Essay:Hillary's inner Goldwater-girl
If you are reading this either you have voluntarily chosen to view this essay or you really like this sort of tripe. This essay is entirely the work of RobSmith and its comments were found to be offensive and so was buried by some random censor.
To see a reason why this "thinking", or approach to dissent, is generally wrong please read Animal Farm.
and her relationship with the conservative movement.
Much has been said about the conservative movement's loathing of Hillary Clinton. Much of the narrative spin has been written by Clinton clones. This has led to frustration within the conservative movement, a feeling their side of the tale has been distorted or not heard at all. Conservative animosity toward Hillary Clinton is based more upon a feeling of betrayal and less upon differences.
As in any group, the betrayal by an insider makes the offender worse than an infidel. A card-carrying-Communist who burnt their Party Card was guilty of a capital offense. A takfir is not an ignorant infidel, he has rejected the truth for a lie and is a traitor his nation. "Self-hating Jews" like Noam Chomsky, Bob Novak or Bernie Sanders are accused of anti-Semitism. Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is the one unpardonable sin.
What has the conservative movement amazed, amused, and envious for many years now is, how Hillary Clinton has bamboozled and hoodwinked a large portion of liberals and progressives into thinking she's a success story of one of their own. But conservatives know her all to well, her duplicity, amorality, and scheming. Trust me, she's one of us.
As Friedrich Nietzsche who at one time was very close to Richard Wagner and later accused him of charlatanry said, "Know that I know who you are."
King & Goldwater
Nixon and Martin Luther King were friends. King was a Republican. Nixon was a traditional Vice President, outside the loop in day to day decision making (the mode of modern Vice Presidents as hands on trusted managers and advisers begins with Mondale, with Dan Quayle and Al Gore being the exceptions). The Republicans had supported the federal anti-lynching bill before Congress since 1927, which FDR always opposed.[note 1] The New Deal coalition consisted of Northeastern liberals and Southern Democrats, and despite overtures and inroads to the African-American vote by FDR and his wife Eleanor, black loyalty to the Democratic party by the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon contest still was not what it is today. Liberal New Dealers were always careful not to alienate racist Southern Democrats.
Phyllis Schlafly, who was to play a big role in promoting Barry Goldwater in 1964, at the 1960 Republican convention led a revolt of 'moral conservatives' who opposed "Richard Nixon's stance against segregation and discrimination", according to Wikipedia and the New York Times.
King did not know the Kennedys. Two weeks before the 1960 presidential election King was sitting in jail in Atlanta after an arrest on some trumped up charges in a non-violent protest. Nixon didn't have the pull in the administration some people would imagine and was unable to do anything about it. John Kennedy, against his brother Bobby's wishes, intervened on King's behalf. Bobby and other campaign advisers feared alienating the Southern white racist vote, as FDR and the New Dealers before always feared. But the risk paid off. King was released from jail and publicly thanked Kennedy. The die was cast: Afro-Americans became a solid voting bloc within the Democratic party ever since. 
Four years later conservative Republican Barry Goldwater was nominated to face Lyndon Johnson who amazingly pushed through civil rights legislation languishing before Congress for more than 100 years after the Emancipation Proclaimation. Jack Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt never dared to attempt what Johnson was able to accomplish. The day before Kennedy's assassination Nixon held a press conference in Dallas critical of Kennedy's failure to move on civil rights legislation. Said Nixon, "Despite the fact that President Kennedy has one of the largest majorities in Congress of any president in history, it’s one of the poorest percentage records of accomplishment in history.”
Goldwater's nomination marked both an idealogical and geographical shift in the Republican party from eastern moderate-liberal appeasers and compromisers to a western conservative populist prairie fire. Minority rights were not the big issue in the electorates mind: war and peace, and nuclear holocaust dominated.
This was in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis and the burning monk on the streets of Saigon which horrified American newspaper readers fairly new to, and uncomfortable with, their role as the world's 'policeman'.
Divisions within the Republican party, and its weakened eastern establishment represented by Nelson Rockefeller, led to offerring up Barry Goldwater in a ritual of human sacrifice. Few kamikaze candidates have embarked upon an impossible task with as much fervor as Goldwater did, determined to make a statement about the condition of society and America's place as a great world leader. His slogan was, "In your heart you know he's right".
We don't see "civil rights" as a debate topic, we do see "centralization in government" - a codeword for states rights.
The bill lying before Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, offered Goldwater an opportumity no Republican had since the Civil War and Reconstruction : to break the stronghold Democrats had on the 'Solid South'. In hindsight, Hillary Clinton and conservatives will say Goldwater was willing to throw morality to the wind if it meant he could carry a few states at all, which he did in the South.
The bill itself never could have become law without Republicans voting for it, so strong was Democratic opposition to it. But nominating as their Presidential standardbearer a candidate who voted against their own party leadership and a national consensus was one of the most disasterous errors an organized American political party has made in history. It solidified the gains John Kennedy won among black voters four years earlier.
And now for all the one world Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger conspiracy types, and their Salafi-jihadi cousins, lets examine Hillary's connections to the New World Order.
The "self-hating Jew" Bernie Sanders criticizes Hillary Clinton's relationship with a Rasputin-type figure associated with the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger, while Hillary boasts Henry Kissinger praises her for running the State Department "the most effective way I've ever seen." Kissinger didn't have the friends in the US Justice Department to watch his back in the conduct of foreign policy that Hillary has.[note 2] Kissinger's praise evidently is a reference to her ability to conduct diplomacy while skirting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and guarding secrecy. It was Kissinger, afterall, who urged Nixon to do something about the Pentagon Papers leak. And the FOIA was a post-Watergate reform passed after Kissinger and Nixon's departure because of their obsession with secrecy.
