We always knew that “Neocons” weren’t really Conservatives. That they were really just Liberals who supported an interventionist U.S. foreign policy for various reasons. However Wolfowitz’s defection to the Hillary camp show us we didn’t know the half of it. Leftists are ambivalent about the use of the military and have no real will to win a war. Deep down Leftist despise the military (and the police too). They’ll publicly support deploying the military to enforce their foreign policy decisions but then they will hamstring it and set it up for failure. So we have the paradox of having a military that cannot be beaten and yet cannot win. For that reason The U.S. should eschew all future military inventions because no matter what they are about or whose idea they were the Democrats will sabotage them. They can’t help themselves.
Leading neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz said he would not back Donald Trump for US president and might vote for Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton instead, in an interview published .
Neocons and Clintonites have launched a major campaign with the goal of direct US military intervention and aggression against Syria, potentially leading to war with Iran and Russia. An early indication emerged as soon as it was clear the Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party nominee. Following the California primary, the NY Times reported on State Department diplomats issuing an internal memo “urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al Assad.”In early August Dennis Ross and Andrew Tabler opined in the NY Times about “The Case for (Finally) Bombing Assad”. Dennis Ross is a favorite Clintonite. In her book “Hard Choices”, Clinton described how she asked Dennis Ross to come to the State Department to “work on Iran and regional issues”.NY Times regular Nicholas Kristof made his pitch for war against Syria. According to the self-styled humanitarian, we need “safe zones” as proposed by Clintonite Madeline Albright and retired General James Cartwright. That is risky but “the risks of doing nothing in Syria are even greater”.
As many have speculated, there is something is Syria – an oil pipeline route, oil fields, some mineral deposit – which the elites want to get their hands on. More than likely, The Clinton Foundation is in line to get a huge payout if Hillary can just get in and expend ten or twenty thousand serviceman’s lives getting US control over that land.
The truth is, we have probably had more war and unrest in the Middle East under Obama than we had under the entire Bush regime. You have to wonder how Soro’s investments have benefited from all that war.
These small scale war expenditures are probably much of what has kept the economy barely treading water these past eight years. If it wasn’t for war, the US wouldn’t make anything, given the state of our manufacturing sector. And for any liberals thinking their candidates are the moral ones who don’t enrich the machine by waging gratuitous war, and they are the moral ones for supporting them, it just doesn’t work that way.
Only the right turned its back on its entire machine, and ignored the most ideological candidate in the race, to take a wild chance on an unproven, little known outsider, specifically because he wasn’t owned by the Party Machinery.
If Liberals want to avoid another eight years of endless war in the Middle East courtesy of the Neocon assholes, complete with murdered civilians, collateral damage, fleeing war refugees, dead children, and sacrificed American soldiers, all to line some fat cat’s bank account, then they have one choice.
His name is Donald Trump.
Along influence lines, there is a very strong amygdala pathway linking “War in the Mideast” against actors who have not bothered us, with aversive stimulus. There is also a very strong aversion to neocons among both the left and right, as well as a real distrust of Wolfowitz, even among many on the right. Using all of this to hammer Hillary by attaching it all to her would be a brilliant move. I hope Trump has it on his list.