Dear Hillary supporters, how can you trust her on issues of war and peace?

[cali]

And if you can avoid the "damning with faint praise" phrase that she's better than any republican, that would be nice.

Look, it's not only that Hillary voted for the AUMF, but she supported that misbegotten mess for years. She supported a war of choice built on a lie that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed thousands of U.S. service members and maimed many more.

She supported the attack on Libya and that has been a disaster.

She supported attacking Syria.

Her rhetoric is often militaristic.

She's a hawk. How can you trust a hawk on foreign policy?

Endless War.


The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016

<snip>

When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, start first by disentangling the nonsense about Benghazi—a nonexistent scandal if ever there was one—from the broader palette of Clinton’s own, relatively hawkish views. As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016, with wide leads over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one. Expect to be deluged, in the next few weeks, with news about Hard Choices, the memoir of her years as secretary of state under President Obama, to be released June 10.

But we don’t need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about her tenure at the State Department: first, that in fact she accomplished very little; and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.

In the brief excerpt that’s been released by her publisher, Clinton notes that as secretary of state she “ended up visiting 112 countries and traveling nearly one million miles.” But what, if anything, did she accomplish with all that to-ing and fro-ing? Not a lot. She largely avoided the Israel-Palestine tangle, perhaps because she didn’t want to risk crossing the Israel lobby at home, and it’s hard to see what she actually did, other than to promote the education and empowerment of girls and women in places where they are severely beaten down. And, while it’s wrong (and really silly) to call Clinton a neoconservative, she’s more of—how to put it?—a “right-wing realist” on foreign policy, who often backed military intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House—especially Obama’s national security staff and Vice President Biden’s own aides, were far more reluctant to employ the troops.

<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180020/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016#

[hrmjustin]

1. I don't see her starting wars unless necessary.

She knows Americans are not up for war.

[android fan]

3. She signed on with the AUMF

Tells me that she doesn't regret her vote. I haven't heard her regret on the AUMF issue...

[hrmjustin]

4. Well she can answer your questions during a campaign.

[android fan]

23. If she shows up in my state,

sure I'll ask her that, but I highly doubt that she will be running.

The recent news on Hillary is negative, and it may have already damaged her candidacy before it started...

Just sayin'....

[hrmjustin]

31. This email thing is nothing and she will run.

I am sure she will win the primary with ease.

[OregonBlue]

66. Watch and see. The Tealiban can't help themselves. They will overreact and shout and scream

and bully and they will end up looking like raging bulls and she will end up looking like a grandmother wronged. They are incapable of being rational when it comes to Hillary and it does them in every time.

[stonecutter357]

78. .

[zappaman]

175. Welcome back!

Just sayin'....

[Bohemianwriter]

129. Why?

She's a corporate sellout and a hawkish.

She stand opposite of progressive values. She's a republican in a democrat disguise.

Anyone giving her any vote wants status quo and does not want your country to move forward. And you'll just be looking clownish if you would end up with another Bush and Clinton on the ticket.

I mean, are the same stooges the only options you have?

[hrmjustin]

131. Your opinion, not mine.n/t.

[cali]

7. ha. Americans can be convinced to support war so easily it's horrifying.

[hrmjustin]

10. That may or may not be true but I don't see her as a warmonger.

[cali]

12. fine, but that's another thing altogether. I don't see that there's any evidence

to support your position.

[hrmjustin]

13. I see her as the most qualified and the one with the best shot.

[cali]

15. fair enough. I don't.

I think she'll win the nomination and lose the general.

[hrmjustin]

19. Who can beat her in the general?

[cali]

25. I think Walker can.

[hrmjustin]

30. The little engine that couldn't?

[hifiguy]

38. The Kochtopus will put whatever it takes

into getting him elected even if it's a billion dollars.

[hrmjustin]

39. She will have her own money,

But the fact that so much money is in there is a sin.

[cab67]

118. No chance.

[morningfog]

42. Many could.

[hrmjustin]

48. If they can beat her they could beat any of ouf possible candidates.

A Republican can always win.

[morningfog]

51. Absolutely. No one is inevitable and nothing

is certain.

[trueblue2007]

86. NO YOU ARE WRONG. A "repuke" can NOT always win. MITT lost remember!!

[hrmjustin]

89. My point is thst any given presidential election the possibility exists for them to win.

I think Hillary has the best shot this time imho.

[Scootaloo]

125. Any Republican that doesn't squirt blood from their eyes during a debate like a horned lizard

So basically anyone but Bachman.

Republican voters will mobilize in droves because they hate the Clintons. Meanwhile progressive turnout will be lackluster because Clinton isn't a liberal, she's among the most cynical of centrists in the party.

Here's the thing... Democrats have numbers. Seriously, we outnumber Republicans. All that's lacking is energizing the base. And the democratic base is made of progressives and liberals. If you want them to vote, you have to run a liberal. Not just "more-liberal-than-Bush" but an actual goddamned liberal. Someone to the left of obama, at the very least.

We do that, we gt the base moving, and we'll just tip over the Republican clown car without looking back.

[hrmjustin]

130. I think Hillary will mobilize are base even just fine.

[Scootaloo]

132. And a stronger liberal could do it even better

[hrmjustin]

133. Who?

[android fan]

29. I don't think she will win or even run at all.

I think it's best if she realizes that her shot has already come and gone,and people are going to want to move on from right-wing policies that is currently putting America in a gridlock.

It's time to move to the left, folks. Ms. Clinton has shown she has no legitimate progressive credentials necessary to secure the nomination.

I want a person that can focus more on domestic issues, less on foreign policies and stop sending aid to countries that can self-suffice (such as Israel, for example)ud

I want a person that can say to Department of Defense that their era of heavy budgets and wasteful spending is gone. DoD budget is to be at a maximum of 2% of the whole budget. If they can't figure how to save money, then shut down DoD as leechers.

I want a person to see a senior trying to decide between cat food and meds stop that senior, and say "Here, here's more money - do not worry about having to decide on either one - you should be taken care of". In other words, do a one-time double of current benefits and place taxes on the rich EVERYWHERE. It's time for the inequality of wealth vs poor to be balanced. In other words, The U.S. has to get 90% of the revenues out from the rich, and stop levying shit on the poor. We've been seeing that for over 40 years, and it's time for someone else to take the load, and it's the rich.

Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to get that. Bernie Sanders does, and he wants to help. He's my choice for President.

[yeoman6987]

65. 2 percent of the whole budget? Even the most liber would never

Campaign on that. Not increasing every year would be as close as you could get.....maybe.

[cab67]

117. I'm lucky to live in a state that shows up early in the caucus/primary sequence.

I will be caucusing for the most progressive candidate running at the time.

