria. Once president she will be even tougher toward men. This will be Hillary's ultimate revenge on all men from the public humiliation she has suffered from Bill. She will gladly send them all to die in Iraq and Syria to affirm women's superiority.

My prediction is that just after she is elected she will suffer a concussion out of exhaustion and excitement and will be replaced by the vice-president, Sanders?

Posted by: virgile | Mar 24 2016 20:00 utc | 49

49- virgile /She will gladly send them all /
rabies of the uterus

Posted by: ALAN | Mar 24 2016 20:11 utc | 50

Come on, guys. Whether or not Clinton has a uterus is of no importance.

Posted by: Laguerre | Mar 24 2016 20:32 utc | 51


"Both Osama and Saddam must be laughing in their graves."

I dunno about that... I'm pretty sure I saw them at a Sandals resort in Cuba this past January

Admittedly both were Cabana boys there, but they seemed happy & had nice tans...

Posted by: xLemming | Mar 24 2016 20:45 utc | 52

Pnyx | Mar 24, 2016 10:44:00 AM | 33

1 extra large turnip in the country for your Blackadder reference!

Posted by: xLemming | Mar 24 2016 20:54 utc | 53

"Hillary bears all signs ..."

One has to analyze politicians as politicians. For example, to analyze what a tricycle driver says in India, you have to bear in mind their interests. If you ask them where is place X the answer is "very faah, very faah". That translate into "I can give you a ride for 200 rupees (300?)", and the actual distance can be few hundred meters. By all signs, their education in English consists only of necessary phrases, and the phrase "just around the corner, you can walk there" is worse then unnecessary. Similarly, politicians take classes in unnecessary and harmful phrases to avoid and their equivalents of necessary, always useful phrases like "very faah".

A perfect explanation was in an episode of Simpsons featuring Mayor Joseph "Joe" Quimby, when bears appeared in Springfield and decisive action was necessary, including "hardening our defenses at home and preventing attacks". Special anti-bear force was assembled, with a special tax that quickly led to discontent of the "suffering taxpayers" and then Quimby went for plan B, blaming the foreigners and immigrants (I guess Mr. Trump goes straight for that).

At least Hillary did not copy Rubio who promised to "do whatever it takes". And she pointedly refrains from "combining bluster with hateful rhetoric", what the situation calls for is pure, organic unscented bluster without harmful additives. Hypoallergenic foreign policy?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 24 2016 21:10 utc | 54

She doesn't need votes to win! Whaddya think this is? A democracy?

Posted by: Shh | Mar 24 2016 21:18 utc | 55

As Toivo and others pointed out - The glaring omission in H-> rhetoric is any mention of stopping ISIS funding sources.

This was omitted intentionally. You don't want the ppl to begin to think about the direct funding of ISIS via USA, proxies and shell games.

While it is true that ISIS is a "creation of the West" and there are many sources which verify this fact, the general public - clinging to conventional MSM media for news - is totally unaware of this fact.

They buy all the False Flags and GWOT bullshit. They want all Arabs countries in ruins and all arabs dead.

They want tighter security imposed upon themselves and expanded authoritarian powers to break down doors and to kill. (The cops did not want to disturb the terrorists while they were sleeping at night because of pussies like Obama).

Hillary gives the MIC the reassurance it craves as she assures the public that she has a big ol' ten inch .....record of the band that plays the blues.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 24 2016 21:34 utc | 56

Haha bang on @55... Doesn't warrant the exposure MoA is giving it.... Can we please stop talking about the US elections, b?

Posted by: dan | Mar 24 2016 21:35 utc | 57

Obama's handling of ISIS not only got the regime change he wanted in Iraq, it got the US over the unscalable hurdle of starting the Iraq War (3.0) again and redeploying troops in Iraq in 2014, all the while claiming he ended the Iraq war in 2010 or 2011, whichever it was.

How could anyone possibly sell the American public on fighting another Iraq war? Then he tiptoed into it, swearing all along there would be no boots on the ground, no combat. Promising that even the air campaign would be minimal. Meanwhile the media was running the most graphic kinds of ISIS fear porn, flooding the airwaves and social media with it. They knew it would take something so egregious, so over the top, and that's what they delivered.

Now we're at the point where the military spokesman for the anti-ISIS operation (Operation Inherent Resolve wtf) openly defies the country by refusing to disclose how many troops we have in Iraq. You're not allowed to know.

Posted by: Joanne Leon | Mar 24 2016 22:17 utc | 58


Does "Inherent Resolve" sound like a little short-term incursion into the Middle East to you?

Posted by: Joanne Leon | Mar 24 2016 22:18 utc | 59

Who's the biggest terrorist threat: Hillary Clinton if she become POTUS or Daesh?

Which is the more worrisome terror program: The Outlaw US Empire's Drone-based assassination program or Daesh?

Why have so few noted Daesh is HRC's spawn and that her "plan" is to perpetuate it?

Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 24 2016 22:25 utc | 60

Resolve Carpet Bmober.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 24 2016 23:32 utc | 61

"Operation Sucker Punch" didn't poll well.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 24 2016 23:35 utc | 62

"Hillary is actually psychopathic, completely. Trump and Sanders probably are not."

I took probability course and I would say that Trump said many things quite sociopathic, and on that basis, I see 75% that he is an actual psychopath and 25% chance that he is merely a twisted character. Very symptomatic was his praise of John Bolton with whom he hardly agrees on anything. If you are a boorish loudmouth with an utter disdain for humanity, you can feel a warm wibe from John Bolton who fits that description. Otherwise, not so much.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 25 2016 0:18 utc | 63

Cue the theme music. Welcome back viewers to another edition of the Magisterium. Kick back and enjoy the show.

On today’s show, I have to reproach my sidekick, Jack Rabid, again. His ungrounded assertions are demonstrably wrong on a number of levels, as usual. The desire to keep the population under surveillance and control pre-dates ISIL by a considerable margin.

Southern blacks have always lived under a police state, be it slavery or Jim Crow.

The police state for trade unions dates back to the Gilded Age. Since the Palmer Raids, we’ve always been a police state for the reds. Both have been more aggressively and openly than pursued at sime time than others. J. Edgar Hoover kept everybody under surveillance. See also the destruction of the Panthers and the Cointelpro surveillance of the New Left.

The surveillance state isn’t new either. It was I believe during the Second World War that the intelligence agencies began to get copies of all cable traffic, commercial and governmental. Sure, diplomatic cables were encrypted, but these codes could be cracked. I believe interception of satellite transmission began shortly after satellites. I’d have to pull out my old copy of Bamford’s Inside the Puzzle Palace for chapter and verse.

For the poor generally, and especially blacks, the “War on Drugs” has been a police state. It was not the odd mass shooting that made SWAT teams ubiquitous, it was the raids urban dealers and users. The ongoing proliferation of surveillance cameras dates from this period, as does the criminalization of the "undeserving" poor through aggressive policing of minor crimes.

For the elite, the hysterical response to al-Qaeda and September 11th. was their first real taste. The “no fly lists” have always reminded me of the former Soviet system of internal passports, only much more opaque.

I believe most of the apparatus of surveillance in Europe dates from the seventies and eighties. The IRA, Red Brigades, Bader-Meinhof and others were active. I visited Brussels in the eighties, the presence of police with automatic weapons on the train platforms was disquieting.

Whatever developments along these lines ISIL has prompted, it is hardly late-breaking news. It’s just more of the same.

For its part, ISIL is the independent creation of the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Wahabis. If there is plenty of evidence otherwise, I'd like to see someone cite it.

Though to be fair, our support for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin in Afghanistan got the ball rolling.

Special bonus segment --

Folks will have to work a little harder to develop the “Clinton roughs up protesters” reiteration of the "both sides do it" meme. I respect Parry’s work, but one incident five years ago hardly compares to the routine assaults dished out by The Donald. Nor did she incite the crowd to do so, or promised riots if she fails to get the nomination.

We’ll close this show with an important public service announcement, with guitar. Know your rights, comrades.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 0:36 utc | 64

if ISIS didnt exist , it would have been necessary to invent it

Posted by: brian | Mar 25 2016 0:39 utc | 65

Hilary Clinton is transforming (or has transformed) into Madeline Albright before our very eyes

Posted by: Yonatan | Mar 25 2016 0:40 utc | 66

Unrelated news from NYT that is of interest:

Microsoft set out to learn about “conversational understanding” by creating a bot designed to have automated discussions with Twitter users, mimicking the language they use.

What could go wrong?

If you guessed, “It will probably become really racist,” you’ve clearly spent time on the Internet. Less than 24 hours after the bot, @TayandYou, went online Wednesday, Microsoft halted posting from the account and deleted several of its most obscene statements.

The bot, developed by Microsoft’s technology and research and Bing teams, got major assistance in being offensive from users who egged it on. It disputed the existence of the Holocaust, referred to women and minorities with unpublishable words and advocated genocide.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 25 2016 1:06 utc | 67

rm @ 64: Good reality check. Thanks.

Posted by: ben | Mar 25 2016 1:10 utc | 68

@ rufus magister | Mar 24, 2016 8:36:38 PM

Yeah, but none the less, Hillary is a real psychopath. No limits. Donald the thug/ mobster, we don't know.

It makes a difference.

Posted by: blues | Mar 25 2016 1:13 utc | 69

Ben at 68 --

Thanks. Reality is not quite a popular here as one might wish.

BTW, I would have hit on your link at 36, but I saw the same piece over at Counterpunch, I believe Naked Capitalism had bird dogged it. Good stuff.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 1:20 utc | 70

Syria retaking Palmyra from ISIS, State Department not happy. Yeah, that's the deep state speaking through those hesitations.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 25 2016 1:29 utc | 71

Apparently Erdogan will be soon thrown under the bus by his ZioCriminal buddies

The interrogation notes we received thus far from European Department for Security and information (DESI) Secretary General DR Haissam Bou Said indicted that Turkish intelligence MIT was behind the horrific twin suicide bombings and that Turkish terror cells across Europe had been planted years ago in coordination with an organized crime infrastructure long involved in human trafficking, narcotics and working with Israeli and Saudi groups staging false flag terror attacks.

