2016 Democratic Convention

Read/Watch the Scariest Speech from Both the RNC and DNC: John Allen's Unrestrained War-Mongering

The retired general shouted out plans to intervene endlessly to rid the planet of "evil."

|

Ret. Gen. John Allen at DNC|||Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom
Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom

If the emotional highlight of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions was Khizr Khan's remembrance of his son's death fighting for the United States in Iraq, the scariest speech of the last couple of weeks also involved military topics.

In Philadelphia, the former Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, retired Gen. John Allen, delivered a bombastic lecture in which he endorsed Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she alone was capable of opposing tyranny and evil via military interventions around the world.

"With Hillary Clinton as our commander-in-chief," he shouted in language that doubtless warmed the hearts of interventionists of both major parties, "the United States will continue to be that indispensable, transformational power in the world." Not only that, but the Pentagon would be able to relax, knowing that the military-industrial complex would never have to pinch pennies: "Our armed forces will be stronger. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment."

Amazingly, such balls-out hawkishness, delivered loudly at the highest-decibel level possible, garnered relatively little in the way of commentary or protest except in the Wells Fargo Arena itself. Anti-war activists started chants of "No More Wars," but were quickly muffled by other attendees—and Allen himself from the podium—counter-chanting "USA! USA! USA!" (fearing pro-Bernie Sanders protests, the DNC had actually handed out directions to Clinton delegates on how to silence commotion).

Writing at Foreign Policy, Duke University's Peter Feaver, criticized the practice of retired military officers speaking at conventions, arguing that

a crucial pillar of…respect [for the military] is the belief that the military self-consciously and purposefully stands outside of partisan politics…. The very act of wading into partisan politics while also pretending to be above partisan politics politicizes the military and risks undermining public confidence in this vital institution.

While noting retired "Lt. General Mike Flynn's rambling but bitterly partisan speech at the Republican National Convention last week in Cleveland," Feaver singled out Allen's remarks as particularly "corrosive" to respect for the military.

From the cringe-worthy faux cadence march out on to stage, to the awkward chants of "USA," to the shouted delivery — all of it reflected an explicit rejection of the idea that the military should stand above and apart from partisan politics.

For my money, the absolute lowest point was when Allen explicitly called on the active uniformed military to join in the political campaign: "Every American in uniform, in the White House or at home…. USA! USA! … we must be a force for unity in America, for a vision that includes all of us, all of us…." It is hard to craft a more politicized call for the military to join in partisan politics than that. And it is hard to find a bigger stage from which to make such a disturbing appeal than just before the candidate accepts her nomination.

Read Feaver's full article here.

It is nothing short of remarkable that Hillary Clinton's interventionist foreign policy has sparked relatively little pushback among Democrats, who during the Bush years considered themselves to be relatively anti-war. Indeed, in vague but unmistakable ways, Barack Obama ran in 2008 as a peace candidate, opposing "dumb wars" before tripling troop strength in Afghanistan, pushing on in Iraq, and upping the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists in countries with which the United States was not at war. As Matt Welch has noted, a good deal of Bernie Sanders' appeal to Democratic primary voters was rooted in his rejection of Obama-Bush foreign policy. In his negotiations to support the Clinton campaign, Sanders may have won promises to expand Medicare and Social Security and to create an entitlement for free public-college tuition, but he simply dropped any and all public criticisms of the former Secretary of State's interventionism.

Between Allen's pro-war speech and what Thaddeus Russell recently called "Hillary Clinton's Dangerously Coherent Foreign Policy," the DNC was a celebration of the most full-throated Wilsonian internationalism. As Russell put it at Reason.com,

Clinton herself has never seen an opportunity for American military intervention she didn't like. As Secretary of State she was the most enthusiastic of all of Obama's senior civilian advisors about the plan for a surge of troops into Afghanistan in 2009, and in 2011 she led the "humanitarian interventionists" in the administration who persuaded Obama to bomb Libya. In his comprehensive review of her work in the Obama administration, James Traub of Foreign Policy concludes that "at bottom, Clinton was a reflexive advocate of the military."

If and when Clinton becomes president and the United States remains embroiled in military actions that cause far more problems than they solve, the one thing we won't be able to do is pretend that she somehow hid the ball on this score.

Related from The New York Times Magazine: "How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk."

Here's a transcript of Allen's speech:

My fellow Americans, I stand with you tonight as a retired four-star general of the United States Marine Corps, and I am joined by my fellow generals and admirals, and with these magnificent young veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

They went there and they risked their lives because they love this country.

They are here before you because this is the most consequential election is the greatest one in our memory for the president of the United States.

The stakes are enormous.

We must not, we could not stand on the sidelines.

This election can carry us to a future of unity and hope or to a dark place of discord and fear.

We must choose hope.

Every American in uniform, in the White House or at home – USA! USA! USA! – we must be a force for unity in America, for a vision that includes all of us. All of us. Every man and woman, every race, every ethnicity, every faith and creed, including the Americans who are our precious Muslims. And every gender and every gender orientation.

All of us together – all of us together – pursuing our common values.

My fellow Americans, from the battlefield to the capitals of our allies and friends and partners, the free peoples of the world look to America as the last best hope for peace and for liberty for all humankind, for we are the greatest country on this planet.

So we stand before you tonight to endorse Hillary Clinton for president of the United States of America.

We trust her judgment. We trust in her judgment.

We believe in her vision for a united America.

We believe in her vision of America as the just and strong leader against the forces of hatred, the forces of chaos and darkness.

We know that she – as no other – knows how to use all instruments of American power, not just the military, to keep us all safe and free.

My fellow Americans, I tell you without any hesitation or reservation that Hillary Clinton will be exactly – exactly – the kind of commander-in-chief America needs.

I know this because I served with her.

I know this as the former Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS.

With her as our commander-in-chief, America will continue to lead in this volatile world.

We will oppose and resist tyranny as we will defeat evil.

America will defeat ISIS and protect the homeland.

America will honor our treaty obligations.

We will lead and strengthen NATO and the Atlantic Alliance, and our allies in East Asia and around the world whom we have sworn a solemn oath to defend.

My fellow Americans, we will stop the spread of nuclear weapons and keep them from the hands of dangerous states and groups.

Our armed forces will be stronger. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment. They will have the support of the American people – you – and the American military will continue to be the shining example of America at our very best.

Our veterans will be thanked by a grateful nation, and they will be cared for in the manner they deserve for the sacrifices they have made for all of us, for this great country, and for world peace.

But I also know that with her as our commander-in-chief, our international relations will not be reduced to a business transaction.

I also know our armed forces will not become an instrument of torture, and they will not be ordered to engage in murder or carry out other illegal activities.

With Hillary Clinton as our commander-in-chief, the United States will continue to be that indispensable, transformational power in the world.

To our allies and our friends and our partners. Listen closely. We are with you. America will not abandon you.

To those acting against peace, civilization and the world order: We will oppose you.

And to our enemies – to our enemies – we will pursue you as only America can. You will fear us.

And to ISIS and others: We will defeat you.

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, my fellow veterans, this is the moment. This is the opportunity for our future and that of the world.

We must seize this moment to elect Hillary Clinton as president of the United States of America!

Thank you! And God bless you and God bless America!

NEXT: Trump Campaign Strikes Right Note on Melania's Nude Pictures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!

  2. “You lie!”

  3. interventionists of both major parties

    Know them by their hashtag #NeverTrump

    1. ^this. And this is why #NeverTrump =/= #TeamGov.

  4. “Our armed forces will be stronger. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment.”

    You mean like the Stryker? The LCS? The San Antonio class? The F-35, HMMWV’s and MTVR’s forced into combat roles and using sandbags for armor? Like Marine units having to turn what body armor they have over to their relieving units who arrived in theater with none? Like the multi-million dollar USHQ built in Afghanistan that was never occupied? Like ‘IED detectors’ that a 2 minute look-see by any competent electronics tech could have told you was just a bunch of electronic parts that did nothing?

    Somehow Clinton is going to overturn 3+ decades of built up corruption and graft in the military procurement system and overturn all the ‘meh’ weapon systems just come online or scheduled to come online and ensure that the troops have the *basic* gear they should? While Obama didn’t? While Bush, Clinton, and Bush didn’t?

    Fuck you, General.

    1. Speaking of the F-35…

      A good friend of mine just got a new job at Hill. Interacts quite a bit with the F-35 squadron. 43 engagements with F-15s, F-15Es and F-16s. 43 kills. Was never targeted. When he asked two former Hog drivers which is the better CAS platform they said with the exception of the extremely small percentage of the time you’re rooting around in the dirt under an overcast with the gun the F-35 beats the A-10 by a country mile (I’m paraphrasing). They have an MC rate in the 90s.

      Want to know about the performance of an aircraft? Ask a man who drives one.

      1. And several of those drivers have told us that the F-35 had a severe energy disadvantage when flying against an dF-16 with tanks. That the F-35 can’t fly for very long in CAS, can’t fly very slow – so it can’t find its own targets when its not being tasked, the gun fires for about 5 seconds total, can’t carry the payload the A-10 can. That’s on top of the ridiculously expensive and delicate helmet that places lower limits on pilot size (though I don’t know how much of a problem not being able to use the smallest people would actually be).

        Don’t get me wrong – the F-35 is not a *bad* aircraft. It is, however, in my (armchair general) opinion not a $100 million aircraft. Especially when the F-22 runs at $150. The F-35 is supposed to be the low part of the high/low scheme. Its so expensive the AF may as well have just kept building F-22’s.

        Then add in that all the stuff its supposed to be able to do it won’t be able to do until 2020ish – but its being pushed into service now to overcome the A-10 partisans.

        1. Its a design compromised right from the start by the MC’s need for VTOL capability. IMO, (again, not an expert) the MC should have got its Harrier replacement. The AF should have kept building F-22’s and the Navy would have been perfectly happy with more Super Hornets or, if push came to shove, a less capable but carrier-operable version of the F-22 which would have saved money on commonality without needing the level of compromise to get an aircraft to perform to the specs of 3 services with very different demands.

          Which is what gets it added to the list of boondoggles. None of the stuff listed started off bad – they got compromised by too many people adding to specs so that instead of being good at a narrow range of things, they’re mediocre at a wide range at an excessively high cost.

          1. Argue with the guy who’s flown both.

            The F-35 is supposed to be the low part of the high/low scheme. Its so expensive the AF may as well have just kept building F-22’s.

            It’s not a high/low scheme. Its an A-A/A-G scheme. The two are not interchangeable. Both designed from the ground up for an entirely different mission. And as far as expensive goes, what’s expensive is developing, fielding and sustaining three separate aircraft.

            You may, in fact, argue that compromises were made and you’d have gotten better aircraft if each service developed their own, but it is none the less, the best A-G platform to ever exist and the second best A-A platform to ever exist, for half the cost of developing 3 separate platforms.

            All three services are going to be extremely happy with this jet. The rest…is politics.

    2. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment

      That could be a Trump tweet. Just sayin’

  5. Kudos to Nick for calling out Hitlery as a warmonger.

  6. Every American in uniform, in the White House or at home ? USA! USA! USA! ? we must be a force for unity in America . . .

    What? Are we Turkey suddenly?

    No goddamnit, the US military is not a force for *anything* inside the US. Especially not ‘unity’. The whole damn point of this country is that we don’t have to be ‘unified’.

    General, that speech pisses on everything you swore to protect.

    1. the US military is not a force for *anything* inside the US

      Well put.

    2. Is it too late to court martial him?

      1. should we ban general officers from politics? Would it be so bad if we had to give up a future Eisenhower to prevent a future Turkey?

  7. Our veterans will be thanked by a grateful nation, and they will be cared for in the manner they deserve for the sacrifices they have made for all of us, for this great country, and for world peace.

    So, you’re saying the VA hospital system is all that these guys are worth? You must not value their sacrifice that highly.

  8. But I also know that with her as our commander-in-chief, our international relations will not be reduced to a business transaction.

    I also know our armed forces will not become an instrument of torture, and they will not be ordered to engage in murder or carry out other illegal activities.

    1. The Commander-in-Chief does not carry out international relations, the *president* does. I know the same person holds both offices but there’s still a distinction to be made here. The only negotiating the CinC does with with a hundred thousand gun barrels firing.

    2. Torture? Murder? Extraordinary rendition? Drone strikes. Or is this more ‘its not illegal when the president does it’?

    1. Fuck, I can’t read anymore. This man went to *college*, commanded troops and this is the sort of thing a left-wing General comes up with? I think I prefer the right-wing hawks.

      1. It’s funny. The right-wing hawks are generally pretty honest about how liberty has to be sacrificed for security, international law is bunk, laws of war are bunk, the constitution isn’t a suicide pact, etc. while the left-wing hawks like to support all of those same things except with some Orwellian reasoning.

    2. our international relations will not be reduced to a business transaction

      Um, I think I’d prefer that our international relations be more like business transactions. Most business transactions don’t involve thousands of dead people.

      1. To be fair, a lot of international relations don’t involve thousands of dead people either. But certainly, a higher fraction do than mergers and acquisitions.

  9. It is nothing short of remarkable that Hillary Clinton’s interventionist foreign policy has sparked relatively little pushback among Democrats, who during the Bush years considered themselves to be relatively anti-war.

    Is it really remarkable? Have the Democrats ever truly rejected Wilsonian interventionism?