But if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will fight to get her elected. A Hillary Clinton presidency is far from ideal, but putting a Republican in the Oval Office (and I reject out of hand the argument that Hillary Clinton is no different from a Republican) is unthinkable.

[BeanMusical]

41. "I don't see her as a warmonger."

Please get an appointment with an eye doctor.

[hrmjustin]

46. You have a nice day.

[BeanMusical]

55. You too schmoopie.

[hrmjustin]

59. excuse me?

[BeanMusical]

63. You're forgiven.

[hrmjustin]

67. We are done.

[zappaman]

176. Thanks for reminding me!

I've got laundry to do!

[Scuba]

47. +1

[rhett o rick]

85. Of course you don't because "warmonger" is a pejorative term.

But you should recognize that her foreign policy beliefs parallel those of the NeoConservatives.

From Wikipedia: " Neoconservatives frequently advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism."

It looks like HRC may be getting some neocon support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

You might not like the term "warmonger" but she was quick to back the invasion of Iraq.

[hrmjustin]

91. And one can disagree with her on a war vote as I did.

I protested her office. I do not however think she is a warmonger or likes to see war.

[rhett o rick]

96. I don't see how you can forgive her that decision and think she won't do it

again. If she is the best the Democratic Party has, we are in a huge bit of hurtin'.

[hrmjustin]

98. I doubt that very much.

I think with Hillary on the ticket we win the Senate back and make real gains in the house.

[rhett o rick]

102. But will she support war against Iran? nm

[hrmjustin]

105. Well she is supportive of the presidents actions now.

She defended the president against the 47 senators who wrote that letter.

[Cosmic Kitten]

193. Libya... we came, we saw, he died.

Hillary has responsibility in
the destabilization of Libya.

[hrmjustin]

194. That was the Presidents decision.

[Cosmic Kitten]

197. Did she support that decision as SoS?

Her own words seemed "gleeful"
that the leader of a foreign nation
was murdered, without due process?

Seems kinda "warmongerie"

And, you don't see her as having any responsibility?
She's just the SoS... no responsibility?
What are the SOS's responsibilities?

[hrmjustin]

198. I am not going to base my vote over Libya.

You can if you want.

[Cosmic Kitten]

201. So she did have responsibility?

And that would make her kinda "warmongerish"?
But you will still vote for her?

What does she think the USA should do about
Iran, Syria and the Ukraine?
Is she pro-war, pro-regime change?

[hrmjustin]

202. You can think she is a warmonger all you want.

I feel different.

As for her positions she will habe to spell it out in a campaign.

[Cosmic Kitten]

203. What defines a warmonger?

You make the point she isn't a warmonger.

Her policies and statements seem
to contradict your perspective?

Why isn't she a war monger?
Why do I need to wait for her press releases?

[hrmjustin]

204. People who like war.

[Cosmic Kitten]

205. What war or conflict has Hillary tried to avoid?

So far she seems to support EVERY conflict
the USA is engaged in???

[hrmjustin]

206. Are you saying she likes war?

[Cosmic Kitten]

208. No, you are avoiding answereing to your own statement.

You said she's not a warmonger.
Please show your evidence.

To help you focus
I'm asking,what conflict has
she spoken out against?

[hrmjustin]

209. I don't have to provide evidence.

[Cosmic Kitten]

211. True. That's where credibility come into play

Your "feelings" have no credibility.

It's called "truthiness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

Most supporters of Hillary lean heavily on "truthiness"
Interestingly, so do right-wingers, which is what
inspired the concept of "truthiness" to begin.

[hrmjustin]

212. Lol i guess I am just too dumb.

[Cosmic Kitten]

213. Truthiness?

[hrmjustin]

214. Oh I am truthful.

I maybe an idiot but I am not a liar.

[Cosmic Kitten]

215. Ok.

But using your emotions to defend
your premise that Hillary is NOT
a warmonger is "truthiness"

And truthiness isn't credible.

[hrmjustin]

216. Neither is your attempts to paint her as a warmonger.

[Cosmic Kitten]

221. I won't waste time with links

There is ample you tube, and transcripts
of Hillary spouting pro-war and hardline
support.

It's not worth cobbling it together
for the purpose of satisfying you.

However, it does exist, unlike the evidence
you require to support your truthiness.

The extrajudicial murder of a Gaddafi is NOT
something a normal, healthy person takes glee in.

"I'm sure it didn't" Nice eye roll she pulls there! ha ha ha

[hrmjustin]

222. I am sorry but I am not crying for Gaddafi.

[Cosmic Kitten]

223. We are talking about Hillary, not you...

except in how you use feelings
to justify defending your premise
that Hillary is not a warmonger?

So, can you back up your premise?
Or will we leave this at "truthiness"?

[hrmjustin]

224. You have not presented evidence to me that she is a warmonger.

Supporing a war or a series of military actions does not mean she is a warmonger.

Your making the claim so you back it up.

[Cosmic Kitten]

225. Bwahahaha!?!

Supporing a war or a series of military actions does not mean she is a warmonger.

Well, what would?

[hrmjustin]

226. is Obama a war monger?

Is Kerry?

to answer your question I would say someone who thinks waR is the answer to everything.

[Cosmic Kitten]

227. Truthiness it is!

[hrmjustin]

229. Evasion on your part. i answered your question.

Since this is a waste of time I guess we are done.

Cheers.

[Cosmic Kitten]

230. cheers

[Man from Pickens]

28. So... Libya was a necessary war?

This was a war that would not have happened but for Hillary's tireless persistence.

On what do you base your belief that she would not do so again, at first opportunity?

[hrmjustin]

57. That decision rests with the president.

[Man from Pickens]

72. wrong

That decision rests with we the people, as the ultimate decision makers in an allegedly representative, democratic political system.

No punting. In your opinion as a voter, was the war in Libya necessary or not?

[hrmjustin]

73. My point was it was the president's call and not Hillary.

As for Libya it was not necessary for us to go.

[Rilgin]

119. So follow your own logic

You say war in Libya was not necessary.

Hillary advocated for war but it was Obama's decision.

Those are the premises based on your posts. Now for the extension of logic phrased as easy questions for you.

If it was Hillary's decision not Obama' and Hillary wanted to fight in Libya would we have fought?

If Hillary becomes president, will such decisions be Hillary's or someone elses?

If Hillary is president and it is her decision that matters what will the US do if facing similar circumstances: fight or not fight or at that time she will advocate the opposite of what she advocated before?

[hrmjustin]

122. I trust Hillary will use restraint.

[BeanMusical]

158. You are very naive.

[hrmjustin]

162. Why do you feel the need to insult me?

[BeanMusical]

164. It is not an insult.

[hrmjustin]

166. Says you.

[BeanMusical]

168. Sigh.

[hrmjustin]

169. If you wish to speak to me just speak plainly but don't make any jabs.

I get you have worries about her. That is healthy and a vigorous primary will sort this out.

