Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Clinton Is the Most Dangerous Person Alive

Monday, November 7, 2016 22:39
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

An Interview with Edward S. Herman
By Edward S. Herman and Ann Garrison
Global Research, November 08, 2016
Region: USA
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

Ann Garrison: Earlier this year, you told me that you differ with Noam Chomsky, your co-author of Manufacturing Consent and other books, in that you plan to vote for the Green Party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Are you still planning to do so?

Edward S. Herman (image right): Yes.

AG: Can you explain why?

ESH: Because the two duopoly candidates are dangerous to societal and international welfare and even survival. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and pre-eminent war-monger. I think she is the most dangerous person living in the world today, given her highly likely election victory and her likely performance as president. She represents the corporate elite and military-industrial complex more clearly than Trump and she is a follow-on to Bush and Obama. She will pursue similar policies except for her somewhat more aggressive bent.

Trump is a self-promoting windbag, racist and dangerous, unpredictable phony. We have a ghastly choice in these two. Jill Stein offers a protest opportunity, more so than not voting. On the line that either voting for Stein or not voting would constitute a vote for Trump, one might argue that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war with Syria and Russia and a vote for Netanyahu (and hence for escalated violence in Palestine).

AG: Hillary Clinton and John Podesta’s e-mail has revealed that Hillary Clinton is well aware that the Saudi and Qatari rulers – not rogue elements – fund ISIS, and the same Saudi and Qatari rulers fund the Clinton Foundation. Throughout the last George Bush’s presidency, there were innumerable headlines that “Saudi oil sheikhs met with George Bush on his Crawford, Texas ranch.” What are your thoughts on that?

ESH: Saudi Arabia is a US ally and an instrument of the warfare state. Hillary Clinton has treated its leaders warmly and she will continue to do so as president. The Clinton Foundation’s receipt of money from Saudi and Qatari leaders is a first class conflict of interest and outrage, but the media have focused on the many less important abuses of Trump, helping cover over the outrages of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, Bill Clinton.

AG: What do you think of Clinton’s statement that she would make removing Bashar Al-Assad her top priority? And Trump’s statement that he would not, because that would recklessly risk confrontation with Russia?

ESH: Hillary Clinton has essentially promised to escalate war in Syria and is therefore promising to go to war with Russia as well. Diana Johnstone has made the case that Hillary Clinton plans to try to bring about “regime change” in Russia (cite). This is of course incredibly dangerous and would have aroused a really democratic media, but the existing media are part of the war system, hence Hillary Clinton’s commitment to wars is essentially suppressed. Trump has made a number of statements along the lines of reducing US interventions and commitments abroad and trying to deal with Russia in a less confrontational manner, but he has sometimes contradicted himself by urging expanded arms, use of nuclear weapons, etc. But Hillary Clinton has said nothing that would offset her war-mongering. This difference from Trump may help explain the intensity of media hostility to Trump.

AG: Jill Stein has said that “wars for oil are blowing back at us wth a vengeance” and that she would cut the military budget by half, close most of the foreign bases, and redirect resources into a Green New Deal that would fully employ Americans building sustainable energy and agricultural infrastructure. I can’t imagine you disagree, but do you think it’s important for the Greens to articulate such a vision at the national and international level, instead of focussing solely on local races that they might win?

ESH: The Greens don’t have the resources to compete in many local elections. So she is wise to focus on the big national and international issues. Furthermore, the real gap in the political system is the lack of opposition to national neoliberal and militaristic policies. It is said that she can’t make a bigger mark given the hegemony of the duopoly, but even Ralph Nader couldn’t get 5 percent of the vote. The system still works well, for the 1%.

AG: Michael Moore has made a movie called “Trumpland” and warned that Trump’s election would be the end of the United States, assuming that would be a bad thing. David Swanson, author of “War Is a Lie,” has imagined the same but argued, in “Secession, Trump, and the Avoidability of Civil War,” that the break-up of the United States is not the worst possibility on the horizon. Do you have any thoughts on this?

ESH: Michael Moore is completely oblivious to the fact that the enlarging war that is likely to follow Hillary Clinton’s election threatens not only a nuclear exchange, but also attacks on civil liberties and the march toward fascism. In its own way, the election of Hillary Clinton might threaten a democratic order as much as a Trump victory. The anti-Trump hysteria has tended to block out consideration of the Hillary Clinton menace.

AG: Is there anything else you’d like to say about why you’re voting for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka?

ESH: I’ve always believed in the moral rule laid down in the categorical imperative: “Do that which you would wish generalized.”


