Is Hilary a neocon hawk? What Iraq & Libya decisions tell us about her foreign policy

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
I thought this was a really good read as it took us through history and gave me better insight into how Hillary Clinton thinks. Her lack of big picture thinking is what concerns me and she doesn't quite seem to be able to put all the pieces she thinks about together to see or to create an unbiased policy /solution to problems. That is concerning. What good is being thoughtful if the conclusion you draw from the information you have leads to the same careless thinking the right uses who reach their conclusions with little to no thought at all?

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_...a_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/
 
Last edited:

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
I thought this was a really good read as it took us through history and gave me better insight into how Hillary Clinton thinks. Her lack of big picture thinking is what concerns me and she doesn't quite seem to be able to put all the pieces she thinks about together to see or to create an unbiased policy /solution to problems. That is concerning. What good is being thoughtful if the conclusion you draw from the information you have leads to the same careless thinking the right uses who reach their conclusions with little to no thought at all?

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_...a_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/

If she's insane, she'll make the same mistakes twice or thrice. And to tell the truth, the Salon article is disturbing. I still think, as Senator from New York and two years after the 911 attack, she deferred to her constituents as a strategy for getting a second term. Or did she have ambitions of serving only one term and then running for president?

Now as to the choice between the lesser of two evils, the field of competition seems overrun by inmates from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Also, it's been hard for me to put my finger on this or nail it down. But I think there has always been this post-WWII "Great Roman Empire Paradigm" floating around in the various leadership pools, and among that part of the electorate seeking simple answers.

Your blue-collar white-voters might succumb to this. "National Security? Spend more and more and more! Intervene more and more and more! It's just like football! We want a leader who speaks loudly and wields a big stick in the China-shop."

They will always tell you that "America seeks no empire," but it's an empire of petro-dollars and military interventionism. The Roman analogy had been made by LBJ, Nixon and others.

Look at Putin. His country's history goes back to the Empire. So Russian nationalism looks to the past to restore prominence in the present. But where have they "intervened" in recent years? Georgia -- a former part of USSR? Ukraine -- a former part of USSR? It seems they were latecomers to intervening in Syria. In all the boots-on-the-ground efforts we've made with questionable success, they shipped arms -- to DPRK, to North Vietnam. And the Middle East buys and takes what it can get.

Oh, I know! We put Atlas ICBMs on their border in Turkey, so they tried to do the same thing in Cuba -- with great encouragement from The Beard. Vietnam? They intervened in Afghanistan, but again -- on their very border, before they spun off the various "-stan" states.

Bush 41 spoke of a "New World Order." I don't believe he was thinking out of the box with that one.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Kee-rist. Talk about being vulnerable to hearing what you want to hear. The very first sentence is telling-

Two election cycles after losing the Democratic Party nomination because of her Iraq War vote, Hillary Clinton finally seems to have put it behind her.

That's not why she lost the nomination & we both know it. If a right-slant piece spewed that kind of bullshit you'd recognize it instantly.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Kee-rist. Talk about being vulnerable to hearing what you want to hear. The very first sentence is telling-



That's not why she lost the nomination & we both know it. If a right-slant piece spewed that kind of bullshit you'd recognize it instantly.

You're right. I missed that. When I cast my primary vote, her Senate vote for Bush's war was a sort of vague shadow. Since my candidate won the primary, I never thought much about why she lost it.

I need my cup of coffee, and my memory is vague. Can you condescend to tell me "why she lost the primary?"

UPDATE: Skip it. I got my coffee and found a 5-point discussion at the ABC news web-site:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1

I'll vote in the primary for Sanders, but I'm losing optimism . . . . Do we see "Inevitability" in the way things have played out so far?
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You're right. I missed that. When I cast my primary vote, her Senate vote for Bush's war was a sort of vague shadow. Since my candidate won the primary, I never thought much about why she lost it.

I need my cup of coffee, and my memory is vague. Can you condescend to tell me "why she lost the primary?"

UPDATE: Skip it. I got my coffee and found a 5-point discussion at the ABC news web-site:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1

I'll vote in the primary for Sanders, but I'm losing optimism . . . . Do we see "Inevitability" in the way things have played out so far?

I aimed no condescension towards you. As your link points out in a roundabout way, Obama ran a better campaign in the rhetoric & the ground game.

This whole "trust" thing w/ Hillary tells us just how effective right wing propaganda can be. It even affects people who should see it for what it is.

Trust her to do what? Defend SS? Choice? The ACA? EPA? Civil rights? Regulation of the financial sector? Immigration reform? Better relations w/ Cuba? The Iran deal?