    Not to mention that trying to find an anti-war movement that isn’t just for political expediency is quite difficult. It has been argued that the anti-Vietnam sentiment was really anti-draft and looking at the current state of campus radicalism does give that merit. Hell right now finding an anti-war person who isn’t a socialist/communist and/or apologist for the enemy regime is pretty low.

  10. My fellow Americans, I tell you without any hesitation or reservation that Hillary Clinton will be exactly ? exactly ? the kind of commander-in-chief America needs.

    I know this because I served with her.

    Really? Clinton was in the military? Or was she one of the civilian auxiliaries providing support? Maybe it was that time she came under sniper fire.

    Or maybe its like the time her mother named her after Edmund Hillary or she helped that little crippled girl get to school.

    OK ok – that’s it, I swear.

    1. Like how Stalin said you have all these rights but you can’t do anything illegal but “social crimes” like doing anything opposing him is illegal.

    2. “I want to be very clear about this: I want the Congress to step up and do its job.”

      Careful what you ask for,, H.

      1. Shorter Hillary: Do what I want or else I will pass an EO.

    3. We exercise our 1A rights to tell politicians what assholes they are, and you exercise your right to remain silent and listen to your bosses.

      If you want to be a public servant, start acting like the hired help.

    4. “every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.”

      Even gay marriage or abortion rights? Because I seem to recall the Left screaming bloody murder every time someone puts even a slight imposition in the way of these things.

      1. Any regulation of gay marriage or abortion rights is ipso facto unreasonable. Or something.

    5. She really doesn’t understand the term “Congress shall make no law…”, does she?

      1. What a vile concept. Government is an omnibenevolent force for good. (At least as long as Hillary’s in charge.) Any attempt to limit the forces of goodness and light can only come from wicked and selfish people who revel in the suffering of others.

  11. he endorsed Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she alone was capable of opposing tyranny and evil via military interventions around the world.

    “She alone.” Hmm, I seem to recall someone being beaten up recently for using a similar expression.

  12. It is nothing short of remarkable that Hillary Clinton’s interventionist foreign policy has sparked relatively little pushback among Democrats

    “Concentrate on the good things and ignore the bad.”

    1. Democrats only opposed our interventionist foreign policy because it was W’s policy. W was stupid, was elected by SCOTUS, and was stupid. So whatever he did was wrong. Fifteen years of opposing actions against Muslim extremists hasn’t brought the love predicted, in fact, it has brought more extremism. Apparently, it’s time to forget W (if only) and embrace intervention. Plus “campaign rhetoric” isn’t foreign policy.

  13. Writing at Foreign Policy, Duke University’s Peter Feaver, criticized the practice of retired military officers speaking at conventions, arguing that

    a crucial pillar of…respect [for the military] is the belief that the military self-consciously and purposefully stands outside of partisan politics…. The very act of wading into partisan politics while also pretending to be above partisan politics politicizes the military and risks undermining public confidence in this vital institution.

    Retired military officers, Pete…retired.

    1. Its still pretty unseemly. And that’s assuming he’s actually retired and not in whatever their version of the Fleet Reserve is.

      1. So I shouldn’t be allowed to voice a political opinion? Run for office? Support Gary Johnson’s campaign?

        Don’t get me wrong, Allen is a complete asshole, but he’s a citizen, no longer affiliated with the military. His experience may or may not add credence to his argument, but he’s entitled to his opinion.

        1. Call him Mr. Allen, not Gen. Allen. (I’m not accusing you of hypocrisy; I’m talking in general, no pun intended.)

          By the same token, we shouldn’t call other ex-office holders by their title. So it’s Mr. Napolitano, not Judge Napolitano.

          1. Meh. The judge earned his title. I see no problem with him keeping it. It lends credibility when discussing legal matters. Just as Allen’s title should lend credibility (although more embarrassment in his case) to military matters

            And Allen’s title now is not “General USMC”, it’s “General USMC (Ret)”. Calling him General is simply lazy.

            1. I suppose you could argue that generals and admirals “earn” their titles too, by pleasing the brass enough.

            2. If you call me Specialist retired I promise to laugh at you.

              1. If you retired as a specialist, your derision carries no weight.

                1. Whoa! Disrespecting the E4 mafia in public?

        2. I think there might be some merit to the idea of keeping our retired generals out of politics.

        3. I tend to agree that as a retired, rather than serving, officer, he’s entitled to express his opinion. But when both Allen and the Dems are blatantly playing up his service and rank, that’s awfully close to the line for my taste. I certainly wouldn’t make it illegal, but I have no problem calling him out on it.

  14. We trust her judgment. We trust in her judgment.

    We believe in her vision for a united America.

    With all due respect, General — are you suffering from PTSD, or what?

