Neocon John Podhoretz on Hillary's speech: "this could have been Marco Rubio’s stump speech"

[Luminous Animal]

He liked it! He really liked it!

Now, there will be untold thousands of words of analysis devoted to this address, and much of it will properly center on the areas in which she factitiously and falsely defended her and Barack Obama’s foreign-policy choices from the Russian reset in 2009 to Syria in 2012 and, most especially, the Iran deal. But in its immediate aftermath, what is most striking is how determinedly Clinton decided to move herself to the center, edging to the center-right, on foreign policy matters and most especially on the complex issue of American exceptionalism.

With a few deletions and emendations here and there, this could have been Marco Rubio’s stump speech. It was many clicks to the right of Barack Obama

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/

And, in case you've forgotten what a shithead he is…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podhoretz#Iraq_War

[Gomez163]

1. He's more of a poopyhead

[pangaia]

2. To quote somebody about something, the woman just has absolutely no moral compass.

(God, I never thought I would type those words ... moral compass)

I mean, she will say ANYTHING, ANYTHING to get elected.
She tastes it so badly her brain is fogged like a smoked-filled niche...

[840high]

3. How can she of all

people accuse anybody else of being fascinated with foreign dictators?

[amandabeech]

4. Right after the speech, Tweety said that she is looking for neo-con support

with this speech.

It sounds like she hit her target audience.

Just remind yourselves, she's better than Trump.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. And click the heels together three times while repeating it.

[amandabeech]

44. Let me go see if I can find some red shoes.

They may come in handy over the next few years.

[reformist2]

5. If Hilary wins the nomination, will a post like this even be allowed?

[Luminous Animal]

6. No.

[reformist2]

7. This is what I'm afraid of. I like free speech zones, not propaganda sites.

There needs to be an enclave here where total free speech is embraced. Because if it comes down to insisting on my right to free speech or defending "the party", I know which way I'm going to go.

[azmom]

52. Me too. Nt

[Joe the Revelator]

16. It should be. Its constructive. I don't know why some of you are so excited for an echo chamber. nt

[BillZBubb]

8. And all the "progressive" Hillary supporters on DU will be GaGa about it! I can hear it now.

"She's wonderful, such an expert on foreign policy". "I agree 1000%". "She is so smart!". "No one can match her on foreign policy!". Etc.

Disgusting. Straight neocon bullshit and not one of her supporters will bat an eyelash.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. She's absolute shit at foreign policy, by any liberal standard.

But for war profiteers and their ilk, she'd just what the doctor ordered.

[roguevalley]

28. Her Libyan and Syrian strategies came right out of Kissinger's ass.

Imagine what she could do if and when Obama isn't standing between her and full rein.

Question: How is it that all the countries we invade and those on her list have brown skinned people? Why do we never invade white countries? Discuss.

[Octafish]

9. Neoconic Dreaming

on a wintry day.

Yo, Kagan!

[Luminous Animal]

10. Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen...

[Octafish]

62. Very service oriented individuals!

Their ideological father, Leo Strauss, wanted to harness humanity through religion, perpetual war and subterfuge. Strauss does have his Buy Partisan adherents.

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception

Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.

By Jim Lobe / AlterNet May 18, 2003

What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?

A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.

The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.

Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.

Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.

Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men – as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/leo_strauss%27_philosophy_of_deception

Not that this time won't be any different, but still we hope for change that never seems to come.

[QC]

11. Did he mean that as a compliment? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

12. Yes.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Kick.

[TomCADem]

14. No, Rubio, Would Have Stuttered in a Feedback Loop...

...every few seconds.

[Luminous Animal]

15. It wasn't the delivery but the content.

[EndElectoral]

17. I wish she'd pondered her own previous decision on Iraq before offering this from her speech today.

"A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that."

[jack_krass]

19. The Hildenburg passengers here sure ate it up. Many seemed moved to a rapturous, near orgasmic state

[Luminous Animal]

20. Killed it! And millions of human beings.

[joshcryer]

21. It'll be so good when DU isn't posting right wing sources anymore.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Hahaha… It will be nice to have a candidate that is not currying favor with the right

wing.

Care to comment on his support of Hillary? How about Kagan's support? Or Cohen's?

How about checking out the Bolton is ready to provide foreign policy advice to Trump?

How about you look at how the Republican war mongers are choosing sides between a Dem and Rep. None of them give a flying fuck about you or me. AND most importantly, they don't give a flying fuck about young men and women being killed over a "business opportunity".

When do we call it genocide. Creating millions of human beings wandering the earth bombed out of their homes and losing their connections to tribes, families, and, communities. Living in tent cities all over the world. Drones flying over their heads constantly with no idea when a bomb will be dropped. Running to the market and then running home. Hunkered down within their four walls. Afraid to have a BBQ. Afraid to attend a wedding. Afraid to attend a funeral.

Genocide is more that physical death. It is also cultural death. Familial dislocation that wipes out generations of lore.

We are committing genocide NOW all over the globe. We are monsters.

Monsters.

[joshcryer]

26. I think Clinton will continue Obama's foreign policy.

I think you need to take a deep breath.

Clinton's biggest manipulation is convincing the world she's a neocon.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Oooh! So now it Hillary playing 7 demential chess. Please tell me more...

Give me a road map of how Hillary is manipulating the world.

[joshcryer]

31. She only initiated the Iran deal...

...no big deal.

[Luminous Animal]

36. And sabor rattles in regard to Iran. Lets all know that she is ready and willing

to bomb the crap out of them

We are monsters.

[joshcryer]

37. So, the Iran peace deal did nothing.

No wonder "progressives" back Trump.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Has it? Hillary is signaling it is not a big deal.

[GRhodes]

64. That's an outright manipulation of reality

She claimed during the 2008 election cycle that Obama was naive for wanting to do what he did in regards to Iran, and just today went back on the attack versus Iran. It is now known that she was skeptical that the deal would actually work, and lobbied against it within Obama's administration. When she left, she joined the right wing reactionary Netanyahu in calling for sanctions against Iran after she left the administration. She gets zero credit for the Iran deal, for her to try and take credit shows how manipulative and dishonest she is.

[joshcryer]

67. Pure revisionism. Jake Sullivan worked very close to Clinton.

Clinton literally got the talks going: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-secret-iran-man-116647

[GRhodes]

69. You're a liar, plain and simple

Your own link tells a story of a skeptical Clinton, someone that called Obama naive for doing exactly what he did (which she now takes credit for) during the 2008 campaign, assigning someone to talk to Iran because Obama asked her to. She was in favor of, as usual (cause she's a right wing hawk) putting more pressure on them and being confrontational, as she made clear in her hawkish speech today. The person she assigned was equally skeptical that it would work, this is all from YOUR damn link, and they were wrong. She was then in favor of sanctions after she left office and was swayed by the right wing reactionary Netanyahu.

I'm done with you, and sick of this lying garbage. This is the reason why she's not liked or trusted. I struggle with deciding on if she's a worse candidate or a worse person.

[joshcryer]

70. What the fuck?

You call me a liar then make up your own bullshit spin. It's possible to be skeptical of something and still do it. Jake Sullivan himself was also skeptical about the deal.

Good riddance.

[GRhodes]

71. What the fuck is right

As I said, she gets no credit for the deal.

[azurnoir]

68. Right like this

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told a representative of a group of prominent Jewish leaders on Sunday that she wanted to put the relationship between the United States and Israel back on “constructive footing,” the representative said.

Mrs. Clinton’s comments, made in a phone call to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, contrasted in tone from recent remarks by members of the Obama administration, who have publicly criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel amid tensions over a nuclear deal with Iran and comments Mr. Netanyahu made in the final days of his re-election campaign this month.

“Secretary Clinton thinks we need to all work together to return the special U.S.-Israel relationship to constructive footing, to get back to basic shared concerns and interests, including a two-state solution pursued through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” Mr. Hoenlein said in a statement issued by his organization on Sunday evening. “We must ensure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue,” he quoted her as saying. Mrs. Clinton knows Mr. Hoenlein from her time in the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wants-to-improve-relations-with-israel.html?_r=0

she's also said in a speech at I believe the Brookings institute that she was willing to bomb Iran

[John Poet]

46. Right wing sources? Like Hillary?

It would be nice to have a presidential nominee whose foreign policy was not TO THE RIGHT OF that of the Republican nominee...

[HumanityExperiment]

56. I'll post words from her own mouth...

Here are some excerpts from her speech today:

"And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
That is not an outcome we can live with."

She will continue the current wars and promote the US 'policing' the rest of the world...



"Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the frontlines solving problems before they threaten us at home." ... "Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I’ve said many times before, our approach must be “distrust and verify.” The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. They’re our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them."

When did the US need to become more imperialistic? when did this become a progressive / liberal position?



"Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists. As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, I’ve laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.
We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground."

Now she's throwing Obama under the bus? 'we need a real plan for confronting terrorists'? Obama doesn't have a real plan being acted upon currently?



"And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that."

Where does Libya fall into the category of 'well thought out'?

[GRhodes]

63. The right winger here

is praising her, as many of the right wing war hawks often do. What are you guys going to do in 14 days when those right wingers are praising her? Pretend they don't exist, pretend they don't matter, or pretend that their reasons for doing so aren't important?

[Barack_America]

22. Neocons are with her!

[John Poet]

47. Are Neocons with Hillary, or is Hillary with Neocons?

I can't keep that straight....

Here, I recommend looking at this right before dinner, for anyone who's trying to lose weight...

[LibDemAlways]

60. Oh jeez, my eyes! That photo is so thoroughly

disgusting it makes my skin crawl. George Bush, war criminal and mass murderer, in an embrace with a woman the Democratic Party is desperate to put in the White House. So much wrong here, I can't even.

And before anyone chimes in with the "they're old friends" meme, ask yourself: if you were running for President as a Democrat, would you let that slimy good for nothing bastard be photographed embracing you?

[geek tragedy]

23. Bernie supporters bitter that he's no longer relevant to presidential race.

Drag up neocon blowhard to distract from Trump-bashing. Sad!