I trust her a helluva lot more than any Repub opponent she might face. Whether they believe their own bullshit or not, they'll be pandering to the right fringe, bet on that.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
4,000
2
0
Hillary will win the nomination because there's billion riding on it. She will get more Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Bank money -- as much as she needs. The 0.0001% have no interest in a Saunders presidency.

It's never been clear to me if Hillary's embrace of a militaristic world view was an innate thing with her or simply a political choice to appeal to the general electorate -- to make her appear less ... liberal. But, given the tendency the Clinton's have displayed since the late 80's I'd put the odds of it being politically motivated pretty high.

But, as much as I dislike Hillary the Republicans are another level of scary. Cruz has all the hallmark traits of a Psychopath. His smarmy charm along with an almost totally affect-less demeanor make me terrified he could actually be the president.


Brian
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,280
5,053
136
I thought this was a really good read as it took us through history and gave me better insight into how Hillary Clinton thinks. Her lack of big picture thinking is what concerns me and she doesn't quite seem to be able to put all the pieces she thinks about together to see or to create an unbiased policy /solution to problems. That is concerning. What good is being thoughtful if the conclusion you draw from the information you have leads to the same careless thinking the right uses who reach their conclusions with little to no thought at all?

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_...a_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/

It always seemed to me that Hillary's decisions were always based on whats good for Hillary. I don't think she's an evil person, but I also don't think she much cares about anything but her personal desires. I'd guess she's as much a narcissist as Trump, just a bit more circumspect about how she expresses it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Hillary will win the nomination because there's billion riding on it. She will get more Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Bank money -- as much as she needs. The 0.0001% have no interest in a Saunders presidency.

It's never been clear to me if Hillary's embrace of a militaristic world view was an innate thing with her or simply a political choice to appeal to the general electorate -- to make her appear less ... liberal. But, given the tendency the Clinton's have displayed since the late 80's I'd put the odds of it being politically motivated pretty high.

But, as much as I dislike Hillary the Republicans are another level of scary. Cruz has all the hallmark traits of a Psychopath. His smarmy charm along with an almost totally affect-less demeanor make me terrified he could actually be the president.


Brian

Trump? Cruz? Bring it! If the Repub party can't come to their senses on their own I'm sure that the American People will slap some sense into them at the polls.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
I aimed no condescension towards you. As your link points out in a roundabout way, Obama ran a better campaign in the rhetoric & the ground game.

This whole "trust" thing w/ Hillary tells us just how effective right wing propaganda can be. It even affects people who should see it for what it is.

Trust her to do what? Defend SS? Choice? The ACA? EPA? Civil rights? Regulation of the financial sector? Immigration reform? Better relations w/ Cuba? The Iran deal?

I trust her a helluva lot more than any Repub opponent she might face. Whether they believe their own bullshit or not, they'll be pandering to the right fringe, bet on that.

Well, Sah, in our exchange, I suppose we're preaching to the choir!

I got into an altercation with the fam-damn-ily today. The local paper, run by the OC Register's owners, has descended to monotone crassness in a 700,000-voter county with a mere spread between the parties of 30,000.

I read a letter which I will excerpt in a minute, and nearly went through the roof. Their letters-to-the-editor no longer offer counterpoint, and I've stopped issuing my submittals. I told the family I wanted to cancel our subscription and write a polite but stinging letter explaining why. Bro wants the sports page; Moms wants -- I don't know. They voted me down, 2 to 1.

Here's the latest rant:

[Title] "Hillary Lies Yet Again"

[1st & 2nd Para]
"Last Saturday, the Democrats held another “hidden” presidential debate. It was televised against an NFL game. As a result, it had a lower viewership rating than the “undercard” GOP debate for those candidates who can’t break out above 7 percent in the polls. Hillary really stepped in it during the debate when she accused Donald Trump of being the best recruiting tool ISIS has.

"Hillary stated that there are videos out on the Internet where Trump insults ISIS, and this has resulted in more people joining ISIS. The network fact checkers immediately jumped into gear to find these videos – the only problem was these fact checkers couldn’t find any ... not one video. Donald Trump was asked to comment on Hillary’s claims, and Trump told it like it is: Hillary is lying. Again."

The rest of it rants about the inaccuracies about her Serbian visit -- "under fire," -- worries about Chelsea in NY when 911 occurred . . . on and on.

Bold and underline I've added for your convenience.

This is way out of bounds. You KNOW what she said; conservative web-media QUOTES what she said; and she corrected her remark about "actual videos" when she spoke to researching Al Jazeera and other media.

And as I've said before even in the last 24 hours, they obsess over these absurd rules-of-thumb because they're clueless, they want to be told how to vote, and they seize on this trivia to justify their delusional nonsense.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
Really? Because other than Clinton saying her health care plan needed a mandate and Obamas didn't, the only other difference between the two was their Iraq vote. It was certainly one of my big hang ups with her.