[BeanMusical]

160. +1

[mikegibbo]

52. Least worst

I am against any sort of violence - but unfortunately - nobody can be elected on that platform. She will be a fighter for most progressive issues and can restore or tip the balance of the supreme court (can't bring myself to capitalize that). I think she will be great if she can get in. I cannot imagine a Republican winning. There are some other mainstream Dems who could overtake her - look at 2008 - but - i truly believe she is our best bet.

[hrmjustin]

58. I agree she is the best candidate.

[leveymg]

70. On every ME issue she runs with Bibi toward war, and away from Obama. She is loyal to herself,

and her only moral compass is the one she sees as the most direct route to being elected President.

[hrmjustin]

71. Well you don't have to like her.

[busterbrown]

99. I freaking trust her..Understanding that her bad decisions in the past have been..

mostly about elections.

She is old enough now, has a grandchild, is a women...which in my mind means she will do the right things for this country when elected.... For fucks sake, you nay sayers...

Its not tome for the Sanders, Warrens, or any other true progressives (O’Malley) to run..All will be labeled as Obamacare Socalists.. Remember as well as Obamacare is doing it still is running in the negative polling zone..

[hughee99]

101. I think we can trust she won't start a war unless

It has public support or is the politically expedient thing to do. She won't start an unpopular war just for an excuse to issue massive military contracts

[Logical]

121. My worry is her "necessary" does not match a real "necessary". nt

[hrmjustin]

123. i hear you that you are worried.

She is going to have to answer these questions in a primary. She should be pushed to answer these questions.

[Logical]

135. Actually, the primaries will be interesting. One thing for sure, Clinton is one smart person. nt

[hrmjustin]

137. She is.

She will have to earn the nomination and I hope is is a vigorous primary.

[Logical]

138. I wish she would just announce. I guess the usual time frame is april to june. nt

[hrmjustin]

139. Probably after Easter but yes I agree.

I think we need our candidates to start now.

[android fan]

2. One of Clinton's many failings

along with her support for TPP (and helped author some of it),

I laugh at her email scandal, because compared to these, it's piddling.

[hifiguy]

26. So true.

There are countless reasons to oppose HRC as the nominee. The e-mail "scandal" is not one of them.

Examining who her friends are seems a wee bit more pertinent, and the evidence is uglier than a swine manure lagoon:







I cannot and will not vote for anyone who publicly sucks up to and grovels before monsters like Blankfein and war criminals like Kissinger. How any Democrat with a conscience can do so is something I simply cannot understand.

[BeanMusical]

44. You forgot this one:

[OKNancy]

5. She is no more a hawk than Obama

with the exception of Iraq... which in her book and many times before she says she regrets.
Maybe Obama and Hillary know more than you do.

ETA: the nation article is almost a year old. It's opinion and conjecture

[cali]

6. She is. I think the evidence is strong that she's more hawkish than President Obama

and I really think that when people throw out the "they know more than you" line, it's just pathetic. Does that mean I'm supposed to just shut up and trust to "my betters"? That's sure what it sounds like.

Did you even read the article I posted? There's evidence that she's more hawkish than Obama right there.

[AtomicKitten]

54. Both Clintons were in favor of aggressive intervention in Syria.

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

Bill Clinton: Obama May Look Like a ‘Wuss’ Over Syria
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/bill-clinton-obama-may-look-like-a-wuss-over-syria.html

Uck-fay the Clintons.

[cali]

9. the article is pertinent and it certainly is not just opinion and conjecture.

[OKNancy]

11. it's slanted.. let's just say that

I'm not sure she wasn't correct in her assessments either.

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. Like how Libya would be better off?

I'm thankful Obama ignored her advice on Syria, too, or we'd be in three wars right now instead of two. Or is it four or five? It gets hard to keep up.

[leveymg]

74. Nothing has changed in the last year. She still rides with Bibi against Obama

on issues in the Mideast, which is where the wars are:

• On Netanyahu’s recent re-election campaign that included comments by the Prime Minister forsaking the two-state solution and condemning his opponents for assisting get out the vote efforts among Israeli Arabs:

Obama: Washington (AFP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday warned Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington will "re-assess" its policies after the prime minister's election win called into question crucial US diplomatic cover for Israel at the UN. http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-us-reevaluate-backing-israel-un-190946862.html

“You reach a tipping point,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “It’s the culmination of six and a half years of frustration, including some direct hits at the president’s prestige and the office of the presidency.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/world/middleeast/white-house-antagonism-toward-netanyahu-grows.html?_r=0

HRC:

No statement.

[rhett o rick]

174. "With the exception of Iraq" How sad that her decision on Iraq means so little to you.

Apparently you have no empathy for the hundreds of thousands that died needlessly. Millions of Iraqi's were displaced and turned into refugees. Tell me that doesn't mean anything to you. The Iraq disaster cost hundreds of thousands of lives and left Iraq in a mess. And don't forget the Depleted Uranium shells we used is the gift that keeps on giving. Giving cancer to generations to come. Tell me you don't care. The war cost American lives and thousands of wounded soldiers. About 22 soldiers every single day commit suicide as part of the cost of that decision by H. Clinton. What do you say about that? Collateral damage? The war cost us over a trillion dollars that we can't afford. And the war brought about policies that violate our Constitution like domestic spying, drone killing, indefinite detentions and renditions.

Hillary Clinton betrayed America when she spit on her fellow Democrats and decided to not only support the Republicons, she actually helped them sell the lies. If she is the Democratic Party choice for President, we are totally Fracked. Did I mention she supports fracking.

[2banon]

8. This is the 64 Trillion Dollar Question..

thanks for putting it as directly and succinctly as can be done.

[DanTex]

14. She's more hawkish than, say, me, but she's nowhere near the Dick Cheney level.

Overall, she's intelligent and responsible, and understands what's going on in the world. Libya was nothing like Iraq, and comparisons between the two are dumb. She's not going to be lying to congress to get is into random wars of choice. She'll probably use the military a little more than most DUers would like to see, and that's all.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. Now, there's a campaign slogan: "I'm not as bad as Cheney!"

[DanTex]

21. I wouldn't suggest it as a slogan. I'm sure she'll do better than that.

[BeanMusical]

50. "I'm sure she'll do better than that."

Of course: "I don't like war as much as Dick." would be a better slogan.

[awake]

16. Can anyone point out one thing she accomplished as Secretary of State

other than pushing the attack on Libya and that has been a disaster, or the "reset" with Russia which was also a disaster

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. She visited 112 countries and flew more than a million miles.

There is that. I guess.

[LittleBlue]

127. Lol well said

I like how flying around the world and having state dinners is now an accomplishment. Oh, never mind, made an obligatory appearance at a summit.

[cali]

22. I'd like to know that too. Yeah, it's great on her resume, but what were her achievements?

[OKNancy]

24. will you actually read this?

FACTS:

Secretary Clinton helped restore America’s leadership and standing in the world during a time of global challenges and changes. Secretary Clinton worked tirelessly to revitalize American diplomacy and strengthen alliances by traveling nearly a million miles for hundreds of meetings with foreign leaders in 112 countries. As America’s lead diplomat, Secretary Clinton understood the importance of engaging the public and took diplomacy directly to people around the world. Just as she was as a senator, Secretary Clinton was a workhorse, often taking on difficult challenges and addressing them directly around the world.

Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean recently told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”

Secretary Clinton played an integral role in the New START Treaty with Russia. Secretary Clinton played an active role in reaching a missile reduction agreement with Russia, working to push it through the Senate and securing more than the necessary two-thirds majority. She entered the treaty into force in Munich with her Russian counterpart. As a result of the treaty’s passage, there will be fewer nuclear missile launchers. Simply put, the world is safer.

Secretary Clinton supported the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice. As NBC’s Brian Williams reported on his website, “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended an air strike with no forces on the ground. CIA Director Panetta supported a raid by Special Forces and so did Secretary of State Clinton.”

Secretary Clinton helped avert war in Gaza by negotiating a ceasefire between Israelis and Palestinians. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton met with the regional leaders of Israel, Palestine, and Egypt to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. In a critical moment, Politico noted “Hillary Clinton Scores Gaza Cease Fire Success,” when hope for an end to the violence in Gaza seemed dead, she made the case for returning calm to the region and ending the rocket attacks.

Secretary Clinton played a role in bringing one war to an end and planning for the end of another. Working closely with Department of Defense colleagues and as part of the President’s national security team, Secretary Clinton played a role in the end of war in Iraq and in beginning a transition in Afghanistan, with all NATO allies having agreed to stand-up a post withdrawal support plan. As President Obama told 60 Minutes, it was “all a consequence of the great work that Hillary did and her team did and the State Department did in conjunction with our national security team.”

Secretary Clinton was critical in America’s “pivot to Asia” strategy. As Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institute wrote in Foreign Policy, “The ‘pivot’ to East Asia will probably be Obama’s most lasting strategic achievement… [but] it is Clinton’s too. She laid the groundwork, built the relationships, and developed the complex architecture of the new strategy — and she turned up at that pivotal moment in Vietnam in July 2010 to declare the U.S. commitment to the region.” Secretary Clinton earned praise for her work in opening up Burma, a place that had not been visited by a Secretary of State in 50 years.

Secretary Clinton worked to build the coalition to oust Qadhafi and stop massacres in Libya. As the Washington Post reported upon the end of NATO operations in Libya, “U.S. officials and key allies are offering a detailed new defense of the approach and Clinton’s pivotal role – both within a divided Cabinet and a fragile, assembled-on-the-fly international alliance. What emerges from these accounts is a picture of Clinton using her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats among NATO partners, secure crucial backing from Arab countries and tutor rebels on the fine points of message management.”

Secretary Clinton engaged in economic statecraft. Secretary Clinton’s focus on economic engagement resulted in increased investment through three new free trade agreements (Colombia, Panama and South Korea) and 15 Open Skies agreements including with Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Secretary Clinton brought the State Department into the 21st Century. Secretary Clinton helped the State Department adapt to emerging issues such as cyber security by creating the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to combat Al-Qaeda’s growing influence online. She recognized the important role of energy in U.S. foreign policy and helped create the Bureau of Energy Resources to protect our energy infrastructure and influence how nations move to cleaner fuel.

Secretary Clinton elevated the cause of women’s rights to new heights. Secretary Clinton recognized women’s rights as a major foreign policy issue. It is, according to Newsweek, the area of “hardships faced by women and girls across the world–that her impact has been most profound.” Hillary appointed the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues at the State Department to work on the human rights of women worldwide.

http://correctrecord.org/the-points/attack-hillary-clinton-had-few-achievements-as-secretary-of-state/

[cali]

27. hardly an unbiased source. and yeah, an unbiased source is important.

puff piece.

[Kingofalldems]

32. Could you possibly combine all your anti-Hillary threads?

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. lol. yeah

[cali]

35. nope, sorry. and there are just 2.

[Kingofalldems]

159. I meant in the last week or so.

[OKNancy]

34. whatever

I'm just a retired ballet teacher in Oklahoma. I don't, however live in the DU bubble.
It may be biased, but it's truth.

ttfn... I'm going to watch basketball.

[KoKo]

37. Indeed...Party Propaganda. The Repubs do it also. n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

36. She helped "avert war in Gaza?" Somebody needs to tell the Gazans it was all a bad dream.

And their territory isn't really in ruins.

And 2,000 people really aren't dead.

And the US didn't stand steadfast with poor, beleagured Israel.

And she's touting her Libya "success," too? That's rich.

[cali]

40. no kidding.

[Scuba]

53. +1,000

[peacebird]

126. Bingo!

You are correct.

[bravenak]

128. +1000

[yallerdawg]

45. Very nice, OKNancy!

Correct The Record – a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend potential Democratic presidential candidates from right-wing, baseless attacks.

So, just like Republicans, facts don't matter?

Hillary haters be hatin'!

[awake]

60. Yes I read this and went to the cheerleading site it came from

on the page list her accomplishments these stood out

"Secretary Clinton worked to build the coalition to oust Qadhafi and stop massacres in Libya....."

Libya mess is not something that I would be proud of.


"Secretary Clinton engaged in economic statecraft. Secretary Clinton’s focus on economic engagement resulted in increased investment through three new free trade agreements...."

So I take it she supports TTP?


"Secretary Clinton brought the State Department into the 21st Century. Secretary Clinton helped the State Department adapt to emerging issues such as cyber security....."

So why did she find it necessary to set up her own Email servicer in her home if she had "brought the State Department into the
21st Century"


"She recognized the important role of energy in U.S. foreign policy and helped create the Bureau of Energy Resources to protect our energy infrastructure and influence how nations move to cleaner fuel."

I thought that under her the State Dept. the KeyStone pipe line was seen as environmentally sound even with it to cary the dirtiest oil on earth.


I find that there are still many questions as to whether HRC is the right choice for our party and I would like to see a true fair hard fought primary where our candidate can fully present her (or his) ideas and goals for our nation.

[leveymg]

82. The war in Gaza is one she signalled Bibi he could wage and never say he was sorry.

No, sorry, your statement that she made peace between Israel and the Palestinians is simply not true. She laid the groundwork for that war and then said that Israel had simply an innocent victim. She's also used exactly the same language as Netanyahu to justify cutting off the possibility of a two-state solution:

Netanyahu:

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the Jordan River.”

- Press Conference, July 11, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html

HRC: “If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security,” Clinton said of the West Bank, citing the need to “protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else.”Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, Aug 10 2014,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/


On UN General Assembly Vote to recognize Palestine (11/29/12) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240755/Palestine-UN-statehood-vote-Hillary-Clinton-says-upgraded-status-unfortunate-counterproductive.html

HRC:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rebuked the United Nations General Assembly's vote to recognize a Palestinian state, calling it an ‘unfortunate and counterproductive’ move that further obstructs the path to a peaceful agreement between Palestine and Israel.

Netanyahu:

Netanyahu called the vote ‘meaningless’.
Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was ‘being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine.’ Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.
After the vote, Netanyahu said the U.N. move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.

Netanyahu:

At a press conference on July 11, 2014, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the Jordan River.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html

On responsibility for the Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2014 and accusations that Israel’s military response to rocket launches from Gaza was disproportionately violent: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
HRC:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict. … So the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”

On efforts of the Obama Administration to pressure Netanyahu to accept Palestinian statehood and accept a two-step solution, Clinton’s views are closer to AIPAC than Obama. She repeatedly casts Israel as the victim in the conflict and international criticism as inspired by antisemitism:

“What you see is largely what Hamas invites and permits Western journalists to report on from Gaza. It’s the old PR problem that Israel has. Yes, there are substantive, deep levels of antagonism or anti-Semitism towards Israel, because it’s a powerful state, a really effective military. And Hamas paints itself as the defender of the rights of the Palestinians to have their own state. So the PR battle is one that is historically tilted against Israel.”

Writing in The New Yorker, John Cassidy asks is “The Hillary Doctrine: “Smart Power” or “Back to the Crusades”?

These statements will have delighted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, whom Clinton defended several times in the interview. She even endorsed Netanyahu’s recent suggestion that Israel would never give up security control of the West Bank, a statement that some analysts have seized upon as the death knell for the two-state solution. “If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security,” Clinton said of the West Bank, citing the need to “protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else.”

Hillary is no peacemaker and is hardly a forceful advocate for the Obama Administration - she agrees with Bibi's rationale for why Israel will not allow a two-state solution.

[uponit7771]

149. fud doesnt care about facts

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

153. Read it, and have to LOL near the end.

Secretary Clinton brought the State Department into the 21st Century. Secretary Clinton helped the State Department adapt to emerging issues such as cyber security

The same Secretary Clinton who couldn't even be bothered to see that State Department mail servers were brought up to snuff or worry about their security, but instead merely set up her own private servers for herself 'brought the State Department into the 21rst Century'?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[eridani]

185. "free" trade agreements are a fucking accomplishment?

Libya was far better off with Qadaffi. Turning it into an anarchistic shithole is an "accomplishment"?

[earthside]

170. That is a good question.

Try asking it in the HRC group and see if you get banned.

(You probably would.)

For the life of me, I cannot think of anything significant she accomplished as Secretary of State.

Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be doing a pretty good job.

[awake]

171. I thought about asking on the "Hillary Clinton (Group)"

But then I read their "purpose"

Which reads;
"Discuss the life, career, and accomplishments of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters only."

I decided to respect their space and let her "Supporters" talk to each other without having respond to a question from a not yet supporter. While I have not made up my mind as to whether I will support her, at this time I still have issues of trust as well as I am not sure of what she really stands for and if she is our best choice.

[cali]

49. this has jack shit to do with Paul who I have never supported and that goes

for his progeny as well.

this is about hillary, so fail.

[Scuba]

56. Consider the source.

[Ichingcarpenter]

69. personal attack

which I'm thinking of calling it.

[davidpdx]

161. .........

You make Papa Paul Proud,,,,,,,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6396056

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Why someone could call a long time DUer a Paul supporter (in this case they are insinuating Ron Paul) I have no idea. This is disgusting behavior by a DU member and the same as calling someone a Republican or a troll.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:18 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: trollish
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There is no other reason for saying this except to stir up trouble.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack. It's not nice to call a fellow DUer a right winger just because they don't agree with you.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[BeanMusical]

62. Lol, pathetic post.

[NYC_SKP]

64. Hillary Clinton not one of us. The sooner we accept it the better. nt

[Cryptoad]

104. "WE",,,,, really?

Is it any wonder that the Hillary Haters can not get a Progressive to run? Maybe too much much time spent on negative attacks on HRC rather than positive energy focused on a more Progressive candidates...... then in General they will have to decide to vote GOP or not vote as all which is both the same thing with the same result.

[NYC_SKP]

145. Tell me what are her positives that outweigh her negatives? What the hell good has she done?

LGBT and Womens' rights?

Every Democrat is pro LGBT and Womens' rights.

What else has she got that offsets her negatives?

[Cryptoad]

146. I wanted Lizzy to run,

but looks like she aint going to.. and looks like no other viable dem is either.... so HRC most positive attribute right now is she is the only Democrat in the Race.

[NYC_SKP]

147. I'm holding out for some alternative, I figure they're waiting on HRC> nt

[Cryptoad]

150. I hope you right,,,,

but I will not tear down the only Democrat in the Race while I wait, it would only serve the GOP.

[NYC_SKP]

151. I'd like to thing that voices of disapproval might encourage challengers.

It's my hope. Now is the time to complain, after the primaries if she's our nominee it becomes a different matter.

Take care, I have to hit the road.

[davidpdx]

165. You (and other Clinton supporters) are using a strawman to attack anyone who criticizes Clinton

What is "hateful negative attacks"?

(keep in mind these are EXAMPLES)

Example:

Hillary Clinton is bitch
yes

Hillary is too conservative
no

Hillary Clinton wears pants suits because she acts like a man
yes

Hillary Clinton is not the type of person we need as president
no

The only reason Hillary Clinton would get elected is her husband
yes

I won't vote for Hillary Clinton's based on her past record
no

That is the problem, most Hillary Clinton supporters can't separate HATE from CRITICISM. In my opinion this is part of the problem with most (not all) Clinton supporters, is making claims about those who don't support her that are NOT true.

[Ichingcarpenter]

61. Hillary Clinton blasts ‘unfair’ world reaction over Gaza, cites anti-Semitism as factor

story here


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025364869




also

Hillary Clinton gives green light for Israeli attack on Gaza flotilla


, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to lay the ground – indeed almost provide a green light – for an Israeli military attack on the upcoming Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which will include the US Boat to Gaza.

