Neocon Trump and his “Crazies” Are Rekindling Hillary Clinton’s Green Revolution

These are the show notes for a video I am making this morning. Something locked up my computer so I have to restart it and I wanted to put these references all in one place without having to go back to them and getting whatever it is that is screwing me back on my system.

Once the video is published, I will post it here and the notes will be below the fold.

6/13/05 More people are questioning Bush/s policies these days. Iraq, privatizing Social Security, attacking the United Nations, tax cuts for the rich, torture 7 it doesn/t make sense 7 not unless you know about neoconservatives, better named neo-radicals or neo-imperialists.

Neocons believe in unrivaled U.S. world domination through aggressive use of military force to conquer and police resisting countries. They also believe in eliminating social safety net programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance and Medicare. They have long advocated unwavering support for Israel, disbanding multi-national agreements and the U.N., and eliminating the progressive tax structure.

Bush Sr. called them “the crazies in the basement” but they now control power and policy in the Bush Jr. administration. Names like Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams, Perle, Feith, Kagan, Chalabi, Khalilzad are signatories to a long string of documents and articles from neocon think tanks, journals, and even government departments.

In 1992, Wolfowitz and Libby wrote a Defense Policy Guideline for their boss, Secretary of Defense Cheney, that was so imperialistic it caused an uproar when leaked to the press and had to be rewritten. Today it/s Bush/s 2002 National Security Strategy.

In 1996, Chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and Doug Feith, published a campaign strategy for the right wing Israeli Likud Party calling for military force rather than negotiations with the Palestinians, and removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” The Crazies are Out of the Basement

“IF BARACK Obama ever had a shot at earning the trust of the Israeli people, it may have been extinguished as early as June 4, 2009, in Cairo.

After calling on Israel, from the largest city in the Arab world, to end its settlement activity and the “dislocation” of Palestinians, Obama chose not to fly on from Egypt to Jerusalem. On his first trip to the Middle East as president, he intentionally skipped the Jewish state in the belief that creating distance between himself and Israel would earn him credit with Arab states.” The coming shift: Hillary Clinton’s plans for Israel and Iran, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 2016

PJMEDIA article on Hillary Clinton talking about regime change operation in Iran in 2009 https://pjmedia.com/blog/hillary-clinton-u-s-was-too-restrained-in-our-support-of-the-2009-green-revolution/

Hillary Clinton : Let me start with the first part about our reaction. There was another very important aspect. We did not want to get between the legitimate protests and demonstrations of the Iranian people and the leadership. And we knew that if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protestors. That was a – it was a hard judgment call, but I think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot. As you know, the young – one of our young people at the State Department got Twittered, “Keep going,” despite the fact that they had planned for a technical shutdown. So we were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way. And we’re continuing to speak out and support the opposition.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article161573.html

7 countries in 5 years

Zero Hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-10/leaked-doc-reveals-white-house-planning-regime-change-iran

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon

https://securitystudies.org/

Jim Hansen, Oct. 2017 (Jim served in US Army Special Forces and conducted Counter-Terrorism, Counter-Insurgency as well as Diplomatic, Intelligence and Humanitarian operations in more than a dozen countries.)

I wrote a piece for the Federalist arguing that both regime change and a military option should be back on the table regarding Iran’s nuclear program. These steps are necessary both to give a greater chance of success for the soft power negotiations, but also in recognition of the fact we must stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, period.

What Trump should do

The first is the return of regime change as official U.S. policy…

The Kurdish independence referendum on September 25 was overwhelmingly in favor of self-determination. This has repercussions for Iran, which has a large and restive Kurdish population and many Azeris and others, around 30 percent of its population, who are not fans of the mullahs. A little U.S. support for them could go a long way toward keeping the Iranian government mindful of its internal issues. It could also make them more amenable to negotiation or potentially lead to their removal by their own people…

It is time for a new birth of liberty in Iran, as the protests in Iran seem to indicate that many Iranians have come to realize. While America is not interested in starting a war there, and should not stage any sort of invasion, we should stand ready to support the Iranian people in any native attempt to throw off their shackles and pursue better guarantees of their future security.” SSG, May 8, 2018 https://securitystudies.org/america-iran-iran-deal/

The Last American Vagabond

4 Responses

  1. well done video, Scott.
    they are going to start WW3. Stupid Trump will have the honor of being noted in history of destroying the world… if anyone is left that cares about history.

  2. US foreign policy since 1945 can be summed up as following two trajectories: the use of economic power and the use of military power (to enforce the economic power). The two work in conjunction with each other, sometimes via ‘soft’ power alone (i.e. via think tanks, NGO’s, the Atlantic Council, the corporate press), sometimes with raw military power to back it up. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, neo-liberalism came into full force globally, corrupting virtually every government on the planet. Soft power is actually far more effective in subverting any true resistance to global corporate power than anything else – and not a complete contradiction to military might. After all, even hot wars, as long as they remain regional, push up arms sales and the stock market.
    Even the usual war-mongers like Bolton don’t actually want a global nuclear war, but in their immense hubris and access to power at the highest levels, they are willing to push the envelope regardless of the consequences. People like this have existed throughout human history, and it usually didn’t end well.

  3. Scott, a good ad-blocker like uBlock-Origin would help alleviate your web problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: