The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
The Inevitable Hillary
Time to quarantine her foreign policy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Pundits sometimes cite the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as a metaphor to illuminate what many see as the impending decline and fall of the United States. Between the third and fifth centuries Rome did indeed evolve into a highly centralized and militarized state that was supported by an increasingly impoverished economic base which invites comparison with contemporary Washington. But a better metaphor for America’s current malaise might well be the final days of the Roman Republic. The fall of the Roman Republic in the first century B.C. came about due to the rise of warring factions fueled by the massive corruption within the political class that was itself derived from huge sums of money that were the spoils of the imperial expansion that started with the Punic Wars and which provided opportunities to loot the subject nations to fund one’s political campaign. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar and Crassus were all both enablers and products of republican decline. Julius Caesar’s famous invasion of Gaul was prompted by his need to obtain money to pay off his debts and finance his political career.

The example of Rome led America’s Founding Fathers to warn about the evils of faction, the corrupting effect of money and the passionate attachment to foreign interests. Unfortunately, highly partisan politics fueled by vast quantities of money some of which comes from sources with openly promoted foreign interests has become a reality in Washington and partly explains the decline of America’s own ruling class. And there is no political dynasty that exhibits the lack of any ethical anchor combined with the excesses that derive from overweening greed and ambition as much as the Clintons.

That Hillary Clinton is spoken of as a virtual president presumptive in much of the media and punditry should give one pause and make one wonder about the state of democracy in America. Clinton became a mediocre Senator from New York elected to office in a state which was so Democratic leaning that she could not lose. She then sought the Democratic presidential nomination only to be defeated by Barack Obama, who better captured the national mood of war weariness in the wake of morally questionable and ultimately counterproductive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinton was given the post of Secretary of State to remove her from competition with the new president where she maintained a high political profile but ultimately did very little of note apart from a disastrous intervention in Libya which she has been trying to walk away from ever since.

Hillary and Bill are every bit as hawkish as Mitt Romney and John McCain and are just as comfortable with a neocon driven foreign policy. Bear in mind that most neocons are actually traditional liberals on many issues apart from their readiness to go to war, which makes them a better fit for a hawkish Democrat rather than with a socially conservative Republican. This is why leading neocons like Robert Kagan and David Brooks are leaning towards Hillary. Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, who has done so much to start a shooting war with Russia, was a Hillary Clinton protege at the State Department. If Clinton does become president it is not so farfetched to consider the possibility that Nuland or someone very much like her would be placed in charge of American diplomacy.

As for evidence of Hillary’s willingness to use force internationally, note for starters the reported principal influences on her foreign policy views: her husband Bill plus “liberal interventionists” Madeleine Albright, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Sandy Berger. Albright is famous for saying that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was “worth it,” while Slaughter is head of the New America Foundation and author of two liberal interventionist Bibles: “A New World Order” and “The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith with Our Values in a Dangerous World.” Berger is best known for stealing documents from the national archives by stuffing them down his trousers.

Hillary also is an admirer of Henry Kissinger and he of her, demonstrating that her interventionist foreign policy agenda is bipartisan. She notoriously voted for the Iraq War and shares Albright’s belief that the United States is the world’s “indispensable nation,” giving it a free pass to regulate the activities of everyone else. She is a strong supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies, she de facto opposes any nuclear agreement with Iran, she criticized President Barack Obama because he did not bomb Syria or arm the rebels, and she sponsored the disastrous regime change in Libya. Bill is on the same page, bombing Serbia, enforcing the punitive and highly destructive sanctions on Iraq, and destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant to distract the American public from revelations about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

The Clintons just package their wars differently than the GOP to enable them to describe intervention as morally justifiable, somewhat like the Obama contrived distinction between “good” and “bad” wars. One might also add that the Clintons are quite probably more cynical about the entire process and willing to manipulate it in ways that would never occur to most Republicans. It is hard to imagine Romney, Bush or McCain being so ethically challenged as to attack Sudan to cover up an Oval Office affair.

And then there is Marc Rich, the fugitive financier pardoned as a last official act by Bill. Rich had fled the US after being charged with income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo. He was also an agent for the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, which was known to the CIA and FBI, a fact that surely could have been learned by Clinton if he had done a proper due diligence on the pardon. But Rich and his wife Daniele were major Democratic Party supporters, including substantial gifts to Hillary’s Senate campaign and the Clinton Presidential Library. There was also considerable pressure coming from the Israelis, which together with the money was enough to convince Bill Clinton. And similar pressures will surely prove convincing for Hillary.

