Creating a better world through words and images

Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons
Artwork/Political Cartoons

But that’s precisely the argument that was posited, recently, by a mainstream Democrat at a progressive news-hub I regularly visit.

Although the commenter’s post includes the concession that Clinton is “far from a pacifist,” they nonetheless insisted that describing the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State as a “war mongerer” is a left-wing delusion — the result of a Russian smear “manufactured… out of the troll farms of St. Petersburg!”

Aside from feeding the dead and buried Russiagate zombie, way to minimize Hillary Clinton’s lifetime of service to the neoconservative agenda!

Not only is Hillary Clinton “far from a pacifist,” she has repeatedly demonstrated herself to be in the neoconservative vanguard, right there with John Bolton, William Kristol, Joe Biden, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney… going way back.

In the 1990s, as Bill Clinton’s co-president — “two (presidents) for the price of one,” they boasted — First Lady Clinton wholeheartedly supported her husband’s draconian sanctions regime in Iraq, which denied potable water to millions of human beings.

That sanctions regime was “genocidal” per Denis Halliday, the career U.N. development worker tasked with implementing the program. In fact, he and two of his colleagues ultimately resigned in disgust, reporting that Clinton’s policy had killed “well over a million” innocents, more than half of whom were children under five years old.

That is monstrous, and it’s not some propaganda from the Russkies, but a frank accounting of the policy, coming from an Irish human development professional who helped administer the program:

“I had been instructed,” (Halliday) said, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible.”

Under her husband’s abominable successor, “Dubya,” Sen. Clinton didn’t just vote to authorize Bush/Cheney’s illegal invasion of Iraq — as egregious as that would be — she was among the top few Democrats vigorously repeating every debunked, scaremongering claim the Bush administration was pedaling. Already, she was seen as a future presidential candidate, and she used that clout to relentlessly push for war — spouting Bush and Cheney’s propaganda, left and right.

And unlike Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, for instance (the most fierce opponent of the neocon agenda, at present), Hillary Clinton learned nothing from that genocidal debacle, which, like her husband’s sanctions, killed well over a million Iraqis, mostly innocents, per peer-reviewed studies appearing in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet (as reported by CODE PINK’s Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J S Davies).

(As poorly as the Democrats, writ large, resisted that unconscionable war crime — obviously sold on lies — few politicians in either party were as zealous as Clinton when it came to selling that neoconservative project to the public.)

Later, as Secretary of State, Clinton personally talked President Obama into the regime-change operation in Libya — the greatest regret of his entire presidency and a major escalation of the neocon agenda (which threw Libya into chaos and brought open-air slave markets to the country).

When Clinton learned of Qaddafi’s bayonet-rape/murder, she actually laughed, following that morally grotesque reaction with an even more sacrilegious “joke” — “We came, we saw, he died.”

(Of course, this is the same neo-fascist politician who also “joked” about assassinating Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”)

Also, according to Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, Sec. Clinton helped Bob Gates — Bush and Obama’s Secretary of Defense (an old Iran-Contra figure) — corral Obama into doubling down in Afghanistan, our nation’s longest war… after Obama had repeatedly requested a drawdown plan, only to be stymied and stonewalled by his top generals and cabinet officials.

Furthermore, it was Clinton’s State Department that financed and directed the Ukrainian coup that put oligarchs and neo-Nazis in charge of the country, ethnically cleansing much of the Eastern European/Russian populace until they hit a wall in Crimea.

Leaked recordings revealed that Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Asian Affairs – Dick Cheney acolyte, Victoria Nuland — helped orchestrate the coup that ousted Ukraine’s democratically-elected leader, Viktor Yanukovych, and openly discussed who would be acceptable in the new government Washington was setting up.

That would be Victoria “Fuck the EU!” Nuland

Finally, we must never forget that Sec. Clinton was a driving force behind the Washington/Riyadh-instigated regime-change operation in Syria that has killed 600,000 Syrians and displaced over 11 million, helping fuel the international refugee crisis that’s created a nationalistic/xenophobic backlash in Europe.

Implementing the CIA’s plan to flood Syria with Salafist militants hellbent on regime change — Operation Timber Sycamore — President Obama and his warmongering Secretary of State fundamentally did to Syria what Bush/Cheney had done to Iraq, destroying the country and throwing millions of lives into chaos and despair.

(You will note that the Russians have not a damn thing to do with this history. Hillary Clinton’s blood-soaked record speaks for itself.)

In short, there are very few politicians in America who have been more instrumental to the neocon agenda than Hillary Clinton has. Her history exposes her as an unrepentant, unflappable true believer in the genocide of Arab/Muslims that’s been authored by the neocons — the modern successors to the Nazis, by any standard, with the blood of millions on their hands.

On a separate issue, also broached by the Clinton apologist mentioned at the beginning of this writing…

Finally, with regard to your last point, I really don’t think you want to defend Clinton’s “environmentalist” record, when it was her State Department that pushed other nations to adopt the uniquely destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing — at a time when the climate catastrophe was already metastasizing and the Sixth Mass-Extinction Event was well underway.

[Of course, the water-befouling, earthquake-causing, methane-releasing practice of fracking skyrocketed under President Obama, with nearly 90% of the increase coming from the United States, whose reckless disregard for the unfolding climate catastrophe was also reflected in his dramatic increase of oil production — making Barack Obama the No. 1 president in U.S. history for domestic oil production.

And then there was Obama’s unprecedented opening up of the Arctic for deepwater drilling, an unconscionable act denounced by leading climate activist, Bill McKibben of

“No one can really listen to what he’s saying” (re: Obama’s rhetorical concern for the environment) “especially because there was an important paper in [the journal] Nature which specifically identified the Arctic as one of the few places that absolutely had to be off limits if we are to have any hope of meeting our climate targets.”

Mind you, President Obama had already sabotaged those climate targets at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, insisting that the rest of the participating nations drop their demands for legally-binding carbon limits and liability for polluters.]

Also on the environmental front, Sec. Clinton allowed some of her 2008 campaign’s top donors, including TransCanada — deeply invested in the Keystone XL pipeline project — to hijack her department’s “Environmental Impact” report on that project. Siding with the dirty tar sands-hawking industry, Clinton’s State Department forewent an actual, credible study of the proposed pipeline’s environmental impact in order to precipitously greenlight the project (over 90% of which was completed by mid-2013, thanks to President Obama’s behind-the-scenes acquiescence).

At the time, the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) issued a harsh condemnation of the process, noting “It’s easy to find ‘no significant impact’ if you do no significant study.”

Likewise, The Guardian published an article excoriating the Clinton State Department’s complete abdication of duty, detailing the thoroughly corrupted “environmental impact” review process — and the close ties between Clinton’s top staffers (formerly her top campaign officials) and the companies pushing for Keystone XL pipeline.

From that article:

“Nick Berning, the communications director with Friends of the Earth, said the newly released documents offer clear evidence of a conflict of interest involving the Secretary of State and her staff, which is unfairly tipping the scales in favor of the oil industry at the expense of public health and welfare.

“’The State Department’s job is to act in the public interest, but this document implies State was looking out for a private oil firm instead,’ Berning said.

“Friends of the Earth received 34 documents from the State Department in response to its freedom of information request, but plans to ask for more. Damon Moglen, the organization’s climate and energy director, said attachments referenced in the emails are missing, along with notes that would have been routinely taken during meetings that TransCanada had with State Department officials. There is also evidence that some official business was being conducted between Elliott and State Department staffers via their personal email accounts…”

Only a blinkered partisan — indifferent to oceans of human suffering — could dismiss Clinton’s indefensible, warmongering history as “Russian propaganda.”

And only an imbecile could mistake Hillary Clinton — a pro-fracking, pipeline-expediting, neoliberal corporatist — for anything resembling an “environmentalist.”

