Published: March 2, 2016
Source: Aletho News
Proving that there is no discernible difference between Republican and Democratic administrations (as if the Bush-Obama years were not proof enough), Hillary Clinton’s dramatically pro-war, Zionist, and police state policies are earning her the support (or at least the lack of public opposition) from noted Neo-Con figures who typically play the role of the right-wing Republican side of the dialectic.
Consider Jacob Heilbrunn’s article in the New York Times entitled “The Next Act of the Neocons,” where he argued that many hawkish Neo-Cons are considering the possibility of crossing over from the GOP to the Hillary Clinton camp. While the ideology of the Neo-Cons is scarcely discernible from other factions in the US ruling class, there are minor differences in terms of the presentation of that ideology. This presentation has been carefully crafted by the ruling class for years for the purposes of dividing and ruling the American people. The fact that a seemingly “conservative” movement would thus be so open about supporting a seemingly “liberal” candidate is extremely telling.
Heilbrunn’s article tends to focus on the possibility that neo-cons like Robert Kagan are considering open support for Clinton. He writes,
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.
. . . . .
It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.
Jason Horowitz, also writing for the New York Times, quotes Kagan as being comfortable with Clinton in terms of her foreign policy. Horowitz writes,Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)
Heilbrunn also points out that Kagan is not the only well-known Neo-Con who is open to public support for the Clinton campaign. Max Boot has also expressed respect for Clinton when he described her tenure as Secretary of State. He describes Clinton by saying, “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya. Later she urged arming the moderate opposition during the early days of the Syrian civil war—advice that, if Obama had taken it, might well have short-circuited the violent disintegration of Syria, which is far advanced today.”“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
Heilbrunn also writes that former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, a Neo-Con in everything but official title, echoes the sentiments of Boot and Kagan and that measure of support for Clinton might also be expected from his camp.
Journalist Robert Parry summed up Clinton’s history of pro-Neo-Con positions in his article, “Is Hillary Clinton A NeoCon-Lite?” by writing,
Based on her public record and Gates’s insider account, Clinton could be expected to favor a more neoconservative approach to the Mideast, one more in line with the traditional thinking of Official Washington and the belligerent dictates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton rarely challenged the conventional wisdom or resisted the use of military force to solve problems. She famously voted for the Iraq War in 2002 – falling for President George W. Bush’s bogus WMD case – and remained a war supporter until her position became politically untenable during Campaign 2008.
Representing New York, Clinton rarely if ever criticized Israeli actions. In summer 2006, as Israeli warplanes pounded southern Lebanon, killing more than 1,000 Lebanese, Sen. Clinton shared a stage with Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman who had said, “While it may be true – and probably is – that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.”
At a pro-Israel rally with Clinton in New York on July 17, 2006, Gillerman proudly defended Israel’s massive violence against targets in Lebanon. “Let us finish the job,” Gillerman told the crowd. “We will excise the cancer in Lebanon” and “cut off the fingers” of Hezbollah. Responding to international concerns that Israel was using “disproportionate” force in bombing Lebanon and killing hundreds of civilians, Gillerman said, “You’re damn right we are.” [NYT, July 18, 2006]
Of course, in this sense the term “pro-Israel constituency” can easily be translated to mean “neo-con constituency” since, in reality, that is exactly what it is. Clearly, Clinton was not going to offend the Neo-Con leadership not because she is simply courting campaign funds but because Clinton herself is a Neo-Con.Sen. Clinton did not protest Gillerman’s remarks, since doing so would presumably have offended an important pro-Israel constituency.
Brandon Turbeville’s new book, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President is available in three different formats: Hardcopy (available here), Amazon Kindle for only .99 (available here), and a Free PDF Format (accessible free from his website,BrandonTurbeville.com).
 Kagan, Robert. “Superpowers Don’t Get To Retire.” Foreign Policy. May 26, 2014.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world Accessed on September 4, 2015.
 Heilbrunn, Jacob. “The Next Act Of The Neocons.” New York Times. July 5, 2014.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html Accessed on September 4, 2015.
 Horowitz, Jason. “Events In Iraq Open Door For Interventionist Revival, Historian Says.” New York Times. June 15, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?src=twrhp&_r=1 Accessed on September 4, 2015.
 Boot, Max. “Why Is Robert Gates Angry?” New Republic. February 26, 2014.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116500/duty-memoirs-secretary-war-reviewed-max-boot Accessed on September 4, 2015.
 Parry, Robert. “Is Hillary Clinton A Neo-Con Lite?” Consortium News. April 23, 2015.https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/23/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite-2/ Accessed on September 4, 2015.