[Luminous Animal]

27. Neocon blowhard supports your candidate. Champions her right wing-ness.

Loves that she is more right wing than Obama.

[geek tragedy]

29. No one cares about media hack John Podhoretz.

Except for sanders supporters who follow him on Twitter. As if!

[Luminous Animal]

33. Except right wingers. Other neocons who support hillary. Robert Kagan, Elliot Cohen.

Max Boot.

Live with it. Embrace it.

[geek tragedy]

34. It's because Trump is utterly unacceptable.

They would never support her over Ted Cruz or Rubio or Jeb Bush.

But Trump really is so dangerous and unacceptable that there's bipartisan agreement.

[jack_krass]

40. Nope its because Hillary is a neocon. They like what she did in Libya and her Iraq vote

[geek tragedy]

42. Who do you prefer, Trump or Clinton? nt

[jack_krass]

61. I completely separate emotion from politics, and look at it with hard, cold logic (im an engineer)

In Trump, I see a fraud,/clown/proto-fascist upstart
In HRC, I see someone who used politics to get filthy rich, someone who puts on airs, is extremely good at manipulating emotional people, and (sorry), a PNAC agenda following warmonger. Just look at the glee in her face in her "we came, we saw, he died".

In short, I prefer neither.

[Luminous Animal]

48. Ugh. How gross that you would champion a candidate that would work with these monsters

rather than a candidate that would reject them.

[geek tragedy]

49. Is this your way of saying you prefer Trump?

P.S. Clinton isn't going to hire John Podhoretz. Get a grip.

[Luminous Animal]

50. I prefer Bernie. He rejects neocons. You embrace them in order to defeat Bernie.

[geek tragedy]

51. You're the only person in this conversation who cares what the neocons are saying.

John Podhoretz is not in my Twitter feed.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Neocons who are embracing Hillary… Kagan, Cohen, Boot. All powerful neocons

Not one on my twitter feed and all support Hillary over Bernie.

[geek tragedy]

54. So what? Bernie lost.

The choice is Clinton vs Trump (no Jill Stein will not be commander in chief).

[HumanityExperiment]

57. Do her words concern you? They should...

Here are some excerpts from her speech today:

"And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
That is not an outcome we can live with."

She will continue the current wars and promote the US 'policing' the rest of the world...



"Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the frontlines solving problems before they threaten us at home." ... "Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I’ve said many times before, our approach must be “distrust and verify.” The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. They’re our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them."

When did the US need to become more imperialistic? when did this become a progressive / liberal position?



"Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists. As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, I’ve laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.
We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground."

Now she's throwing Obama under the bus? 'we need a real plan for confronting terrorists'? Obama doesn't have a real plan being acted upon currently?



"And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that."

Where does Libya fall into the category of 'well thought out'?

[GRhodes]

65. He or she doesn't give a damn

This person doesn't share your values. He or she sees those quotes, shrugs, and moves on to the next "14 days" type of comment.

[jack_krass]

38. How about PNAC founder Kagen endorsing her?

[geek tragedy]

39. Because her opponent is Trump.

Trump is obviously and utterly unacceptable for the office in a way no other major party nominee has ever been.

Some of the neocons have picked up on this.

But go ahead and vote Trump if you think your argument really has merit--that the candidate endorsed by the neocons must be the worst one.

[jack_krass]

59. LOL you must twist yourself up in knots spinning for HRC, but alright, Ill play...

If Kagen and neocons don't like Trump, why wouldn't they just refrain from voting or lay low and shut up? Why are they publicly backing HRC?

These are not just your run of the mill neocons, these are the FOUNDERS. These are the architects of Iraq. These are some of the most evil people alive today, who have oceans of blood on their hands. The fact that they like Hillary validates everything we Berners have been saying, and, is (one of many) reasons HRC is unfit to be POTUS and should be rejected as the Dem candidate.

Do you think the PNACers and neocons would support Bernie?

[joshcryer]

32. It actually is a distraction from Trump bashing.

Can't enjoy a nice roast of the worst candidate to run in modern history.

[geek tragedy]

35. Not everyone here will be rooting for Clinton against Trump.

In particular The Intercept crowd.

[merrily]

24. Maybe Podhoretz did not buy Hillary's evolutions as some DUers claimed to?

"Many clicks to the right of Barack Obama."

[AzDar]

55. ...

[pkdu]

58. Bernie campaign circling the drain..14 more days.nt

[GRhodes]

66. 14 days

until this tiny bubble shrinks even further. That bubble has already led you all to making such great decisions, and it will be a lot easier on all your psyches to say easily refutable things and to know that no one will call you out. People like yourself are, at most, 5% of the public, maybe 10-15% of the electorate, and your "14 days" mindset is going to shrink that further.

In 14 days, should we all come here assuming this is the seed where David Brock's plants grow? Will the talking point of the day emerge from here, and you people? Yes.

[pkdu]

72. 10-15% of the electorate? Hmmmm....that would put Bernie at what number , given that

Hillary is 3 million votes ahead in the Primary?

As Skinner has suggested , "get it out of your system "....all if it , you will feel so much better.