But that’s what partisanship does to otherwise intelligent people: It makes them morally and intellectually incoherent when discussing politics and world events. In pushing partisan narratives, they blind themselves to history and align themselves with the Clintons, Bushes, Cheneys, Nulands, and Boltons of the world.

It’s precisely this kind of obscurantism and hypocrisy — not Moscow’s machinations — that landed Donald Trump in the White House.

While Thom Hartmann has had some consistent problems blundering into the quicksand of “lesser evil” partisanship, causing him to be a frequent apologist for one-half of our pernicious duopoly, I still consider him a fairly decent progressive who has occasionally contributed something of value to the national conversation.

In the following segment from his show, Hartmann and his guest describe how the Koch brothers virtually took over the Democratic Party in the 1980’s and 1990’s, funding the Third Way and its favorite son, William Jefferson Clinton – the closet Republican who helped dismantle the former party of FDR:

And although the Kochs were notorious for their influence over the GOP, their investments in the neoliberal Democratic Party paid off handsomely for decades, including under President Obama:

How else can we explain Obama’s zealous advocacy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade” deal? It is deeply depressing that Barack Obama pushed so hard for such an abominable piece of legislation – which overlooks slavery in Malaysia (further normalizing the practice, which is at an all-time high, globally, as has been reported in the L.A. Times) and which would have empowered a quasi-legal board of corporate lawyers to reign over sovereign nations, nullifying environmental and labor regulations across the globe.

– Obama overlooks slavery:

– The practice of slavery is enjoying its heyday in the 21st century:

But when we’re talking about the hostile takeover of our leading institutions by amoral, omnicidal corporatists (modern fascists), we make a critical mistake if we end our conversation with our corrupted and industry-captured political parties. (And if we end our conversation with condemnations of the GOP only, then we’re simple enablers of fascism – gullible, partisan rubes indifferent to the suffering of millions.)

As journalist Jane Mayer has detailed, the Kochs exercise virtual editorial control over even our most liberal mainstream news organizations. Here, she details their considerable influence over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting:

My only point is that we will surely lose our fight against the oligarchs and warmongers if we fail to see the scope of the problem. If we are mere partisans. Because our country’s problems are systemic. Because all of our institutions – no exaggeration – have been corrupted by the Kochs and their ilk. And so far as our media outlets, it’s not just FoxNews that chiefly represents the interests of the far-right, but also the NYT, Washington Post, NPR, Mother Jones, MSNBC, CNN, and more.

Purge the rot from the system. Spare no sycophant to power. And certainly, spare no political party as entrenched and evil as the Democrats and Republicans. They exist to crush progressivism, human rights, and the rule of law. As the record clearly demonstrates, they have no other purpose.

Demonstrating, yet again, that the Democratic Party has learned none of the lessons of 2016, the DNC appears hellbent on preventing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a staunchly anti-war progressive, from taking her place on the debate stage.

Rep. Gabbard has done far too well in her previous debate appearances, and her national support is steadily growing. She’s fought for election integrity, single-payer healthcare, a (specific, credible) Green New Deal, press freedom, a livable minimum wage, an overhaul of our deeply racist criminal justice system, and an end to Washington’s regime-change wars.

Like Bernie Sanders in 2016, her candidacy must be sabotaged by our political-media establishment, lest an actual liberal have a chance at the presidency. Because, from the Democratic Party’s perspective, defeating Donald Trump has never been as important as quashing the progressive movement.

When nearly two dozen polls from credible sources (The Economist, Emerson, Suffolk…) show that Rep. Gabbard has more than met the polling threshold to be on the debate stage — with over 130,000 unique donors (no PAC money) demonstrating considerable grassroots support — this is what the DNC resorts to… and not for the first time.

Here’s Noam Chomsky’s assessment of the “shenanigans” that determined the outcome of the 2016 farce that gave us President Trump:

“Here comes Sanders, somebody nobody ever heard of. No support from the wealthy, no support from corporations. The media ignored or disparaged him. He even used a scare word, ‘socialist.’ Came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic Party nomination if it hadn’t been for the shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers who kept him out. Might have been president.”

