In the NYT columnist Jacob Heilbrunn’s The Next Act of the Neocons Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? We are warned, “the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, [CFR member] Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.” Heilbrunn connects Hillary Clinton to many powerful neocons. What Heilbrunn leaves out is that almost all that are mentioned are members of the Council on Foreign Relations as is Hillary’s spouse Bill Clinton.
The article follows with the Council on Foreign Relations members identified using the Council on Foreign Relations membership list. Hyperlinks have been added to provide the reader with more in depth information about the characters involved. The reader is encouraged to bookmark the list and use it when they read main stream media articles or watch the the news. The Council on Foreign relations has run Main Stream Media and our Government for 100 years. They have surrounded every President from
Wilson on with unelected Council of Foreign Relations members in powerful administrative positions. These CFR members shape the President’s thinking and actions to further Council on Foreign Relations’ goals of perpetual war and perpetual war bucks making them rich and powerful. It is likely that quite a few CFR members mentioned in this article will be tapped to be part of Hillary Clinton’s administration if she is elected president in 2016. It is time for all Americans to know what is going on and take their country back.
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN JULY 5, 2014
Devils in the details of forever war Council on Foreign Relations spouse Hillary Clinton, Council on Foreign Relations spouse Robert Kagan, Council on Foreign Relations member Kagan’s spouse Victoria Neuland
WASHINGTON — AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush [son of CFR member George H.W. Bush]-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton [spouse of CFR member Bill Clinton] and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons — [CFR member] Paul D. Wolfowitz, [CFR member] L. Paul Bremer III, [CFR member] Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle — are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, [son of neocon CFR member Irving Kristol] the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president [CFR spouse] Mrs. Clinton would “be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”
But others appear to envisage a different direction — one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian [CFR member] Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the [CFR run] State Department.
[CFR member] Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute [AEI is part of the CFR policy planning network],; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution [Brookings is part of the CFR policy planning network], that citadel of liberalism headed by [CFR member] Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under [CFR member] President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. ([CFR member] Mr. Talbott called the [CFR member] Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment [establishment is a CFR run Main Stream Media euphemism for the Council on Foreign Relations].)
Perhaps most significantly, [CFR member] Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman’s secretary of state, [CFR member] Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons’ favorite president: “It was not [CFR member] Eisenhower or Kennedy or [CFR member] Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of [CFR member] Acheson and Truman.”
Other neocons have followed [CFR member] Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for [CFR spouse] Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. [CFR spouse] Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of [CFR member] Robert Kagan on board.
Of course, the neocons’ latest change in tack is not just about intellectual affinity. Their longtime home, the Republican Party, where presidents and candidates from Reagan to [CFR member] Senator John McCain of Arizona supported large militaries and aggressive foreign policies, may well nominate for president Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been beating an ever louder drum against American involvement abroad.
In response, Mark Salter, a former chief of staff to [CFR member] Senator McCain and a neocon fellow traveler, said that in the event of a Paul nomination, “Republican voters seriously concerned with national security would have no responsible recourse” but to support [CFR member] Mrs. Clinton for the presidency.
Still, Democratic liberal hawks, let alone the left, would have to swallow hard to accept any neocon conversion. [CFR spouse] Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy views — the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as “like a neocon, practically.” And humanitarian interventionists like Samantha Power, the ambassador to the [CFR created] United Nations, who opposed the second Iraq war, recoil at the militaristic unilateralism of the neocons and their inveterate hostility to international institutions like the World Court.
But others in Mrs. Clinton’s orbit, like [CFR member] Michael A. McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a neocon haven at Stanford, are much more in line with thinkers like [CFR member] Mr. Kagan and [CFR member] Mr. Boot, especially when it comes to issues like promoting democracy and opposing Iran.
Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, [CFR member] Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.