For real,

Ann Garrison
Independent Journalist,
SKYPE: Ann Garrison, Oakland

Selected Articles: US Elections 2016: Political Crisis in the Aftermath?
By Global Research News
Global Research, November 07, 2016
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

US Presidential Election: Deeply Flawed Candidates. Who Will Win and Who Deserves to Win?

By David Morgan, November 06 2016

It has been widely commented that the two main contenders in the US presidential race are both deeply flawed candidates, even that they are both unfit to hold high office. Whoever next takes up residence in the White House will become the most powerful person in the world at the conclusion of this coming week’s voting and the fate of all the peoples of the world will be in his or her hands. It’s a frightening prospect in itself that one individual can exercise so much power.

No, Hillary Clinton is not less Evil than Trump: “One has Funny Hair, the Other Wears Trouser-suits”

By Jonathan Cook, November 07 2016

Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton’s supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the “lesser evil” argument. There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home. So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine those “policy differences” with Trump.

The Never-ending Clinton-Trump Race is Coming to a Close. Then What?

By DonkeyHotey and Klaus Marre, November 07 2016

Finally! That is the prevailing thought as this presidential election is headed for the finish line. Wanting this race to be over is certainly one of the reasons why a record number of Americans have voted early. But will it be? Sure, we will (likely) know by Wednesday who the next president will be, but, in this election, that will not provide closure. The country is still deeply divided and neither candidate appears to be in a position to heal that rift.

A More Dangerous World is Probably Coming After the US Election

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos, November 07 2016

The level of irrationality, confusion and negative energy is the most astonishing signal emanating out of the US presidential election. It is a strong indication that, whatever the result, we should be prepared for an escalation in the already serious tensions dominating our world.

FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges. But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received $467,500

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 07 2016

Hillary had bought out the police chief in charge of investigating her alleged wrongdoings. Needless to say Andrew McCabe was NOT the object of a police investigation. If he had things may have turned out differently.

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

By Eric Zuesse, November 05 2016

The power above the FBI is the US Attorney General, and, above that person, the US President. That’s whom the FBI actually serves — not the US public. This is the reason why the FBI is having such internal tensions and dissensions over the investigation of Hillary Clinton: Not only is she the current President’s ardently preferred and designated successor but the top leadership of the FBI have terms-in-office that do not end with the installation of the next President; and these people will therefore be serving, quite possibly, the very same person whom they are now ‘investigating’.

A Brexit-Style Revolution in the USA? The Real Differences between Clinton and Trump

By Takis Fotopoulos, November 06 2016

There is no doubt that the forthcoming US Presidential elections are perhaps the most controversial ones in the US history. This has nothing of course to do with the various personal ‘scandals’ supposedly marring the two candidates, i.e. the emails scandal vs. the sexual utterances that are incompatible with the political correctness imposed by the ideology of globalization. These are obvious diversions created by the system itself in order to disorient the American victims of globalization from the real issues of these elections.

Whose Finger on the Nuclear Button? Hillary or Donald? Election 2016 And The Growing Global Nuclear Threat

By Michael Klare, November 07 2016

With passions running high on both sides in this year’s election and rising fears about Donald Trump’s impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton’s hawkish one, it’s hardly surprising that the “nuclear button” question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. “A man who can be provoked by a tweet,” she commented, “should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes.” Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. “You’re going to end up in World War III over Syria,” he told reporters in Florida last month.

American Irrationalism. Something is Terribly Wrong

By Chris Hedges, November 06 2016

There are millions of Americans who know that something is terribly wrong. A light has gone out. They see this in their own suffering and hopelessness and the suffering and hopelessness of their neighbors. But they lack, because of the contamination of our political, cultural and intellectual discourse, the words and ideas to make sense of what is happening around them. They are bereft of a vision. Austerity, globalization, unfettered capitalism, an expansion of the extraction of fossil fuels, and war are not the prices to be paid for progress and the advance of civilization. They are part of the savage and deadly exploitation by corporate capitalism and imperialism.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Global Research News, Global Research, 2016

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • lets play what if.. what if hillary wins, she has publicly stated that she intends to institute a no fly zone in Syria.. A country the US government has no legal basis to even be in.. and that isn’t taking into consideration that the US govt’s proxy army ISIS, is getting it’s ass handed to them..
    SO what happens if hitler in a dress tries to institute a no fly zone in a country that US has no legal basis to even be in??
    WORLD WAR 3!
    Those of you voting for hillary, better be prepared to DIE in her wars! yes, i said wars, she also has stated that she will bomb Iran!
    Run down to your military recruiters office and sign up if she manages to rig the election and steals the office of president. that way you can avoid the DRAFT to go and die for hillary’s avarice and corporate profits!

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.