Kee-rist. Talk about being vulnerable to hearing what you want to hear. The very first sentence is telling-



That's not why she lost the nomination & we both know it. If a right-slant piece spewed that kind of bullshit you'd recognize it instantly.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Really? Because other than Clinton saying her health care plan needed a mandate and Obamas didn't, the only other difference between the two was their Iraq vote. It was certainly one of my big hang ups with her.

I haven't done any real research on the origins of the ACA, and it's mostly my understanding that Raum Emanuel's brother had considerable influence on the details. We want to call it "Obama-care" because it was passed during his administration.

But when the Primary fat-lady has sung, what do you think happens, when the runner-up voting bloc and campaign war-chest is delivered to the winner? And who had been "working on health-care reform" since the mid-90s?

I'd stated my casual theory about a factor that influenced Hillary's Iraq War vote. If you want to say she's "responsible," then so was every Democrat who voted for it in late 2002.

And as much as I have contempt for the opposition's need for "inspiration," my inspiration molecules weren't vibrating very much. If she'd won the primary, I would've voted for her in the general. And there's no way I would've taken McCain seriously after the response to my letter sent to him in December, 2002. Especially, I couldn't see the female-Trump running-mate as anything but a threat to the Republic.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
She's a lot more rightwing than people think. I always laugh when people call her liberal. She is very pro-big business and pro-NSA type.

But republicans are eating their own so they seem to be giving her an easy layup unless Sanders can upset her in the primary.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
She's a lot more rightwing than people think. I always laugh when people call her liberal. She is very pro-big business and pro-NSA type.

But republicans are eating their own so they seem to be giving her an easy layup unless Sanders can upset her in the primary.

Meh. As I offered above, she'll protect & extend core Democratic values & programs.

Or would you offer to the contrary?
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
She's a lot more rightwing than people think. I always laugh when people call her liberal. She is very pro-big business and pro-NSA type.

But republicans are eating their own so they seem to be giving her an easy layup unless Sanders can upset her in the primary.

She's a pragmatist. It isn't as though the considerably-manufactured baggage bothers me by itself. it is instead the likelihood that it bothers others -- and of course, the wing-nut lemmings. But especially -- others who are news-sponges.

Does the NSA panic really bother you? Do you think Snowden told us anything we couldn't have deduced between 1999 and 2003?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
She's a pragmatist. It isn't as though the considerably-manufactured baggage bothers me by itself. it is instead the likelihood that it bothers others -- and of course, the wing-nut lemmings. But especially -- others who are news-sponges.

Does the NSA panic really bother you? Do you think Snowden told us anything we couldn't have deduced between 1999 and 2003?

She is a pragmatist but I get the feeling some dems are getting tired of that and want a fighter? Can she compromise well enough to make those dems happy? I don't know.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
4,000
2
0
She's yet another Dem in name only. In the end she'll get behind the same pallet of middle class killing policies that presidents from both parties have gotten behind for decades. But, expecting any of the Repubs to be better for the middle class is laughable.

Or Democracy or Republic, however you wish to describe our way of governance, is in the hands of the 0.0001% and it's been that way for decades.

You want to get elected -- you know who you must appease...


Brian
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,783
6,187
126
Yeah, she was wrong on Iraq vote, Libya, and Syria in terms of policy of regime change of moderate largely secular Arab dictators. On the other hand, she did not push for a US invasion of either Libya or Syria, so she hedged her bets and did not be the house as the neocons would have done.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
Whichever way you go you wind up with a bought and paid for shill who represents the big money more than the majority. It's a remote chance any of the lunatics of the republicans - only one of them seems rational, will get elected. So at least there will be some societal progression with having already elected a non-white and now a woman. Well, I suppose electing a mentally handicapped person would also be progressive, but I don't see the republicans having any chance of winning :D
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Whichever way you go you wind up with a bought and paid for shill who represents the big money more than the majority. It's a remote chance any of the lunatics of the republicans - only one of them seems rational, will get elected. So at least there will be some societal progression with having already elected a non-white and now a woman. Well, I suppose electing a mentally handicapped person would also be progressive, but I don't see the republicans having any chance of winning :D

I almost have to concede all of that.

Consider this. I don't think the GOP favors brilliant and independent thinkers. They certainly didn't in 2000. Cheney was Bush's "watcher." This type of observation I heard on CNN or BBC today, pertaining to big donors and super-PACs: people who want to be able to dial up the Pres on the phone and practically tell him what to do.

Somebody like Hillary may take the money and then weigh the phone calls carefully against public opinion.

But "Ah feel your pain." Look at it another way. We'd get a "two-for." That prospect enrages the Repubs. They've had their own dynasty, with some looking for a third score. Here, instead, you get a First Dude. Who would be VP?

