Tweet this page on Hillary's frighteningly war-mongering record: Tweet Tweet Main LesserEvil2016.com page: Tweet Which candidate represents the hard Right, and who's more "conservative" (reactionary Neocon) dangerously so, on Foreign Policy? To whom are the "War without end" Neocons flocking? (Long lists of " Neocons for Hillary" e.g. Kagan,have been published) Which candidate do warmonger Neocons fundraise for? For nominally "Democrat" candidate Neocon Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton is "Cheney 2.0"

Don't believe the spin! Neocons' pretended worries about Trump are fake reasons: Neocons are violent, ruthless; neocons who don't blink twice at body-counts in the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in their wars dead civilian men, dead women, dead children. Those children include school-age kids. Toddlers. Babies. No sugarcoating: That's who the Bush-Hillary Iraq War killed. An Iraqi boy maimed for life, thanks to Bush and Hillary's Iraq War, that unmitigated catastrophe created 800,000 orphans (UK analysis) That's "just" orphans; it doesn't count chidlren who were killed by bombs funded with your & my taxes which could have funded something useful.

Yet Neocons always push for more Endless Wars and Endless Empire They don't pay the bills, you pay in $$Trillions... and in lives.

Neocons have "issues" with Trump... because they're 'Sensitive' "?? Ha! That's a joke. A sick "dead baby" joke. Tens of thousands of dead babies... Neocons are not "sensitive people" One thing these Neocons aren't is "sensitive". (In fact they almost admit it, saying DT "is running to left of Hillary on Foreign Policy" Yet we know DT isn't Ghandi, so the real meaning is: Hillary is so far to the hawkish right that she is to the right of Republican DT!

Their real "worry" about Trump: That he's not hawkish enough (for them) This doesn't make Trump "nice"; it does speak volumes about how reactionary and how dangerous Hillary Clinton is. This isn't a "polite" handshake or 'required' gesture; it's how she feels, and how she's acted in office: Hillary is a Neocon running as a "Democrat" Here she is with her dear friend, George Bush, who lied the U.S. into the 2003 Iraq War leading to huge numbers thousands of dead U.S. soldiers and vets who are injured, with PTSD, or with other, often lifelong, debilitating health problems. And even more — hundreds of thousands! — of dead innocent civilian Iraqis.

This year's "Democrat" is to the Neocon Right of the Republican Does that sound far-fetched? It's almost as "far-fetched" As imagining the 1990s with Hillary & Bill able to ram through policies more reactionary than Reagan/Bush Sr. could Oh, wait, they did: job-smashing NAFTA. And again: Mass incarceration. Oh, wait, they also demolished 60 years of aid to vulnerable single moms, something even Reagan couldn't accomplish that. History shows that a sufficiently Corporate Democrat can push through more reactionary policies than Republican presidents, history shows. That's "Wall Street/NAFTA/Neoliberal smashing of middle class as well as for neocon reactionary, very costly and incredibly destructive foreign policy that makes us less safe. ...if the Democrat is corporate enough and neocon "enough". Hillary's history of policies she's supported, voted for, and even spearheded, demonstrates that's the case with her.

One twitter user made similar points to ours, that they didn't like Trump but that Clinton's trail of wars, occupations, bombings, thousands and thousands of dead civilians from the wars she voted for or even spearheaded (Libya) were more frightening. A second tweeted that the only reason Trump doesn't have the trail of dead civilians behind him that Hillary does is that he's never held office — as if this is an argument for voting for Hillary? That's like saying "the only reason person A never killed their wife is because they never got married, you fool!" And then adding they will "marry" (vote for) person B — who killed their last four wives. Sadly, "killing" isn't a metaphor but is literal reality, in country after country, while Hillary & her neocon backers state they want more:

Reality check: It doesn't make sense to excuse voting for Hillary by saying, "well, Hillary did those terrible things, but Trump might have done as bad or worse if he has been President..it's just that he hasn't" That doesn't make sense on several fronts, one of which is that Hillary has been far more right-wing hawkish than Trump on Libya, Syria, even in confrontations with Russia. Trump didn't slash and end 60 years of aid to single moms, and so on (On Russia, progressive Arab-American Sam Husseini formerly with the progtressive media watch group FAIR, cited a scholar's analysis on how Hillary is far more hawkish than Trump on diplomacy/talks versus military confrontation with Russia. And you don't have to "believe" Husseini or that expert, just notice how Hillary has pivoted into 1950s style McCarthite Red-Baiting smears of being in bed with those commie dangerous Ruskies and notice how [[neocons are flocking to Hillary and even fund-raising for her]] Furthermore, who could ever consider it reasonable to say: "Yeah, candidate A (Republcian) never killed a wife, but that's only because they never married. So I'm gonna vote for candidate B (HRC) who has a track record: they killed their last 3 wives, that's my choise for who to marry, I mean, for whom to vote for!" That's the fallacy the powerful interests want us to buy into without spelling it out..

This group of so-called "moderate" rebels (in reality: violently extremist Jihadists) beheaded this twelve (12) year old boy! Welcome to the ugly truth: In Syria you don't have a simple equation of "ISIS and Al Qaeda are bad, the other, 'moderates' are good" Instead you have often admirable peaceful opposition groups but the overwhelming majority of armed groups are brutal, violent, civilian-targeting extremist Islamist jihadis and mercenary groups. That's what the fit leaf of "moderates" hides, in order to attempt to engineer another "regime change" never mind the catastrophic results in Iraq, never mind the catastrophic results when tried again in Libya leaving a trail of destruction, dead civilians, and large swathes of the country run by ISIS no less! Another ugly fact: the top strongest hawk war advocate in Obama's cabinet for the Libya still unfolding disaster was Hillary. Doesn't let the rest off the hook; but as for assessing her character as potential leader, it couldn't look worse: Hillary not only didn't "learn" from the trillion+ dollar "mistake" in Iraq, she was strongest advocate for a repeat in Libya Back to these so-called "moderate" terrorist thugs: This very same group that beheaded the boy, wasn't just backed but funded (read: paid for by your tax-dollars) and not only backed by Hillary, but she has been to the Neocon hard-line Right end of spectrum (little wonder Neocons flock to her) and Hillary wants to double-down even further in support of vicious brutal jihadis trying not only to overthrow Syria's Secular government, and replace it with a strict Sharia Islamic State (with them as dictators, "naturally") but also terrorizing civilians and even beheading children. Just to be very clear, this is not ISIS or Al Qaeda, but "moderates" Hillary was most hawkish in supporting and who wants to escalate further. The last image is blurred but they are still very disturbing. You choice whether to look but it's you tax dollars, isn't there a moral imperative to look, to know, not to hide from yourself what Hillary and other hawks in Obama cabinet have done? Hillary's policies have meant, and if president would mean, more scenes like this, taken from video created by the "rebels" themselves as the taunt the boy who asks if he can be killed "only" with a bullet and they reply on tape to him: "We are worse than ISIS". These are one of the "moderate" U.S.-backed U.S.-funded groups sold to us by Washington and the media, horrible enough...even more horrible are those at the hawkish hard-line end pushing these policies...at the forefront of which is Hillary Clinton:
Link to (partly blurred but still very disturbing) last image of "moderate rebel" monster jihadist holding the severed head of the 12 year old boy high in the air, joyously, is here. Your taxes & Hillary's foreign policy at work. Hillary thinks the disaster in Iraq she voted to authorize, and the Libya war disaster which killed, maimed, and impoverished even more innocent civilians, women, and children, and on top of that, leaving ISIS in charge of large swathes of Libya... Hillary thinks that's not enough. In order to overthrow the Syrian government (which at least is Secular, multi-religious acceptance and plurality, women can drive, woman Vice President, woman Speaker of Parliament, etc. And which was taking small but critical steps like legalizing opposition papers as part of a reform process long before the Arab Spring) all in order to appease the most brutal regime in the Middle East: the oil-rich Al-Saudi family dictatorship practicing and exporting the most extremist form of fundamentalism: Wahhabi Islam. All to back the oil-rich Saudis, a country where women aren't allowed to drive, or even vote outside of local elections (even that was a recent "gift" from the Al Saud family dictatorship) where bloggers like Saudi human rights activist Raif Badawi are sentenced for that "crimes" and then publicly whipped for criticizing the government, poor people who steal may have their hands cut of, people are beheaded ISIS-style after being found "guilty" in courts that international human rights observers repeatedly tell us are rigged "courts." More: Please see the section on Hillary's "special relationship" with the Saudi regime. That is, with probably the world's worst human rights abusing regime, and without question the country where women have the least rights, period.

Don't buy the "pro-women" rhetoric: Hillary's brutally anti-women record. Who's done more damage to women's rights? See the Section on how: a Hillary presidency endanger women more than Trump. We're dead serious; Click the above; ignore at your own risk.

Section in Draft →   Link to articles in Washington Post and elsewhere. →  Excerpts from progressive writers at Black Agenda Report, article called "Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy — In Fact, He's Damn Near Anti-Empire" where we must make the same disclaimer as when right-wing Neocons complain that Trump is "to the left of Hillary" on foreign policy; in fact, the Donald is not "more to the left" of Hillary Clinton: she in her actions not just words, is well to the war-mongering Neocon Right — Hillary is well to the hard Right of Trump. →  Meanwhile read this great, important article Hillary's diverse military administration or: How I learned to stop worrying and love warhawks by Bugei Nyaosi> (Easy to remember short url we created: https://tr.im/HCneocon) →  Consortium News: Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton →  Neocons even fund-raise for Hillary. →  In this chillling speech Hillary not only takes as "fact" that Russian sources and even as "fact" that the Russian government is behind the DNC leak as opposed to Guccifer2 (a hacker who doesn't live in Russia) but talks "taking the fight" to Russia with responses "including military" ones. Absolutely as chilling as 1980s politicians at their worst Cold War fear-mongering, this May 2016 speech by Hillary Clinton: →  In contrast, progressive Arab-American Sam Husseini (formerly with the progressive media watch group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) quotes a foreign policy scholar on his (Husseini's) blog noting that as off the cuff as Trump has been he has at least (and unlike Hillary Clinton) indicated that talking to Russia, that is, what we would call Diplomacy, should the way forward, and the way to resolve disagreements and conflicts. By the way have you noticed the mainstream media one second fear-mongers, "Oh my God! Trump is way to fond of Russia and Putin!" then the next minute, "OMG! Trump will start a nuclear war with Putin if he (DT) wakes up on the wrong side of the bed!" (fact check: A president cannot unilaterally override everyone else and just launch nuclear war on a whim, or Reagan, Kissinger and others would have long ago) Then back to "DT loves Putin! Yuch" and "DT will start world war against Putin" and back and forth: lather, rinse, repeat. While having to back-peddle, Trump actually suggested a "neutral" (far more fair, just, and more likely to result in peace) stance while mediating between Israel and Palestinians. Under intense pressure he's retracted. At least he said it: Hillary never had. It's not that we "Trust" Trump; we emphatically don't but what makes Hillary far more dangerous is that we can "trust" her to continue her long record of pushign for wars in country (Iraq) after country (Libya) after country (Syria) after country (Yemen, backing her friend the Saudis who are as close if not closer to the Clintons than to the also dangerous and criminal Bush family Dynasty) →  Powerful quotes from Israelis on how militarism is hurting Israel, too. Even if you're not sympathetic to the Palestinians due to media (usually) hiding the many moderate pro-peace voices and focusing on the most militant statements, the fact is militarism is hurting Israel, destroying its democracy, human rights (for Israelis themselves, let alone for Palestinians and Arab-Israeli citizens)... →  Hillary's "Can't we just 'Drone' [Assassinate] journalist and whistleblower Julian Assange?" (presumably assassinating also other staff to kill off Wikileaks (link) In other news, Washington Post reaches new low of journalistic shame by calling for prosecution of someone who leaked info to it, for reporting Washington Post used to get a Pulitzer prize! When Wikileaks publishes, "omg! prosecute them!" and same with even the most moral and courageous whistle-blowers, but but not when Washington Post publishes the same thing (TheIntercept.com) because, presumably, they know to not embarrass or upset those in power too much, and are helpful lapdogs the rest of the time to those in power... Bottom line is that the Neocon Hawkish positions which Hillary has embraced, harm Israelis too and (unlike the Palestinians whose military is out gunned 1,000-to-1 by Israel) threatens, it's no exaggeration to say — and more than a few Israelis has said it — threatens to destroy Israel from within. So we're doing Israelis no favor (not just brutality towards children in Palestine) with Neocon policies →  Architects of of Iraq War wants to vote for Hillary: George W's Abu-Ghraib criminal gang of War-mongers and war-criminals neocons the folks behind the WMD lies, behind the torture, behind the Project for a New American Century endlessw war project...(more details to come)

	Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary-general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, wrote a piece (as if all the the above isn't enough) that may interest you: Want Endless War?..Well, Hillary Clinton's Your Choice Or see short summary at Institute for Public Accuracy website

 

Susan Sarandon Fears Hillary Foreign Policy More Than Trump	"Her record — I mean, she did not learn a thing from Iraq. She is an interventionist. She's done horrible things, horrible things, and very callously," she added..I think we'll be in Iran in two seconds. That scares me. That frightens me."-Susan Sarandon

So bad as "regime change" is with the massive civilian deaths and ISIS control of much of Libya today, "regime change" wasn't even the ultimate real goal after all, since they turned down an offer for a peaceful transition. No, not any "Regime change" will do for these Cheney-like neocon warhawks led at the helm by Hillary herself: only a "regime change" that includes a "we want to be the ones installing a new government 'friendly' to our corporate (and donor?) interests, oil interests, etc" ..only that would seem to have been enough for Hillary, who could be part of identical triplets with Bush and Cheney.

Are you scared of Trump because you don’t know what he’ll do? Then you should be far more scared of Clinton, because you may be certain that she’ll do unthinkably horrific things. Trump might seem unpredictable in some ways, but Hillary is predictably bloodthirsty and destructive. The “devil you know” is consistently pushing toward your worst-case scenario. How is that better, exactly?

Hillary’s diverse military administration or: How I learned to stop worrying and love warhawks by Bugei Nyaosi

Closing Summary: In a non-swing states, always vote your values in any election; but this election...now you know the facts: Hillary in so many ways is not the "Lesser Evil" but the Greater Evil in past acts, and even more clearly, Hillary is the Greater Danger (Trump would be a more opposed, weaker, thus less dangerous — less able to do damage — president) Fight for a last-minute miracle President Jill.. A DT Presidency would increase progressive activism With Hillary, most Media would spin for her, many Americans would Go back to sleep, as in 90s, when Clintons gave us NAFTA & slashed aid to single moms Today it would mean also: $trillions on wars: devastation, death & more terrorism through Iraq-War style repeats After reviewing this, we hope you'll agree that "even" in swing states too, vote for the Greater Good: Dr. Jill Stein for President! At worst, we'll get a weaker "Lesser Evil" president in DT flooded with opposition And at Best? After all the huge Surprises (Bernie going so far, DT nomination, latest HRC health problems) we've seen? At best? We'll get a deeply progressive President Dr. Jill Stein!

Front Page: Index of Sections