Super Tuesday aftermath: Can the Neocons Trump Donald?

The results of Super Tuesday, the day in which 11 US States held primaries, saw Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton strengthen their positions as front-runners in the race for the Republic and Democratic Party nominations.
Trump and Clinton each won seven states. For the Republicans, Ted Cruz won his home state of Texas and Oklahoma, while Marco Rubio won Minnesota, his first state of the campaign. For the Democrats, four states were won by the socialist challenger Bernie Sanders.

Nothing has been decided by Tuesday’s results and important contests still lie ahead.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that both Trump and Clinton are going to be hard to peg back. In racing terms they’ve got a handy lead, both are jumping well and the challengers are already coming off the bridle. But of course, as in horse racing, no one’s won until the finishing line is passed. Unexpected falls can happen anywhere. And who's that we see through our field glasses, placing some stones and rocks in the path of Trump to try and get him to fall. Why it's the Neocons!
The war hawks of the Republican Party would like us to believe they are sensitive individuals who are shocked by Trump’s ‘extremism’ - and that they care deeply about immigrants, anti-racist causes and feminism. Don‘t be fooled. As ever, for the ‘We've got to invade Iraq because Saddam's got WMDs' brigade, its all about foreign policy and in particular making sure that the policy of Regime Change and Endless War, euphemistically called ‘interventionism’ continues. The Neocon faction are worried that Trump, a right-wing populist who prefers to kick ISIS butt rather than topple the secular Assad, and who has denounced the Iraq war, is a threat to their cause.

In a new article entitled ‘NeoConservatives declare war on Donald Trump’, Zaid Jilani of The Intercept
details the hawks’ campaign. Jilani notes that the ‘Emergency Committee for Israel’ - an organization which has ‘serial war propagandist’ and uber Neocon Bill Kristol a board member, paid for a ‘Trump Loves Dictators’ advertisement last weekend. Labeling opponents of neoconservative foreign policy as ‘lovers of dictators’ is of course a regular smear which is deployed by the war lobby. The smear, we must note was never used against a certain Tony Blair.

The excellent Glenn Greenwald, the Intercept’s co-founding editor and a journalist who always keeps his eye on the ball, has been chronicling how leading Neocons are coming out openly in support of Hillary Clinton. He’s also been highlighting the hypocrisy of Republican establishment figures who claimed to be shocked by Trump’s tactics and statements.

To British observers, it probably all seems rather familiar. That’s because the same thing happened to Jeremy Corbyn, during his successful campaign to become the Labour party leader last summer- a campaign which like Trump‘s was given no, or very little chance of success by members of the neocon punditocracy.

Of course, Jez and Donald, are, politically speaking, poles apart. Corbyn is a left-wing democratic socialist who rides a bicycle, reads Oscar Wilde and supports immigration; Trump a right-wing nationalist and real estate billionaire who owns golf courses and who wants to build a border wall to keep immigrants out. But in their own way, its important to understand that both men pose a threat - from the left and the right - to the entitled, undemocratic serial warmongering elites of their own parties.

The Republican Party, which used to have a strong isolationist/or foreign policy realist faction, has been captured by Neocons. It was a similar story with the British Labour Party, under Tony Blair, the Bomber of Belgrade and Baghdad.

The success of both Corbyn and Trump can be explained by the way that grassroot activists and supporters of the Labour Party and the Republicans have turned their backs on the party’s discredited Establishments. A similar thing has happened in the Democrats too, of course, with the strong showing of Bernie Sanders, who is pushing Hillary Clinton much closer than 'experts' predicted. "It is interesting that in both (US) political parties the candidates that are doing well are outsider candidates. People in both parties are repudiating their party leadership," says the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein.

Labour party members who voted for Corbyn in 2015 wanted the party to return to make a clean break with Blairism and return its democratic socialist roots. While Republicans who vote Trump in 2016 clearly want radical change too.

"Trump is speaking straight to ordinary Americans, not through the usual media/liberal filter. He is making sense to a lot of people. They like his absence of hypocrisy and the fact that he’s prepared to say George W. Bush committed a war crime in invading Iraq… Apart from his gross views on immigration - though no more gross in essence than, say, David Cameron's - he is not planning to invade anywhere," says the left-wing, award-winning anti-war journalist John Pilger.

While Corbyn and Trump have swept all before them as ‘Outsiders’, the ‘Insider’ candidates promoted by the Establishment elites in the UK and the US have fared absymally. In the Labour Party leadership election, the Blairites first choice, Liz Kendall got a risible 4.5 percent of the vote.
While Marco Rubio, the man Neocons would love to have seen get the Republican nomination, has won just one primary. Jeb Bush, brother of the warmonger Dubya, has already dropped out of the race.

Like spoiled children who haven't got their way neocons now bawl that the Republican Party is in ‘crisis’. The hardcore extremists who pushed for the illegal Iraq war, who have pushed tirelessly for regime change in Syria, and who cheer-leadered for the assault on Libya in 2011, are now concerned that an ’extremist’ could be the Republican’s Presidential candidate. Whoever said that the age of satire was dead!

In fact, whatever one thinks of him (and for the record, if I were an American my vote would be for either Bernie Sanders or the Green Party’s Jill Stein), Trump has clearly brought many people into the Republican fold.

Exactly the same talk of a party in ‘crisis’ occurred in Britain after the victory of the outsider Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party was finished, Neocon and faux-left commentators told us, because members had voted in a man who like Trump, had popular appeal!

