The Intercept: Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers Are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State

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

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Is Hillary the worst candidate ever? Probably not. Is Hillary the worst 2016 candidate, and by far? Yes she is.


    Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers Are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08...advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state/

    Hillary Clinton is meeting on Friday with a new national security “working group” that is filled with an elite “who’s who” of the military-industrial complex and the security deep state.

    The list of key advisers — which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer — is a strong indicator that Clinton’s national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home.

    It’s a story we’ve seen before in President Obama’s early appointments. In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric Obama would end up building on — rather than tearing down — the often-extralegal, Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in 2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued to grow.

    [continue]​
     
  2. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #2
    You strike me as an extremely concerned citizen: did I miss your equally in-depth analysis of the other candidate or did you check him in the closet and want to keep it that way? Just curious.
     
  3. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #3
    You mean the constantly talking out both sides of his ass, buffoonish and borderline moron Donald Trump?
     
  4. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #4
    Who else is there? Just asking: did I miss your extremely lengthy posts / threads about him or is one sentence already enough considering he could be your next president.

    Btw. this is certainly OT, I admit not having read your OP but I was genuinely curious and it is not my intention to derail this thread nor deflect anything (which I haven't even read).
     
  5. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #5
    You’re free to ask anything you want to. Not on MacRumors (at least not to my recollection), but elsewhere throughout the Internet I was routinely smashing Donald Trump mercilessly for months, shortly after his candidacy announcement until earlier this year. I watch Trump and often roll my eyes; he’s a double-talking, effectively conman. There is much about Trump I do not support or cosign, but he has a few redeeming qualities. Hillary is worse than Trump and Cruz combined. I would be unbelievably happier if Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard were their respective parties nominees, I would be ecstatic with either being POTUS. Trump is a lesser of two evils, and compared to Hillary he is far, far lesser of an evil.
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    Jess13, after innumerable threads...what exactly is your implication? Do you want to merely point out that Hillary may (as it hasn't happened yet) - be a war hawk profiteer? Or do you want to say that she is unfit for office? And, if the latter, what you might think the ramifications of her opponent gaining office instead?
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisors include a two former Secretaries of Homeland Security; a former Acting Director of the CIA; the General who oversaw the (successful) Iraq surge; and a former Supreme Commander of NATO.

    Who should Hillary Clinton put on her National Security Advisory Board? People who have no knowledge or experience with military or intelligence affairs? Casino executives or Fox News television personalities, perhaps?
     
  8. Jess13, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    Appeal to authority via listing titles. Now be a non-Hill-bot and read and/or quote names in the actual piece, because those titles you used to mask who they are, isn’t a counterargument. You’re defending the worst of the worst. Chertoff, Hayden, Morell, for example.

    Hillary’s a war hawk and she’s unfit for office (not that she isn’t smart enough for the job, it’s that she’s too evil). I think that Trump could be terrible, but he won’t be anywhere near how terrible Hillary would be. Gong Show 2016. Give me Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    So you go with/prefer incompetence over what exactly?

    That's a bit random of a decision to me. Maybe it's because I'm not much of a gambler - but Trump is honestly a complete wild card.
     
  10. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10


    Appeal to Authority might have it's failings from a strictly rhetorical standpoint. But it certainly seems preferable than an appeal to incompetence.

    See what folks had to say about Donald Trump's national security advisors:

     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #11
    You don't think it makes sense to scrutinize the makeup of the more likely incoming administration?

    We get it, Trump is ****ing crazy and is surrounding himself with dangerous people.....but he's not going to win (unless the Chris Kobach Crosscheck voter disenfranchisement successfully kicks millions off the voter roles). I'd rather focus on stopping the next illegal war by paying attention to those that are driving for it. Hillary has surrounded herself with the most influential Neocons around and their thirsty for a conflict with Russia via Syria. Victoria Nulan, in her actions, has made it very clear that we are to fear the Russians as if they are a serious military threat, regardless of the fact that it was only Putin that saved Obama's ass in preventing the Turkey/Russia incident in Syria from going to a hot war under article 5 of the NATO treaty.

    I'm done watching the clown show (Trump) I'm far more concerned about the war stance that our next president has clearly taken.
     
  12. Jess13, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #12
    Incompetence is better than evilness.

    Hillary’s team are the same bitches who brought us: 9/11, the “war on terror,” Iraq, NSA domestic, other domestic abuses such as TSA, Libya, Syria’s next, want to beef with Russia, likely try to hit Iran, etc., on and on. Yes I already read that Politico piece months ago when it was first published, I think same day.
     
  13. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #13
    WTF is wrong with this woman, bringing on security experts with backgrounds in military and security. At least Trump was smart enough to bring on Michele Bachmann for her foreign policy expertise.
     
  14. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #14
    That's not what I said. Of course that should be carefully observed/criticized, no doubt.

    But it was a personal question to Jess and the underlying thoughtprocess of his. As he stated himself: he never really put anything under the microscope regarding the Trump here at MR. And I merely asked: why? And I for one don't regard an answer like: "he's not evil just really incompetent" as satisfying, especially coming from somebody that goes to great lengths and puts in a lot of effort to present his observations - even if I merely, if ever, agree.
     
  15. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #15
    I don't think I can agree with you. Ignorance/Incompetence can often do far more damage than just evil. And I don't even agree that Hillary is evil. That's a pretty harsh word for either candidate.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Frankly, why does it matter? Unless a fraud bigger than the 2000 election occurs, Trump stands no chance of being president regardless of the horse race ******** corporate media is trying to sell. The demographics just don't line up.

    I'm far more interested in watching eagle-eyed as Clinton builds up her cabinet.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 9, 2016 ---
    There are plenty of experts that AREN'T the same cabal of analysts, weapons manufacturer board members, or regime change cheerleaders. Clinton has surrounded herself with a who's who of building perpetual war.
     
  17. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #17
    Because I personally like to put some posters into perspective/context. Sorry to bother you with that but I don't agree that one thing excludes the other - other thanme putting this question, which I totally admit is OT, into this very thread.

    And if a poster never really puts some weight onto the other candidate, or, like in another thread, states that he is neither pro- nor anti AFD (German party) I get a bit...curious, to say the least. It may be because he's just as pragmatic as you are, but maybe he isn't, how do I know? And if you have a problem with me trying to get an idea about some of the fairly prolific posters here on MR I frankly don't care.
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    I'm not getting into a pissing match about other users here, I just was wondering why the focus on the OP instead of the article at hand. I'm tired of personality politics. All that matters is the policy at hand. We've got the wonderful choice between warmonger A, or incompetent assclown who is sure to be lead by the nose by his own cohort of corporate warriors.
     
  19. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #19
    I don't get the pissing-context reference. But let's keep that aside as it isn't leading anywhere anyway.

    Nobody is holding you back to discuss the article at hand. ??
     
  20. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #20

    And yet that no way equates that she'll take us to war, but maybe a foil investment might not be a bad idea.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    Are you ****ing kidding me? The way Victoria Nulan is posturing against Russia, and the steadfast insistence of a no-fly zone in Syria?

    "Advisers", Special Ops, and No Fly zones are the standard way we've eased into wars for decades without anyone caring. Just because the news doesn't cover it doesn't mean we aren't at war. We've got special ops operating in over one hundred countries. WE ARE GOING TO WAR.

    But sure, I'm just sitting here watching Congressional hearings each week on our policy in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, CIA operations, etc.....a real conspiracy theorist. :rolleyes:

    We are at war in most of the world right now: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176048/tomgram:_nick_turse,_a_secret_war_in_135_countries/
     
  22. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    This thread: Comparing her with the GOP, this retoric is the latest GOP change in attire, trying to paint Hillary as a war monger is just more desperate end justifies the means tactics to elect Mt. Trust.
     
  23. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #23
    No need to paint her as one. She is one.
     
  24. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #24
    As opposed to the candidate who says he wants to bomb the !@#$% out of people?
     
  25. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    Out of ISIS. The U.S. is already doing that. They hit a few hospitals along the way, too.
     

Share This Page