  15. You Know who else wanted the military to actively intervene in civilian affairs?

    1. Your mom?

    2. Was it the LGBT?

    3. Obama’s half brother?

    4. Julius Caesar?

    5. Impressment gangs?

    6. Napoleon the pig

    7. Abraham Lincoln?

    8. Charles the Fat and Count Oddo?

    9. Erdogan?

      No, wait–that was the other way around

  16. a crucial pillar of…respect [for the military] is the belief that the military self-consciously and purposefully stands outside of partisan politics….

    I harbor no such delusion. Only an idiot would.

  17. Satire and parody are obsolete.

  18. If the emotional highlight of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions was Khizr Khan’s remembrance of his son’s death fighting for the United States in Iraq….

    This continues to completely confuse me.

    Of course, like any decent human being i avoided watching *any* of either convention.

    But the way people are falling over themselves to praise this dude for his dead-kid seems to be completely ridiculous, and not even make sense in the context of the political narratives each party is trying to push

    One = are we really supposed to feel such a positive warm fuzzy for *Hillary*, when a man comes up and starts talking about how his kid was killed in Iraq? Hillary, the woman who voted for the war? And has been one of the most significant proponents of active military involvement in the Middle East since then?

    Yet we’re supposed to be angry with The Donald – despite his having had nothing to do with mideast wars? because he’s said impolitic things about muslims?

    I’m not sure what the nexus between “dead kid” and “rude comments” was supposed to be. Everyone else is acting like its obvious.

    And i also don’t see why “friendliness to conservative-religions like Islam” is suddenly supposed to be a selling point for progressive democrats?

    None of it makes a lick of sense.

    1. I’m not sure what the nexus between “dead kid” and “rude comments” was supposed to be.

      Like you, I didn’t watch either. But, I think the point was supposed to be that not all Muslims are terrorists, countering Trumps call for a ban on all Muslim immigration into the US.

      1. countering Trumps call for a ban on all Muslim immigration into the US.

        Did he actually talk about immigration, specifically?

        Because the “waving the constitution around”-part makes no sense in that context. There’s nothing in there that says “Welcome All Comers”.

        From what i’ve read it sounded as though the democratic convention believes that the Constitution is a particularly Anti-Racist/Open-Borders document, when – sadly – that’s actually not quite so, aside from some basic ‘equality under the law’ stuff. I’m not sure why Khan thinks its supposed to have some great relevance to Syrian refugees.

        i also think there’s been a lot of other recent symbolism re: immigrants which probably serves to undermine the guys own point about the inherent patriotism of everyone who crosses the border.

    2. None of it makes a lick of sense

      You are talking about the election campaign where the soconist party nominated a divorced vulgarian, the party of the feminists supporting a woman because of her husband, the people who oppose “the rich” are supporting a woman who is supported by the rich, the Libertarian Party nominated some guys who don’t are even in less in favor of freedom of association and freedom of religion than Lenin and Stalin, Reason is gushing over guys who support the sort of judges that Damon Root attacks all the time and Reason comment section is tearing itself apart over whether being boiled in oil or being boiled in water is preferable.

      1. If this were a real forum with signatures, I’d sig this post at least until November.

        Well done.

      2. What is the flashpoint of the oil?

      3. You, sir, have won the internet!

    3. “Yet we’re supposed to be angry with The Donald – despite his having had nothing to do with mideast wars?”

      No, you are supposed to vote for Clinton.

      “And i also don’t see why “friendliness to conservative-religions like Islam” is suddenly supposed to be a selling point for progressive democrats?”

      Because Clinton is running to the right of Trump. That should be pretty clear by now. Red baiting, attacking his patriotism, these are all well known tactics used again the Leftish candidate (Trump this time around) for decades.

    4. I agree with you, the dead Muslim soldier was all for political props, the politicians there who were clapping didn’t give two shits less. Trump has the balls to come out and say it like it is with the Islamic world, unlike the Europeans whose women are posting YouTube videos begging the males in their countries to protect them. Fuck this PC shit, This is the weak ass shit that makes [SOME] Libertarians look like spineless wimps.

      For the record, I don’t like either candidate.

    5. None of it makes a lick of sense.

      Sure it does. It’s the end result of morally bankrupt political parties that stopped having any true defining principles long ago (if they ever had them at all). What you get is reactionary politics. Trump is a reaction to globalization, multiculturalism, and political correctness. And now Clinton is largely being defined by her reaction to Trump. Feel free to trace it back as far as you’d like.