Of course when Neocons tells us a party is in ‘crisis’, what it really means is that their influence in that party has been reduced. A ‘crisis’ for them is most certainly not a ‘crisis’ for us, dear reader. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

In the weeks ahead, we can expect a plethora of Op-ed pieces in the American media warning us that the Republicans must ditch the 'divisive' Trump to 'save the party' and to 'save America'. There’ll be calls for either Cruz or Rubio to stand down to increase the chances of defeating the Dreadful Donald. If that fails (as it's likely to given the hostility between Cruz and Rubio and their camps) there will be calls for a ‘unifying figure’ of the right to stand against Trump. The 'unifying figure' won’t win, but they would be likely to split the conservative vote and make Hillary Clinton - provided she does indeed secure the Democratic nomination - a shoe-in.

For the Neocons no other issue matters, but that of making sure a reliable warmonger becomes US President. Party labels don’t matter - it’s the bombs that count. Let’s not forget that Henry Jackson, the father of modern US neo-conservatism, aka ’The Senator from Boeing’, was a Democrat. Progressives who decide to support Hillary Clinton on the basis that in a battle with the 'extremist' Trump she'd be 'the lesser of two evils’ are likely to be making a big mistake.

"Hillary Clinton never found a war she didn’t support," says Jill Stein.

No wonder that having failed to halt the rise of a man too wealthy to be controlled in the Republican race, the discredited pro-Iraq war gang are now rallying to the Clinton ‘Democratic’ cause.

 

The Neocons love War.

 

Clinton's going to be hard to peg back because she's a "done deal" and already had the super-delegates votes pledged to her. So much for "Democratic" democracy and the massive popular support that flows to Bernie Sanders. Hilary is a neocon tramp through and through and I have not the slightest time for her.

It will be interesting to see how Trump progresses. It seems that the Washington non-person, former head of the DIA, General Michael Flynn is advising him on issues of foreign affairs, and if this is true then Trump isn't being nose-led by the Neocons.

Source

 

Clinton had more super delegates when Obama beat her.

 

Okay, but O'bama's still largely the Neocon's boy. Sanders most certainly isn't.

 

Newt Gingrich was surprisingly blunt during his short interview with Fox News. Donny is not 'initiated' one. He is not one of them hence panic within the so called establishment.


"He didn't belong to the secret society" - Newt Gingrich on why GOP establishment hates Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO-NA73FsW8

 

Correct, Trump is not very clubbable - unless he owns the club.

 

Great article--do you have a link for it?

 

Yeh.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/334311-super-tuesday-neocons-trump/

Neil Clark writes good articles

Honestly the reason why I'm voting for Trump is that out of every candidate, he is the only non neocon.

Everyone else is too interested in putting soudi boots on the ground and supporting zisrael NO MATTER WHAT.

I want the neoconsame to loose their power so we are not constantly trying depose some poor fellow, cause a revolution, and letting that country fall to terrorist hands.

That why I'm voting for Trump and I think other intelligent people should too.

I think we will have that with Trump.

 

What have your leaders and military done about US warmongering?

 

How do you feel about Israel and why?
What's your theory on US involvement in the ME?

 

Nothing yet. Thats why Im voting for Trump

 

Would you define warmongering?
What are you most hopeful Trump will change for the better?

 

Waging war when its unnecessary and especially if you are waging war for profit.

Eisenhower warned us against the military industrial complex.

Neocons are warmongers. Everyone but Trump seems to be a Neocon. He said that he is willing to get along with russia. And he said that he'll let Russian handle Syria. And Russia has beet doing a very good job at it. Im glad that the cease fire that Russia put forthis holding.

Some candidate(I think all but Trump) even argue for sending Soudi Arabian army into Syria, and worse yet putting boots on the ground. An event that will likely lead to WW3.

 

We practically destroyed Iraq.

We destroyed Lybia and not only enabled,but also assisted Isis take ove . Even as Ghadaffi died, black flags rose above Lybia

Wikileaks has revealed that we have planed and incied the Syrian revolution since 2006. They hoped that Assad would over react to foriegn jihadist flooding in. And he did. With the help of our bombers terrorist ceased a good chunck of of the Territory

Now Eurpe is suffering the migrant crisis. Did I mention how we supported a violent neo natzi co in Ukraine? And it looks like there might be another rebelion.


We screwed up the whole world all because of these idiotic warmongers.

Im hopeful that Trump will break us away from this path.

 

What theory do you have about the motive for invading Afghanistan? Why are we still over there? Why would the US get involved with Russia and Syria?

 

What was the motive?
What countries sent armies to stop our warmongering?

 

Behind Syria? Qutar pipeline that would deminish European dependence on Russian gass. Neocons want to persuit this geophysical strategy and profit from the war that we create.

Anyway..._whats up with all these questions?

 

I dont think we clearly know why we invadeed Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan because we invaded Iraq. So....
But our troops are likely still there because of the Syrian conflict.

 

I'm just getting your point of view....
Why do you think Obama hasn't pulled our troops out of the ME these past 7 years? Any theory on why we really went to Afghanistan a decade ago and remain there now?

 

We've been there for a decade.... Any theories as to why?

 

Why do we have bases all over the world. Its probably just an excuse to keep our military presence there for our go political goals.

 

I would guess surveillance, communication, strategic weaponry for offense and defense, etc...
Do you think our global presence is a good thing?

 

No. But I think force projection is.

 

Can you explain what you mean by force projection?