Among the passengers aboard the American boat will be 87-year old Kindertransport survivor Hedy Epstein, and author and poet Alice Walker. In all it is expected that about 10 ships, carrying 1000 people from over 20 countries will take part.

Here’s what Clinton said in remarks at the State Department on 23 June:

Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli Government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.

Clinton must know that Gaza is not part of what any country recognizes as “sovereign” Israeli territory, and therefore neither are Gaza’s territorial waters. Any boats entering Gaza’s waters would not in fact be entering “Israeli waters” as Clinton claimed. Clinton also, presuming she is properly briefed rather than misled, must also know that last year Israel attacked the Gaza Freedom Flotilla when it was in international waters and GPS data showed that it was actually heading away from Israel.

By invoking Israel’s supposed “right to self-defense” against civilian boats trying to reach Gaza, we must understand that Clinton is telling Israel the United States will not stand in the way of another military attack.

And by citing Israel allowing construction materials into Gaza to make the case that the flotilla is “unnecessary” because “aid” can reach the Palestinian people in Gaza, Clinton is engaging in the ultimate obfuscation.


http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/hillary-clinton-gives-green-light-israeli-attack-gaza-flotilla

[cali]

68. but but but.... she prevented war in Gaza.

[bravenak]

109. This!nt

[OregonBlue]

75. I think she is smart and savvy and would probably make an excellent president. I would love to see

someone like Bernie elected but there is no way in hell he would be allowed to get anything done. I do believe that she has a large enough coalition to accomplish things and I believe she is a true Democrat when it comes to the social issues. I can't help it, I'm a 66 year old woman, a Yellow Dog Democrat and I like her.

On the other hand, I'm not one of those people who believes that my president has to hold all of my values. I still really like Obama, thinks he's brilliant, a man of peace not war, a wonderful husband and father and the smartest guy in the room. There are plenty of folks here who disagree with me.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

76. Are you a child?

She's better than any Republican. PERIOD. That's all you have to know. She will create jobs, she will run rough shod over the miscreants in Congress. She will not stand for any bullshit. So stop whining and vote Democratic and get every one you know to vote Democratic, because we know what Repugs bring to the table, ruin.

[awake]

77. So we should just hand her the nomination with out the challenge of winning it

in the primaries. She may well be our best candidate, I just do not believe that we give her the nomination because it is her turn. That is how the Republicans roll not us.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

172. She needs to win the primaries.

I never said she didn't. It will toughen her up for the Repugs.

[cali]

80. no, are you a program that spouts cliches?

No, that she's better than a republican is not all I need to know. This isn't November 2016. I don't buy that she'll create jobs. I sure as hell don't believe that she'll deal with the repukes in Congress. She stands for a fucking towering heap of bullshit from the right and corporate interests.

I have every right to criticize a PROSPECTIVE dem nominee.

[rhett o rick]

83. "Are you a child?" Really? That's your best response? nm

[HereSince1628]

93. When all you have is name calling, every opponent needs a label

That meme merely pushes mind-numbing apologetics and suspension of attempts to hold politicians accountable to their electorates.

Who needs that? Well I'll give you a hint... it includes politicians who employ triangulation, triangulation is an active test of the tolerance of the base to political moves -away- from the base.

It requires the steel-bending telekinetic force of such stunning subtexts as the Rahmwellian "don't worry they've got no where to go"

[rhett o rick]

100. That's it. I particularly like, "the Rahmwellian "don't worry they've got no where to go" ".

It's like the HRC supporters gloating that their candidate is the favorite of the Biggest Bully in town (Big Money).

The HRC supporters and their Big Money allies may win the 2016 battle, but the war is just getting started.

[840high]

142. Excuse me - that's NOT

all I need to know.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

154. Psst. Any Democrat at all will be 'better than any Republican, PERIOD.

So why do we need to get behind that particular one?

[stonecutter357]

79. pretending to be morally pure.

[cali]

81. uh no. but way to miss the point and not address the OP.

because when you come down to it, all any of you ignoring the points in the OP have, is silly smileys.

[HereSince1628]

84. Nope, nope, uh-ah, sorry... not a hawk, you shouldn't say that....

in the polite company of DU we refer to such Democrats as 'interventionists'.

ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH! Don't do the work of RT.

[Thinkingabout]

87. Wow, lots of Hillary supporters here.

Let's put it this way, she is very capable of making strong decisions. You can not say tho about others. She also knows a lot about world issues, lots can not say this. If it comes to declaring war, this would be a decision voted on by Congress so for all who are getting their pants in a twist, know how declaring war works.

[awake]

92. WW2 was the last time congress declared war

A lot of people can be killed by the President of the United States with out the say of Congress.

[Thinkingabout]

94. We had many people killed on 9/11.

[cali]

95. and? that hardly addresses the issue. ugh.

[Thinkingabout]

97. I did address the issue.

[cali]

103. nope. not even a smidgeon. You made no case as to

why you think after 50+ years of precedence, next time would be different. Reams have been written about this.

[Deny and Shred]

188. To recognize that presidents initiate post-ww2 military conflicts

without Congressional approval is having one's pants in a twist?

So the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Operation Just Cause, Somalia, Beirut, Grenada and multiple other military deployments were the result of 9/11?

Did the fact that 9/11 occurred eliminate the power of Congress to declare war?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

155. Good Lord.

Yes, we had many people killed on 9/11 by Saudi nationals, mostly. Not by Iraq, or by Saddam, who detested Al Quaeda.

I can't even believe you pulled out Cheney's stale, discredited link between 9/11 and the Iraq War to defend Hillary's great 'decision' on the AUMF.

[Thinkingabout]

157. You missed the whole point.

[HereSince1628]

107. Congress pretty regulalry RESOLVES to give presidents authority to use the military

however it wishes.

It's a pretty obviously a distinction with little difference.

[WilliamPitt]

88. You're not going to get an answer.

But you have volunteered for a barrage of insults.

Welcome to the club. We get jackets.

[cali]

90. yeah, but the non-answers are kinda interesting.

[treestar]

106. Supporting one way does not mean you will always support every other war after that

She was Secretary of State, which is rather a diplomatic position - so she knows ways other than war.

It's just not always that black and white. I'm against most of the wars we've had, but that does not mean there isn't some possible war out there I might be for.

[cali]

108. I agree with that, but I think her history clearly indicates that she is a hawk.

[whereisjustice]

110. Hillary is a festering boil on the Democratic Party - if she wins the nomination

the Republicans masquerading here as "moderates" will be handed a massive victory. Poverty, disparity and division will continue to destroy the Democratic Party. Which is their goal.