(Actually, Mr. Chomsky, poll after poll showed that, but for the rigged primary, Bernie Sanders would have become our 45th president, trouncing Donald Trump by an average of 9-15%, well outside the margin of error.)

Today, the establishment has its sharpest knives out for the only Democrat running to Bernie’s left, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

The most searched candidate following each of her first two debate performances, Rep. Gabbard has been relentlessly smeared by the mainstream media and sabotaged by both Google and Twitter:

Google’s shenanigans –

Twitter’s fuckery –

Now, the big tech companies’ pals at the DNC are trying to simply “disappear” Rep. Gabbard from the debates — cheating to exclude the only progressive Democrat running for president (the one other bona fide progressive running for the office is Sen. Sanders, an independent).

I guess the DNC understands that the only way for a corporatist to “win” the Democratic Party’s nomination is by hook and by crook, and they’re back to their old tricks.

The DNC must really want another four years for Trump and the MAGA crowd.

In the early 2000’s, the corporate media, virtually in lockstep, told us that Saddam Hussein had “WMD” — systematically burying all evidence to the contrary. All skeptics and dissenters were purged, including the NYT’s Pulitzer-winning journalist, Chris Hedges. And, as if to illustrate the one true priority of corporate “news” — propagandizing the American people — MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for questioning the WMD claims, even as his show was the top-rated on their network.

And over a million Iraqis died unnecessarily, thanks to that unconscionable and massive dereliction of journalistic duty.

The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, and their ilk provided us with a graphic demonstration of just how corrupt the Fourth Estate had become in the USA — corporatized state media, utterly subservient to the oligarchy and Military Industrial Complex.

Today, following an unprecedented war on investigative journalism (initiated by Bush/Cheney, accelerated and normalized by Barack Obama, continued by Donald Trump), matters are considerably worse. Leading news organizations have become mere propagandists for empire, simply repeating the warmongering claims of anonymous intelligence agency spooks and government officials, re: Russia, Wikileaks, Venezuelan President Maduro, Syria’s Assad, and more.

More often than not, today’s MSM doesn’t just bury countervailing claims, it fails to report them entirely. Just as it largely failed to report the CIA’s Operation Timber Sycamore, itself: the regime-change op predicated on flooding Syria with tens of thousands of al Qaeda butchers, Sunni militants keen to unseat Assad and deprive Shi’ite Iran of a key ally (Mujaheddin 2.0, backed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, trained and coordinated by the CIA).

Having learned no lessons from the run-up to our illegal war on Iraq, many Americans seem to accept — without compelling evidence — the claims that Bashar al-Assad has “gassed his own people.”

Following the 2002-03 media debacle that led to the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, that is truly shameful.

Adhering to the same journalistic and political malefactors who have repeatedly lied to us before, many Americans simply believe the propaganda — even as several credible skeptics have emerged, from legendary journalist, Robert Fisk, to former U.K. ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to U.N. lead investigator, Carla Del Ponte, who after finishing her 2013 fact-finding mission to Syria said the following:

“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and there are strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof, of the use of sarin gas. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.”

(The New York Times has also reported that the anti-Assad “rebels” used chemical weapons scores of times in Iraq and Syria over just a few-year stretch.)

And now, evidence has come to light that the United Nations’ agency for evaluating the WMD allegations, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has been politically compromised, burying its own analysts’ conclusions that the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was “staged.”

Aside from the fact that he’s been winning the war decisively with conventional weapons, there are hundreds of good reasons to doubt the claims that Bashar al-Assad has resorted to the use of chemical weapons in this conflict.

While voicing such doubts does not absolve Assad of other serious war crimes, it’s fair to ask why Syria’s leader would cross the one “red line” that would guarantee heightened U.S. involvement and potentially reverse the tide of the war? Why would this clearly intelligent leader do something so blatantly stupid and unnecessary, when already his regime had all but assured itself of victory?