A World Restored
Who is Henry Kissinger? Kissinger is an academic who came to fame resurrecting and rehabilitating the reputation of a notorious right-wing diplomat responsible for a period of time known as the Restoration, or the Restoration of the Monarchy, or the Restoration of the House of Bourbon in France after the quasi-democratic/socialist uprising in Paris resulting in the execution of Maria Antoinette and the chaotic Napoleanic Wars that exported the ideas of the French Revolution across European borders threatening the established ruling order and social system everywhere. After Napolean's Waterloo, a right-wing conservative reaction led by Prince Metternich redrew the map of Europe allowing a few Superpowers (Hapsburg, Bourbon, Romanov, Hohenzollern, and Whettin) to divide and rule in various spheres of influence[note 3]. Imperialist repression was the rule for the coming decades and revolutionary ideas like "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" had to wait for another day.
Metternich is Kissinger's hero because he restored peace, order, and stability to a world with an uncertain future. Nixon first became familiar with Kissinger after reading Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy published in 1957 (by Frederick A. Praeger Press) while he was vice president. The two shared a view of "limited nuclear war" which differed from the Eisenhower's policy of "massive retaliation".[note 5] Nixon did not have influence within the Eisenhower administration to affect policy, but as president brought Kissinger on board as his chief National Security Adviser in 1969 (indeed, the position of National Security Adviser within the White House was little known at the time. Kissinger cut the mold by which its power and influence on the president and within the White House has been known ever since.[note 6]
The Age of Nixon
Kissinger and Nixon are very much the architects of the modern age. Metternich had constructed an international order which kept the peace (moreless) for nearly 100 years, from 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. By contrast, the idiots who crafted the Treaty of Versailles established a peace structure lasting only 20 years, from 1919 to 1939 when Hitler ignited another worldwide conflagration. When World War II ended in 1945, there was no forward looking peace treaty in the traditional sense. Only the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal concerned with past events. Some may say the United Nations Charter was set up to maintain international peace, but within 5 years the UN was at war with one of its chief signatories - the Soviet Union - who was also a permanent member of the Security Council. Such was the esteem Stalin held for FDR's grand vision for world peace. By 1968 Nixon wanted to end the series of unwinnable wars with the communist bloc (Russia & China) that the United States kept getting involved in (as in Korea and Vietnam).[note 7] With Metternich as his model, Kissinger showed the way.[note 8]
The Helsinki Accords of 1975, negotiated during Kissinger's tenure as Secretary of State - 30 years after the end of World War II - is the closest thing resembling a formal peace treaty after WWII. Russia and China are now trading partners with the US, and the risks of war with Russia or China must be weighed against the economic interdependence all parties have developed. Thank Nixon, and Kissinger, for the global prosperity we've sustained without global nuclear confrontation for nearly five decades.
1968: A pivotal year
Hillary would have us believe she went from being an ultra-conservative Goldwater girl to a liberal Rockefeller Republican in one step, by-passing the centrist position of Richard Nixon.[note 9] All while working for Nixon's Defense Secretary and campaigning for liberal anti-war Democrat Gene McCarthy.
The logic of imagining Hillary went from being Goldwater girl to Rockefeller Republican to avoid Nixon is like asking us to believe ultraconservative Ted Cruz supporters embraced the RINO Donald Trump because the centrist John Kasich and his supporters were racists.
Nixon, like Johnson in 1964, ran as a peace candidate, his slogan being, Peace With Honor. And the evidence points to Hillary being a Nixon supporter well into his first term up until the time she met her future husband, despite the revisionism and contortions she and Clinton appologists have offered to establish leftist and liberal bona fidas, as if she had left the GOP over some ideological or moral principle. Personal relationships and opportunism guided her every step.
The Old Guard
By the Spring primaries of 1968 (coinciding with the Prague Spring[note 10]), Vietnam was wholly the Democrats' baby. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the WMD of that day, cooked up by an administration and Congress eager to feed the "flower of the nation"[note 11] to the military industrial complex. Vietnam was little more than a stimulus program to reduce unemployment.[note 12] Pacifists and isolationists on the far-left of the Democratic party began protesting their own war. Purple patriots of both parties, neither pacifist blue nor communist red, fell into line and supported another Democrat foreign war as they had in World War I, World War II, and Korea.
FDR and Jack Kennedy knew Republicans could be counted on in a national security emergency. FDR had Gen. Bill Donovan head up the OSS and Kennedy had former Halliburton chief John McCone take over the CIA from another Republican fall guy he fired.[note 13] Lyndon Johnson himself said Nixon was closer to his policy than Humphrey who was chasing the liberal pansy-ass Kremlin inspired anti-war movement of Gene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy.
Democrats were divided 3 ways: old fashioned New Dealers opposing their pampered and spoiled baby boomer children in a 'generation gap', against the Southern redneck and racist "Law and Order" platform of Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey had an odd coalition of hardcore New Deal regular Democrats, basically labor unions, and a few anti-war pot smoking hippies who became George McGovern's core constituents in 1972. But even then Nixon was eating away at the great New Deal base when he won the backing of Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union.
Nixon, despite his plurality, became the face of America. The racist vote went to Gov. Wallace. Nixon reflected the feelings of a generation, reared in the adversity of the Great Depression, victorious over fascism, only to see their country wracked by divisions in more prosperous times with the constant threat of nuclear war hanging over them. In a drunken delirium on the eve of his resignation, speaking to a portrait of Jack Kennedy who likewise had his presidency cut short, Nixon said, "When the American people look at you they see what they want to be. When they see me they see who they really are," flaws and all.
The Tonkin fraud
As it turned out, the Gulf of Tonkin fraud perpetrated upon the American people by the Democrats was exposed in the Pentagon Papers on Richard Nixon's watch. In a typical patriotic Republican knee jerk reaction, Nixon tried to coverup his Democratic predecessor's mistakes and guard public opinion from going against the war the Democrats started. He created the plumbers unit to fix government leaks after J. Edgar Hoover told him there was very little the FBI could do legally to fight internal policy subversion.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton took up with her lesbian roommate, the grand daughter of former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who likely told Hillary the name 'Acheson',[note 14] was blamed by 54,000 American families as responsible for the deaths of their sons in the Korean War. It was not a time to become a Democrat. Longtime traditional Democrats were becoming more and more disillussioned with the Democratic party daily. Hillary had been elected class president at a top liberal, Ivy League college - while still a Republican. Hillary would have us believe she swam against the tide based upon inventions out of whole cloth to slander the GOP as racist two and half decades later. It should be noted here, recent scholarship has now exonerated the name Acheson for incompetence in diplomacy in the months leading up to the Korean war.
Hillary meets Bill and the '72 election
One third of all Democrats - New Dealers and Southern whites - ultimately joined with traditional Republicans to form the Silent Majority, handing Nixon a bigger victory in 1972 than Johnson scored against Goldwater in '64, Ike scored against Stevenson (twice) in the '50s, or FDR scored against Alf Landon in 1936. All within living memory of many voters. It was very much the same coalition of centrists that voted to 'Bury Goldwater' that voted to bury McGovern. The pot smoking, limp wristed, blame America extremists represented by Hillary's boyfriend and her Wellsley classmates went down in smoke and flames. But somehow Bill and Hillary Clinton saw the future: inspired by Gov. George Wallace and his wife Lurleen; when Wallace was term-limited out, his wife took his place.
It should be noted, in the pre-Roe v. Wade days McGovern opposed abortion and vehemently tried to distance himself from supporters who held what was considered an extreme leftist position in 1972. When campaign consultants and advisers attempted to organize groups of young, attractive women and girls along the line of Goldwater-girls, McGovern nixed the idea thinking it was a sexist exploitation of women. McGovern was a parish pastor for a brief time and earned the nickname as the Preacher Politician.  His speeches resembled sermons and his moralizing style was inspired by an earlier populist Midwest Plainsman, 3-time Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan.
The 1970s realignment
The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling coupled with the 1962 ruling banning school prayer was another galvinizing factor among social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, many of which were traditional Democratic voters based on economic self interest. This was particularly true among Southern Democrat Bible-belt voters.
In the mid-term election of 1978 their defection from the Democratic party was beginning to take shape. Televangelist Pat Robertson, in the atmosphere of de-regulation of television airwaves that allowed him to expand his Christian Broadcasting Network nationally, used his 700 Club to begin a series of discussions, like legalized abortion as a moral issue facing the church in a political context. Robertson was the son of a Democratic Senator who held elective office in Virginia for 50 years.
The feeling among many Southern Bible-belt voters was one of betrayal - that the Democratic party had been taken over by the New Left.[note 15] Even Jimmy Carter whom they enthusiastically supported as a Christian candidate just two years prior, to their amazement had no intention to confront or rollback the social engineering of New Left radicals, whom they considered to have hijacked the Democratic party and were leading the country down the path of social experimentation.
Roe v. Wade was considered a victory for feminists, the school prayer ban a victory for atheists. As to racial politics, affirmative action was born out of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and seemed to go beyond a mere guarantee of equality and non-discrimination. The big spending welfare state trickled down to mean slower job growth and poorer overall economic performance. Just four years after the Republican party was on life-support in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation, the party staged a dramatic comeback at all levels, state and federal. All this accrued to the advantage of the aged Ronald Reagan, waiting patiently in the wings. But the marriage between tax-cutters and anti-abortionists wasn't complete yet. Things were to get worse for the Democrats, and the nation, before they got better.[note 16]
The Republican Party - the Party of the Union, the party that saved the Union, can never outbid the Democratic party in social spending and government handouts. Yet it is forced to confront these issues every election. Its focus has always been on national security, national defense, and the nation's ability to meet the competing costs of social spending and defense spending. Time and again Republican presidents have had to pay lip service or forge compromises to continue their budgetary, defense or foreign policy agendas. Nixon created the Earned Income Credit. Reagan passed the Martin Luther King holiday - something the Democrats when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House under Carter were too paralyzed by internal strife to accomplish. Baby Bush agreed to a minimum wage hike in order to get Congress to pay the salaries of the troops in Iraq.
Conservative women have always been in the forefront of the women's rights movement. By the mid 1990s while preparing for her husbands reelection bid Hillary told NPR,
Goldwater himself was making similiar comments about social conservatives :
She had not moved much from Goldwater's position in 1964 when she debated fellow high-school students that getting involved in a protracted conventional ground war in Vietnam was probably a big mistake. But the "peace candidate" won and the tuff-talking warmonger was burried. After 30 years Hillary and Goldwater's views were unchanged.[note 17]
Begging the reader's pardon momentarily, we're going to indulge in some vulgar stereotypes: it's not surprising a woman who made political science a career choice, in her early years focused on children's issues.