  19. such balls-out hawkishness, delivered loudly at the highest-decibel level possible, garnered relatively little in the way of commentary or protest except in the Wells Fargo Arena itself. Anti-war activists started chants of “No More Wars,” but were quickly muffled by other attendees?and Allen himself from the podium?counter-chanting “USA! USA! USA!”

    This is exactly what i’m talking about above. They can’t seem to figure out WTF they really believe. they only know, WHATEVER it is, Democrats do it* better than those GODDAMN RACIST ANTI-MUSLIM TEABAGGERS.

    “*It” being = kill lots of muslims, natch.

  20. Yes Hillary is a warmonger. I know it may seem hard to believe, but she is less a warmonger than Trump. In fact the core of Trump’s appeal is his promise to launch new wars and witch hunts, crescendoing in WW III which he will wage arm-in-arm with his friend Putin against the Middle East. It’s actually healthy that this warmongering is being exposed in the democratic party, and I was very gratified by the chants of “No more war!” I feel that people are really starting to wise up to this nonsense. As for Sanders, he also participates in the “We must utterly destroy ISIS!” witch hunt hysteria.

    I also give hearty kudos to Obama for resisting the warmongering and bomb dropping as much as he did. Hitlary does not have his backbone or moral compass.

    1. Did you read that speech. Because this dude is saying vote for Clinton because she will start wars all over the place ‘to fight ISIS’.

      1. Oh, and the chants for ‘no more war’ – they were deliberately drowned out by Democratic operatives. The DNC even had a plan for dealing with this sort of disruption.

        1. “The DNC even had a plan for dealing with this sort of disruption.”

          More to the point, they had a plan to stage a war-mongering speech in the first place.

    2. I also give hearty kudos to Obama for resisting the warmongering and bomb dropping as much as he did. Hitlary does not have his backbone or moral compass

      Got to be a troll, right?

      1. Yes, and a known one.

      2. It is known that there is a significant moral and technical difference between having a live pilot drop ordnance classified as a ‘bomb’ as compared to a remotely operated drone firing a missile.

  21. “Fearing pro-Bernie Sanders protests, the DNC had actually handed out directions to Clinton delegates on how to silence commotion”

    The DNC told them to start chanting USA! USA! USA?

    LOL! LOL! LOL!

    1. That’s some crazy sheet

  22. Always pertinent when the talk turns to heroic sacrifice:

    Rufus T. Firefly: You’re a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you’re out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are.

  23. that right like every other of our rights, our First Amendment rights, every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.

    Followed by, “How many divisions does the Pope the ACLU have?

  24. And there’s this:

    Ambassador Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.
    Rufus T. Firefly: It’s too late. I’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield.

  25. “We trust her judgement. We trust in her judgement.”

    Hilarious.

  26. When Hilary leads us into invading Syria, I can hear the Democrats defending her already.

    “Trump would have been worse”, they’ll say.

    After all, he was insensitive to Muslims.

    I guess it doesn’t matter how many Muslims were needlessly killed because Hillary Clinton backed up the Bush Administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs and collaboration with Al Qaeda.

    No, the important thing is that you’re sensitive to Muslims when they’re on TV.

    That’s the way progressive minds work.

    That’s why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. “When Hilary leads us into invading Syria, I can hear the Democrats defending her already.”

      I think she’s out of touch with the party and the direction its moving. That’s why Trump is able to outflank Clinton on the Left and steal votes Dem votes in places like Michigan and Ohio, states he will have to win if he’s to beat Clniton. I think your faith in Dem party unity is misplaced and ill conceived.

      “I guess it doesn’t matter how many Muslims were needlessly killed”

      As long as they are killing each other, it doesn’t matter. It’s not just the Left who thinks this way, I’ve seen the sentiment repeated endlessly in these comments. But do go on telling us how progressives think.

      1. It’s not that it doesn’t matter. It’s that trying to stop it with force is absolutely guaranteed to make it worse, just like the War on Drugs.

  27. The retired general shouted out plans to intervene endlessly to rid the planet of evil

    So, he’s willing to sacrifice himself to get rid of Hillary? I like this guy.

  28. This is the party of love.

    1. Is that the love between a man and a woman, or the love of a man for a fine cigar?

      1. love between a man and a woman

        Homophobe. Transphobe. Biphobe(?)

      2. ” or the love of a man for a fine cigar?” Well, Bill Clinton did love his cigars…

  29. When watching his address I got the strange feeling I needed a haircut.

    1. Get down give me 50!

      1. Or you can stand up and give me a hundred.

  30. Well good news is that we have three more months of battles between the NeverTrumpers and the NeverHillaryites on the comment sections. Brings to mind the Eastern Europeans arguing over whether Hitler or Stalin was preferable, or the Syrians arguing over whether Baathism or ISIS is better or the Chileans arguing over Allende vs. Pinochet or the Argentinians arguing the merits of Peron or Videla…

    1. Stalin if you’re Slavic, Baathism, Pinochet, last one’s actually tougher but Peron’s probably slightly ahead of Videla because he never justified torturing pregnant women on the grounds of ‘they got pregnant so they wouldn’t be tortured’.

      Now give me some hard ones.

      1. Matt Welch has a sad.

        Stalin or Trotsky?

        Smith or Mugabe?

        Asquith or Lloyd George?

        Mao or Chiang?

        Robespierre or Hebert?

        Louis-Phillippe or Napoleon III?

        Napoleon or Louis XVIII?

      2. Alexander of Serbia or Alexander of Yugoslavia?

        Tito or Alexander of Yugoslavia?

        Antonescu or Ceau?escu?

        KKE or Metaxas?

      3. Pierre Trudeau or Justin Trudeau?

        Duplessis or L?v?sque?

      4. Alexandre P?tion or Henri Christophe?

        Qasim or Arif?

        Ortega or Somoza?

        Welch or Gillespie?

        1. That’s more like it.

          I don’t follow the ‘Trotsky was more soft-hearted than Stalin’ theory, he got the gulags and executions going early, and he was into promoting communism outside the Soviet Union far more than Stalin. So Stalin it is.

          Smith, because both him and Mugabe ran racist, oppressive states, but at least Smith’s was moderately economically stable.

          Asquith is only slightly ahead of Lloyd George, and he only wins because George is responsible for so many bad decisions at Paris 1919 that haunt us to this day.

          Chiang without a doubt.

          That’s a legitimately tough one, can’t make a call on Robespierre or Hebert.

          Not familiar enough with 19th century post-Napoleon French history to make a call on that one.

          Napoleon. Demagogue, but at least he was a genius demagogue.

          I have no idea which Alexander of Serbia you’re referring to, but Alexander of Yugoslavia, just because he was easier to assassinate than Tito.

          There’s no winning with either of them, just get out of Hungary.

          Metaxas, only because he had the decency to die while KKE lives on.

          1. I have no idea which Alexander of Serbia you’re referring to

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Serbia

            There’s no winning with either of them, just get out of Hungary.

            Except those guys were Romanian.

            As for Hungary:

            Bela Kun or Horthy?

            Sz?lasi or Orb?n ?

            R?kosi or Kadar?

            1. Scratch that:

              Orban or Kadar?

              Sz?lasi or R?kosi?

              1. Yeah, dumb mistake.

                Orban because at least he’s somewhat anti-EU.

                I don’t know anything about Sz?lasi other than he killed a lot of Jews.

          2. Robespierre. He was a mass murdering nerd, but Hebert was a fucking whack-job.

        2. Justin over Pierre, because a buffoon is less effective than a competent asshole.

          Burn Quebec to the ground and start over.

          My Haitian history is meh, don’t know enough to comment.

          Qasim was slightly better?

          Somoza because at least he wasn’t a pedophile?

          Welch because I think he lacks the iron will and ego to be the face of dictatorship. Gillespie would eat that shit up, mandating that everyone wear jackets slightly less cool than his and changing the national anthem to ‘Mr. Tambourine Man’.

          1. I thought there was supposed to be a third option in shoot screw marry?

    2. Most are surely both NeverTrump and NeverHillary, correct? I mean, it shouldn’t be shocking to have commenters here not vote for either major party candidate.

      1. Writing in my own name. Not taking part in this least of evils bullshit.

        1. I’m writing in Ross Perot, just for shits and giggles

        2. I’m writing in Ross Perot, just for shits and giggles

          1. ^^^ voter fraud ^^^

            1. because of the double vote, right?

              1. I, for one, welcome our new squirrel overlords.

      2. Exactly, both are beyond repugnant. I thought that 2000 was the worst combination of candidates we would see in my lifetime. We caught a bullet and dodged a cannonball that year. This year, both major party candidates make Al Gore look like a sane alternative. If one is inclined to vote, I would argue it is entirely immoral to cast a vote for either of these loathsome wretches.

    3. I like your analysis, very nice.

  31. “also know our armed forces will not become an instrument of torture, and they will not be ordered to engage in murder or carry out other illegal activities.”

    Hey Shitbag, ever hear of Abu Ghraib?

    “But I also know that with her as our commander-in-chief, our international relations will not be reduced to a business transaction.”

    The U.S. Military Industrial complex is one gigantic business transaction for the well connected.

