The Neocons will win in November.

 

"While carcass candidates dance around life-and-death issues, the familiar flock of war vultures circle coolly overhead.  Campaign promises notwithstanding, those who whisper in the ears of America’s front-runners are overwhelmingly united in further destabilizing and exploiting the Middle East.

Nation-states seeking sovereignty, independence, and equitable relationships with their neighbors may need to look to themselves for the leadership, strategy, and means to effectively resist a militaristic global tyranny.  When looking to the US, it is prudent to consider what an unidentified Irishman purportedly observed decades ago: “…You can depend on Americans to do the right thing when they have exhausted every other possibility.”  South Front

------------------

As I suspected, indeed knew in some cases, the neocons have once again succeeded in infiltrating  major US institutions in pursuit of their goal of control through universal presence in the ante-rooms of power.  In this case the institutions are the campaign staffs of ALL the remaining candidates.  (Sanders maybe not?)

I would be curious as to whether Rand Paul's staff was similarly controlled.  Perhaps it was not...

My guestimate just now, subject to future judgment as events roll out, is that Clinton's campaign will implode at some point and that Trump is likely to be the 45th president of the United States.

Will he prove biddable once in office?  Only time will tell.  pl 

 

http://southfront.org/opinion-the-war-vultures-circling-us-presidential-front-runners/

Comments

[tjfxh]

Maybe Trump has signaled he is already in the neocon/war hawk camp:

"Painted as anti-establishment and friendly toward Russia, Republican front-runner Donald Trump nevertheless embraced Michael Glassner as his Political Director [1]. Glassner was a senior advisor to former presidential candidates Bob Dole and John McCain, both notorious military interventionists. He was also a Regional Political Director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [2], a highly-influential organization with a long track record of lobbying for military invasions and aggressive sanctions against Israel’s neighbors [3].…

"Another more ominous signal came last August, when Trump, who has frequently touted his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, named former top US State Department official John Bolton as one of his top foreign policy advisors, stating: “He’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about.” Part of the Bush-Cheney regime, Bolton was a staunch advocate for military invasions of Iraq and Iran. [9]"

http://southfront.org/opinion-the-war-vultures-circling-us-presidential-front-runners/

[turcopolier]

tjfxh

Don't post things more than once. pl

[turcopolier]

All

IMO this article may be a bit harsh about Sanders. Does anyone actually know who his policy advisers are? pl

[Tyler]

Trump will talk to Putin. National Review, that neocon organ, hates him.

Trump will do the right thing, I think.

[steve]

It's reported that Sanders has hired Bill French as his foreign policy adviser.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/24/exclusive-bernie-sanders-begins-building-foreign-policy-team/

French works as an analyst for the Nationbal Security Network which bills itself as a "progressive" foreign policy organization.

http://nsnetwork.org/about/

[The Twisted Genius]

Sanders just picked Bill French, a policy analyst at the progressive National Security Network to begin assembling his national security policies. I can't decide whether this kid looks more like a fresh out of IOBC butter bar or a fourth year ROTC cadet. The fact that Clinton has sucked up all the democratic neocons is a good thing for the Sanders team. Sanders clearly does not see foreign policy as his priority. If that means stop meddling in other people's business, I'm for it.

[Valissa]

Given the power of neocons in the "Establishment" or the Borg or the Deep State how could it be any other way? And if it wasn't neocons it would be some other variety of imperialism that was in tune with the current phase of Pax Americana. I do not expect a president to "change" the Establishment, as by the nature of their job they ARE or BECOME part of that Establishment. Realizing this truth is why I now vote 3rd party for president.

I am currently reading Mike Lofgren's new book "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government." I first heard of Lofgren on a Bill Moyers interview and it was Bill who urged Mike to write this book. http://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0525428348/

Lofgren spent 30 years working in various congressional aide roles, particularly budgets and finance issues. He's an ex-Republican who previously wrote a book criticizing the what the GOP has become. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lofgren

Here's an article he wrote two years ago on the Deep State which is appended to his interview with Bill Moyers. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22075-anatomy-of-the-deep-state

Lofgren's concept of the Deep State is not so different from the idea of The Borg, and it is more accessible to the general public.

[Walrus]

Trump is going to win big on Tuesday. I think that much is certain. Shortly after that, I predict Trump is going to be called into a one on one meeting with a senior Republican for what I term a "come to Jesus" meeting.

Trump will be offered a choice; "come to Jesus" - meaning drink the kool aid and agree to accept neo conservative advice and teaching and with it, the Republican nomination, or else.

The "or else" is what scares me. The Secret Service has been rocked by scandal in the last few years. An Islamic Iranian suicide assassin slipping across an unprotected Mexican border may sound like a Tom Clancy novel, but it would give a President Cruz or Clinton an exquisite Casus Belli. Stay safe, Donald, God protect him.

[Jack]

Sir

IMO, its going to be Trump vs Hillary in November. Both have plenty of skeletons. Hillary does not want to release transcripts of her million dollar Wall St speeches. Trump does not want to release his tax returns. Hillary has got all the lines all rehearsed. Trump does not do policy wonky. It is going to be all about mudslinging. Down in the gutter. I think it will be hilarious in a Reality TV sense.

Hillary will have the establishment behind her. She's ziocon central. Not only is she venal but feels very entitled. With her there is certainty. She will use the presidency to further the interests of her social circle. The neocons and financial elite.

Trump is an enigma. Does anyone know what he really believes? His views have been completely contradictory on most issues. He used to be socially liberal and not religious. Now he says he is on the same page as the evangelists. He says now Iraq & Libya were errors. But that the Iranian deal was bad. Are these views consistent with Bolton as a foreign policy advisor? With Trump we are getting uncertainty. Is he actually going to build a wall? Is he going to not needlessly meddle in others affairs? I don't think he's really thought too deeply about most policy issues.

The choice it seems is the certainty of Hillary or the uncertainty of Trump. We live in interesting times.

[LondonBob]

Trump has been a public figure for a long time, he opposed the Iraq war, intervention in Libya, supports strong relations with Russia etc. Justin Raimondo has done a good job debunking the current claims that these weren't his positions so I won't repeat his points.

There has been no electoral advantage to him praising Putin, questioning MH17, stating he would be neutral on Israel-Palestine. My only concern is whether he can find enough realist foreign policy advisers and whether he can counter the institutional element. So far the neocon front 'think tanks' have complained he has not consulted them, whilst he has gone for advise to someone like Mike Flynn. I also think he is bullheaded and strong enough to not to allow the likes Nuland to undercut him once President.

We shall see, but it is quite clear he is worrying all the right people.

[johnf]

Will there be any country left in the ME for the neo-cons to invade? Syria will be almost certainly wrapped up by then. No US politician will EVER reinvade Iraq. Algeria, Egypt and Morocco seem relatively stable.

I suppose there's Iran but all the US's allies are so bought into trading with them post-sanctions I can't see it. Whose left? Africa? But most Americans don't see them as Big Bad Muslims but black.

If it is Trump and Clinton in the presidential election, then Trump - who might change his tune if he's elected - will surely continue on his extremely popular anti-neo-con crusade, and, as someone who boasts that he does not need sponsors, is sure to underline again and again Hillary's sponsors, almost all of whom are zionists, and may even include Adelson. Israel and its financial hold over US politicians is probably at last going to be exposed in a US election.

And Sanders isn't necessarily beat yet. Clinton could sink into her own sleaze-mire. And he might yet win some primaries.

[William R. Cumming]

Before we get to advisers during the campaign what about post-nomination VP running mate selections? This has become the sole perogative of the nominee! Tragically IMO!

[LondonBob]

Unduly harsh on Sanders and Trump. You make do with what you get, and they get a lot more right than wrong. That candidates also temporarily adjust their positions for electoral purposes is no big deal, it is just what politicians do. I am afraid the author will be waiting a long time for a flawless candidate.

[Bill Herschel]

I share this fear. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the night he won the California primary. No need to assassinate him if there wasn't a chance he would become President.

[Bill Herschel]

The NY Times lead editorial: "After his performance on Friday, Mr. Christie had better hope that Mr. Trump, wherever he winds up, can find a little something for his new apprentice to do."

Wherever he winds up...

[ex-PFC Chuck]

If you're right that it will be Hilary and Trump in November, the latter will win by a landslide. This will be because millions of people, mainly but not exclusively folks under forty, who supported or leaned toward Bernie for the nomination will vote with their butts by sitting on them on election day. The turnout failure will in turn be a down-ticket disaster for the Democrats.

[ex-PFC Chuck]

If Sanders gets the Dem nomination I predict you'll see the party nomenklatura pull out all the stops to install one of their own as the VP candidate. If that happens Bernie will be a lame duck from the day he's inaugurated because he'll have little support from his alleged party allies in Congress.

Sanders will be turn 75 in September this year, which means if he's elected he'd be seeking a 2nd term at age 79. If he hopes to steer the party back on a track similar to what it was during the New Deal coalition, namely that it was first and foremost an advocate for the economic interests of the lower tiers of the middle class, the blue and white collar working classes and the dispossessed, he must have a running mate who is in tune with his agenda, who is plausible "presidential timber," and could pick up the torch if he cannot run or is perceived to be in decline. The only person that comes to my mind for filling this bill is Elizabeth Warren. If I were Bernie and found myself pushed over the top for the nomination in July, I'd accept it only on condition that the convention accept her as VP candidate.

[pj]

If the election comes to Hillary and Trump, I too believe Trump will win. When she ran against Obama, he was very respectful and polite. (What would a black man running against a white woman in America do.) Sanders has also been rather polite, trying to focus on issues and not challenging her aggressively. But, you can see Hillary closing down and almost becoming brittle when she is suddenly confronted with harsh criticism, e.g. see the recent video of a BLM protester confronting her in South Carolina. Clearly, Trump will have no scruples about challenging her aggressively on a whole host of issues that Obama/Sanders have ignored.

[BabelFish]

Bill,

I stand to be corrected but, as I remember it, in the old (and maybe current) Dem party, was not Humphrey leading in delegates at the time of RFK's assassination, due to the old 'smoke filled room' method of delegate selection? I say current as well due to the 'Superdelegate' selection process that has people like Junior Queen D. Wasserman-Shultz as a voting delegate to the Dem convention.

[BabelFish]

An interesting question! Would Christie, being used to the lead position of a governor, accept the VP nod from Trump? He'd spend years in the job once rated as 'a warm bucket of spit' before getting a chance to try to get nominated to run for POTUS.

[Mishklji]

Bernie or Warren as VP might fire up the base.

Bernie can be eased out in 2020.

[Les]

We've been through this before with Obama and McCain in 2008, both of whom sought to paint themselves as in direct opposition to Bush's policies or at least as independent ("maverick"). Both campaigns were loaded with economic and foreign policy advisors from the Bush and Clinton administrations.

[Nuff Sed]

If Bolton is advising Trump, then I would think the relevant question would be whether the top brass in the military will allow the crazies in the White House and at State to order the Pentagon to attack Iran - which is what try will want to do irrespective of whether it is Trump or Clinton who is at the helm.

[Outrage Beyond]

I think Christie has his eye on the Attorney General slot. If that's the case, the odds of Christie prosecuting Madame Clinton might be favorable. Assuming Obama doesn't pardon her on his way out the door.

After four years as AG, Christie could run for governor in NJ again, then use that perch for a run at the white house in 2024.

[Jackrabbit]

Eyes glaze over at "Deep State" and it sounds innocuous.

Many people will not understand the difference between "Deep State" and "Big Government".

"The Borg" conveys a sense of evil. This disturbing image prompts questioning.