The 50 anti-Trump 'national security' Beltway 'Republican' letter signers include 15 consultants and/or lobbyists, a bunch of lawyers with corporate clients, investors, 14 think tankers, 9 professors, some in business with Democrats, 6 affiliated with CFR, and at least 4 who are also members of the globalist Trilateral Commission-Diana West, Rowan Scarborough

At least four of the 50 signers are current members of the globalist Trilateral Commission: Michael Chertoff, Richard Falkenrath, John Negroponte, and Carla Hills. Negroponte works for the McClarty group, and McClarty is also a Trilateral member as of Aug. 2016.
.....................

8/15/16, "About Those Anti-Trump Washington Plutocrats," Diana West

"Writing in the Washington Times today, Rowan Scarborough examines the resumes of those 50 "national security Republicans" to sign the latest group-hissy-fit over the fact that 14 million Republican primary voters ignored them and made Donald Trump the GOP presidential nominee.

What does Scarborough find? Fifteen consultants and/or lobbyists, some investors, a bunch of lawyers with corporate clients, fourteen think tankers and nine professors....

Welcome to the world Washington Insiders terrified that Donald Trump will derail the gravy train and call out their decades of foreign policy disasters.  

Read the article here."

.......................

No mention of the murderous neocon industry in this article, so I added a note about it within the article and posted 3 articles after it for reference:

8/14/16, "Anti-Trump letter reveals jittery band of GOP establishment power brokers," Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough

"When Donald Trump says he is running against the Washington establishment — the news media and consultant-lobbyist class — the battle lines have been crystal-clear in recent days.

An anti-Trump letter signed by 50 national security Republicans provided a look inside at Washington’s shadow power structure — the largely unseen roster of former officials who have exchanged their government jobs for the capital’s lucrative corporate landscape.

They operate inside glass- and steel-paneled offices on such boulevards as Pennsylvania and Connecticut avenues, strategically surrounding the White House and Congress they seek to influence.

The Republicans who have signed the letter include consulting firm chief executive officers, law firm corporate advisers, lobbyists, investors and think tank analysts. They trade on their government experience and a $4 trillion federal budget to win clients and make lots of money. Among them: two former homeland security secretaries who opened consulting companies and a former director of national intelligence who joined a similar firm run by a chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.

The rebellion of the Republican plutocrats against their party’s presidential nominee has prompted a counterattack from Trump supporters. They charge that the establishment fears this brash outsider will disrupt what has become a comfortable, wealthy and insulated lifestyle for hundreds of former officials, House members and senators of both parties."...

[Ed. note: No one "charges" these people with anything, it's what they are. You just reported it.]

(continuing) "Indeed, some of the Republicans who signed the letter are in business ventures with Democrats as they work to insert corporate favors into the federal budget or map out public relations campaigns.

“The national security establishment is scared of Trump, not necessarily because he’s largely unknown to them, but because he doesn’t care one bit who’s who,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and one of the first members of Congress to endorse the real estate mogul. “As president, Trump won’t care who did what, or who’s selling what weapons system, and that can have an effect on business and standing, and the defense establishment doesn’t like it.”

Newt Gingrich, as a former House speaker and Washington insider, is himself the establishment. Always a revolutionary at heart, he has broken with his brethren, wholeheartedly supports Mr. Trump and scolds fellow Republicans as “establishment deserters.”
“You’ve got a lot of people who belong to an older model of the Washington insiders system,” Mr. Gingrich said on Fox News. “Trump is a direct assault on that system. Part of their endgame is to feel morally virtuous, that they stuck with all of good, decent people who don’t use confusing language."...

Mr. Gingrich said much of their opposition stems from Mr. Trump’s strident and frequent criticism of President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and oust Saddam Hussein. The majority of signers worked in the Bush administration, and many played a role in Iraq policy."...

[Ed. note: Endless war neocons (also known as humanitarian 'interventionists,' advocates of 'regime change' followed by 'nation building' and 'refugee resettlement') have been wrong about everything, have never apologized, are elevated by major media, and are now fully embedded in the political system. Endless war is a good way to steal from a country for a few reasons. It's a cash business--you know you'll get paid. It's immune from taxpayer or voter interference. The rubes who pay all the bills have no say in the war industry. When "refugees" want to leave endless war zones, the same rubes will pick up the tab--again with no say in the matter--and are called racist if they dare ask one question of their globalist superiors. (During neocon George Bush's era, we stupidly cheered 'USA! USA!' having been told we were at war and hoping we'd win. Then we found out we'd been duped, that we were cheering for "nation building," and that if we questioned the notion we were racist.) US taxpayers are now seen as mute global slaves, expected to pay for, die and/or be dismembered by "the defense establishment." The current "security industry" hasn't the slightest problem with blood they've spilled, the human suffering they've created, the greatly expanded Islamic terrorism they caused, or the genocide of Christians they've enabled. The "refugee" crisis they caused across Africa, the Middle East and Europe is fine with them. They know that whatever happens, Americans will pay. This obviously sick situation exists for one reason only, which is that the US has only one functioning political party. Everyone in the Beltway is on the same side. Nothing is questioned.) 

(continuing): "“What you are looking at are people who helped create a war we are still not winning 15 years into the war,” Mr. Gingrich said. 

“They don’t want to have a debate about the war so they want to have a debate about Trump’s temperament. But the fact is we ought to be debating, ‘How come we are not winning?’”...

The letter’s signatories include two former Cabinet secretaries, an intelligence czar, a CIA director and a trade representative. The others were senior level policymakers, mostly serving at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House.

The total makeup: 15 consultants and/or lobbyists, four investors, eight lawyers who advise corporate clients, 14 think tank analysts who also can advise businesses and governments, and nine professors.

Among them, six are affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations, a large collection of foreign and defense policy analysts whom some have likened to a semi-official government advisory board.

Among the Republicans who signed the letter of 50:

• Two of Mr. Bush’s secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security: Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge.

Mr. Chertoff left government and founded The Chertoff Group, an international consulting firm. Also signing were two of his associates: former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and Richard Falkenrath, a former White House aide.

Mr. Ridge founded Ridge Global LLC consulting firm and sits on corporate boards.

• Former National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte. He is an executive at McLarty Associates, founded by Democrat Thomas “Mack” McLarty, who served as White House chief of staff for Mr. Clinton.

• Former U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills. She founded Hills and Co., which does consulting and lobbying and has major corporate clients.

• Former Assistant Defense Secretary Mary Beth Long. She set up Metis Solutions and has government and business clients, including the Homeland Security and Defense departments.

• Two former officials who are now executives with Rock Creek Global Advisors, which does consulting and lobbying: Clay Lowery, a former Treasury assistant secretary, and Daniel M. Price, a former deputy White House national security adviser. Rock Creek was founded by Mr. Bush’s former White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, who did not sign the letter.

• Brian Gunderson, former State Department chief of staff. He is the head of public policy for Elliott Management, a hedge fund.

• Kristen Silverberg, former assistant secretary of state. She serves on corporate boards and is an adviser to Beacon Global Strategies. Beacon, a consulting firm, was set up by some of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle of aides at the State Department.

The Democratic Washington establishment also is attacking Mr. Trump.

On Beacon Global Strategies’ payroll is former CIA acting Director Michael J. Morell. Mr. Morell penned an op-ed last week in The New York Times — the same vehicle for releasing the letter of 50 — bashing Mr. Trump as unqualified to be president.

Neither The Times nor Mr. Morell’s column disclosed that he is on Beacon’s payroll.

Mr. Trump thanked the 50 for underscoring his campaign against Washington’s elite.

“These were the people that have been there a long time,” he told Fox Business Network. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they've done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”

Said Mr. Gingrich: “You’re seeing a very profound shake-up between people who care more about developing policies that work and people who care about belonging to the establishment. Frankly, the establishment folks, whether they’re foreign policy or they’re party apparatchiks, they’re all going in the end to be not for Trump because Trump represents very real change.”"

.................. 

Three articles, 2014, 2015, and 2016: The US is firmly in the grip of the endless war industry now and is therefore the greatest global force for misery and suffering:

June 2014 article

6/20/2014, "Being a Neocon Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry," Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt 
........  
"These guys were wrong about every aspect of Iraq. Why do we still have to listen to them?" 
............  
"From 2001 until sometime around 2006, the United States followed the core neoconservative foreign policy program. The disastrous results of this vast social science experiment could not be clearer. 

The neoconservative program cost the United States several trillion dollars and thousands dead and wounded American soldiers, and it sowed carnage and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere.

One would think that these devastating results would have discredited the neoconservatives forever, just as isolationists like Charles Lindbergh or Robert McCormick were discredited by World War II, and men like former Secretary of State Dean Rusk were largely marginalized after Vietnam. Even if the neoconservative architects of folly are undaunted by failure and continue to stick to their guns, one might expect a reasonably rational society would pay them scant attention.  

Yet...neoconservative punditry is alive and well today. Casual viewers of CNN and other news channels are being treated to the vacuous analysis of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol.
...........
More worrisome still: It seems to be having some impact, insofar as President Barack Obama appears to have bowed to pressure and dispatched 300 U.S. military advisors to help the incompetent and beleaguered Maliki government in Iraq....
.........
Neoconservatives would have much less influence if mainstream media didn’t continue to pay attention to them. They could publish their own journals and appear on Fox News, but the big force multiplier is their continued prominence in places like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other outlets. Neocons continue to have frequent access to op-ed pages, and are commonly quoted by reporters on a range of foreign-policy issues. 
...........  
This tendency is partly because some important members of the mainstream media are themselves neoconservatives or strongly sympathetic to its basic worldview.

David Brooks of the New York Times,
Charles Krauthammer and  
Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, and
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal

are all card-carrying neoconservatives and were, of course,
prominent voices in the original (Iraq) pro-war camp....

