JB: That's an intriguing statement! Tell us more about this website, HillaryIsANeocon.com, that you keep referring to. I'd never heard of it before.
CR: I think the motivation for the website is precisely this false perception of Hillary Clinton as a feminist (even though younger women are not buying it) when in fact she is a female Dick Cheney if you actually look at her long track record of callously launching wars in line with the neoconservative ideology of using "creative chaos" to further the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" of seeking full spectrum dominance. The trauma of 9-11 has opened the door to the neocons' series of foreign policy blunders but we know from both leaked intelligence documents and Hillary's own e-mails that they are not so much blunders as coolly and coldly calculated.
JB: Do you think anyone out there is listening? So many people disregard policies and positions in deciding. For instance, many women simply want a woman president and they want her now, regardless of her past or policies. The pundits long ago anointed her the Democratic nominee. Is there time for enough of a dialogue about Hillary's true nature to affect the outcome of this race?
CR: So, there are still lots of unknowns. Bernie Sanders is winning the primaries today and he still has a chance. I will be terribly disappointed if he doesn't get the nomination but even more disappointed if he throws his support to Hillary Clinton. But if it does come down to Clinton vs Trump, as many political watchers predict, I think we may well see Trump not afraid to challenge her disastrous track record just as he was not afraid to challenge Jeb Bush's support of his brother's disastrous war on Iraq (even though Trump knew he would be booed in South Carolina).
I personally encourage people to consider the issues and not be blinded by party loyalties or "identity politics" as the two party system is such a game of ping pong, incapable of changing course for the better. The war party (based on MIC and AIPAC type special interests) has tentacles into both Democrats and Republicans. Progressives, true conservatives, greens and libertarians need to start noticing there is a big consensus for changing course off the post 9-11 perpetual war meme.
JB: I want to make sure I understand what you just said. You're hoping Bernie gets the nomination. But, if Hillary prevails, are you saying that you would support Trump over her?
CR: It's a bit too early as we'll have to wait and see what transpires. Trump is a loose cannon and no one knows what he'll say, or more importantly what he'll do. But we know what Hillary will do as she has already repeatedly done the worst. I should look up the links, but there are now more and more well known anti-war and anti-imperialist progressives such as William Blum, William Greider(who writes for The Nation) as well as anti-war libertarians such as Justin Raimondo who are making arguments (which I agree with) that if it comes down to having to vote between these two, the lesser evil at this point would seem to be Trump.
JB: Even with the Supreme Court and reproductive rights, to name just two, hanging in the balance?
CR: This argument about appointing Supreme Court judges is always the fallback but in my opinion, and as someone who's read and studied a number of Supreme Court decisions, it's an exaggerated concern and a false reason for voting straight party lines. A number of Supreme Court judges once they were appointed, have changed their stripes and if you look at all judges and judicial opinions, you're hard-pressed to identify the party of the President who appointed them. So I don't think the Supreme Court hangs in the balance.
JB: I wish I shared your confidence on that matter, Coleen. You've made it quite clear why you're not enthused about Hillary. But, I'm curious how does your current support for Bernie [or, if necessary, Trump] fit, in terms of your candidate picks in past elections?
CR: Of course, when I worked for the FBI, through 2004, we were all forbidden under the strictest version of the Hatch Act, from active participation in all partisan political campaigns, except for voting. I had generally voted Republican, however, throughout my FBI career, as I thought they were the party of "law and order" up to and including for George Bush in 2000 (and also based on Bush's non-military intervention campaign stances). So after 9-11 and Bush's wrongful launching of the wars, I voted for Democratic candidates including for Kerry in 2004 and then Obama in 2008, as well as for other Democratic candidates for Congress. I ran (unsuccessfully) as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor endorsed candidate for U.S. Congress in my Minnesota district in 2006. After Obama was elected but disappointed by continuing to escalate and launch more wars, escalating drone assassination programs, etc., essentially doubling down on Bush-Cheney's militarism, I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party in 2012.
You might want to also add this meaningful new ad for Bernie Sanders by military veteran, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: (who resigned from the DNC because of their favoring Clinton). I very much agree with Gabbard's opposition to the costly post 9-11 "wars for regime change."
Got it. That is a powerful ad. Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
CR: It will be an interesting election and I worry that unless more people realize their responsibility is not just to vote but to speak out and "make presidents do" what they promised, even after elections, we will be in for even worse times, and more dangerous times, if terrorism continues to rise and cold wars turn to hot wars, with nuclear-armed countries. If there is to be some solution, it's going to require pressure from a consensus of people, a tipping point, and not just allowing any "leader" to dictate policies, subject as they are to moneyed and powerful forces.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
11
10
8