The Clinton justification for “liberal intervention” is shaped around the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, abbreviated R2P, which was cited in the attacks on both Serbia and Libya and the support for similar action against Syria. The essentially bellicose foreign policy is also politically calculated to take away the national security issue advantage from the GOP. And it is conveniently tied in with powerful domestic and foreign constituencies to include the military industrial complex, Wall Street, the Israel Lobby and the various nooks and crannies of corporate America that benefit from the war on terror and de facto empire.

The Clintons also suffer from being snobs who like to hang around with rich people in spite of their populist pretensions. They are the ultimate social climbers, always willing to do one more thing to obtain acceptance from the 1% that really matters and ready to reap the rewards that they know come with it. Hillary claims that she and Bill were broke and in debt when they left the White House. They are now worth over \$100 million and command as much as \$800,000 for a single speaking engagement. Hillary’s minimum paycheck to speak before a group is reported to be \$200,000. Does anyone actually think that either Bill Clinton’s sly smile or Hillary’s shrill monotone is worth a speaking fee in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or are there expectations of other quid pro quos down the road for those who are coughing up the big money, to include something like \$18 million from Goldman Sachs and other banksters who brought the nation to the brink of ruin in 2008?

President Hillary would be a disaster for United States foreign policy as she would operate to the right of Obama, who has certainly been bad enough. It would also come on the heels of a campaign in which Clinton’s major funder would likely be Israeli-American Haim Saban, who has described himself as a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, though he has also pledged to do what it takes to get Hillary elected, suggesting that at least in his mind the two agendas are linked.

How would it all play out compared to the status quo? Hillary Clinton does not currently have anything that equates to a foreign policy but she has provided plenty of indications regarding where she stands on various issues. Where Obama would almost certainly like to come to an arrangement with Iran, Hillary would be unwilling to make any compromises and would leave open only the alternative of war. Obama has clearly expressed concerns about Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies that Hillary does not share and also hesitates over deeper military involvement in the Middle East while Hillary wants regime change for Syria and would be willing to use force to achieve that end. In other areas Hillary would repeat and even double down on the Obama mistakes, listening to Nuland and the neocons to strengthen sanctions against the Russians over Crimea and likely moving to both arm Ukraine and expand NATO. China would be increasingly seen not as a competitor but as an enemy.

Given the Clintons’ lip service to “humanitarian” war and democracy promotion there would also be a lot more meddling in a lot more places around the globe. And it would all be wrapped in “good war” rhetoric that the equally bellicose Republican candidates would have difficulty challenging. It is a bleak prospect and Hillary is by no means past the finish post, but those who hope for a genuine change in direction for the Democratic Party will have to look elsewhere, possibly towards someone like Jim Webb who actually has seen war up close and unlike the armchair warrior Clintons has little enthusiasm for starting a new one.

Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kiza says:

    The choice between Republicans and Democrats is a non-choice. It is one and the same party with two names. Yet, there are small miniscule differences. Both parties serve the media-military-industrial complex, but with a different story for the population. The Republicans say – the US is the most powerful, it is a leader of the World and it needs no other’s approval (UN) to smash up a country if it wants to. The Democrats have a touchy-feely story: we smash up a country to protect a minority, women rights, gay rights, dogs’ rights, cats’ rights. As a non-American, I can only say that I like Republican approach a lesser evil – there is more honesty in it, instead of pure sleeziness of the Democrats. Both parties make the US pillage countries, but the Republicans lie less. Republicans never got a Nobel Peace Prize because they are brutally honest about being thieves and just taking what they want.

    I am about 95% sure that Hillbillary will win Democratic Party nomination, yet there would be a considerable resistance by ordinary Americans to her Presidency, no matter how much money Jewish oligarchs poor into her campaign.

    • Replies: @matt
    , @Realist
    , @Anonymous
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    If the Roman Empire as an example, then I think any of the Empire era also sometimes up and down all the time-varying

  3. matt says:

    What are you talking about? Afghanistan and Iraq were both Republican wars (although supported by no shortage of Democrats) and there was no end to the touchy-feely justifications for those (“democracy!”). Hell, long before the PC era, even old-school European colonialists spewed all sorts of touch-feely nonsense about Christian uplift of the benighted heathen natives. Coming up with nice-sounding excuses for piratical behavior is as old as modernity.

  4. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Hillary Clinton=violent psychopathic gangster bulldyke war criminal married to a violent psychopathic serial rapist war criminal mortal threat to the continued existence of the Human Species.

