Hillary Clinton

Top Hillary Clinton Adviser Thinks U.S. Should Attack Iran To Benefit Saudi Interests In Yemen

Indications point to more and grander military interventions under a President Clinton.

|

At your service
U.S. Department of State/Wikimedia Commons

One of Hillary Clinton's top national security advisers, Michael Morell (who also happens to be the former acting director of the CIA), told the staunchly pro-Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress that the upcoming U.S. presidential election provides a "great opportunity for the next president of the United States to go to the Middle East and say 'We're back, we're going to lead again.'"

And what might the leadership that the Hillary Clinton administration imposes on a region halfway around the world look like?

Morell brought up the fact that Iran arms the Houthi rebels who have seized control of Yemen's capital city Sanaa, to the great displeasure of nominal U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, which has spent much of the past two years bombing both military and civilian targets with U.S. support in an all-out effort to defeat the rebels and return to power the Saudi-allied President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

Juxtaposing against what he must perceive as a lack of leadership from his former boss, President Barack Obama, Morell said:

I would have no problem, from a policy perspective, of having U.S. Navy board those ships and if there's weapons on them for the Houthis, turn those ships around and send those ships back to Iran. I think that's the kind of action, tough action that would get the attention of the Iranians and will get the attention of our friends in the region to say the Americans are now serious about helping us deal with this problem.

Make no mistake, what Morell just proposed is an act of war, which Bloomberg's Eli Lake aptly characterized as "something you might hear this month in an alternate reality, from the Rubio-Cheney campaign." And if Clinton supporters think war with Iran is necessary or an exercise in "smart power," that's their right, but they should at least be honest about it. As Reason's Nick Gillespie wrote, "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war."

While some might still be in denial that Clinton is a staunch hawk even neoconservatives can adore, Morell's comments provide much-desired candor about Clinton's foreign policy ambitions. The Democratic nominee has been able to remain infuriatingly vague on military matters throughout the campaign thanks in part to her opponent's flailing incoherence and her general refusal to give press conferences.

But if one of her most senior national security advisers is willing to openly engage in this kind of saber-rattling while smilingly declaring, "We're back," it's fair to expect more and grander military intervention under a President Clinton than we've experienced under President Obama.

Advertisement

NEXT: Intern at Reason—Deadline Tomorrow!

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. We’re always going to be at war in SouthWest Asia.

    1. Well she is a stupid bitch after all.

      1. Check this legitimate ways to mak? money from home, working on your own time and being your own boss… Join the many successful people who have already used the system. Only reliable internet connection needed, no prior experience neccessary, that’s why where are here. Start here… http://www.Trends88.Com

        1. Check this legitimate ways to mak? money

          We’re talking about Clinton here, spambot. Get with the program.

          1. “Used the system” and “reliable internet connection”, for a shady business deal.

            Sounds like the Clintons to me.

            1. Join the many successful people who have already used the system.

              Shit, you’re right. It is talking about the Clinton Foundation!

      1. No Sicilians handy, and anyone who dies won’t be her. So, blunder is as blunderbuss.

  2. Hilary Clinton may be the war candidate, but I have it on good authority that Trump inspired an army of Hiundu nationalists in India to commit genocide.

    1. Where did you hear that? A Shikha article that didn’t get retracted?

      1. Retracted? If they retracted her editorials, then that would reveal they have shame. And if they had shame, they’d retract Chapman’s editorials first.

        1. Arrgh, they’d retract Richman‘s editorials first…

          1. Richman actually has a libertarian POV. Chapman is just a shill for Obama.

            1. Eh, Chapman is a run of the mill left-leaning libertarian. Richman may be more doctrinaire in some ways, but when it comes to foreign policy, everything he writes is just utter dreck.

          2. She did have a story retracted, I believe.

            1. What story of hers was retracted?

              1. “Trump tweeted horrible horrible things. let me go on for paragraphs how racist it is”

                “That’s a parody Twitter account”

                “Oh. Embarrassing. Let’s pretend it was never posted.”

                It was what, 4 weeks ago? 5? A weekend post, if I remember right.

                1. It was what, 4 weeks ago? 5? A weekend post, if I remember right.

                  4, and yes, an early morning (for me) late night (for y’alls) post. And it’s already been memory holed, Panny Z. Like, with a cloth.

          3. Richman’s at least somewhat readable as long as he steers clear of any topic even remotely connected to Israel (TEH JOOZ!), and refrains from comparing murdered Navy SEALs to mass murderers. And Shika’s OK as long as she avoids Trump and immigration. Chapman, OTOH, is always pure DERP.

          4. It’s really a toss up, isnt it kbolino. Put Suderman on that list as well.

      2. +1 temple of doom

    2. “…Trump inspired an army of Hindu nationalists in India to commit genocide.”

      By grabbing their pussies?

  3. “Morell brought up the fact that Iran arms the Houthi ”

    The fact? Has this been shown anywhere or just pro Saudi assertions?

    1. I think it’s pretty much a fact. The Houthi’s didn’t make those rockets they fired at that U.S. Navy ship in a ramshackle workshop.

      Much of what’s happening in the mideast are different manifestations of a big war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

      The U.S. govt is acting as S.A. bitch.

      1. No those were old scuds the Yemen army had. I am not sure how they’d be getting arms to them. Getting through the US coalition blockade? Matching them right through Saudi?

        Wikileaks had some leaks showing it was made up http://www.truth-out.org/news/…..r-in-yemen

        1. It’s quite possible I’m mistaken. I haven’t been paying close attention to the mess. Too depressing.

        2. Scuds aren’t accurate enough to hit a moving ship, and the flight pattern in the video wasn’t indicative of a ballistic missile. It was either a C-802, or C-701, manufactured by China and used by Iran. Not Yemen.

          As for smuggling them, they have caught fishing boats with weapons, and the Mandeb Strait is still open to commercial vessels. Seeing how the IRGC is quite good at that sort of thing, it isn’t that surprising.

          Of course Iran is supporting the Houthis. The Houthis serve their interests. The Houthis aren’t proxies, but willing to accept help wherever they can. They give Iran the chance to bloody the Saudis right on their border while maintaining plausible deniability.

          As for Wikileaks, they are now worthless as an unbiased source. Assange is seething with rage and has been locked in the same room for over three years now. He’s out for revenge, not truth.

      2. You’d rather us be Iran’s bitch!?!

        1. We’re the empire!! They’re supposed to be our bitch!!

      3. People forget most all of the army under Saleh is allied with houthis. It really isn’t as simple as sunni shia.

        1. Just started reading Seven Pillars of Wisdom. It’s pretty crazy that some British officers was running around the Arabian Peninsula in WWI trying to tell them that divisions between tribes would leave the door wide open for the the super powers to come in and start pulling puppet strings.

          1. Excellent book. I have been recommending it lately. I should reread it.

      4. Nah, a good portion of the Yemeni military went Houthi.

        Iran’s got no incentive to support those Imams #7-#12 denying heretics, apart from antagonizing Saudi Arabia, and the only proof of Iran doing so is Saudi Arabia saying so and promising that it’s being truthful.

        Because the Saudis are just so trustworthy.

  4. …it’s fair to expect more and grander military intervention under a President Clinton than we’ve experienced under President Obama.

    In fairness, it will likely be limited to times when she’s embroiled in a personal or professional scandal that requires national distraction.

    1. What you did theres, I sees it…

    2. There is not a dog big enough to wag…

    3. The Saudis expect Hillary to stay bought.

    4. IOW, war non-stop?

      1. Or reaching out to appeal of Neocon voters

  5. Just watching the Hillary rally in Ohio: “we can’t have nuclear weapons in the Middle East.”

    *points finger to Israel*

    1. When she says “we,” who exactly does she mean?

      1. I assume she’s using the royal “we”, and by royal I mean the Saudi royalty.

      2. “Bill, me, and Huma if I can ever find her again.”

    2. Put me in the camp who think that the Saudis have some. Maybe not many, but some.

      1. Put me in the camp

        Never say that around a Jew.

      2. I have my doubts. I read once that their navy was restricted to 8-5 operations because the Saudis couldn’t stoop to actual hands-on maintenance, so all that had to be handled back in port by foreigners. A friend working over there said it was amazing how averse the Saudis were to any kind of hands-on work, relying on foreigners.

        It doesn’t mean there aren’t a few Saudis who could maintain nukes, but if the general populations thinks actual physical work is beneath contempt, it doesn’t bode well for support structure.

      3. Supposedly there’s a gentlemen’s agreement between Saudis and Pakistan. Saudis helped finance Pakistani nukes, with the understanding that they can help themselves if necessary (e.g. Iran gets nukes and US tells Saudis to get fucked).

  6. Does anybody follow the Saudi Yemen conflict on social media? I got to hand it to the houthis.. they have some pluck. Most fight barefooted and are kicking the crap out of high tech Saudi weaponry. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KeMSIRtQ

    1. Yeah. The Houthis aren’t great… but their the best faction involved in Yemen at the moment, so I hope they succeed.

  7. well at least we won’t be bothered by the anti-war left during her 4-8 year reign. they’re annoying as fuck.

    1. Gonna be a hell of a show. Will be even more interesting when the robots are out in the street cheering for Hillary to kill people.

      1. It would be interesting to compare the faces there to the ones who were on the street protesting war under Bush.

        1. No I think he is literally saying robots, like Westworld.

    2. And with that whole “private” vs “public” positions business, is there any left-wing value Clinton won’t sell out on?

      But she’ll throw them just enough bones that they’ll be more than happy to ignore any of her problems. After all, what better way to build an honest democracy than with imperious liars?

      1. The ones that align with her and the government having more power than it did before, with exceptions in place for her and her criminal network. Whether it’s taxes or guns, there are some things that we can reliably assume she won’t budge on. Granted there is no value that will long survive being a threat to her holding power, it’s just that some leftisms will never really threaten that.

      2. just enough bones

        Those aren’t bones, they are chunks of calcified smegma. /SF

  8. Look on the bright side: there’s practically no chance of the Nobel committee awarding her a Nobel Peace Prize…

  9. So stupid. So incredibly stupid.

    Let’s get (more) in the middle of a centuries old religious conflict masquerading as a national rivalry.

  10. RE: Top Hillary Clinton Adviser Thinks U.S. Should Attack Iran To Benefit Saudi Interests In Yemen
    Indications point to more and grander military interventions under a President Clinton.

    No doubt about it, Heil Hitlery will be come president.
    Yay!
    Then we can have more wars overseas.
    It won’t get any better than this.

  11. We’re back, we’re going to lead again.

    I’m sure the Middle East, with the exception of the Saudi royal family will be just thrilled to hear that. /sarc

    Remember when GWB was being lambasted by the left for being to cozy with the Saudi royals? Anyone… anyone…?

    1. Simply take this film and replace “Carlyle Group” and “Bush Family” with Clinton Foundation

      1. Maybe even just leave Carlyle Group.

  12. Are you *sure*? I’m pretty sure Shikha said something slightly different at some point. I think it was titled “Trump Will Blow Up The World”, or “Inevitable Nuclear Trump Doom Shitstorm” or something like that.

    that said

    One of Hillary Clinton’s top national security advisers, Michael Morell (who also happens to be the former acting director of the CIA)

    also! the guy who re-wrote the Benghazi talking points. Nothing at all coincidental about that. No sir.

    I know Benghazi has become something of a joke on the left as synonymous with “nothingburger-fake-skandal”, but the fact is that it entailed smuggling weapons from one regime-overthrowing (Libya) orchestrated by Hillary’s state departmet to a second one (Syria), which she’s also had a direct hand in. And those 2 actions have cost how many civilian lives, and done what positive things for “the region”, exactly?

    She makes Dick Cheney look like a pussy.

    1. She makes Dick Cheney look like a pussy.

      That’s pretty much spot-on, but it can depend on which picture you’re looking at.

      1. That looks like he’s the star of a Levitra commercial

        1. a Levitra commercial

          See, this is how I know Gilmore is of a much higher class (if there was ever any doubt): He goes for Levitra, and not the “low-hanging fruit” of Viagra, or even Cialis.

          1. (buffs nails with ivory-handled file)

            1. Wait…no orphans to do that??

              I’ll let it slide this time. Sir.

    2. That will be different, because all of the people that Hillary doesn’t blow up will get to come to Murika. Donald will just leave the orphans out in the sand. You know if you’re going to kill people on a massive scale, you gotta save a few chillins to prove how caring you are.

  13. In that case I suppose all the progressive snowflakes will be rushing to military recruiting centers, so that they can die for the glory of the Queen?

    1. Unlikely. As far as I can tell, “If you support the war, you should be over there fighting in it!” only applies when a Republican is president.

      1. Might have some Private Benjamin-style moments too: “Um, no, I enlisted in the other Army, the one with the safe rooms with crayons and Play-doh.”

    2. Of course they will.
      No sacrifice is too great to further the socialist cause.

  14. The Democratic nominee has been able to remain infuriatingly vague on military matters throughout the campaign thanks in part to her opponent’s flailing incoherence

    Why would her opponent call her on a topic he knows absolutely nothing about? It’s not incoherence, it’s total ignorance.

    And, why would Republicans call her on a topic they completely agree with her on?

    And you can be damned sure the Democrats won’t call her on anything.

    1. She’ll have the support of upwards of 2/3rds of Congress if she starts a war with Iran. But I’m interested in seeing what sort of alliance forms between anti-war Republicans like Rand Paul and Democrats like Ron Wyden.

      Not every Democrat in Congress is a complete tool when it comes to this subject since a lot of voters really don’t want more war.

      1. It doesn’t matter what voters want. They already voted and they’re going to get what they voted for, good and hard. And you’re right, if Hillary wants to go on with her war mongering and you know she does, she will get congressional approval. We’ll be hearing ‘Iran cannot get nuclear weapons’ loud and often.

    2. Why would her opponent call her on a topic he knows absolutely nothing about? It’s not incoherence, it’s total ignorance.

      Also it’s been firmly established that actions can be taken, she can invent narratives, one can have nothing to do with the other, and she, in no way, will be held culpable. If “What difference, at this point, does it make?” gets traction in a Congressional hearing, what’s a candidate, especially and outsider, gonna do?

  15. “Top Hillary Clinton Adviser Thinks U.S. Should Attack Iran To Benefit Saudi Interests In Yemen”

    Nice, so progtards think we’re getting a 3rd term of Obama and what we’re actually getting is a 3rd term of Bush.

    1. I believe you mean a 5th term of Bush. Remind me, how many troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

      1. And now we’re gonna need some more to occupy Iran. And don’t forget, Iran has like 70 million people. Hillary’s going to have to kill a LOT of Iranians.

        1. None of this would have been on the table if Obumbles had not played golf during the green revolution. At some point you have to stop listening to what people say and look at what they do.

          An acquaintance of mine told me not long ago “I hope someone gets it on video so I can watch it over and over again.”

    2. What we are getting is a third degree. Each succeeding presidency more hawkish than the last.

    3. Sounds more like a fifth term of Bush.

  16. Let’s do this while simultaneously importing a million refugees…I mean widows and orphans…from that region. What could go wrong?

    They are trying to set the world on fire, and they may well succeed. Let’s all go vote for Doolittle McQuack because we are purists to make sure Hillary gets elected.

    1. Dude, McQuack’s not even running this year.

      1. Exactly.

        1. I’m writing in = Doolittle McQuack

          1. Ok, y’all. I wrote that in frustration and some anger, but you did make me laugh.

    2. It’s absolute freaking insanity. How in the hell do any of these proposed conflicts serve anyone’s interest apart from General Dynamics and Colt and the pols they pay off?

      1. Military industrial complex, Clinton Foundation, just to name a couple.

      2. They serve the Saudi’s interests.

        All of our interventions umder Obam have been mercenary in nature.

        It’s that Shia vs. Sunni thing.

    3. “Let’s do this while simultaneously importing a million refugees…I mean widows and orphans…from that region. What could go wrong?”

      That’s Hillary’s exact plan. Blow em up but import the ones left for some public image boost. Ok, we created the orphans, but we had to!

      1. We couldn’t have brought these poor children here if we hadn’t killed their families and destroyed their homes! And to top that off we will let the Saudis open a special school just for them.

    4. I would follow Launchpad McQuack to the end of days.

    5. If they were widows and children (real children, not teenage males), I’d be a lot more comfortable with it. But, Europe at least, is importing military age males, not women and children.

      1. They’ll be needed for the upcoming war with Russia

  17. Hillary Clintons Inaguration theme….

    Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
    Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
    Bomb Iraaaan, Because we caaaaaan

  18. Syria, Iran, parts of Yemen, and Russia. Shit, we’re going to be busy.

    1. The conspiracy nuts are mumbling about Hillary and Obama being part of a conspiracy to bring down America as a superpower. They aren’t looking so nutty anymore. Isnt this an Alinskyite tactic? To overwhelm the system?

      1. I hear Hillary is a big fan of Alinsky. Maybe it’s a conspiracy theory, but Hillary clearly wants an oligarchy where the leaders are in no way constrained by the plebes. Things have to be pretty fucked up before people will accept that. You start wars all over the planet and then bring millions of the survivors here. If only a few of those survivors decide to exact revenge on the people who blew up their country, that could create enough chaos to declare martial law and suspend elections, forever. I mean it seems intentional to me.

        1. *measures Hyperion’s head for shiny new hat.

        2. It,s not a conspiracy theory.

          She wrote papers on her love for him while she was in college.

          She consideres herself a follower.

    2. In unrelated news Northrop Grumman and Raytheon stocks are both up significantly today

      1. In all seriousness, Raytheon is adding 3,000 workers to their missile factory in Tucson.

  19. “Morell brought up the fact that Iran arms the Houthi rebels who have seized control of Yemen’s capital city Sanaa”

    You mean:

    “Morell brought up the baseless allegation that Iran arms the Houthi rebels who have seized control of Yemen’s capital city Sanaa”

    1. Also, “This is our problem, how exactly?”

      1. Cause Team Murika World Police Fuck Yeah!

        1. I’ve been thinking lately – the first time I ever heard the US referred to as “World Police,” it was from Al Gore.

          This was maybe 1994 or so, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It had been long enough that conversation had turned toward “gosh, without a USSR, do we really need to spend as much as we do on the military anymore?”

          The answer from the peace-loving Clinton administration and polar-bear-hugging Al Gore as “hell yes, we do!”

          There was a blithering speech from Gore about how he had a vision for the American military as “world police,” and this is connected in my memory to the US involvement in Somalia.

          I’ve tried googling this, but can’t find it. Anybody else remember this, or can link to it? Or did I dream it?

          If it’s real, Democrats misty-eyed over the lost utopia that would have been the Gore presidency need to have it thrown at them with great frequency.

          1. I dunno but every commercial I see for the Navy pretty much brags about us being just that.

            1. The Navy is the only arm of the military that, IMHO, should have reach beyond our physical borders. Protecting U.S. merchant ships in international waters is a valid job for the Navy – but hardly one I’d conflate with “world police”.

              1. My father’s preWWII navy was seen by him and his fellow officers as the first line of defense of the nation . This was a rather vague mandate to defend American interests everywhere.

                OTOH, the idea of projecting force outside of the Monroe Doctrine defined “sphere of influence” was something that most of them didn’t consider.

                That is, except for those in the Asiatic Fleet which was for most of them an entirely unknown entity.

                For everyone outside of the Asiatic Fleet, defense of the nation meant patrolling the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.

                1. For those in the Asiatic Fleet, defense of the nation meant protecting American (and European) interests in the fuckup that was post-revolutionary China.

                  This was something that was not destined to end well.

      2. Not our problem but there’s money to be made.

  20. Attack the entire Middle East, Russia and China.

    Queen Hillary will lead the charge !!!

  21. I think that’s the kind of action, tough action that would get the attention of the Iranians

    Has Hillary made any public comments about the Iran “Nuclear Deal”? Wasn’t the whole point of that thing to ‘open up diplomatic channels’ and set the stage for re-integrating Iran into normalized relations with the world?…. or was it really all just shits & giggles for Obama to pretend he was a peacemaker?

    (*yes, i’m presuming the latter, but she had to have said something about it)

    The NYT covered her position last November

    Mrs. Clinton’s speech, at the Brookings Institution, amounted to a strong endorsement of the deal struck by President Obama and her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, though one laced with skepticism about Iran’s intentions. …Most of her speech and discussion afterward was an effort to navigate a careful line between claiming credit for the Iran deal while also expressing skepticism by positioning herself as tougher than her former boss …Mrs. Clinton’s promise that her approach to the Iranians would be to “confront them across the board”…. she said, the deal must be the starting point of a new American containment strategy.

    ThinkProgress has more on hillary’s various iran contradictions

    1. Yeah, attacking someone usually gets their attention.

  22. Does any comparable saber-rattler advise Trump? If not, does this not cement not only Trump’s superiority as a prez choice on foreign policy, but the absolute (not just relative) badness of Clinton likewise?

    1. Trump is quite dovish compared to Hillary. At least if you go by what he says.

    2. And since I’ve very reason to think this isn’t so much advice by Morell to Clinton as it is public cover for orders that flowed the other way, and that Hillary would have no substantial reason to take that side other than bribery, and since there’s no reason she’d be less susceptible to bribery in domestic affairs, this means she’s running for the position of graft-taker-in-chief.

    3. Does any comparable saber-rattler advise Trump?

      from Cato

      Trump’s Shrinking Pool of Foreign Policy Advisors

      The short answer seems to be, “He ignores them” and/or doesn’t have any.

      Its possible that you could take this as a “good thing”. Or not. The fact is that what presidents say during campaigns is always pretty much mostly bullshit, but Trump has in general hit more “we should stay out of conflicts we have no interests in”-notes, and said things like “who needs NATO?” than other presidents in the past.

  23. OT and probably already mentioned elsewhere: Jerry Brown signed the bill latching onto the Obamacare funding formula – making the healthy pay into a pool the sick are drawing from – but he’s doing it with the broke-ass California retirement system. I can’t see any problem with a law requiring private employers to pay into a state system the state system managers have managed to bankrupt to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars. Can you?

    1. He’s not known as Moonbeam without reason. Remember what he said about the min wage thing they passed? Something to the effect of ‘this is bad economic policy, but the right thing to do’. So I suppose it’s gonna be more of that type of derp with this one. We’re destroying the economy, but it feelz good!

      1. He’s known as “Moonbeam” because of his support for a satellite program back in the 70s, not because he’s known as being particularly cuddly or a “feel good” kind of guy.

        He’s a ruthless revenue-grabber and a very savvy con-man. He’s spent his term so far frantically wrapping tourniquets around the spurting arteries that are the CA Public Employee Retirement System.

        An example of the way Jerry does things:

        He recently signed into a law a ‘retirement program’ for low-income workers. If you earn below a certain threshold, the State takes an extra 3% of your income to put into a retirement plan for you.

        In response to criticisms regarding funding a new entitlement program, we were told not to worry, because most people won’t ever actually see benefits from it. It’s just stealing from poor people. Oops – did we say that out loud?

        Jerry passing a $15 minimum wage wasn’t out of “feel good” gesturism – have no doubt that he found a way to guide some of that cash towards himself and his cronies.

        1. The ‘moonbeam’ moniker came from:

          For the uninitiated, ‘Governor Moonbeam’ became Mr. Brown’s intractable sobriquet, dating back to his days as governor between 1975 and 1983, when his state led the nation in pretty much everything ? its economy, environmental awareness and, yes, class-A eccentrics.

          The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.

          The term had a nice California feel, and Mr. Royko eventually began applying it when he wrote about the Golden State’s young, idealistic and nontraditional chief executive. He found endless amusement ? and sometimes outright agita ? in California’s oddities, calling the state “the world’s largest outdoor mental asylum.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03…..inley.html

        2. He had to raise the minimum wage to create the payroll for his new 3% retirement plan tax.

    2. So, wait. Do these private-sector employees get enrolled into the pension system, too? Or are they just paying for a benefit they’ll never receive?

      1. Many to most won’t qualify when they retire, because many people don’t spend their life in low income jobs.

  24. the upcoming U.S. presidential election provides a “great opportunity for the next president of the United States to go to the Middle East and say ‘We’re back, we’re going to lead again.'”

    Hillary will make America great again? Somebody should.

  25. What do you expect? Here’s the current Sailor’s Creed for the U.S. Navy (emphasis mine):

    I am a United States Sailor.

    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.

    I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy AROUND THE WORLD.

    I proudly serve my country’s Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
    I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

  26. Make no mistake, what Morell just proposed is an act of war, which Bloomberg’s Eli Lake aptly characterized as “something you might hear this month in an alternate reality, from the Rubio-Cheney campaign.”

    Question for the group:

    How much more warmongering do we have to hear from mainstream Democrats before mainstream Democrats quit characterizing it as something we only hear from Republicans.

    1. If Trump wins or looses but somehow retains his influence I honestly think it signals a flip/flop and Democrats will become known as the war party, while the Republicans will become the peace party.

      Not sure yet if the Republicans will be a Democrat-style peace party, where they are anti-war but just when the opposition is in charge.

  27. “great opportunity for the next president of the United States to go to the Middle East and say ‘We’re back, we’re going to lead again.'”

    Oh swell.

  28. all peoples country will seeing the results
    tndte diploma results 2016
    tndte diploma results 2016

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.