Erdogan, according to our source, has been channeling MIT trained terror cells hidden within the carefully orchestrated influx of refugees, directing them to “berths” within the Turkish crime communities long established in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Sources in the US intelligence community note that the Turkish organized crime centered in Munich has, for over a decade, is “ground zero” for the expected onslaught of terror attacks expected to hit the US on the eve of the upcoming presidential election.

source -

Posted by: ALberto | Mar 25 2016 1:30 utc | 72

blues at 69 --

Well, if I were doling out the "psychopath" label, I'd think the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal would more likely rate it for their manipulating the US into the Second Gulf War. The latter two were Nixon-era thugs.

Psychopathy does not mean "pursues policies I dislike aggressively," which seems to be the main complaint vs. Mrs. Clinton. Her body count pales in comparison to Bush the Younger. In piling it up, she is merely executing the current elite policy consensus. The may well be immoral and unjust, but it is not hers alone.

Any serious discussion of the issue needs to refer the standard model of psychopathy, courtesy of Wiki.

Boldness. Low fear including stress-tolerance, toleration of unfamiliarity and danger, and high self-confidence and social assertiveness....

Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints....

Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, disdain of close attachments, use of cruelty to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance of authority, and destructive excitement seeking.... Meanness may possibly be caused by either high boldness or high disinhibition combined with an adverse environment.

She certainly does not strike me as bold or unrestrained, given the noted Clinton tendency to triangulation. Impulse control and foresight look reasonable. She seems to have a decent amount of empathy, for a senior gov't. official.

Sounds like The Donald, serial divorcee, would be a better fit to me. Were I doling out the label. I like "proto-fascist" for Trump, as I have noted previously. Captures the possible (likely?) danger.

Well, to be fair, all the Rethuglicans are dangerous. Don't believe me? How about our "pwogwessive" saint, Noam of Cambridge?

Chomsky has historically disavowed both parties, labeling them as different arms of one overarching set of corporate interests. But in 2016, his tune has changed rather notably, and the MIT professor has spoken out forcefully about the unique threat the Republican Party presents to the human species itself.

The Daily Banter links to an earlier piece at Truthout, if you'd like to get the full effect.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 2:11 utc | 73

rufass' over-use of his Magisterium dildo has clouded his judgment.

That and his support for neocon Hillary.

"More of the same" is a deceitful simplification. The police state has grown exponentially since 9-11, the 'new pearl harbor' that neocons yearned for years before it occurred. The USA government see ISIS as an off-shoot of al Queda and the fight against ISIS as part of the GWOT.

And rufus' statement that: "ISIL is the independent creation of the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Wahabis" is another falsehood. Seymour Hersh wrote about the USA-KSA-Israeli conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon in 2007(!), well before it became apparent that they were doing just that. We now know or have good reason to believe that:

> ISIL gets a great deal of support from Turkey;

> Israel has bought ISIS oil and provided medical care for extremists;

> USA's anti-ISIS effort was shown to be a joke by the Russians: training 5 fighters, light bombing, and military analyst whistle-blowers that claim that their reports were distorted;

> Other countries are also intimately involved or look the other way because they benefit from arms sales or hope for future reconstruction contracts;

> Putin claimed that more than 40 countries are involved in funding ISIS.

Interesting that rufus conveniently ignores ISIS funding. Just like Hillary.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 25 2016 3:06 utc | 74

Rufus who trades in the word 'fascist': If the word has any meaning, we live now in a fascist, post-democratic era. Brute force of Big Finance redistributing up, ever more brutal policing down, and creating, demonizing and attacking 'enemies' for the sake of the various military-industrial complexes. That describes the US and the NATO/ANZUS countries. There are VERY few world leaders whose policies and popularity reflect the will of the people. One of the few is Vladimir Putin. Otherwise it is a very short list.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 25 2016 4:32 utc | 75

Jack Rabid at 74 --

You have speculation; I see no proof. Your solipsism and simplistic "analysis" again lead you astray.

For example, what proof do you have that Mrs. Clinton "ignored" ISIL's funding, either as Secretary of State or as a candidate? No doubt one of those silly little lists of yours, where you find she failed to say the secret word and win the prize. At least you went light on the ugly formatting with this one.

And yes, it was quite interesting that I did not discuss an issue that you had not brought up.

Someone is misrepresenting Putin's views. Since you provide no source, one cannot say who. But here's an account of his statement from RT. Emphasis added.

“I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told the journalists.

Private individuals, in some, not all G20 states. I don't find any list of the 40. He also suggested Washington was reassessing cooperation in fighting ISIL.