Republicans tend to shy away from social issues ever since Reconstruction. Republicans stripped whites who engaged in rebellion of the vote and gave it to blacks and earned the undying hatred of Democrats for generations. To the extent Republicans embrace social issues at all, (and we will use the liberal and Democratic understanding of "social issue" to mean social engineering and government handouts[note 18]), after opposing a proposal they then introduce their own modest scaled down version.
The question is, Why did Hillary jump parties? When John Dillinger was asked, Why do you rob banks?, his reply was, Because that's where the money is. Why did Hillary become a Democrat? Because that's where the votes are, particulary if your ambition is to marry a Senator and your boyfriend plans to run for office as a Democrat.
Hillary's inner-conservatism was on full display in the 2016 primaries. At first she posed as an experienced diplomat, national security expert, and statesman (or stateswoman or statesperson or whatever). But that didn't get her anywhere, this was the Democratic party afterall and not a general election. These voters could care less about national security and world peace, their only concern being gimme gimme gimme and what's-in-it-for-me. So she appealed to the center by saying economists claimed Bernie Sanders promises were crazy and would bankrupt America. But that didn't gain any traction either. After the nomination, like Nixon, like Reagan, like Kasich, like Trump and other tuff talking budget hawks before her, she was matching or trying to outdo Sanders' pie-in-the-sky rhetoric by promising hundreds of billions for student aid to prepare young adults for jobs that don't exist.[note 19]
Denial and triangulation
By 1992, Hillary created the myth that she left the party because Nixon and the GOP were racist in 1968. While this fit the Democratic party talking points to attack Republicans in 1992, it had no bearing in reality in 1968. The Political Science major at the top of her class knew it was the GOP that provided the votes for passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, her hero Barry Goldwater being one of 6 Republicans voting with 22 Democratic segregationists to oppose. As she ascended the national stage it was easier for her to deny Nixon than Goldwater.
Nixon posed as an Eisenhower-like figure ready to rescue America from another Democrat foreign war. The domestic issues of racism and civil rights, which divided the Democrats, the Democrats did to themselves. Racists rallied to the law and order platform of George Wallace, a Democrat running on a third party ticket. Republicans studiously avoided issues of race and focused on the mishandling of the Vietnam war which was at the heart of domestic discontent. The "racists" Hillary alleged at the 1968 Republican convention were Republican patriots who supported FDR, Truman, and Johnson's foreign wars against fascism and communism; by 1992 Hillary's rewrite of history was extraordinary and personally offensive to many. Particularly now, we have seen her as Senator do exactly what Republicans since the First World War have done: cast aside partisanship and crossover party lines in a spirit of patriotism to support an administration of the opposing party in a foreign war and national security emergency.
Nixon's so called 'Southern Strategy' is a rewrite of history which took it's present shape in the Clinton era. Every candidate who ever ran for president from whichever party has had a 'Southern Strategy'. FDR put John Nance Garner of Texas on the ticket to get the Southern racist vote. John Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson for the same reason (in 1960 Johnson was hardly an advocate of civil rights; no one knew him then to be a closet liberal. And by the time they did find out, he was a one term president so hated and despised in his own party he didn't bother to seek reelection). Michael Dukakis put Lloyd Bentsen of Texas on the ticket to take back the racist vote Ronald Reagan supposedly cornered the market on.
No one today thinks of Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas, or even New York. More and more we see her for who she is - a traditional conservative from the Land of Lincoln and the Party of Lincoln. Despite all the hype of putting an Hispanic on the ticket (Xavier Becerra, Tom Perez; or Julián Castro), her choice of a Virginian obviously is an appeal to traditional yankee-hating Southerners to "balance the ticket".
During Bill Clinton's presidency the term, 'triangulation', entered the political lexicon. Triangulation involves assuming the posture of a moderate, hijacking the ideas of your opponents, and selling out your political base. The Clinton's mastered the form. Be it labor unions sold-out to NAFTA and free trade, or people in poverty cut off by "ending welfare as we know it", or calling women victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse "bimbos" and "trailer park trash", or locking up African-Americans enmasse in their 1994 Crime bill. In the end the Clinton's still posed as divisive figures and partisan trash-talkers, playing to the worst instincts and fears of the people they betrayed, rather than assume the leadership role of consensus builders in a common purpose.
The Clinton's were incredibly divisive figures, and deliberately so. From the end of Reconstruction until Bill Clinton, Arkansas had only one Republican governor - Winthrop Rockefeller - whom it's safe to say bought his seat with his family's fortune. There was a 93 year uninterupted stretch of Democratic governors.[note 20] In Bill Clinton's final term there were only 6 GOP Senators of 35 in the upper chamber, and 15 of 100 in the Assembly. The GOP of Arkansas had no means whatsover to affect thier views or agenda, effectively non-existent. When Bill Clinton came to Washington, he had no clue what a Republican at the national level was because he never dealt with one. Hillary Rodham was probably the first Republican he met in his whole life. But none of these facts prevented him from spewing hate and division about Republicans and the Republican party, blaming them for all the social and economic ills that had befallen his beloved Arkansas and America, blaming them for even the sexual indiscretions in his own life that the media and his Democratic primary opponents were uncovering and openly speculating on. Like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton struck a responsive chord among an angry and fearful electorate scapegoating others with cheap easy answers for the problems facing America. And like Nixon in 1968, he didn't need 51% of the vote to win in a three-way contest.
The Democrats were finally united, all 42% of them, intent to show they could lead the country and the world after they tore America apart with their Vietnam war and the economic and foreign policy disasters of the Carter administration. The baby boomers finally came of age, and Hillary was one if its chief strategists in the politics of hardball. Nixon taught her well. Dirty tricks don't matter so long as you win. But Nixon's mistake was covering up the misdeeds of others - even his opponents. Herein lies the essence of Clintonism - accusing your opponents of the misdeeds you yourself are guilty of so as to neutralize criticism. Thus Gennifer Flowers became the "daughter of Willie Horton,"[note 21] invoking and manipulating the politics of racial divisiveness to cover her husband's infidelity. Hillary hired plumbers to fix the "bitches" her husband was seeing, causing friction in her longterm plans for the couple and herself.
Upon becoming First Lady, Hillary returned to where it all began, her suburban high school in Park Ridge Illinois where her parents had white flighted to in the 1950s so that she could recieve the superb education she was now gushing about. If you're looking for a portrait of Hillary's conversion on the road to Damascus when she came out of the deep darkness of conservatism to walk in the bright warm sunshine of liberalism, you won't find it here. But you will find her rugged individualism that evolved into her own views which "are not dogmatically Republican nor dogmatically Democratic." During the school's mock election, she was assigned to play Lyndon Johnson in a mock debate, forcing her to research and study views that were not her own, and developing within her a unique perspective for which she expressed gratitude to her Republican father and conservative teachers. The tolerance she learned toward other's views explains her undergraduate thesis on Saul Alinsky.[note 22] Hillary has always been more effective playing the demure policy wonk who "worked within the system" as the New York Times described it, than the wild-eyed radical.
So why was it easier for Hillary to repudiate Nixon in 1974 when she joined the House impeachment committee staff, than to repudiate Goldwater when NPR finally asked her to explain why she didn't in 1996? The Watergate scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. The impeachment committee looked extensively at Nixon's "incursion"[note 23] into Cambodia. Goldwater had been the original non-interventionist, anti-Vietnam War candidate in 1964 with his advocacy of tactical nukes to end the conflict quickly. Johnson and Nixon, who ran as peace candidates, averaged 120 dead American service personnel per week between the two of them for ten solid years. Many Goldwater supporters felt vindicated, as there certainly were no Democrats opposed to escalating the Vietnam conflict in 1964 when Goldwater was almost alone. Some Goldwater backers had more in common with the anti-war isolationists who backed Gene McCarthy and George McGovern than the Nixon-Johnson Silent Majority war hawks.
Some thought it a war crime when Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia, and an Article of Impeachment was formulated based on this. Nixon allegedly responded, "the president can bomb whoever he wishes".[note 24] In the ensuing legal arguments the law came down on Nixon's side and the impeachment Article was defeated. The War Powers Act and two standing Congressional Intelligence Committees were born out of these legal and constitutional debates. The impeachment committee settled on lesser charges based on a third-rate burglarly to pursue their pettiness and vindictiveness. Make no mistake, Hillary's involvement with the committee, and using it to promote herself and her own career, was a big factor in bringing an impeachment inquiry against the Clinton's for their involvement in the Whitewater land deal. But legal and constitutional questions over impeacheability for the Clinton's activities prior to taking office caused the committee to settle on lesser charges based on sex in the Oval Office.
Clinton and GOP national security experts
When Obama named Hillary Secretary of State, she was dubbed "The Great Right Hope". Noemie Emery explained why :
George Shultz, who annointed Baby Bush heir of the conservative movement and the Reagan legacy over John McCain during the 2000 primaries, said “I think she could be a very good secretary of state.” Shultz prophetically warned however, that her selection after competing against Obama in a vicious campaign for the nomination might have weakened Hillary and Obama's relationship. It is hard to imagine Hillary, who pursuaded Obama to betray his principles for the totally unnecessary and disasterous Libyan intervention, doing something as inane as Obama's Apology tour aimed at weakening the United States.
In the Clintons first year in office they gutted the missile defense system. In the second year when a vacancy occurred in the office of Secretary of Defense, they nominated Adm. Bobby Inman, the former head of the program (then known as High Frontier) to fill the slot. In true Clinton fashion they wanted it both ways, throwing a bone to the GOP national security estsblishment while cutting the Stars Wars program and funnelling the money into vote buying schemes. Inman, citing developments in the Whitewater investigation, declined the nomination. Nevertheless, the episode was cited throughout the Clinton years as evidence of their dedication to bi-partisan cooperation and a commitment to conservative values.
The purpose of SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative, the proper name for Star Wars) was to abandon the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in favor of Assured Survival, in any conflict with Russia. Reagan even made periodic assurances to sceptics, who claimed the program was too costly and the risks too provocative, that the technology would be shared with Russia. But in 2016, Reagan's fantasies as critics called it, are real and operational : the entire arsenal of Russian nuclear warheads can be wiped out on the ground in minutes before they launch (leaving only the sea launched systems).
Kissinger Associates was originally founded by Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft in 1982. In 1999 former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty's consulting organization merged to form Kissinger McLarty Associates. The firms split up after Hillary's unsuccesful 2008 presidential bid, but there remains overlap between members serving with both organizations. No, these firms are not a plot to take over the world and rule the planet. These consulting firms are essentially like day-labor job search offices for unemployed foreign policy and national security experts.
Clinton administration veterans served on Dr. Kissinger's Transatlantic Alliance task force, a sort of civilian parallel of the militarily dominated NATO. Notably among them were Tom Donilon, Stu Eizenstat, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson. Donilan served as National Security Advisor for roughly the entire tenure of Hillary Clinton's stewardship at the State Department.[note 25] Eizenstat was Bill Clinton's Ambassador to the EU, among other important senior positions in the Clinton administration of the 90s. Both Donilan and Eizenstat have been variously described as neoconservative. Laura Tyson went on to be the Dean of the London School of Business. In 2004 the task force issued a report on why the continuing need for NATO in the post Cold War era, including a recommendation that NATO must increasingly concern itself with threats emanating from outside Europe. European governments, up until the War on Terror, have greeted US requests for burden sharing in Asia and Africa coolly for decades. After 9/11 the response has been mixed.
Kissinger Associates are closely associated with, and Mack McClarty was a client of the UK firm of Hakluyt. Stephan Halper and Alexander Downer, who set up and compromised Trump coffee boy George Papadopoulos to rig a counterintelligence investigation on team Trump, were members of Hakluyt's Advisory Board.
But who is Brent Scrowcroft? Scowcroft served as National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and Papa Bush.
The Scowcroft Group, a firm similiar to McLarty and Kissinger's group where he still remains active, also had on its board of directors Bob Strauss. Strauss rebuilt the Democratic party in the 1970s as DNC Chairman after McGovern's defeat. Strauss managed the 1976 Democratic convention which nominated Jimmy Carter. When Carter was elected Scowcroft was out of a job.
Scowcroft returned as National Security Adviser to Papa Bush in 1989. Papa Bush appointed Bob Strauss Ambassador to the Soviet Union, which in short order made Strauss the first US Ambassador to the Russian Federation, setting an example to the infant democracy how a two-party system and bipartisanship work. In 1992 when the Clintons took the White House, Scowcroft was again out of a job. Scowcroft and Papa Bush then collaborated on a book about the end of the Cold War entitled, A World Transformed, an obvious take-off of Kissinger's Metternich book, A World Restored.
Scowcroft is no neocon. He was vocal in his criticism of Baby Bush, Hillary Clinton, and the other neocons of what they did and were doing in Iraq. By 2015 Hillary bowed to Scowcroft's superior wisdom on the issue, and Scowcroft has become an enthusiastic supporter for Hillary among GOP establishment types.
Scowcroft is the guy photographed toasting the butchers of the Tiananmen Square massacre just days later. The Chinese government killed at least 2300 of its own people and many survivors sent to the Chinese gulag. Scowcroft flew to Beijing to assure them trade agreements would remain in place (e.g, selling cheap Chinese made consumer goods at Walmart where Hillary Clinton sat on the board of directors) and there would be no sanctions. There has not been any similiar mass pro-democracy movements in China since for nearly 30 years now.
George H.W. Bush
George H.W. Bush (Papa Bush) was the 41st president of the United States ignominiously defeated for reelection by a violent sex addict and pervert, Bill Clinton. But the two shared much in common. Both were Yalies. Both were veterans of the CIA.
Bush was involved in Operation Mongoose in the early and mid 1960s. Immediately after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, John Kennedy set about his own covert operation to remove Castro and the communists from power, this time with more determination than he showed at the Bay of Pigs. Bush took part in the training and equiping of Cuban refugees for another planned assault on Cuba, which never materialized. 10 years later Bush headed the Agency.
Bill Clinton was recruited into the CIA in 1969 after he was booted out of Oxford and the Rhodes Scholarship program. He lost his deferment and was drafted. Through his political patron, Sen, J. William Fulbright, he was able to perform the two years active duty he owed the country in the CIA rather than military. He spent the two years as a snitch on European anti-Vietnam war movements. Nixon was convinced European movements were organized from Moscow and ordered the CIA to get the evidence. Bill Clinton was quite the catch for the US government; its not everyday you can scoop up a Rhodes Scholar as a conscript. Affirmative action allowed a few African Americans to escape the draft, as whites regularly did, but far too many conscripts out of proportion to their numbers were black high school drop outs. Po'boy Clinton was just another example of white privilege. In his mysterious trip to Moscow, who knows, he may have been the courier for Nikita Khruschev's memoirs which were smuggled out of Russia and translated by his Oxford roommate, Strobe Talbot, and published in the West by the CIA.
CIA is like the Marines. Once a CIA man always a CIA man.[note 26] There is a common bond among veterans. Both were involved in Iran-Contra. Clinton through his Stephens family connections with the BCCI money laundering scheme and the Mena Arkansas airstrip which was continuing an anti-communist South American gun-running scheme, much like Operation Mongoose 20 years earlier. Bush was involved on the Ollie North and Iran side of the equation.
Now some object to the notion the CIA is/was involved in international drug trafficing as the stuff of conspiracy theorists. However the idea is not new. In fact, a wholly government supported foreign intelligence bureau is a uniquely American idea. In an open society with a free press and government transparancy, a foreign intelligence service would have to be pretty stupid to not read the budget of the United States government and not see exactly what programs are the CIA's priorities. The KGB, Mossad, German intelligence, as well as China and Japan, all were founded and continue to be subsidized with private external sources of revenue. Throughout the 1980s, drug legalization was a national debate personified by Bill Buckley advocating consumer choice and a free market, and Charlie Rangel advocating totalitarian control with universal healthcare for methadone addicts. In popular culture, Director Brian de Palma's two most famous films, Scarface and The Untouchables propounded the notion prohibition only made gangsters rich.[note 27] One of Papa Bush's first acts was to implement seizure laws, "taking the profit out of drug trafficing", i.e. taking the profit out for everybody except the government. Seizure laws are an admission the War on Drugs is a failure; it's not worth law enforcements time and effort to interdict drug traffic until after narcotics are imported, distributed, and consumed. Then you go after the profits.
The personal bond between the Clintons and the Bushes developed when Bill Clinton thwarted an assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush's life in 1993. Having been in that position as president, Papa Bush knew better than anybody Clinton didn't have to do it. He could have ignored the intelligence and let it happen. Now Clinton owns Bush. The two looted donors to the Haitian earthquake relief fund together.
