04-10-2016, 08:31 PM
My comments in red.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Martin:
From what I have seen of Trump, which is several debates and a couple of speeches, he thought the Bush invasion of Iraq was a mistake since it destabilized the Middle East.
The cable news industry gave Trump and his surrogates many billions of dollars in free air-time to repeat lies unchallenged.
One of his biggest lies is that he opposed the war in Iraq.
He was for it as long as the stock market held up.
He wants to have better relations with Putin and Russia.
He could be a paid agent of the Russian Federation for all we know, but if he reaches the oval office the Anglo/American Security State will have all the puppet strings attached.
You think Trump has the smarts and heart to stand up to the War Party?
Guess again.
Something which worked pretty well with Obama.
Better than most acknowledge.
Obama and Putin negotiated the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Syria and Iran, thus removing the top rationale for War Party action.
Where he goes off the edge is his extension of an anti terrorist campaign inside the USA: the abandonment of civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects, and also stop and frisk.
Trump went off the edge from the moment he announced. From there it just got progressively worse.
Denying climate change, the banning of Muslims, the deportation of 11 million undocumented, the use of torture for torture's sake, punishing women who assert control over their own bodies, stripping out Wall St. regulations, stripping out food safety regulations, stripping out clean water regulations, maintaining Citizen's United.
For starters...
But if you take a look at what Hillary Clinton's ideas about foreign policy are, and who she consults with, I mean it is very hard not to call her a neo conservative. In fact, Obama made a very bad mistake appointing her as Secretary of State.
What she did in both Libya and Honduras was pretty bad. And what she wanted to do in Syria was, gratefully, reversed by Obama. Her views on the Middle East and Israel are pretty much AIPAC's down the line.
Libya, I think is an object lesson in how short sighted, and shallow and neocon she really is. And Obama was really dumb to go along with it. Gaddafi almost had the rebel opposition defeated. And there was no such thing there as "mass slaughters and atrocities". That was all manufactured to demonize him. Then, the three witches out of MacBeth-- Clinton, Power and Rice-- bamboozled Obama into his NATO intervention. During which Gaddafi called Tony Blair twice and said, this is not what you think it is. These guys are part of Al Qaeda, you will have an extension of that in north Africa if they win.
He was right. And we do. There could have been a settlement there in which Gaddafi stepped down, was offered safe harbor and his son be allowed to take over. But this was turned down, even though guys in the Africa military command were for it. But now, Libya is a disaster, a nightmare state.
Her ideas about Russia and the Ukraine etc. that is all out of the neocon playbook. And BTW, she consults with jerks like Kagan and Kissinger. Who, IMO, JFK would have urinated on.
So although Walinsky has a tendency to overwrite, he was like that with RFK also, generally speaking, I think he is correct here. Although I would not go as far as he does and vote for Trump. If I am in California, I vote for Stein. As a protest vote.
That is all we have left in America, isn't it? Once Bernie Sanders lost the nomination we have nothing but futile protest.
I'll stipulate to any negative critique of Clinton based on facts, but to pretend that she's any where near as fucked up as Trump is absurd.
This election is a referendum on whether or not we want a new form of government headed by a fascist strongman.
I'm a Woody Guthrie American -- and this machine kills fascists.