  5. The Roman Republic had its precedents for decay & fall:

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (via Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    One not very small detail on Hillary goes unnoticed in nearly all media (MSM & ‘alternative’)

    According to Mother Jones Magazine, in Hillary’s own words, she is under the spiritual tutelage of Doug Coe:

    “Coe, she writes, “is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

    And according to the excellent investigative reporting of Jeff Sharlet on ‘The Family’, the cult which sponsors the ‘National Prayer Breakfast’, Coe, in his own words, is no stranger to violence in politics:

    “Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, “You know Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom”

    Small wonder some of us prefer satire:


  6. Realist says:

    Hillary will win going away.

  7. Mark Dankof says: • Website

    It all underscores the title of my last op-ed, “Why We’re Finished.” Philip Giraldi’s analysis is unassailable. The Empire is in the final throes of death. There are no political solutions left. It all underscores “Why We’re Finished,” which is probably my last op-ed.

    There is no solution left for an Empire in the throes of death.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    For the last 28 years there has been a Bush or a Clinton/ Obama as President. How has the country fared? It’s time for new blood.

  9. Chiron says:

    This is what Cicero said about the jews in 50s BC Rome:

    There was a Judean Lobby already active in Rome by the end of the Republican period, they exported Gold from the Roman provinces to Jerusalem, not even Cicero could stop them and he couldn’t confront them directly in the Roman Assemblies. The jews supported Julius Caesar and later the first Emperor Augustus who granted them extreme priveleges, the relation went sour with Tiberius who expelled the jews from Rome after they defrauded a Roman woman from the aristocracy.

    When the Jerusalem Temple was finally destroyed in 70 AD the Romans found so much wealth inside that it financed the construction of the Colosseum.

  10. Sam J. says:

    I wonder if Hillary would try to keep us somewhat out of wars. Bill had opportunities to take us to war and somewhat kept us out of them compared to “Bush the Destroyer”. We can at least give Obama credit for keeping us out of Iran so far. I don’t know if it’s him or rebellion by the military but thank God we haven’t gone there yet even though it’s #1 on the Israeli list.

    I believe Rome fell because of all the reasons listed and a big one not listed. They weren’t Romans anymore. All kinds of people flooded into Rome and were paid off by the corn dole. The original Romans became a minority. No one cared about Rome no more than the people moving to America care about it.

    That in mind I believe it’s possible for America to be a somewhat nice place again, and yes I fully aware of the irrational optimism theory, but the only way to do so is to stop mass immigration and start mass deportation.

    The reason I believe this is there is something new under the Sun. The internet. At no time in history has the average person had so much access to the truth about how things work and what is going on. A lot of this will of course be wasted on cat videos but I know things now that I could have never found out a few decades ago. Censorship is futile. Presently the “powers that be” use misinformation to clog up and distort the truth but if you read between the lines you can get a good big picture of what’s going on. Even when they use distortion and propaganda to manipulate the truth they have to use SOME truth to make it believable. They might try to censor the internet but it would really upset even the cat video people. Big problems then.

  11. rod1963 says:

    Hitlery is a Neo-con or should I say, owned by them and that is the trouble since they promote violent regime change across the ME and Russia. As a result she will promote a Neo-Con foreign policy which will continue to include being belligerent towards Russia if not trying to force outright regime change. Problem is, this isn’t Iraq or Syria and Putin isn’t going to take s**t from her or her Neo-con buddies. He will push back hard, first economically then militarily. I know our political class sees themselves as gods and beyond the reach of mere mortals, but that doesn’t matter if Putin plants a handful of multi- megaton warheads in D.C. and Manhattan they’ll end up being radioactive dust.

    The thing to watch for is what the GOP controlled Senate and House does after this coming January. If they start pushing legislation for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine and forward positioning American troops in Poland and maybe advisers in Ukraine. Watch out. Things may get out of control even before November 2016.

    Domestically she is pure poison, she’s a Marxist/globalist thug and will keep the borders open and wage war against those in the private sector while promoting agendas for blacks, GLBT and Hispanics at the expense of whites. She will also wreck whats left of the oil and coal industries.

  12. Phil, as I was reading through, I thought, “Jim Webb.” I suppose this means registering as a Democrat, once again, to make a stand against Clintonism. Perhaps this time, the end result will be better than Obama’s betrayals. Nothing could be better for the republic – from the perspective of this moment in time, at least – than a match-up between Rand Paul and Webb.

  13. roulade says:

    What frightens me most about Hillary is that she is more capable and hard-working than Obama or Bush.

  14. The game is afoot. The goal is to get a zionist into the 2016 office. Broomstick hilliary will most likely select a zionist agent as her vp. As long as she does what she is told, she will be worshiped as had been reagen, clinton, bush, and obama, not to forget gorbachev and yeltsin. Obamas firing of Chuck Hagel is an ominous sign. Chuck kept us out of several counterproductive wars, but obama made way for the neocons. Bush, luckily escaped an assassination attempt that would have put the crazy chaney in the presidency. Broomstick hilliary will never dare to say ‘no’ to war. Does anyone know what her domestic policy is? Seems that she cannot get past her enthusiasm for war.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Neocon=Jew. America’s foreign policy and its government is essentially controlled by and functions for the benefit of, organized Jewry.

  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Clinton became a mediocre Senator from New York elected to office in a state which was so Democratic leaning that she could not lose.”

    Just wanted to supply a minor correction here. In 2000 Hillary was in a neck-and-neck race for Senator from NY with Rudy Giuliani. The polling was very close. Giuliani was forced to withdraw due to a bout with prostate cancer. Instead of announcing and withdrawing in time to give his replacement a chance to build some name recognition, Rudy waited till the last moment before withdrawing. His replacement, whose name escapes me at the moment, did not have the chance to get much of a campaign going before election day. Otherwise Rudy might well have made it to the US Senate.

  17. a.z says:

    “It is hard to imagine Romney, Bush or McCain being so ethically challenged as to attack Sudan to cover up an Oval Office affair.”
    don’t praise a brainless puppet like bushjr who was willing to destroy his own country as long as he was allowed to be the president at the expense of bill clinton who the libertine hate as a matter of principle because on ground reality shows him as a success story who made usa stronger. but have to give kudos to the author i never noticed the mediocrity of hilary before he mentioned it. hilary will not be good for america as bill was but support her anyway as she would be good for my country(not israel) maybe the old bill would stop her from taking crazy actions that would harm the american empire

  18. KA says:

    ” since I entered politics,I have chiefly had men”s views confided to me privately . Some of the biggest men in the United States,in the field of commerce and ,manufacture,are afraid of somebody ,are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized,so subtle,so watchful,so interlocked,so complete,so pervasive,that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it ”
    The New Freedom . ( I . The Old Order Changeth ) By Woodrow Wilson ( US President)

  19. After reading the expose of the negotiations with UCLA for her \$300,000 educational discount campaign speech, with all the perks required, the haughty self-important contempt expressed, it’s evident that here is self-entitlement that surpasses the level of an Evita.

  20. learned says:

    Defying any reason FOX continues to undermine Hilairy even their beuatiful feminine rogue faces never fail to do so. one wonders why .
    Rupert Murdoch pivotal support for Iraq war earned him accolades and appreciations form Israel for the services rendered to that country . Hilary has clearly stated pro zionists positions both consciously and in her dreams. Still FOX wont say good words about her body or mind .
    I was expecting that at least over Thanksgiving day ,FOX would offer some discounts and showcase some sale items one can buy about Hilary through FOX Black Friday mega event. This ideological stand against her based on no idelogy makes no sense at all. War comes easily to Hilary. People die when she shows up . She roams around and hangs around peopel who has the noble intention of uplifting,saving,and administering love with freedom of expression the rest of theworld outside North America and Western Europe ususally through means promoted by FOX through it’s paid military strategists . She satnds up to appalud Bibi Netanyahu even when he is not there in US but in Israel or is near the demolition sites in East Jerusalem or West Bank Area “C” .
    Hilary needs to understand that she hasnt gone to the whole hog and hasnt played the zionism card up to the hilt . She should send flowers everyday to FOX and same flower to Knesset after getting the quality vetted by AIPAC and JINSA .Otherwise some will keep on throwing a monkey wrench . Then there are out there who wants to dislodge some of the old neocons and take over.They have figured it out that the best way to dislodge Dennis Ross, Indyk, Feith,or Mark Kirk or Schumer is to move to the otherwise dwindling extremes and to show the support for the settlers Kahane group variety of Zionism . Calling “Obama” antisemite may work for established religious leader and can be enough for an established thug in eligious hierarchy but for the new comers in town it is not enough .These new entrants have to work hard ,very hard . Hilary is vulnerbale to these neophytes’s accustaion that she is not sufficiently pro Israel and there is never enough to become so. So its a dilemma. She can request to be given some slack.She is old and very soon may look like the inner witches she is .This is her last chance.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hillary has made a video that made it clear she has presidential aspirations:

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.