But there seems to be a sense of "inevitability" already discussed about the Clinton campaign. I'm not enthusiastic, and I'm apprehensive.

Maybe Sanders will garner more support as the New Year progresses. But where is the DFA campaign we saw in 2008? Not there. Just e-mails from the DNC asking for money.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,511
29,091
146
She's yet another Dem in name only. In the end she'll get behind the same pallet of middle class killing policies that presidents from both parties have gotten behind for decades. But, expecting any of the Repubs to be better for the middle class is laughable.

Or Democracy or Republic, however you wish to describe our way of governance, is in the hands of the 0.0001% and it's been that way for decades.

You want to get elected -- you know who you must appease...


Brian

all of this, exactly. Today, I find it hard to figure out who is more responsible for the 2008 meltdown--Reagan or Clinton, but I think they were both more or less equally culpable at this point. Billary isn't going to do anything different for her handlers.

Still, having Bill in the whitehouse watching football in his socks and eating cheetos on Sundays is an amusing enough image to vote for. Well, you know--considering the actual likely choices.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
all of this, exactly. Today, I find it hard to figure out who is more responsible for the 2008 meltdown--Reagan or Clinton, but I think they were both more or less equally culpable at this point. Billary isn't going to do anything different for her handlers.

Still, having Bill in the whitehouse watching football in his socks and eating cheetos on Sundays is an amusing enough image to vote for. Well, you know--considering the actual likely choices.

There were people in the Clinton administration who were warning it would happen. I think Bush might have done something to prevent it, with congressional support. Instead, we got the tired old rhetoric about "Mah free market principles." And they should never have made it possible for people to get mortgage contracts for homes they couldn't afford.

And also instead, the entire focus of those years was mostly on two things: War, and War.

I don't care what anybody says. I don't care what Obama says. I say they should've hauled Bush and Cheney into court and given them 99 years in the electric chair . . .
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Americans piss in their pants every time some Conservative whack job says Boo, there's a terrorist under your bed. No liberal could ever win an election in such a nation full of such urine stinking cowards. Every democrat who wants to win must be to the right of Adolph Hitler. This is the price we pay for having a nation full of brain defectives.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Americans piss in their pants every time some Conservative whack job says Boo, there's a terrorist under your bed. No liberal could ever win an election in such a nation full of such urine stinking cowards. Every democrat who wants to win must be to the right of Adolph Hitler. This is the price we pay for having a nation full of brain defectives.

I think you've forgotten to take your meds today. Just a friendly reminder.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
Americans piss in their pants every time some Conservative whack job says Boo, there's a terrorist under your bed. No liberal could ever win an election in such a nation full of such urine stinking cowards. Every democrat who wants to win must be to the right of Adolph Hitler. This is the price we pay for having a nation full of brain defectives.

We're on the same wavelength and frequency with this.

I don't even think it requires one to be brain defective to be a lemming. One simply has to be oblivious to long-term and short-term ways by which a pluralistic media can still be used as an echo-chamber to affect public opinion. And that would be public opinion based on myths, flawed logic, repetition and so forth. What person in a narcissistic culture of rugged individualism doesn't think "they're smart, they're not part of an average," etc.? With that mindset, they're ripe for it.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
She's a lot more rightwing than people think. I always laugh when people call her liberal. She is very pro-big business and pro-NSA type.

But republicans are eating their own so they seem to be giving her an easy layup unless Sanders can upset her in the primary.

I would characterize her as an extreme right winger. She will definitely take us to war in the Middle East and she will definitely leave the Middle East in far worse shape than it is now. Not a dimes worth of difference between her and her opponents.

It seems our entire government and media has been corrupted to the point where they are a single monolith all calling for military intervention in the Middle East.

Obama's made some huge mistakes in the Middle East but he is far far far far better than any of the sociopaths who are currently running to replace him. They are insane, completely incapable of learning from their past mistakes even when they are patently obvious and anybody can identity them.

President George W. Bush promised to “win” what he called the “Global War on Terror,” but when he left office in 2009, Afghanistan and Iraq remained violent nests for terrorist groups. Obama initially increased American forces in Afghanistan, and he escalated the use of drone strikes. Seven years later, the terrorists continue to dominate much of the Middle East and Central Asia.

These regions have consistently become more violent, unstable and dangerous with every deployment of American forces from 2001 to 2015. Our military interventions have destroyed old sources of stability, empowered new radicals, inspired followers for them, and provided high-value American targets in easy reach.

Our military has proved that it can defeat any other regular army, but it is poorly suited to fight highly organized and ideological insurgencies in a region filled with popular distrust of the United States.
 
Last edited: