Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention

That seems about right. Seeing the ability of Ronald Reagan to wheel
and deal with the backing of Wall Street and international
corporations, the Democrats, straight from defeat, took a long look at
the likes of Jimmy Carter and hitched their wagon to the Pot of Gold
at the end of the Wall Street Rainbow.
But in truth, the downfall began with the rise of corporate power.
United, corporations held more money and could buy far more influence
than could even the most powerful Union. Back when the Working/Middle
Class was organized in opposition to the individual company, it was a
much more balanced struggle. But while the business leaders moved to
form a strong confederacy of corporations, the working class continued
to mount a battle against individual companies. Labor was actually
saved by the Second World War. Our national attention was focused on
building a massive war machine. A strong labor force was central, and
also profitable to those business' involved in producing war machines,
etc.
But following the war, business' began once again to mount a frontal
attack on Labor. It took them up to the time of Ronald Reagan, but
the groundwork was being carefully laid from Harry Truman, forward.
But, just for the sake of perspective, ask yourself just when those so
called "Golden Years" that we all dream about returning to, just when
did they exist?
In one sense, it is not just the Democratic Party that has abandoned
the People. The Working Class, itself has exchanged its original
dream of, "A job, A Home and A Family", for a dream of sudden wealth.

Carl Jarvis


On 6/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> The experts are saying that the abandonment started about 35 years ago.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:38 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Cc: Miriam Vieni
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief
> Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention
>
> With a roll of drums, a blare of trumpets and a 21 gun salute, I, Carl
> Jarvis, being of sound mind and turned stomach do hereby part all
> connection
> with the Democratic Party.
> I further state that the Democratic Party abandoned me, and the entire
> Working Class somewhere in the late Twentieth Century, becoming evident
> with the election of Bill Clinton.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 6/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Greenwald writes: "Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department
>> official whom Defense One calls "the woman expected to run the
>> Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,' this week advocated for 'sending more
>> American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the
>> Obama administration has been willing to commit.'"
>>
>> Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
>>
>>
>> Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More
>> Bombing and Intervention By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
>> 22 June 16
>>
>> Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense
>> One calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary
>> Clinton," this week advocated for "sending more American troops into
>> combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration
>> has been willing to commit." In an interview with that outlet,
>> Flournoy "said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar
>> al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American
>> boots to fight the Islamic State in the region." She had previously
>> "condemned the Obama administration's ISIS policy as ineffectual,"
>> denouncing it as "under-resourced."
>>
>> This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited
>> military coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what
>> he called "limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing
>> almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy
>> created - "military coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that
>> would entail "a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force.
>> 'If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff
>> means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian
>> assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is
>> guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons,
>> and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in
>> Syria.
>> Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or
>> no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton
>> herself has previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation
>> with Russia.
>> Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last
>> December that the policy Clinton advocates "would require
>> 'substantial' ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of
>> a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces."
>> Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton's
>> defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with
>> escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no
>> rational person should think that U.S. military action will be
>> designed to "help Syrians."
>> It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far
>> more militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot
>> given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven
>> predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has
>> implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and
>> she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to
>> Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's
>> appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel
>> and Palestine, with Clinton's supporters taking an even more hard-line
>> position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the
>> leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve
>> the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.
>> Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based
>> overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military
>> force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That
>> Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone
>> who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. . She favored
>> supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat
>> larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before
>> withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
>> during the historic protests in Cairo."
>> Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and
>> misleading "scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact
>> that Bernie Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his
>> campaign against Hillary Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a
>> day. Maybe these same intrepid journalists could spend a little time
>> calculating the "cost to American taxpayers" from the massive,
>> bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns their favorite candidate
>> is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones she's likely -
>> based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be worth doing
>> given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many, many
>> magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
>> have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
>> But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war
>> and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one
>> thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline,
>> completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs
>> to Hillary's kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've
>> invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to
>> ensure they don't have to talk about it. But now Clinton's
>> almost-certain defense secretary is already - months before she's in
>> power - expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous
>> interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy - at
>> least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil
>> - much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
>> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
>> valid.
>>
>> Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
>> https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-c
>> hief-a
>> lready-advocating-for-more-bombing-and-intervention/https://theinterce
>> pt.com
>> /2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-chief-already-advocating-
>> for-mo
>> re-bombing-and-intervention/
>> Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More
>> Bombing and Intervention By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
>> 22 June 16
>> ichele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense
>> One calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary
>> Clinton," this week advocated for "sending more American troops into
>> combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration
>> has been willing to commit." In an interview with that outlet,
>> Flournoy "said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar
>> al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more American
>> boots to fight the Islamic State in the region." She had previously
>> "condemned the Obama administration's ISIS policy as ineffectual,"
>> denouncing it as "under-resourced."
>>
>>
>> This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited
>> military coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what
>> he called "limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing
>> almost two years later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy
>> created - "military coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that
>> would entail "a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force.
>> 'If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff
>> means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian
>> assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is
>> guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons,
>> and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in
>> Syria.
>> Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or
>> no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton
>> herself has previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation
>> with Russia.
>> Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last
>> December that the policy Clinton advocates "would require
>> 'substantial' ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of
>> a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces."
>> Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton's
>> defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with
>> escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no
>> rational person should think that U.S. military action will be
>> designed to "help Syrians."
>> It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far
>> more militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot
>> given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven
>> predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has
>> implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and
>> she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to
>> Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's
>> appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel
>> and Palestine, with Clinton's supporters taking an even more hard-line
>> position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the
>> leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve
>> the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.
>> Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based
>> overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military
>> force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That
>> Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone
>> who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. . She favored
>> supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat
>> larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before
>> withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
>> during the historic protests in Cairo."
>> Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and
>> misleading "scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact
>> that Bernie Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his
>> campaign against Hillary Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a
>> day. Maybe these same intrepid journalists could spend a little time
>> calculating the "cost to American taxpayers" from the massive,
>> bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns their favorite candidate
>> is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones she's likely -
>> based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be worth doing
>> given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many, many
>> magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
>> have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
>> But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war
>> and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one
>> thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline,
>> completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs
>> to Hillary's kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've
>> invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to
>> ensure they don't have to talk about it. But now Clinton's
>> almost-certain defense secretary is already - months before she's in
>> power - expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous
>> interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy - at
>> least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil
>> - much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>