Papa Bush has remained tight lipped, in his words, "what I really think" about Bill Clinton's sexual deviancy and unethical conduct, which other former president's have broken custom to openly criticized. Now Papa Bush looks at Clinton like the son he never had. And in a strange way, Clinton looks at Papa Bush like the father he never had.
Return of the neocons
The New York Times noted in 2014 neoconservatives were already
In November 2015, Gen. McCrystal in Defense One was already praising Hillary Clinton's strategy to defeat Daesh. By March 2016 GOP national security experts were openly criticizing Trump.
The Cairo Review noted in early 2016
The future of NATO
Should Hillary win, the future of Christendom for the first time lies in the hands of three women, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, and Hillary Clinton. Vladimir Putin is the only Westerner with balls to stand up for traditional family values against the homosexual agenda. Should the four ever be able to agree, this would be the coalition to rival the paternalistic order led by the Caliph.
The problems in NATO are immense. Of course nobody wants to talk about it in an open society cause our enemies are listening. Loose lips sink ships. A younger generation struggles to understand what NATO is and why it exists. NATO struggles to understand what it is and why it exists. A once sacrosanct institution in very recent memory has lent itself to the most appalling abuse, acting as a mercenary, diametrically inverse to its foundational mission, and by its own action did everything it was created to oppose.
The Libyan intervention was a colonial adventure. It wasn't even done by NATO, NATO only lent its name to give cover to the abusing member's domestic constituents. Founded on the principle that an attack on one is an attack against all, a seemingly clear statement of its mission to defend, 12 of its 28 members hired themselves out to private interests to attack a third world dictatorship, in order to plunder its gold reserves and create commercial opportunities for its participating members' own corporate interests. Things haven't worked out quite as envisioned, thus far.
NATO’s members represent more than half of world GDP. Military alliances are created to defend economic and political alliances.[note 28] How was Libya under Gaddafi a threat to NATO and the West as Libya sought to throw off the vestiges of colonialism, assume responsibility for itself, and compete in the international trading system - the program the West and Nato have encouraged for more than half a century? A dangerous precedent has been set with this policy alteration unless Nato can repent of this error, do a midcourse correction and clarify its purpose for the citizens of its member states who must absorb and carry the cost.
The past is present
Nato was not founded as the world's policeman, that is a role the United States assigned to itself when it assumed responsibilities formerly held by the British Empire. The United States has been asking Nato members for assistance in this role since the Vietnam war. The speech former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird credits a 20 year old intern named Hillary Clinton with assisting him addressed specifically this subject, burden sharing.
Neither was NATO founded as the world's humanitarian relief organization. Nato members have increasingly portrayed to their publics NATO as a military adjunct of the United Nations, ignoring the tri-polar balance of the United Nations Security Council. Phrases such as "UN authorization of Nato" have become unquestionably commonplace; imagine the average Brit, American, or Frenchman waking to hear, "The UN authorized the Chinese military..."; they would shit their draws.
The truth is, NATO is a freak of nature that grew out of FDR's failed Grand Design to establish the United Nations as a perpetual entity to keep the peace after his death. The United Nations was an effort to institutionalize a permanent military and diplomatic alliance among the Allied Powers that defeated the Axis Powers. That vision never took shape. So during the Berlin Crisis of 1948, the Atlantic Charter was resuscitated as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After the Korean War the UN was casterated of any pretense as a military alliance and became a debating forum (not even a referee) in a bi-polar world for those willing to participate.
Ironically Vladimir Putin today wants to accept the deal FDR offered but Stalin rejected after 1945. Hence two organizations of FDR's Grand Design simultaneouly came into existance, NATO and the UN, one having a little more muscle. Russia was refused entry into NATO after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, so hardened were the attitudes created by the Cold War among NATO member states, and resigned to a bi-polar world of hostile competing interests.
But even by 1992 it was nolonger a bi-polar world, it was a tri-polar world. The US was slow to recognize the Sino-Soviet split of 1962[note 29] and kept up the myth of the communist monolith throughout the Vietnam war. In negotiation with Alexei Kosygin, Henry Kissinger was captured off guard when Kosygin asked, 'who would the United States support in a war between Russia and China?' Suddenly it all made sense. The Soviet Union maintained a large and costly standing military in peacetime, not to threaten NATO and Europe, but because of Russian fear of China.[note 30]
Had NATO accepted Russia along with Poland, Hungary, and the territitories of the former East German state, NATO groupthink reasoned, it would be a return to a bi-polar world with NATO on one end, and China on the other. NATO didn't want to add any leverage to Russia in its disputes with China, and with the free trade movements and democratization underway worldwide, NATO did not wish to appear threatening to China during the infant stages of its growth as a global economic power. But Russia had other reasons for seeking allies NATO and the West were slow to comprehend: the foreign jihad they just lost in Afghanistan and the growing jihad within its new borders.[note 31]
So FDR's vision of cooperation between allies was thwarted once again, even after an adversary (who was a former ally) threw in the towel. Institutionalized competetion in the military sphere became the mainstay to justify Nato's continued existence against an enemy that no longer existed. Members had simply invested too much for too long. The Soviet successor state, the Russian Federation, would have to play the role of foil or bogeyman, whether it wanted to or not.