The final source of neoconservative persistence is the continued support they get from their close cousins: the liberal interventionists.
..........
Neoconservatives may have cooked up the whole idea of invading Iraq, but they got a lot of support from a diverse array of liberal hawks. As I’ve noted before, the only major issue on which these two groups disagree is the role of international institutions, which liberals view as a useful tool and neoconservatives see as a dangerous constraint on U.S. freedom of action. Neoconservatives, in short, are liberal imperialists on steroids, and liberal hawks are really just kinder, gentler neocons.

The liberal interventionists’ complicity in the neoconservative project makes them reluctant to criticize the neoconservatives very much, because to do so draws attention to their own culpability in the disastrous neoconservative program. It is no surprise, therefore, that recovering liberal hawks like Peter Beinart and Jonathan Chait — who both backed the Iraq war themselves — have recently defended neoconservative participation in the new debate over Iraq, while taking sharp issue with some of the neocons’ position.
...........
The neoconservative-liberal alliance in effect re-legitimates the neoconservative world view, and makes their continued enthusiasm for U.S.-led wars look "normal." When the Obama administration is staffed by enthusiastic proponents of intervention like Samantha Power or Susan Rice, and when former Obama officials like Anne-Marie Slaughter are making neocon-like arguments about the need to send arms to Syria, it makes neoconservatives sound like a perfectly respectable faction within the broad U.S. policy community, instead of underscoring just how extreme and discredited their views really are.... 
.......... 
What, if anything, might reduce the neoconservative influence to its proper dimension (that is to say, almost nil)? I wish I knew, for if the past ten years haven’t discredited them, it's not obvious what would. No doubt leaders in Moscow and Beijing derive great comfort from that fact: For what better way to ensure that the United States continues to lurch from crisis to crisis, and from quagmire to quagmire?
........
Until our society gets better at listening to those who are consistently right instead of those who are reliably wrong, we will repeat the same mistakes and achieve the same dismal results. Not that the neoconservatives will care." (end of article)


...............................

Sept. 2015 article
............
9/7/2015, "How Neocons Destabilized Europe," by Robert Parry, consortiumnews.com 
........  
"The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe...started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through “regime change.”
..........  
Instead of the promised wonders of “democracy promotion” and “human rights,” what these “anti-realists” have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn’t been enough “regime change.”
 
For instance, The Washington Post’s neocon editorial page editor Fred Hiatt on Monday (2015) blamed “realists” for the cascading catastrophes. Hiatt castigated them and President Barack Obama for not intervening more aggressively in Syria to depose President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime neocon target for “regime change.”

But the truth is that this accelerating spread of human suffering can be traced back directly to the unchecked influence of the neocons and their liberal fellow-travelers who have resisted political compromise and, in the case of Syria, blocked any realistic efforts to work out a power-sharing agreement between Assad and his political opponents, those who are not terrorists....
........
A Dozen Years of Chaos

So, we can now look at the consequences and costs of the past dozen years under the spell of neocon/liberal-hawk “regime change” strategies. According to many estimates, the death toll in Iraq, Syria and Libya has exceeded one million with several million more refugees flooding into – and stretching the resources – of fragile Mideast countries.

Hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants have fled to Europe, putting major strains on the Continent’s social structures already stressed by the severe recession that followed the 2008 Wall Street crash. Even without the refugee crisis, Greece and other southern European countries would be struggling to meet their citizens’ needs.

Stepping back for a moment and assessing the full impact of neoconservative policies, you might be amazed at how widely they have spread chaos across a large swath of the globe. Who would have thought that the neocons would have succeeded in destabilizing not only the Mideast but Europe as well.

And, as Europe struggles, the export markets of China are squeezed, spreading economic instability to that crucial economy and, with its market shocks, the reverberations rumbling back to the United States, too.

We now see the human tragedies of neocon/liberal-hawk ideologies captured in the suffering of the Syrians and other refugees flooding Europe and the death of children drowning as their desperate families flee the chaos created by “regime change.” But will the neocon/liberal-hawk grip on Official Washington finally be broken? Will a debate even be allowed about the dangers of “regime change” prescriptions in the future?

Not if the likes of The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt have anything to say about it. The truth is that Hiatt and other neocons retain their dominance of the mainstream U.S. news media, so all that one can expect from the various MSM outlets is more neocon propaganda, blaming the chaos not on their policy of “regime change” but on the failure to undertake even more “regime change.”

The one hope is that many Americans will not be fooled this time and that a belated “realism” will finally return to U.S. geopolitical strategies that will look for obtainable compromises to restore some political order to places such as Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Rather than more and more tough-guy/gal confrontations, maybe there will finally be some serious efforts at reconciliation.

But the other reality is that the interventionist forces have rooted themselves deeply in Official Washington, inside NATO, within the mainstream news media and even in European institutions. It will not be easy to rid the world of the grave dangers created by neocon policies."
.......................
"Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com)."... via WBAI radio interview
...........  
==================== 
........  
April 2016 article:

"(Hillary) Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations."

April 1, 2016, “Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libya Mess,” Consortium News, Robert Parry

"Exclusive: U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya, but the political risk at home is that voters will finally realize Hillary Clinton's responsibility for the mess, writes Robert Parry."

"Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State  – the “regime change" in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe."...


..............




..................