We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Great article! Hillary and Kissinger are both thoroughly disgusting shills for Israel. I'm speaking out against both of them - and against Jewish corruption - in general as party of my dual campaign - running for office as Washington State Governor and promoting a new word to replace the grossly manipulated misnomer, "antisemitism." See www.jewarchy.com for the details.
Exactly who was president Kissinger or Nixon? I was too young to boat back then, but it seems to me America bought it for these kind of people, it sounds like we want to say it's a person and not a country, sadly it was our country that did that.
Well bill is hanging out with GW and family.They must have a thing for war criminals and anti-democratic Fascists.
Kissinger is exactly what Clinton labeled him as: someone who stands up for US values. Because the US doesn't value freedom and ingenuity any more. It values profits and corporate greed.
Kissinger was bad for all of us.
Kissinger doesn't have blood on his hands... that softens the reality. He's a mass murderer. Like Chomsky once said: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
Thanks, Mother Jones, for not even PRETENDING to be news, reporting or anything remotely objective. I'm surprised you didn't write someone got "owned" or "destroyed" or one of the other teenage boy headlines that are so popular.
Bernie sanders 2016
Seems like Hillary is really a Republican.
Its not just those two. Half the people at that gathering shouldnt be free.
He should be in prison.
They both should. We wouldnt have ISIS to deal with if the SOS didnt give it a home.
Anyone who follows her actions over the last 30 years (and speaches) knows she is just as NEO or HAWKISH as Kissinger. The only people supporting her are turning a blind eye to everything on her resume outside of her sex.
One with blood on hands, one a war criminal. But these elites ensure they are estemed not prosicuted.
This is about as close to being a deal breaker for me as it comes. I have yet to understand why she did it.
Do you follow her historical actions? If so, this is not new at all.
A measure of hypocrisy and dishonesty is almost guaranteed in politics. We aren't choosing among saints but among which of the rotters is the least rotten. That is reality, if you don't try for the less rotten you are bound to get the more rotten.
In an ideal world I'd be choosing between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren but this isn't an ideal world.
Nice. But accepting the lesser of two evils for decades has gotten us to the place we are now. If you were hiring a new employee, would you use the same least of two turds, or would you find a good canidate?
Choosing the worst of two evils would not have gotten us to a better place.
On the other hand, I am confident that if Hubert Humphrey had won in 1968 things would be a lot better than they are now.
Reality. If you own a company, and you are hiring a new CEO. Do you settle, or demand the best? I think if you settle, you end up struggling, like our country has been for a few decades.
The country is not a business. To ignore that even if there was a functional left in the United States that could elect a real liberal as president, on occasion, it wouldn't have the choice of choosing the president by itself is the beginning of a common delusion on the left. We don't get to get who we would want in an ideal world, we get to make the best choice from the possible candidates who will, really, take the office the next January. Getting "the best" is not a real possible alternative of us "demanding the best" in the real world we live in. We will get either of the lesser of two evils provided by the nominating system we have , not "the best". We can only come closer to it instead of farther from it. It's high time that the left grew up and faced reality instead of the idiots such as the Greens and the others who refuse to face reality.
It's a complex problem, for the left. But another big part of the delusion is that the fad for free speech absolutism, which has been adopted by the fascist wing of the Supreme Court to corrupt our politics just as it has the corporate media to sell itself as a propaganda arm for the far right, among other things, destroying better possible candidates during the nomination process. Howard Dean, Tom Harkin, Mo Udall... were all vetoed by the media who concentrated on weaker more centrist candidates, who, even when they manage to win, govern to the right of Dwight Eisenhower. They don't have any choice because the media begins to attack them as soon as they have the nomination and even if they win. It accounts for a good part of the Obama and Bill Clinton administrations. They destroyed Jimmy Carter's administration and subsequent Democratic presidents drew the lesson that they had better not try to do anything in the agenda of real Democrats or they will be similarly attacked.
Media deregulation, removing the Fairness Doctrine, and, especially granting them a permit to lie under the Sullivan decision, all supported by the most foolish people on the left, is what produced our corrupt political system after a short period when it was somewhat better.
You do not belong in the US. Perhaps Amerika, but definitely not the USA.
Nice comment, but they are just two sides of the same bought and paid for coin. And in reality are both far right of center. come up with some new BS, that stinks.
"I'm not voting for a third party because I want my vote to count." An utterly stupid, cowardly and everything un-American viewpoint that makes the individual who says it unethical and immoral.
There is nothing ethical about the willful delusion that the American political system will ever elect a third party candidate as president. There has been exactly one of those in our history, Abraham Lincoln, and the circumstances that led to his election as the first Republican was the complete self-destruction of one of the national parties.
There is nothing moral about willful and irresponsible delusion. There is nothing moral about the futile "third party" ruse which wastes the very limited funds and resources of the left. Considering how many "third parties" there have been at any one time using the term is a fraud. We should call them what they are, "tiny splinter political cults". The most "successful" of those since the 1920s Socialists who managed to elect two people to the congress, the Greens are a total joke who have never produced more than one state legislator in their thirty-year history. That is if you don't count their role in producing the George W. Bush regime.
Very easy to do what everyone else does. WHEN, the times comes and 1 or both parties lose mass voters, where will you be? How will you feel then? You should be Green or independent but you'd rather be part of the status quo and fight for the big guy because it's easy not because it's ETHICAL. The nerve to speak of ethics while supporting (R) or (D). Guess I told you.
What is the definition of insanity? Between citizens united and the money in the game, is there any questions left, that both sides are bought and paid for? Again, the definition of insanity. And remember Ross Perot took from the republican base and is a big reason Clinton won.
but hillary has no blood on her hands ?
Most young people don't know Henry Kissinger's past history with the Viet Nam conflict and how despicable he was. I don't admire Hillary for this.
Its worse than Just Vietnam. Look up Pinoche and there is a great book about our dealings in South america, and his agenda. Hillary is cut from the same cloth.
It is the perfect person who always does what they ought to do. But, alas, people who always do what they ought to do, do not become world leaders. Though we wish that the Democrats would present us with a better candidate, we will hold our noses and vote for Clinton because she is less odious than anyone that the Republican party will nominate; and because voting for a third-party candidate would just be pissing in the wind.
Is anybody surprised?
You mean the lady bill O'Reilly praised in his column in 2002 for supporting the invasion to save Iraq from the Iraqis?
Liz Warren in '16!!!
That picture makes me vomit. I honestly never, never in a million years, thought ANY Democrat would embrace that war criminal, much less a Democrat who wants to be president. That is a photo of two uber-execrable, uber-loathsome creatures.
HC is cut from the same cloth as him.
Hillary is married to a war criminal.
The VERY LAST thing the world needs is a second Margaret Thatcher. The Dems MUST nominate somebody else. ANYBODY else. PLEASE!!
Thanks David for reminding us. Nice to have a little extra light on the subject.
They look like best friends forever. You have to wonder what happened after the photo opportunity.
Neocons create the problem then complain about it. Still debating like an 8 year old aren't you?
Relax, don't be so serious.
Good strategy. Downplay the far rights fascist agenda. Well done sir!
Then downplay the progressive socialist liberal agenda. Thank you for setting up my point.
Liberalism died in 81.The corpse was buried in 93.Just stick to abortion and gays...you've gotten everything else.....search engine it,you might learn something.
Yet in November 2016 we're going to hear about how we need to vote for Hillary to prevent a "neocon" from taking office.
More like Sept,and Oct.But yes!When right wing fascists try and "October Surprise" the Democratic candidate who wins the primary,freedom loving citizens will need all the help we can get to stop the Koch party from stealing the election.
Haha right I should have said fall 2016.