One doesn’t have to be “anti-war” or a fire-breathing “isolationist” to regard these WMD claims — coming from the usual suspects, a parade of war criminals — with extreme skepticism.

One simply has to have an ounce of human decency, knowing that taking at face value such unfounded, dubious claims could well lead to an escalation of yet another Washington-provoked Middle Eastern conflict — claiming hundreds of thousands of more innocent lives — once again, on a pack of lies.

And yet most Americans, including members of the liberal class, apparently have become neocon true believers, as hawkish as any Bush/Cheney Republican. As blithely willing as any MAGA moron to believe despicable things about foreign leaders, thanks to a fundamentally Orientalist mindset.

I highly recommend the following exchange between one of America’s few remaining adversarial journalists, the latest “Izzy” Award recipient, Aaron Mate (formerly at Democracy Now!) and respected arms expert, MIT professor Theodore Postol.

In addition to laying out credible doubts about specific claims against the Assad regime, Postol notes just what has happened to journalism in the U.S. in recent decades:

“It’s a farce. What’s shocking is the news media today has done such a poor job asking questions about this. When I used to work with news media, 30 years ago, say, I’d get into the papers quite a lot with my work. And every reporter I worked with who was good — and there were lots of them — the first thing that would happen when I called them up and said, ‘Look, there’s an issue here that you may want to think about an article for,’ the first thing they’d ask me is, ‘What’s behind what you’re saying?’ In other words, can you show me, can you prove it to me, can you give me the evidence? That’s good! That’s the right thing any journalist should do when they’re confronted… when a story is proposed to them or when they think there’s a story worth looking into.”

“That doesn’t happen anymore.”

Bush-Obama’s methane legacy — “Freedom Gaschoking the biosphere

From the article:

“Between 2005 and 2015, fracking went from producing 31 billion cubic meters of shale gas per year to producing 435 billion cubic meters.

“Nearly 90 percent of that fracking took place in the U.S., while about 10 percent was done in Canada.”

Like domestic oil production, hydraulic fracturing exploded under President Obama — spearheaded by Sec. Clinton’s efforts to spread this uniquely destructive fossil-fuel to the rest of the world:…/how-hillary-clintons-state-de…

But no one should have any illusions that Donald Trump is any better than Obama on this front. As with so many policies, Trump has picked up right where Obama left off:

“Freedom Gas” or “bridge fuel” — either way, the duopoly works only for the omnicidal oligarchy that’s overthrown our democracy.

As citizens of the world and members of the human race, we are morally obligated to resist the destruction of our planet’s biosphere. It’s up to us to reform our governments, holding all politicians accountable (not just the personally ugly, less educated ones) — either that, or quit pretending to have any morally-grounded, reality-based objections to the presidency of Donald Trump.

Russiagate = supporting the neo-fascists behind the genocide of millions of predominantly Arab-Muslim civilians (under Trump’s three predecessors alone: 1+ million under Clinton, 1+ million under Bush, 500,000+ under Obama) in order to convey to one’s bourgeois peers one’s purely symbolic condemnation of racism.

Mathematically expressed: Russiagate = omnicidal fascism + a facade of “liberalism” (protecting the mind-bogglingly amoral, despotic, and destructive agenda of the (patriarchal/white supremacist/Christian Dominionist) American oligarchy that’s spent the last six decades eradicating the rule of law, normalizing global war, and initiating the collapse of the planet’s ecosystem, ushering in the Earth’s Sixth Mass-Extinction event).

Note: The ability to believe and become passionate about Russiagate’s central claims — and to characterize Trump as some kind of an anomaly in U.S. politics — is predicated on one’s near-total ignorance of decades of astonishingly destructive U.S. policies… and politicians, many of whom have been far more effectively (and overtly) racist — and considerably more destructive — than Donald Trump has been, to date, deplorable demagogue that he is.