    “We know that she ? as no other ? knows how to use all instruments of American power, not just the military, to keep us all safe and free.”

    Can this grade a A hole worship the Hilldog more than this? Talk about creating a cult of personality.

    1. “We know that she ? as no other ? knows how to use all instruments of American power, not just the military, to keep us all safe and free.”

      Wasn’t there something in Clinton’s emails that suggested that she had to convince Obama to intervene in Libya? If so she has worse foreign policy than Obama himself, which is truly impressive.

      1. I believe you are right, I did hear that before too. You bring up a good point, that’s a despicable foreign policy track record to have being worse than Obama.

      2. It is also depicted in Bob Gates’ book. Hilary was always the hawk who had to push Obama, usually against Biden’s advice.

    2. our international relations will not be reduced to a business transaction.”

      This is a bizarre comment

      business transactions are voluntary, conducted in mutual benefit, and are mutually severable. No one is forced to play, and no one puts any obligations on the other that isn’t fairly compensated. Business transactions are almost NEVER conducted under the explicit threat of violence (excepting of course taxes), and businesses don’t tend to go to war with one another when there can simply ‘compete’ by providing better services to their customers.

      what exactly is the *better* analogy in international relations?

      You can, in theory, divide all intl relations into ‘economic’ or ‘security-related’ components. the business analogy applies perfectly to the former, and loosely to the latter.

      What’s the more appropriate perspective that is missing? Given that we live in a world where we no longer rely on mutually reinforcing security alliances in order to maintain peaceable relations, and the US is the most powerful military force on earth…. i fail to see what is particularly important about the latter anyway. No foreign nation has it in their interests to “protect” America more than we do. And we don’t have any means (and surely no *better* means) to convince them to be more friendly to us *other* than trade either.

      It seems to suggest that international relations are supposed to be about ‘something else’, still unstated.

      1. Excellent points, from an economic standpoint (especially from the Austrian School) dealing in a business manner makes perfect sense.
        The general exemplifies the problem with Washington, they are so deluded in their quest for “Dragons to Slay” that they can’t even stop to realize how far they actually have strayed from America’s original ideals.

  32. Two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    Here Going You Are……….. http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  33. Neocon extremists say they are protecting us from the scary mooslims. Yet even the people who are supposedly the most vulnerable victims (like the Orlando mother) reject the hate and warmongering. Their belligerence is a form of extortion, and kind of pathetic that they base their life’s purpose on ‘protecting’ people who don’t want it.

    1. The rational policy for the US would be to stop bombing Muslim countries, and at the same time sharply restrict immigration from Muslim countries.

  34. On an acoustic guitar. The guy is a fucking monster.

    Voodoo Acoustic

    Fucking white privilege.

  35. This is a timely article. I just (against my better judgement) got involved in a Facebook conversation in which I was encouraged to vote for Hillary Clinton because we can’t risk having another disastrous presidency like the one of GWB.

  36. Also…”precious Muslims”?

    I mean, I don’t have a problem with Muslims, but *precious*? And then follow that up with “every gender orientation”?

    I wonder which group would rate higher on a test of social conservativism – Muslims or Evangelical Christians?

    I ask not because I’m particularly interested in the answer, but because I find it so remarkable that Democrats (and Republicans on other issues) are so willing to ally themselves with a voting block that probably opposes them on almost every issue they claim to care about. And not an issue-by-issue basis as a way of achieving certain mutual goals, but in a general way.

    1. That entire bit really stood out to me as well. I felt like I was sitting through some gay ass army EO class again which only have the effect of making a guy hate what’s bing shoved down your throat. ‘precious Muslims, they blow up so fast.’

  37. I hope this video gets lots of play.
    Between picking an anti-abortion semi-retarded running mate and giving major facetime to war mongoloids Hillary is doing her best to shoo away Democrat voters.
    She’s coming from ahead to lose this election.

  38. “the United States will continue to be that indispensable, transformational power in the world.” Not only that, but the Pentagon would be able to relax, knowing that the military-industrial complex would never have to pinch pennies: “Our armed forces will be stronger. They will have the finest weapons, the greatest equipment.”

    Jesus Christ! If that’s not a terrifying endorsement, I don’t know what is.

  39. Come on, Hillary Clinton and Gen. Allen, don’t be shy, just say what you really want to say: “Ein Land, ein Volk, eine Fuhrerin.”

  40. The military is a jobs program everyone can feel good about.

  41. I’ve made 64,000usd so far this year w0rking online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about my friend JGw and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
    Here’s what I’ve been doing?
    http://www.Highpay90.com

  42. Kudos to Nick for calling out Hitlery as a warmonger.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.