In the Putin era Russia has gone through a period of defense modernization. Its entrance into the global trading system and rise as a major exporter of oil and natural gas provided the revenues to allow this to happen. Initially in the 1990s, this was viewed as not such a bad thing. It provided opportunies for Exxon, America's largest corporation, to explore reserves and upgrade infrastructure.[note 32] Sale of natural gas to Europe was considered a stepping stone to European economic integration. And Russian crude oil exports hopefully would make the West and Japan less dependent on the volitile Middle East and Saudi Arabia.
Russia has also revised its strategic doctrine, now with an emphasis on the use of smaller, more mobile Special Operations Forces (Spetznaz) along the US and Nato model. While the Chechen jihads of the 1990s allowed for experience in asymetrical warfare against an enemy with small arms or captured Russian equipment, the Syrian War has provided the opportunity for live fire combat testing against NATO equipment and other foreign producers. This has been noteworthy in the use of radar, surface-to-air missiles, and NATO's internal debate over creating a no-fly zone.
The multi-billion dollar missile defense system was started by Reagan, dubbed by opponents 'Star Wars', a futuristic fantasy.[note 33] Bill Clinton cut the program and wouldn't deploy the initial prototype. Baby Bush revived it, and in 2007 the Iron Dome system was deployed to Israel. Russia had been supportive of America's War on Terror, but as the Russo-Georgian War heated up, NATO allies in Europe, particularly those involved in the Partners for Peace program (former Warsaw Pact members), expressed a desire to have missile defense systems based on their territory. Talk was of a reignited Cold War, for which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blamed George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed deployment of the missile defense system and condemned the anti-Putin stance of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice who was regarded as a feminist Uncle Tom. In office, Obama promptly cancelled the missile defense program and Hillary hit the Reset button on deteriorating US-Russian relations - at least until the Rosatom-Uranium One deal was completed. Then reality set in. Obama started sounding like George W. Bush and Hillary like Condi Rice, the two people they heaped scorn on a few years earlier. In 2016 the two redirected their scorn at Donald Trump, as Trump's rhetoric about Putin and criticism of incumbants sounded like a mimeographed speech of either Hillary or Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Putin warned that the Russians do not view the missile defense system as a defensive system - at all. The system has the capability of a first strike launch to destroy the entire Russian land based nuclear arsenal when it's based on Russia's borders. Deployment would be provocative. President Obama, after decades of trashing Ronald Reagan as a wreckless nuclear war hawk for his Star Wars fantasy and Baby Bush for reigniting the Cold War, ignored Putin's warning and deployed the missile defense system in Romania. This was done, the administration said, to guard against Iranian nukes, despite the fact Obama said it would be at least 13 years before Iran had a nuke in the recently completed Iran nuke deal. Putin responded by stationing Iskander missiles (SS-26s in NATO nomenclature) in Kaliningrad. Flight time of this nuclear tipped warhead is two minutes to Warsaw, leaving NATO functionally with no warning.
The Clinton record
Let's focus on some of the Clinton record vis-a-vis NATO, nuclear proliferation, and other issues related to peace and stability.
It's been a slow learning curve for Hillary Clinton in the field of international power politics; nevertheless dating back to her Goldwater-girl days when she rallied to the call, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"[note 36] or her work for Nixon's Defense Secretary, the policy wonk at least has been a student and involved in affairs, mistakes and all. Donald Trump by contrast, seems to be as ignorant as a typical Democratic voter in these matters.
At the 2016 Democratic nominating convention it was patently obvious to all observers Hillary intended a different approach to Syria and Bashar al Assad than the Obama administration practiced for 5 years. Which in turn means a different approach to the Iranian-Russian alliance. Her presumptive Defense Secretary Michele Flournoy and the Democratic heavyweight utilityman Leon Panetta, famous for criticizing Obama whom he served in several key positions, said as much. But the debate focuses more importantly on the future role of NATO, and less importantly on defeating ISIS.
Like all post-1945 institutions, the purpose of NATO or the make up of the UN Security Council have been called into question. Donald Trump naively waded into these waters while Hillary and the rest of the planet were critical of Trump's clumsy statements.
In a 2012 debate Barack Obama mocked Mitt Romney for taking the view now espoused by Hillary Clinton, and before that Conolezza Rice, John McCain, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Obama chided, "The 1980s are calling. They want their foreign policy back," when Russia was the focus of US foreign policy and NATO existed solely to defend Europe from Russian (or Soviet) encroachment. By the end of Obama's second term however, Obama and cohorts were pretending to be as rabid Russophobes as, literally, Joseph McCarthy.
Nixon, Obama in Libya, Baby Bush, and Hillary Clinton[note 37] have all advocated an expanded role for NATO which the key European powers generally have been reluctant to embrace.[note 38] Putin would like to see a united front against the jihad, but the issues of NATO swallowing up Russia's former allies and client states and deployment of missile defense Star Wars technology on Russian borders have gotten in the way.
Hillary the madmanHillary is an advocate of Nixon's Madman theory. In 2008 when Obama made a declaration not to use nuclear weapons, recalling Leonid Brezhnev's no first strike pledge popular with the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s,[note 39] Hillary responded with her famous red telephone TV ad and a public statement :
Nixon thumbnailed the Madman theory in the The Real War :
And in resigning the office Nixon advised future presidents,
be it going to China, nuking an adversary, or resigning from office.
Hillary broke her own leadership code two months earlier when she made clear her support of the madman theory with this quote:
The missile defense system deployed on Russian borders keeps up the appearance of a tri-polar world, but in reality, turns the Russian Federation into a Vassal state of the West. This is a role that Vladimir Putin as the leader of his country may not be willing to accept. Putin has already begun preparing Russian defense experts and the Russia citizenry saying, "If it's Hillary, it's war."