"We need to organize work specifically concentrated on the prevention of terrorist attacks and tackling terrorism on a global scale. We offered to cooperate [with the US] in anti-IS efforts. Unfortunately, our American partners refused. They just sent a written note and it says: ‘we reject your offer’,” Putin said.

“But life is always evolving and at a very fast pace, often teaching us lessons. And I think that now the realization that an effective fight [against terror] can only be staged together is coming to everybody,” the Russian leader said.

A plan to take on Iran and Hezbollah in 2007 is not the US creating ISIL, which is not active in Iran. Hezbollah has fought them in Syria; its a Shia/Alawite vs. Sunni thing. And as I noted, our use of Islamic jihadis began in 1979. Given the blowback, one might think we'd have thought better of it since.

You presume that Erdogan's support for ISIL is directed by the US, when it is quite clear that the Islamist Erdogan follows his own agenda. We support the Kurds, to a degree, while the Turks shell and repress them.

Israel clearly pursues its own agenda; see their invective vs. the Iran deal. Assuming they actually do support ISIL. From a quick Bing search, I only see nut-jobs like Alex Jones asserting this. You seem to be having a hell of time at the Green Tea Party.

You overlook the main objective of the United States in Syria. It is regime change, not fighting Islamic jihadis; we'd support "moderates," if we could find any.

Our Saudi allies consider ISIL useful in that theater of war, and we played along. We were not so gentle in Iraq, which might account for their somewhat diminished presence there; their gains in the north around Mosul certainly were not desired by Washington. The Saudis themselves seem to have no compunction about fighting jihadis in Yemen. Again, the Saudis also are ready, willing, and able to pursue their own policies without regard to US interests.

I tried to show a long history of repression and surveillance, open and hidden, here in the United States. "The USA government see[s] ISIS as an off-shoot of al Queda and the fight against ISIS as part of the GWOT." That rather sounds like more of the same to me. See the early Global Cold War against Communism. You're not asserting that the September 11th. tragedy was the work of the Israelis, CIA, Rothschilds, House of Windsor, little green men from Mars, are you?

Al-Qaeda's origins are well known. Mujaheddin butt-hurt after Washington cut them lose, once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, and the bin Laden's annoyance that American soldiers, and not the Saudis alone, drove Hussein out of Kuwait, are the primary motivations.

Funny, I don't see you accusing Chomsky of supporting Mrs. Clinton. Again, I do not support her by stating the obvious -- any sort of Democratic Administration will be better than any sort of Republican one. Stein, who not on the ballot in all 50 states, has absolutely no chance. Bad analysis produces bad action, and you seem primed for both.

As always, I'm focused on doing what I can to help build a genuine workers party. Conscious workers, organized to promote their own organic leaders, and keep them accountable, are the only way to beat the system and avoid barbarism. That's where my vote is going. Either Dem. or Rep., regardless of who wins, that is the work that needs to be done. I believe it will easier under the former than the latter, but either way, I'll cope.

Obsessive-compulsive hatred of Mrs. Clinton is not a way forward. You have never answered my question -- exactly how do you see revolution coming about? Since you're actually a conservative of some sort, who got stranded when that got too weird, you're likely ill-equipped for such a theoretical analysis. ("My perspective is more left than what is generally called ‘center-left’. In part, this is due to the public’s move to the right over the last 30 years.")

And as I noted on the Open Thread -- you're the disembodied fake prick. Gentlemen lack the necessary anatomy to derive satisfaction from such a device.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 4:50 utc | 76

@5 To sum up your comment, Hillary is casting fake pearls before real swine.

Posted by: Macon Richardson | Mar 25 2016 5:20 utc | 77

fairleft at 75 --

Glad to see you back, you've been a light poster of late.

I don't know that I'm "trading in the word fascism." I suggested The Donald had the potential to become one, given that he has potential brownshirts and a nationalistic, militaristic policy. The seed is not the tree.

The sort of growing oligarchy you describe, though not a desirable state of affairs is not fascist. Fascism has a strong anti-communist, anti-labor component, born out of sharp class struggle produced by crisis. It creates a mass conservative-populist movement, around the strong leader. If the present oligarchy of finance capital starts to teeter in crisis and begins formally banning dissent, get back to me.

Fascism is not simply any pro-elite policy one finds distasteful. I always use the word very carefully. Only the Banderist regime in Kiev qualifies, given the support it enjoys from actual fascist movements like OUN and related militias, such as Pravyi Sektor and Azov.

I saw Robert Paxton, author of Anatomy of Fascism, on Democracy Now a few days ago. He gives a different definition than myself.

Well, fascism is a mass nationalist movement intended to restore a country that’s been damaged or is in decline, by expansion, by violent attacks on enemies, internal as well as external enemies, and measures of authority, the replacement of democracy by an authoritarian dictatorship.

But he does note the Communists, and crisis.

There are two parties that are growing in 1932: the Communist Party and the Nazi Party. And if you don’t bring in the Nazi Party, then maybe it’s the Communists who are going to take over. There’s that dynamic of social panic. They bring Hitler into the tent. And once he’s there, he doesn’t have full power when he’s chancellor. He doesn’t even have all the ministries. But he then—then he takes over full power, and nobody is willing to fight him, because that would mean helping the Communists.

So do we have fascism? Well, at least, not now.

If Donald Trump puts his followers in colored shirts and they begin to fight in the streets, then you’ve got fascism.

So while it is certainly possible, it has not happened yet.

In an earlier thread, I noted a number of reform that would "Transitional Demands" that would shore up popular participation and lessen the influence of capital: Multi-member districts, proportional representation, an end to Citizens United and the start of public financing, an end to gerrymandering. A proper labor party could push for these, which would go a long way to opening up political life.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 5:22 utc | 78

rufass @76

You have speculation; I see no proof.

You imagine that 'proof' is easy to come by because Intelligence Agencies don't cover their tracks?

You ignored most of what I did provide: colossal failure of the anti-ISIS training program; a group of military analyst whistle-blowers who claim that their intelligence was distorted; USA's meek bombing program; Israel's medical care for extremists.

what proof do you have that Mrs. Clinton "ignored" ISIL's funding
I didn't say she ignored it. She's likely to have been very approving of allies funding extremists. After all, she helped the extremists to win in Libya, didn't she?

I did not discuss an issue that you had not brought up.
Hillary's ignoring of ISIS funding was brought up by others in this thread.

Private individuals, in some, not all G20 states.
The miraculous rise of ISIS and its funding have been much discussed. If Russia knows of these individuals, you can bet that Western and ME countries know of them also. But USA did little, if anything, to stop it.

A plan to take on Iran and Hezbollah in 2007 is not the US creating ISIL
I didn't say the US created ISIL. I disagreed with YOUR statement that "ISIL is the independent creation of the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Wahabis"

You presume that Erdogan's support for ISIL is directed by the US
I didn't say that it was. Every country that supoorts the Assad must go! effort has their own reasons for doing so. Hersh named the ringleaders as USA-KSA-Israel. I no reason to doubt him, given what has happened since.

I tried to show a long history of repression and surveillance ...
You tried to muddy the waters (to defend Hillary), and you are still at it.

ISIS is just an extension of the GWOT. GWOT has been used to justify torture, repression, spying, etc. School children are now ratted out by their teachers.

I don't see you accusing Chomsky ...
When Chomsky shows up at MoA I'll be glad to have a chat with him.

You are no Chomsky.

I'm focused on doing what I can to help build a genuine workers party.
Bullshit. Hillary doesn't get you any closer to that.

Obsessive-compulsive hatred of Mrs. Clinton is not a way forward.
So you'd rather ignore her faults, or blame the victim.

Gentlemen lack the necessary anatomy ...
You're not a 'gentleman'. You're an anonymous blogger. As such, you're merely a collection of comments to the rest of us.

What you termed a 'Show' is more accurately a dildo, because only you derive pleasure from the thrust of your bullshit arguments.

That you named your dildo 'Magisterium' seems appropriate to your over-inflated ego and penchant for stretching the truth.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 25 2016 7:10 utc | 79

rufus magister @78: What I mean by trading in the word is that you are trying to leverage "fascist Trump versus non-fascist Hillary" into fear of a Trump presidency that would justify voting for Hillary.

I feel I'm falling into your trollish trap, but frankly your evidence for 'Trump fascist' is the same old MSNBC nonsense, stretched equivalencies. Somehow his supporters are 'brownshirts'? That's an insult to every dead or brutalized real victim of the real brownshirts. There were and will be more random acts of violence by Trump supporters and opponents and that's terrible but in reality world has nothing to do with the brownshirts. But the only actual brownshirt-light activity -- because the brownshirts were organized to destroy free speech and other political parties' activities -- I've seen is the successful attempts by anti-Trump MoveOn and other activists to prevent Trump's free speech.

The reality is that our present and emerging reality -- under the Republicrats and the deep state -- is already fascist. Fascist light, sure I'll give you that, since there's no steady state meaning of the word anyway. (It's a reality heavily mediated in the US through reassuring corporate media and the drug industry's happy pills, so maybe you don't notice?) But I think we can say that both our present-day society, and Hillary, and Trump are all at least fascist light, just in different ways and emphasizing different aspects of that stretcho-changoe silly and essentially useless word.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 25 2016 7:28 utc | 80

wrt -- rufus magister | Mar 24, 2016 10:11:38 PM | 73

With all due respect, you appear to be in the sad habit of interpreting information in a Procrustean manner, and crafting your arguments expediently at the expense of judiciousness.

I have dealt with and studied sociopathy (I don't call it “psychopathy”) for many years. I have many acquaintances and several friends who are afflicted with the condition. Sociopathy is strictly a distinct neurological illness, which does occur in varying degrees, yet one either is afflicted by it or not. It is a disability. Any one of us could wake up one day having the condition after suffering a frontal lobe injury. Here's an analogy: Neurological aphasia (muteness) is a brain dysfunction that is not environmentally acquired. A person who is mute because of deafness probably does not have this brain dysfunction, yet can be just as mute. Likewise, a person can have many or even all the symptoms of sociopathy and yet not bear the actual neurological dysfunction.

People afflicted with sociopathy can be principled and aboveboard. People without it can display all its traits. The truly afflicted may be generally hones, but if they drive over a poodle in the road they will be unable to feel remorse, even if they were to want to. And they have a great tendency to lack empathy for their own selves, so they often knowingly become drug addicts, etc.

But one enormous problem is that when people who actually bear this neurological dysfunction reach positions of great social empowerment they very usually create catastrophically bad situations. Nuclear war would not be an unlikely outcome with a sociopathic president. A person can have all of the “boldness”, “disinhibition” and “meanness” of the “the triarchic model” and yet not have this neurological dysfunction.

You said “Psychopathy does not mean "pursues policies I dislike aggressively," which seems to be the main complaint vs. Mrs. Clinton.” But that is simply not a relevant argument here. What is relevant is that Mrs. Clinton clearly suffers from a potentially disastrous brain disorder.

Posted by: blues | Mar 25 2016 10:19 utc | 81

The existence of the globalist Council On Foreign Relations, which consists of leading DemocRats & their Liberal Trotskyite Neocon allies, along with Corporate CEO's & CEO's of media and talking heads, is fascism by definition. So it is amusing to see the term thrown around by the liars in the media, and their useless idiot followers. Almost all of our presidents and much of their top staff are members.

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 25 2016 11:45 utc | 82

@82 There are also Conservative Members of the CFR. GHWBush is an easy one to note. We have seen that liberals - and liberal principles and ideals - have been abandoned by the party that pretended to represent them - the Demorat Party. The D Party assisted the R Party in destroying workers unions, workers pensions, and there's more damage to be done and pain to inflict on the common people to the benefit and security of the one percent.

It is interesting to note that it is the members of the D Party whom are the Israeli dual nationals, however both Parties are fully on board with the Yinon & PNAC plans for Greater Israel. These plans are enshrouded in an endless GWOT - again with full support of both parties.

At this point, we can conclude that the Blue Team vs. Red Team mentality does nothing more than to divide the common people. Neither party serves the common people. There is no democracy and no democratic republic. These have been usurped by Multinational Corporations.

Fascism once described a state of collusion between government and big business, but that aspect has been convneiently removed from modern dictionaries.

Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 25 2016 12:27 utc | 83

fairleft at 80 --

I seldom agree with Chomsky. Do you think him wrong? There is no danger?

You wish to take your chances with Trump? Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. The German Communists were confident they could deal with the Nazis, and we all know how that turned out.

As always, I intend to vote left, and encourage friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances to go left. The Greens are marginally acceptable, too petit-bourgeois-New-Age for my taste. The numbers going left are unlikely to deprive Mrs. Clinton of the job. Building the movement is always the priority. Nader sometimes gets tagged for throwing the election to Bush in Florida, though that was really the doings of the Scalia Supreme Court. And there were plenty of other third parties on the ballot that cut Gore's margin.

And did that turn out to chastise the Democrats? I don't see any evidence of it. So the strategy appears unworkable and dangerous.

If Sanders winds up the Democratic nominee (highly unlikely) I would consider voting for him, though my favorite sectarians, the Spartacists, don't much care for him. Mrs. M. is active in his campaign, however, but she's a long-time New Deal Anarchist.

I disagree that we are already in fascism. Where's the mass repression, the formal criminalization of oppositon? If we were, we would not be able to be having this discussion. Even if we are, why accelerate the process?

Popular usage may be loose, but academics have it pretty well nailed.

Did you ever ready Gross' Friendly Fascism? I may have to dig it up out of the shelves here in this current environment.

blues at 81 --

I wonder how you made this diagnosis. You don't list any symptoms, and your discussion acknowledges none might be immediately visiable. Are your Mrs. Clinton's neurologist, then? Or just a practicing MD? Or merely speculating and hoping?

Mrs. Clinton may not be a nice person (senior state officials seldom are), but she is neither a sociopath nor psychopath.

We all present cases, we marshal our facts. We bring our experiences and believes to bear in making them. To one's critics, perhaps it appears Procustean. So it goes.

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 12:29 utc | 84

jeez, that was ugly enough to correct -- "beliefs"

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 12:30 utc | 85

@fast freddy
My friend, your post is spot on, but the Bush crime family are liberal Neocon globalists not real Republicans, just like Clinton & co are not real Democrats. Neo means "New" thus Neocons means "New Conservatives" whose ideology came from the so called "Godfather" of the Neocons Irving Kristol whose "Memoirs of a Trotskyite" says it all, liberal on immigration invasion, Globalism, abortion, and various other "social issues" but most importantly, eager to be the puppets of the Israel/Saudi lobbies and to carry out their "Global - Agenda". I woke up to the Hegelian Dialectic of politics during the 1996 campaign when I watched the Globalist Liberal Neocon traitors that hijacked the GOP destroy Buchanan's anti-Globalist campaign platform.
His American Conservative website is always worth a daily read.

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 25 2016 13:19 utc | 86

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar website archives are worth a read especially his articles on these Trotskyite Liberal Neocons

War Party's leftist and elitist roots exposed
Justin Raimondo

June 13, 2003

Posted by: Daniel Shays | Mar 25 2016 13:24 utc | 87

@74: Syria Another Pipeline War by RFK Jr

The Sunni Kingdoms wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On Sept. 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a US. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad. “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places [Iraq], they’ll carry the cost,” he stated. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table.”

Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents.” But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and England to form the “Friends of Syria Coalition,” which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British T.V. channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad’s ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical Jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad’s Shia allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. U.S. personnel also provided logistical support and intelligence to the rebels on the ground. The Times of London reported on Sept. 14, 2012, that the CIA also armed Jihadists with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from Libyan armories that the agency smuggled by ratlines to Syria via Turkey. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Rand recommends using “covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare” to enforce a “divide and rule” strategy. “The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign” and “U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world … possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

WikiLeaks cables from as early as 2006 show the U.S. State Department, at the urging of the Israeli government, proposing to partner with Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to foment Sunni civil war in Syria to weaken Iran. The stated purpose, according to the secret cable, was to incite Assad into a brutal crackdown of Syria’s Sunni population.

Posted by: Les | Mar 25 2016 13:37 utc | 88

HRC is the epitome of the banality of evil.She is actually a bubblehead.Anyone who thinks she isn't should give us an example of her brain power.Policy successes?It takes a village?
A MSM creation of Ziofeminist borg.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25 2016 13:45 utc | 89

Anyone see the story how the Egypt govt pinned the Italian students death on dead patsies?

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25 2016 13:46 utc | 90

87;AW is a good source for some things,but they are ideological libertarians,another cul de sac of the mind.They have an agenda.
Over at the Intercept we were told that journalism is inherently biased.
Sheesh,just gives us the facts and we'll make the call.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25 2016 13:50 utc | 91

ff @ 83: "Fascism once described a state of collusion between government and big business, but that aspect has been convneiently removed from modern dictionaries."

Hey, maybe I'm old fashioned, but that was "El Duce's" definition, who I heard "coined the phrase.

Am enjoying though, the battle of semantics and ego's.

Posted by: ben | Mar 25 2016 14:09 utc | 92

fairleft at 84 --

"I seldom agree with Chomsky. Do you think him wrong?" Yes, he's wrong. Forgive because he's 87 and kinda lost the plot.

"You wish to take your chances with Trump?" Since the alternative is Clinton, Yes.

"As always, I intend to vote left ..." Me too, and I don't deeply care who actually wins. I think Trump would be slightly but only slightly less likely to jump into the next CIA-proposed regime overthrow, and his voice would be less horribly annoying.

"... I disagree that we are already in fascism. Where's the mass repression, the formal criminalization of oppositon? If we were, we would not be able to be having this discussion."

The mass repression is this: the overwhelming sentiment of the population is not allowed expression in the mass media, especially at any and all critical moments. Yes, we can have this discussion, but so could anti-fascists. But they and we cannot broadcast our discussion and conclusions to a mass audience.

"Even if we are, why accelerate the process?" Impossible since we're already there. I don't think the PTB or the next election will accelerate the process when it's already at the finish line. "They" have won. We are at the place they want us to be.

Nothing will be accelerated. The arming and forward technologizing of the police and the surveillance system will advance whether Hill or Trump is President, but it won't and doesn't need to accelerate. The income redistribution will continue to grow whether Hill or Trump is elected, it doesn't need to accelerate. The exclusion of all non-neocon and non-neoliberal voices from the mass media will simply continue, it doesn't need to accelerate.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 25 2016 14:36 utc | 93

@ fairleft | Mar 25, 2016 10:36:33 AM | 93

'Black lives matter'; how better to show when and to whom this 'krystalnacht' now applies. The security state has different colours and uniforms with starry-stripy flags sewn on them but the helmets look strikingly similar in shape - why let an iconic design go to waste.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Mar 25 2016 15:04 utc | 94

fairleft @ 93:

"Nothing will be accelerated. The arming and forward technologizing of the police and the surveillance system will advance whether Hill or Trump is President, but it won't and doesn't need to accelerate. The income redistribution will continue to grow whether Hill or Trump is elected, it doesn't need to accelerate. The exclusion of all non-neocon and non-neoliberal voices from the mass media will simply continue, it doesn't need to accelerate."


Posted by: ben | Mar 25 2016 15:08 utc | 95

@88 I'd recommend watching this Syrian Girl video (highly recommend watching this)

It seems that Hillary was/is all-in on balkanizing Syria/Iraq.

Russia appears to like the idea of federalization, but it also appears that Iraq and Syria armies are progressing rather well against ISIL now, so they might succeed in chasing the foreign militants out, and severely undercut the superpower mechanizations in play.

But anyway..

Trump talks like he will either voluntarily draw down our international troop presence, or will ask the host countries to pay us to maintain these bases.. He's calling NATO obsolete..
That's something I LIKE hearing!

Posted by: aaaa | Mar 25 2016 15:49 utc | 96

@93 fl

Agree with all you say ... except the bit about voting for Trump? Why not vote for someone you'd actually want to be president? Boost, at a minimum, the 'spoiled ballot' count?

Posted by: jfl | Mar 25 2016 19:58 utc | 97

jfl @97: I understand the misimpression, but I didn't say I'd vote for Trump, just that I prefer him to Hillary. Unless something unexpected happens, people should just vote for the left anti-imperialist candidate they agree with.

aaaa @96: "Trump talks like he will either voluntarily draw down our international troop presence, or will ask the host countries to pay us to maintain these bases.. He's calling NATO obsolete. That's something I LIKE hearing!" ME TOO! That doesn't mean he'll really do it, but just getting this taboo but extremely popular opinion into the mainstream media is nice.

Posted by: fairleft | Mar 26 2016 1:03 utc | 98

I doubt Hillary has a plan. She had more plans to help US states and all were just merely hot air. She NEVER had a plan. It was all a campaign ploy/hoax.

Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 26 2016 3:33 utc | 99

fairleft at 93 –-

Many thought the Romanovs looked pretty solid.

Nothing lasts forever; technological and social conditions change, in a continuous feed back loop with ideas and popular action. Numerous elites have come and gone, and in the course of obtaining and retaining mass support, the plebs have managed to obtain a few tribunes and forums.

Gee, I was unaware the Philip Randolph Hearst and the rest of the Yellow Journalist gave the Wobblies and Populists a fair hearing. How really open to popular opinion has the media been? Seems like more of the same.

A little ageism? I don’t follow his work that closely, but Chomsky seems about as acute as ever. He does look a bit more frail now, which is because he's in his eighties.

I share Chomsky’s worries about the Rethuglicans as a group, though perhaps not to his degree. I find the departure from his previous agnosticism significant. He particularly stresses the importance of immediate action to prevent (moderate?) global warming.

It is not just Trump’s bullying swagger, his glee at torture, his racism and misogyny, the clear intent to escalate in the Mid-East (I doubt if any changes will come to NATO, too long too important to too many policy makers, to say nothing of our “special relationship” with Old Blighty). It’s the sort of climate policies, judges, and other baubles for the Koch’s that he or any Republican will provide.

I believe positive change is possible. And do I detect of hint of optimism at 98? He's raising issues, but what political and social forces stand capable of utilizing the potential energy?

ben at 92 –

Mussolini’s gifts did not include theory; Giovanni Gentile ghost-wrote A Doctrine of Fascism for him.

The corporatism Mussolini talked up is, like fascism, a very specific ideology. It involves the formal involvement of bodies representing business and labor in governance. These labor “unions” would of course be sections of the Fascist Party; only the bosses would get a real say. See the section onFascist Corporatism in Wiki. It is in a sense synthesis of Catholic corporatism and syndicalism.

I was disappointed, no transcript of Wolf’s talk, since I can’t sit through interviews on the computer. It’s always a good segment when he appears on Democracy Now.

Here’s an interesting take on The Donald. He’s not Benito Mussolini but rather Jefferson Davis, says Steve Ross, an historian with the University of Southern California.

It’s not that all of Trump’s supporters want to own slaves or secede from the United States. But they can see their political clout disappearing, and are responding by supporting an extremist movement….

“What you have is the kind of pre-emptive anger of a certain part of the white population that understands within the next decade or two, Anglo-WASP America — white Anglo-Saxon America — is going to be a minority in this country,” Ross said. “And they’re angry about that. And so Trump is the leader, he’s the Jefferson Davis of his own time.”

Here's a query to the Bar -- historically the lumpen-proletariat (along with white collar workers and the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie) has been the mass base of fascism; the German trade unions were solidly KPD/SPD to the end, for example.

Trump is apparently finding support among union members. Doesn't this reflect the lumpenization of the entire working class? The neo-liberal destruction of manufacturing by outsourcing offshore, as well as threat to many other forms of labor by globalization, as ongoing assaults on the civil service, has made even the labor aristocracy insecure.

The skilled trades in Victorian capitalism had enough control over the labor process to be able to command sufficient wages and leisure to be able to effectively organize. It was only when unions moved to an industrial level in the later 19th. cent. that other trades, such as weavers and potters, got adequate representation.

Do we have enough time and money? What other form of "social capital," if you will, might be required, are they available?

Given The Donald’s rhetorical style, if fighting does break out, we’ll have to call it the Uncivil War.

Don't forget to tip your server!

Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 26 2016 8:05 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.