[Dragonfli]

192. A bit off topic, but does Hillary have any thoughts at all regarding poverty?

Is poverty now a complete non issue? It appears to me the closest any mainstream politicians come to addressing the rising tide of poverty in this era is to discuss "the middle class" which I believe is their code word for people with $250,000 a year incomes.

Not that you are an expert on what they all talk about, but I was curious if you recall anything about her on poverty? Or has the issue been replaced by the troubles of white collar suburbanites that are not millionaires yet? It seems almost as if the impoverished are thought to be extinct by most in Washington and I wondered if it was just my imagination..

[whereisjustice]

199. She has Larry Summers as an advisor on economics forming her views on wealth

which have been limited to the abstract notion of "inclusive capitalism" and "wealth envy".

"Inclusive capitalism" is a fancy way of saying "trickle down". The difference being mostly rhetorical semantics, with trickle down becoming a bit dated.

"wealth envy" is a way of scolding those who make less than $250,000 a year to "get over it".

What has been leaked during her $400,000 speeches to Goldman indicates that she does not hold Wall Street responsible for the economic decay of ordinary Americans, Wall Street CEOs were not responsible for the financial meltdown, and America needs to be kinder to the job creators. Clearly she doesn't bite the hand that feeds her.

On out sourcing to Asia she has been called "the senator from India".

While Hillary claims that only the most qualified individuals should be employed, it is worth noting that her daughter was paid $600,000 as a special correspondent to MSNBC, an amount which alienated experienced veteran reporters. Chelsea's crowning achievement as special correspondent was a shameless puff piece where she interviewed the GEICO lizard.

Her son-in-law is a hedge fund manger with investment from Goldman Sachs.

Nearly all her public appearances are associated with VERY expensive and exclusive events far out side access of mere mortals.

Other than that, her lack of strong documented commitment to undoing the years of decay to working American families indicates that she intends to keep punishing the lower class by making it harder and hard to compete with low wage workers from other nations.

Her husband "reached across the aisle" to toss millions off of welfare, leading to today's record levels of pvoerty and extreme poverty (making less than $2 a day).

She claimed she was dead broke when she left the White House. That was supposed to resonate with us. Instead, it crashed the bullshit detector.

Further stressing the bullshit detector she said this -

"You know, in my Judeo-Christian faith tradition, in both the Old and the New Testament, the incredible demands that God places on us and that the prophets ask of us, and that Christ called us to respond to on behalf of the poor, are unavoidable. Maybe the lord is just waiting for us to respond to his call, because this despair is what we ar expected to be spending our time responding to, and so few of us do."

Nothing in Hillary's recent behavior indicates she intends to change these views, in fact she seems to be triangulating more than ever and doubling down on 3rd way philosophy which involves legislating lavish benefits and entitlements for corporations with a non-binding agreement that CEOs will "do the right thing" out of the goodness of their hearts after paying her $300,000 for a one hour revival session where she speaks in tongues.

[Cosmic Kitten]

234. ^^^^+1^^^^

[Unvanguard]

111. Maybe it's damning with faint praise, but it's still the relevant point, it seems to me.

She has no credible opposition in the primary, so she'll be the nominee, and it seems extremely doubtful the Republican candidate will be better on this or any other big issue.

[TygrBright]

112. Return question: Who would you trust on issues of war and peace, and why-- how do you know? n/t

[still_one]

113. If she is the Democratic nominee I will vote for her. Anyone who won't vote for the democratic

Nominee in the general election really should not be part of the Democratic Underground

[bigtree]

114. you can't

...and I don't need anyone's article or profile to say that.

If you watched our current Democratic president and our current Democratic Congress, it's clear that progressives can't 'trust' the majority of the political class today on foreign affairs and military policy. Almost all of the major leaders and legislators have co-opted their politics with some capitulation to the 'terror war' Bush and his corporate-military, PNAC cabal wove out of whole cloth over a decade ago.

Barack Obama set the standard for PNAC-lite applications of our military force and, while certainly opting for a great deal less actual deployments, is auguring for an open-ended, geographically unlimited extension of Bush's terror war with his AUMF proposal. That's pretty much the standard for most Democrats today; this notion that we have to 'do something' to avoid looking weak on defense and too chicken-shit to define our military policy by realism and lessons-learned during Bush's tragic terms in office.

Hillary's particular tell is her fawning appeasement of anything which serves her political interest in Israel-friendly U.S. militarism; basically PNAC-inspired foreign policy which assumes that all U.S. foreign policy is basically a defense of Israel, dominated by aggressive opposition to Iran and Syria with a perverse and contrary alliance with the Saudis. She can't be trusted, because she's wedded to the present military regime - both as Sec. of State, and as the former Senator from N.Y. - and her inability to reason past all of that appeasement to the corporate-military class which Barack Obama so obligingly left in place for the entirety of his terms in office. (Petraeus in Iraq last week advising him, ffs)

Very few of the present Democratic leaders in and outside of Congress can be said to imbue 'trust' on issues of 'war and peace' for that matter. I trust Sanders, for what it's worth. The rest need to come forward and make their appeals. I sincerely doubt they'll measure up to anything I can say I 'trust' them on in this regard.

[HereSince1628]

124. About your para #1, does that imply you think Hillary supporters are progressive?

I find that sort of curious, it's a connection I wouldn't make myself.

I suppose regardless of what you or I think, it's what they think that matters,

But if they- think they are progressive I wonder around what progressive issues they rally.

[bigtree]

136. where the hell you got that is a mystery to me

...I assume mistrust on issues of 'war or peace' comes from progressives, most regarding Hillary's stance to the right of their views. Did you really read what I wrote?

[HereSince1628]

140. I think it comes from having the op's title in mind = target Hillary supporters

at the same time as reading your opening paragraph...

Yes, I really read what you wrote. I read much of the thread...which did nothing really to clear confusion.

I was just left confused with the notion that perhaps all democrats could be considered progressives and that thereby HRC supporters could be considered progressive

If that happens I'd like to know why that could seem possible.

[KoKo]

200. Recommend Read...Endless War is going to be the Important Issue for 2016...

You've stated it well.

[Fred Sanders]

115. What difference does it make if the praise is faint or full? No President Christfukuistan.

At all costs.

I repeat.

At all costs.

How many times is the same boring OP going to be repeated?

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

Slam Dunk, 8 more years of NO FASCISM

CNN polling

Clinton 62, Warren 10, Biden 15, Sanders 3, Webb 1, O'Malley 1 Clinton +47

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Bush 40 Clinton +15

General Election: Walker vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Walker 40 Clinton +15

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 54, Paul 43 Clinton +11

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Christie 40 Clinton +15

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Rubio 42 Clinton +13

General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 55, Huckabee 41 Clinton +14

General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 56, Carson 40

[cali]

116. an significant difference.

she is not the nominee.

[yallerdawg]

120. Why I trust Hillary Clinton on issues of war and peace.

We know who the hawks are.

[EX500rider]

134. "how can you trust her on issues of "War and Peace"?

How do we know she's even read it??

Maybe she doesn't even LIKE Tolstoy!!!!

[ileus]

141. Because she's Hillary...

Question is how can you not trust her?

[brooklynite]

143. I believe she did a responsible and professional job of implementing Pres. Obama's foreign policy...

...but of course, you wouldn't vote for him either.

[Katashi_itto]

144. I do trust her on issues such as cannibalism though.

[uponit7771]

148. Not at the top of my list any longer...shes wont look for trouble im fine with that

[Thinkingabout]

152. Hillary spent four years trying to achieve peace in the world, this isthe job a SOS

Is on 24/7. It is negotiating all the time for peace.

[bigtree]

167. not necessarily

...they also do advance PR for war.

[Thinkingabout]

173. I am glad you included also.

[cali]

189. oh sure. that's just what Henry Kissinger did. NO THE JOB IS NOT

DE FACTO NEGOTIATING FOR PEACE.

that is beyond naive.

[Thinkingabout]

190. Is any part of the SOS negotiatijng for peace? Has she EVER tried to negotiate

For peaceful resolutions, why yes, this is the ONLY function, my point was she has spent her time trying to bring peaceful resolutions. If not then you are saying Obama never has been for peaceful resolutions. I don't think you want to say Obama has been a war hawk.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

156. "This time it will be different" seems to be the prevailing reason from the "Not as bad" wing.

Forget the wars. Forget the deaths. Forget the torture. Forget the collaboration with the Republicans. Forget the collaboration with the corporations. Forget the pursuit of whistle blowers. Forget the poor. Forget the persecuted. Forget the police state.

Again, we are told to be patient. That the other side is worse.

Again, we are told to shut up and vote for the candidate who can win and ignore their record.

And, again, we are told that "this time it will be different."

[BeanMusical]

163. Very well said. +1

[zappaman]

177. I trust her more than any Republican that might run.

[akbacchus_BC]

178. She cannot be trusted and she is old!

Is there no one else in the Democratic Party who could run for the Presidency who is younger? Where is Howard Dean when you need him?

The Clintons again in the White House, seriously!

[McCamy Taylor]

182. Did you really criticize her for being old? What has DU become that we hate seniors?

[akbacchus_BC]

183. Sorry, I did not mean it that way!

I did not express myself too well. With the population of the US, I was hoping someone younger would jump into politics rather than a wife of a former President! For instance, I was thinking of Howard Dean running!

Am sorry, did not intend to ruffle feathers on here.

[WillyT]

179. K & R !!!

[joshcryer]

180. She supported Obama on Iran.

[McCamy Taylor]

181. I trust her because she knows the value of children.

[eridani]

186. Like the ones in Iraq?

[cali]

187. war is not good for children. Gaza sucked for children. Hillary supported it wholeheartedly.

[daleanime]

184. K&R....

[Martin Eden]

191. Her IWR vote is an automatic disqualifyer for me.

Take your choice:
1) She was fooled (which means she's incompetent)
2) She was on board with the neocon agenda
3) Her vote was a calculation of post 9/11 politics

I have yet to hear a reasonable defense for any of the above.

[dsc]

195. Gee no mention at all of the promotion of her promotion gay rights abroad

almost like we don't matter to whomever wrote the blog.

[cali]

219. bullfuckingshit. This is beneath you. You know perfectly well that my op

is about foreign policy and war, not about social issues. That hardly means I'm callously dissing the LGBT community.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

231. I will delete it. I apologize./NT

[cali]

232. thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

233. You're welcome...

I do wish that those that constantly criticize, whether or not they believe with all their heart their criticism is just and helpful, would stop to think how they would feel if someone they have some degree of affection for was constantly criticized, and how they would respond.

[cali]

218. I'm fine with Hillary on social issues. But social issues are not the only issues

and this was a post about issues of war and peace.

and I really resent the mendacious insinuation that I don't care about LGBT issues. It's like someone coming into this thread and accusing me of not caring about women because I didn't mention her support for abortion rights.

It's off base.

[dsc]

237. she promoted those rights abroad

which I would count as an accomplishment, a rather big one thank you, that the blog writer utterly and completely ignored. I am assuming you didn't write the blog.

[cali]

238. Of course I wrote it. Who posts someone elses words and doesn't credit them?

Maybe that's something you do, it certainly isn't something I would ever do.

And once again, LBGT rights and issues are simply not more than tangential to whether the U.S. is led by a hawk who has a long history of supporting war and military "solutions".

Why didn't I include her support fro women's rights or children's rights, or, or, or. BECAUSE IT WAS A POST ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.

Your post is a nasty and absurd accusation. Frankly, I find it very disturbing.

goodbye.

[dsc]

239. you put a link in your OP to the nation blog

and had an author's name listed. Silly me I figured that meant you quoted the link you gave.

[beachbum bob]

207. I trust hillary more than any batshit crazy conservative

who would be in the whitehouse IF hillary is not our nominee....we don't need any more idealists sacrificing our country to conservatives becasue they have issues with hillary

learn the lesson from nader voters who gave us 8 fricken years of bush, the deaths of thousands, untold economic damage....they are more responsible for it than those who voted for bush

get over it and care more for america than some idiot idealisms

[winetourdriver]

210. war and peace

How can we really trust any of them with that power? I don't think I would trust myself, and doesn't circumstances have a lot more to do with it than we like to think? At least HRC has been close to that kind of power for many years, and I have no doubt has put a great deal of thought into that aspect of Executive Power. I trust her, not sure why, I'm 64 and have seen a lot of administrations.

[cali]

220. by looking at rhetoric and record. There is literally nothing in her rhetoric or record

that doesn't portray her as a hawk.

[Cosmic Kitten]

228. +1

[Hekate]

217. Yes

[djean111]

235. It seems to me like Hillary supporters are only looking for THE WIN.

What happens after that doesn't even seem to be interesting to them, except for the SCOTUS thing. And why they think Hillary won't appoint a corporate and Wall Street friendly judge is mystifyin'.

[Cosmic Kitten]

236. Hillary gets NO SCOTUS without the Senate

If Hillary discourages enough Democrats
the down ballot candidates suffer...
hence, not gaining a Senate majority...
hence, not getting a left-leaning justice
on the SCOTUS.

It's dominoes waiting to fall.
If Hillary loses, the Democratic party is sunk.

That is a LOT of eggs in the Hillary basket.
Too many IMO

[NCTraveler]

240. By learning facts...

and ignoring hyperbole.