ed note–very good points he makes here. Remember, the famed ‘Neocons’ were formerly hardcore Marxists but who changed suits once it became obvious that the best way to push forward the Marxist Zionist agenda was by getting cozy with the Republicans.
By Wayne Madsen
There is a good reason why so many neocons and retired military brass are opting to support Hillary Clinton for president. It is Clinton’s support for continued American military intervention in battle zones abroad and her brinkmanship with Russia that has so many former supporters of George W. Bush opting to rally to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential candidacy.
For the neocons, Clinton is a natural candidate. The older generation of neocons were originally found nested in the Lyndon Johnson administration as pro-Vietnam War Democrats. When Richard Nixon became president, a few neocons migrated over to support the Republican president, but a vast majority, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby, found a leader in the war hawk Democratic senator from Washington, Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Jackson’s support for confrontation with the Soviet Union and his lavish sycophantic support for Israel provided the neocons with a senatorial base from which to operate, especially during the Carter administration. The neocons disdained Carter and his human rights advocacy.
When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, challenging Carter, the neocons saw their chance to become, once again, part of a pro-war administration. Perle, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and other neocons avidly supported Reagan and were rewarded with key administration positions as a result. The neocon support continued for both George H. W. and George W. Bush. With the isolationalist-oriented Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination, the neocons have returned to their original roots in the Democratic Party. The party’s platform on issues of war and an interventionist foreign policy were not affected in the least way by Bernie Sanders’s supporters. The Third Way, formerly the Democratic Leadership Council, has praised the Democratic platform for its likeness to past Republican planks on foreign policy and defense.
The first major neocon to back Clinton was Robert Kagan, who hopes his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and the person responsible for the collapse of Ukraine, will be named as Clinton’s Secretary of State. Kagan is a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon organization responsible for the blueprint for the disastrous U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a decision that Clinton supported as a senator from New York. PNAC also hoped fervently for a “new Pearl Harbor” attack on the United States. Their dream came true with the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon. Joining Kagan in supporting Clinton is neocon strategist Max Boot.
Nuland is not the only neocon female who has a shot at winding up in a Clinton Cabinet. Another is leading war hawk Michele Flournoy, who served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration. She co-founded the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a sort of re-invented PNAC for U.S. defense policy. In fact, Flournoy was an avid supporter of PNAC’s aggressive military agenda. CNAS brings together a bevvy of neocons, including General David Petraeus, Eliot Cohen, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who may serve a Hillary Clinton administration as a senior foreign envoy), Paula Dobriansky, and former Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. Considering the number of Zionists involved with CNAS, it comes as no surprise that Flournoy and her colleagues are avidly pro-Israel.
Official Democratic National Committee poster of Hillary Clinton seen in Philadelphia. How many U.S. service personnel will die under orders from someone whose poster likeness is reminiscent of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong?
As far as Republicans supporting Clinton is concerned, it should be noted that most of them look forward to Clinton’s war hawkish policies to benefit their own political and financial interests. Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, past members of Bush administrations, are totally involved in the military-industrial complex and see Mrs. Clinton as an insurance policy for their continued lucrative paydays. Hewlett-Packard CEO and GOP candidate for governor of California Meg Whitman has financial interests in the high-tech industry that will do well when Clinton sinks more taxpayers’ money into the bloated Pentagon budget. The same goes for her fellow California high-tech entrepreneur colleague Marc Andreessen, the co-founder of Netscape. Individuals like Whitman, Andreessen, and other wealthy high-tech executives who endorse Clinton see only dollar signs from four to eight years of American wars abroad.
As for Representative Richard Hanna, the first Republican member of the House of Representatives to endorse Clinton over Trump, the Lebanese-American’s Mohawk Valley district, which includes Rome, Utica, and Binghamton, has a number of Pentagon contractors, including BAE Systems, ITT Corporation, and Rome’s Information Directorate of the Air Force Research Lab. For Hanna, Clinton means wars and wars are good for his congressional district.
A Hillary Clinton administration, from a defense and foreign policy viewpoint, will look very much like that of George W. Bush. The only exception is that a number of women will serve in the top Cabinet posts of State and Defense. For those who believe that a female’s touch will result in a less aggressive U.S. foreign and military stance, one is directed to the biographies of Catherine the Great of Russia, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.