Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party for Nominating War Hawk Hillary Clinton

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Jun 9, 2016.

  1. Jess13, Jun 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Snippets

    Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/08/democrats-are-now-the-aggressive-war-party/

    [...] former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    [...] Clinton was a strong supporter of that “surge” – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War “surge” in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama’s foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama’s request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another “regime change,” albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a “no-fly zone” to “protect civilians.”

    Privately, Clinton’s senior aides viewed the Libyan “regime change” as a chance to establish what they called the “Clinton Doctrine” on using “smart power” with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi’s government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton’s glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks in support of another violent “regime change,” ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed “moderate” but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton’s war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a “safe zone” inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another “regime change.”

    Parting Ways

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama’s “red line” against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington’s conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his “red line.”

    There’s little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve “regime change” in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – “killing innocent children” – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. “Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone,” she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a “safe zone” that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton’s invasion of Syria would stop at a “safe zone.” As with Libya, once the camel’s nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to “liberate” the people of Crimea from “Russian aggression” (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving “regime change” in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and “liberal interventionists” do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether “identity politics” or anti-war policies are more important.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced “regime change” in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel’s pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush’s Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama’s Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won’t view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon.”]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America’s new aggressive war party.


    I have such mean things to say about Hillary supporters for voting this useless warmongering war criminal piece of **** into the nomination. They’re so stupid.
     
  2. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #2
    We'll see what happens once she's in office. However, Bernie's campaign has driven Hillary somewhat to the left. She is now talking lower costs for college education; bringing up universal healthcare again, etc. So I'm pretty confident that she'll be more left that she appears to be once in office.

    Its too early to say right now. We'll have to wait until her administration pretends their are WMDs in a country and then gins up a war effort. Until that happens, this is all speculation as to what she will be like in office. Once elected, many Presidents are not exactly what people thought hey were.

    Bernie for Sec of State!
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3

    Never happen. His stance on Israel -Palestine assures that.
     
  4. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #4
    Yeah, I was joking. She'll probably give him some high level position though. Maybe like Gary in Veep!
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
    There's been rumors lately that Victoria Nulan is up for secretary of state. That pretty much says it all.

    Clinton's tenure at the State Department was pretty much just turning into into an arms dealership.

    Did you guys know that roughly 10% of all foreign aid (military aid) is set aside for funding of covert missions in conjunction the countries that receive the weaponry? Gotta love those Saudi and Israeli arms deals....
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    Yet your candidate said:

    “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

    "We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding.”

    "I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."

    "I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields [in Iraq]. I wouldn't send many troops, because you won't need them by the time I got finished."

    “We’re going to hit them and we’re going to hit them hard. I’m talking about a surgical strike on these ISIS stronghold cities using Trident missiles.” Those missiles happen to cary nuclear warheads if you didn't know...
     
  7. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #7
    I will bomb the **** out of them, we need to kill their families, and I'll bring back waterboarding and a whole lot worse. Yeah...sounds about as peaceful as a hurricane.
     
  8. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #8
    Not worried. The classified emails on Hillary's server that I read explained that this is done to counter the arms being supplied to the other side by Russia. Its just a proxy war.
     
  9. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #9
    Former CIA John Kiriakou, only person to have been charged relating to CIA’s torture program (for exposing it as a whistleblower, not for participating in it!), was given a 2 & 1/2 year sentence after pleading guilty to one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, revealing identity of one CIA agent. Hillary Clinton has violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, revealing up to three CIA agents’ classified identities in emails she sent and forwarded.

    Hillary Clinton will be indicted for numerous felonies, including 50 U.S.C. § 3121.



    Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of U.S. Intelligence Officials, Unclassified

    http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2016/06...s-of-u-s-intelligence-officials-unclassified/


    50 U.S. Code § 3121 - Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3121


    It is Trump vs. Bernie. I’m just mad at dumb Hillary supporters for stupidly nominating this POS.
     
  10. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #10
    And? ....


    A refreshing change from the America-basher-in-chief with his stunning powers of persuasion that strongmen from all over the world was their green light to go for whatever it was they wanted.
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #11
    You realize that us selling arms all over the planet guarantees they will be taken by groups when the governments we supply fall apart right? Why do you think that most ISIS weaponry is our weaponry? We don't supply them directly, and I don't think we mean to supply them at all (other than whatever the hell the CIA is doing on it's own) but when we blanket the world's regimes in our weaponry, those weapons will be seized.

    It's kind of like our gun problem here at home. OF course there's going to be more issues with them when they are everywhere.
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    It's pretty clear from Trump's own words that he is at least as warmongering as Clinton. He's the only one talking about using nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent against other nuclear armed states.
     
  13. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #13
    Mumble, mumble something, something (insert failed attempt to insult Obama).

    Got it! The standard Trumpette reply -
    shows a wonderful lack of both comprehensive ability and insight as usual. You'll be winning a prize soon!
     
  14. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    TL;DR

    Still voting for her. That thought must drive the right insane, the Hillary bashing has really picked up since Tuesday. They're terrified. Tell us more about how much the sweater that she's wearing today cost her!
     
  15. Jess13, Jun 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #15
    TL;DR is the refuge of those who prefer to be less knowledgable, it also is used as weak “insult” when the person saying it has nothing to counter information presented. Basically, you have no argument.
     
  16. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    If war is necessary and based on truths. Yes, she sided with Bush. Most of us agreed with Bush at the time, even if we were skeptical of the claims (Imminent threat for which even Bush said on air and recorded was not true. It was never about "liberation" as being the reason, it was a shoehorned excuse. Since then, a number of issues have blossomed. To pretend the region doesn't exist is ludicrous. )

    If she is reconsidering and thinking about her position from the early 1990s about universal healthcare, that is fantastic.

    She's accomplished a lot in her life and comes across as one would expect. I'd like to see Trump be as even keel, just once, then resort to other tactics afterward if he had to.

    Let's see details on the college refinance issue as well as trying to get colleges to lower costs and how. More adjuncts, more students per instructor, yet the top admin making themselves more bonuses (for class quality that, in some cases, was truly putrid and useless - companies have valid points about the quality of educated students*) not taking any pay cuts while making everyone else suffer isn't going to convince many of much.

    * though it really would be nice if they actually trained and helped Americans, rather than just dashing out the door, especially with all the tax cuts, subsidies, and other entitlements we the taxpayers end up paying for or making up the difference for. It's no wonder Americans are not going into STEM anymore. Asinine costs of education, only to find out it's worthless, and companies aren't willing to help...?
     
  17. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #17


    Hilarious.
     
  18. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    No, it just means that's it's not worth my time or energy. I know she's not the most liberal person on earth and I don't agree with her a lot of times, but if you think you're going to convince me to stay at home on Election Day or vote for Trump, you're sadly mistaken. I've already long made my peace with voting for her. The GOP managed to pick the one person as their candidate that made Hillary look appealing, time to suffer the consequences.
     
  19. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    And yet many Democrats seem to claim she is a Republican or may as well be one. Why would all those Bernie supporters make such claims and then cite whatever, some citing being more irrelevant than others?
     
  20. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Because clearly she's further to the right than Bernie. You're talking to a Bernie voter and supporter right now. I'm still voting for Hillary in the general.
     
  21. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    I thought it was funny, too! :)
     
  22. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #22
    No, it means precisely what I said it means. It matters not what crimes she has committed or how many lives she has destroyed, you don’t care because you’ll support Hillary anyway. Hillary Clinton’s worse than 1,000 Trumps. The good thing is, you won’t be able to vote for Her, because Hillary is going to be indicted.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 9, 2016 ---
    It wasn’t funny, it was very, very dumb. Real liberals protested the Iraq War and Bush administration’s lies, I protested the Iraq War and Bush administration’s lies. Hillary knew it was lies from the start, and supported the war anyway. Hillary Clinton’s the biggest warmonger in the 2016 race, the female George W. Bush.
     
  23. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    blah blah blah blah something something indictment. See you in November! :)
     
  24. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #24
    I knew I could rely on you for my daily laughs - you're going to be one sore Trumpette come November. I'll be sure to remind you of all your predictions.

    But keep it up, I do so love a good chuckle.
     
  25. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #25
    Yep, have fun voting for Bernie unless the DNC throws Biden into the nomination.
     

Share This Page