CR: I didn't only write to FBI Director Mueller with my concerns--by the way, as he had suggested I do months before, the evening before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee (June 6, 2002, when I think he was trying to get me on his side by telling me he was also critical-minded and I ought to let him know the next time I saw something amiss). After a week of not getting any response from the FBI Director and with US troops poised to attack Iraq, I panicked and decided to make the letter public, sending it to the NY Times. So it turned out to be one of only a handful of mainstream front page stories opposing the Iraq War before the US launched its misbegotten war. But it obviously didn't stop anything. I ended up stepping down from my legal position which I had held for the prior 13 years as a direct result of that letter but in a way, if I had not tried, I don't think I would have been able to live with myself.
JB: I get that. And now, here we are, all these years later. Isn't this old news? Why is it relevant now, during this presidential primary season?
CR: Well it should be old news and the country should've learned from its mistakes, but unfortunately, most of the presidential candidates, with the exception of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, are still unwilling to admit these post 9-11 wars have been giant mistakes. So their answer is to double down and apply even more military force in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine as well as all other countries the US is drone-bombing in its global "war on terror." Only Sanders and Trump have indicated, in some ways, that they would be more careful in launching wars.
JB: Let's examine Hillary's position on this topic. She and her supporters tout her experience as former Secretary of State as proof that she can well fill the shoes of the Commander in Chief. Do you disagree?
CR: She IS experienced in starting wars and orchestrating "regime changes" around the world, but these have all proven disastrous. She and Bill have been involved in numerous financial and other scandals and deceits. She's experienced in that. But why would anyone vote for someone whose actions have served to increase the level of world-wide violence and terrorism, by some accounts, over 6000% since 9-11? I'm not sure if you can use this image but I've been posting this one on social media captioned: "Dick Cheney, now available in female." Coincidentally Hillary hired one of Cheney's assistants, Victoria Nuland who is PNAC Founder Robert Kagan's wife and who later helped orchestrate the coup in Ukraine.
JB: You've made some pretty strong claims just now, Coleen. And after you briefly specify the "numerous financial and other scandals and deceits", I'd like to see where you get your astounding 6000% increase figure, please.
CR: [Link here.] Not complete as I've never been that interested in compiling a list, but the main scandals and deceits that come to mind that the Clintons have been embroiled in are: Whitewater financial scandal; Lewinsky (and prior sex scandals) during which Hillary's husband slammed his fist and lied, then lamely explained that it depended upon what the meaning of "is" is; her exaggeration of being under fire after plane landing during one of her trips; Vince Foster suicide; the Clintons' raising of $3 billion over 41 years, including from foreign entities where there was a conflict of interest and which may figure into the FBI investigation of her use of a private server [see link]. There's a reason that Hillary gets such low marks in polls on the issue of honesty and trustworthiness.
JB: I just checked out your linkand you underestimated: the article says that, since 2002, the number of terror attacks has actually increased by 6,500%! As secretary of state, Hillary was carrying out her president's wishes. So, is it fair to tar her with war-ishness, if there is such a word?
CR: She wasn't exactly following Obama's orders. And that's not how it even works as Hillary is connected to powerful elements in the "Double State" (the Military Industrial Complex, AIPAC, Netanyahu, the neocon founders of the "Project for the New American Century and her powerful funders such as Haim Saban and George Soros). We know from Jeffrey Goldberg's exhaustive interviews in "The Obama Doctrine" recently published in the Atlantic, that Obama was pushed by Hillary (and Samantha Power) to bomb Libya and again pushed by Kerry and Hillary to arm the Syrian "rebels" (despite their connections to terrorist groups), set up a "no fly zone" (which is the same pretext they used to bomb Libya), to escalate the military occupation of Afghanistan, etc. See Diana Johnstone's book "Hillary: Queen of Chaos" and http://hillaryisaneocon.com/ for a more complete list of all the wars and "regime change" coups she's been involved in. Clinton maintained her vote giving authorization to Bush to launch war on Iraq was correct up until her first run for the presidency, long after it was known Bush-Cheney's pretexts were false. She overcame the objections of Robert Gates, Donlan and other top advisors to Obama regarding the decision to bomb and destroy Libya to take out Gaddafi.
JB: For those of us with faulty memories, remind us why having Gaddafi gone was a bad idea.
CR: Gaddafi, like Saddam, the Taliban, Assad, and other government leaders that the U.S. has either toppled or attempted to topple, may not be to our liking, but it's naive to believe that a democracy can be created, that it will be a "cakewalk" to remove a foreign government by bombing a country. Wars and the toppling of foreign governments creates a vacuum that inherently leads to civil strife and sectarian conflict, also providing "failed states" where Al Qaeda and ISIS can establish themselves. This is well known and predictable. The "Right to Protect" doctrine that was used by Clinton et al by alleging that we had to protect people in Benghazi was factually false just as Bush's lies about Iraq's WMD and ties to terrorism were false. Ultimately the US Ambassador was murdered as a result of Hillary Clinton's war on Libya and it was totally destabilized, destroyed and turned into a haven for terrorism.
JB: I'm pretty sure that Hillary would disagree with your assessment. For the last several months, in reaction to Bernie Sanders's surprising strength, she's been attempting to position herself as the true progressive and realist. Would you say that her foreign policy positions disqualify her from that claim?
CR: Again I urge readers to check out HillaryIsANeocon.com. There's a reason that the founder of PNAC, Robert Kagan and other neocon warhawks are now backing (and advising) Clinton over the other presidential candidates and it's not because she's a "true progressive" or a realist. Just the opposite. They know they can depend upon her to continue to wage wars and support "regime changes" around the world based on her solid track record of having done so during the last couple decades when she's had this power. Like other AIPAC cheerleaders, she has made statements about "obliterating Iran" so it may be that she would seek to undo the agreement that Obama has worked out. She has called for a "no fly zone" over Syria so I don't think she would support the current peace negotiations.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
11
10
8
