General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClinton's long history as a warhawk
Hillary Clinton on Military Policy On her foreign policy agenda: There’s every indication that it closely parallels that of the Bush administration.Stephen Zunes. Edited by Emily Schwartz Greco, December 12, 2007
...rather than challenge President George W. Bush’s dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years.
Gail Sheehy’s book Hillary’s Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.
She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.
Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the over-emphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our “overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy” toward Afghanistan “must be to significantly step up our military engagement.”
Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does she support unconditional military aid – including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters – to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn’t like.
Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration’s decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea’s nuclear program and to allow France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran,
In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere, arguing that Bush has neglected these recent developments “at our peril.” In response to recent efforts by democratically elected Latin American governments to challenge the structural obstacles which have left much of their populations in poverty, she has expressed alarm that “We have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America.”
http://fpif.org/hillary_clinton_on_military_policy/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)it's almost as though they are the same people!
Oh wait....
In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026216863
Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with Bernie's stances on guns. But at 30k gun deaths a year, and let's assume that stricter gun control managed to chop that number in half, it would take close to a century for enough US gun deaths to equal the numbers dead thanks to the vote to lay waste to Iraq.
merrily
(45,251 posts)much of a purist. If you can accept Bernie's liberal positions despite some gun votes, you're evil.
I can't keep up.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think his vote to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers stunk, and that he owes his constituents an explanation and apology, but one thing is certain: That vote had shit all to do with supporting corporate interests- he has NEVER taken a penny from gun manufacturers, lobbyists, etc.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
madville
(7,408 posts)For the manufacturers of completely legal products. The government and law enforcement buy all their firearms from these gun companies so they had an interest in protecting them as well.
Anti-gun groups had made it known their strategy was to sue the gun manufacturers out of business. I view it as an abuse of the legal system, the liability should stop with the person misusing the product.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)*sigh*
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Which basically tells you a few things about Bernie.
(1) He's psychologically secure about his physical appearance - no focus groups necessary.
(2) He expects voters to choose to support him based on his past actions and political history, and focuses on explicitly spelling out positions on issues which he has taken in the past and plans to take in the future.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)relating to his $500 haircuts.
I hope his barber doesn't get caught using a really expensive bowl or something.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)as a backed-up sewer system.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)to think that she did that for her own giggles or deep seated hatred
is mistaken. it is intended to shape the dialog and push our buttons
in favor of "defense" crusades.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)some souls have limited access.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)It's written like a Brietbart article but coming from the left.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You may not like any of them, but they are there.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)No way that happened.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I know you have this overwhelming need to deflect and redirect and change the subject - anything but admit you incorrectly stated there were no sources.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Your reply did not address that, but attempted to deflect and ignore.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The likelihood that Hillary overrode the President and the Pentagon to initiate military action is zero.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)"Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway."
I see you reworded that phrase to mean something completely different...
"Hillary overrode the President and the Pentagon to initiate military action"
and then questioned the accuracy based on that.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Now that's funny!
I have (had) an issue with Hillary voting for the Iraq war, but I have forgiven her over that (as if she needs my forgiveness!) and she has expressed regrets of that decision. Besides, there are no candidates that agree with my leftist positions 100% of the time.
When I keep hearing language such as warhawk Clinton or corporate Clinton, etc, it just makes me dig in my heels more. And I could care less if Warren likes or supports Clinton. Is the beloved and untouchable Warren the standard of which all others are compared? NO!
Go get 'em, Hillary!
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)for the Iraq War? She has expressed regrets for that decision? War is the most serious decision politicians make. The Iraq War destroyed a nation, killed only God knows how many hundreds of thousands of people and has created murderous chaos in the entire region. We'll be lucky if the entire mess doesn't trigger WWIII. Having supported such a catastrophe is not a resume' for higher office.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as “Mama Warbucks.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-04-26/news/mama-warbucks/
Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/remarks-senator-hillary-rodham-clinton-transcript/p6600
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Kosovo.htm
Yugoslav involvement good on both moral & strategic grounds
Hillary Clinton called for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII. She cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic ground, but also suggested that Americans needed to consider becoming involved in solving crises that are not only military in nature.
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times Oct 20, 2000
Urged president to bomb Serbians
On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 345 Dec 9, 1999
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm#44
Hillary hugs hawkish line on terrorism
On terrorism, Hillary hugs the hawkish line. She voted for the Iraq War, and though she criticizes the Bush administration for the way it is fighting the conflict, she constantly backs the war and votes for all the supplies, money, and troops Bush requests. In fact, she has called for the recruitment of 80,000 new soldiers.
In staking out new ground for herself on national defense issues, Hillary has found a big ally: former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Hillary actively uses Newt as a prop to demonstrate her newfound political centrism. Serving together on an advisory panel on defense priorities, Gingrich and Hillary have gone out of their way to indicate a shared commitment to a strong defense. According to the New York Times, “Gingrich says he has been struck by how pro-defense Hillary Clinton has turned out to be at a time when other Democrats have criticized President Bush’s decision to go to war. He chalked that up to her experience in the White House.”
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.145 Oct 11, 2005
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military
Recommends a bigger Army in 2004: “We have to face the fact we need a larger active-duty military. We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we’re doing now... I’m supporting an effort to increase the end strength of the Army, increase the size of the military. This is a big decision for our country to make. It is expensive, but I don’t think we have any alternatives.”
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 74 Sep 30, 2005
Muscle, not rhetoric, leads to strong homeland security
Muscle, not rhetoric, leads to strong homeland security: “We have relied on a myth of homeland security--a myth written in rhetoric, inadequate resources, and a new bureaucracy instead of relying on good, old-fashioned American ingenuity, might, and muscle.”
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 76 Sep 30, 2005
Long-held pro-defense spending stance; not a move to center
As long as she has been in public life, Clinton has held many positions that are ordinarily associated with Republicans, supporting the death penalty, numerous free-trade agreements, and high defense spending, to name a few. She was also a strong and early supporter of the Iraq war (though she became a critic as the war dragged on). Yet these positions are not only not taken as evidence that she is in fact a centrist, they are used as evidence of insincere political calculation. She has often been characterized as MOVING to the center in preparation for a presidential run, even when her position on the issue in question has remained unchanged.
For Clinton, long-held positions, like a hawkish approach to military affairs, are taken as evidence of a shift. And the prevailing assumption is that when she breaks with some in her party (or even when she sticks with her party) it is for crass political purposes and not an outgrowth of genuine conviction.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 Mar 25, 2008
2001: Called for wrath on those who attacked America on 9/11
Within hours of two planes crashing into two New York towers on 9/11/2001, Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor, Bill, urged her to come out strong. It was he who encouraged her to show that she had the requisite boldness and guts to lead the nation and protect her people. The very next day, Hillary delivered a call to arms that hailed “wrath” on those who harbored terrorists. While others were modeling a different style of leadership by holding firm for global cooperation, criminal prosecution, and a reassertion, rather than a shedding of international jurisprudence, Clinton channeled Thatcher, Britain’s “Iron Lady,” and delivered a bombastic speech in which she described the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as an “attack on America.” Clinton called for punishment for those responsible, the hijackers, and their ilk and vowed that any country that chose to harbor terrorists and “in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.”
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 18-19 Nov 11, 2007
FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 condoned exceptions on torture
Barack Obama accused Clinton of flip-flops on torture: Obama is right. In an interview with the New York Daily News in October 2006, Clinton condoned torture, saying, “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law.“
But in a debate in New Hampshire last month, Sen. Clinton shifted her position, when offered a similar ticking time bomb case, responding, ”As a matter of policy, torture cannot be American policy, period.“ To our ears, that sounds like a reversal.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007
http://www.voltairenet.org/article187315.html
Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan.
This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: “We came, we saw, he died.” As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind.
In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.
Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband’s hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: “I urged him to bomb,” even if it was a unilateral action.
http://www.alainet.org/es/node/124156
According to Clinton, the Bush administration neglected "at our peril" the new political developments in Latin America. Without naming names, Clinton asserts, "We have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America." Rather than applauding the new willingness of an increasing number of elected governments to tackle the structural obstacles that have marginalized the poor and indigenous populations, Clinton evokes a picture of a region threatened by retrograde forces. Blaming the Bush administration for its negligence, Clinton implies that a more engaged U.S. policy could have obstructed the rise of democratically elected left-center governments, such as those in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. "We must return to a policy of vigorous engagement: this is too critical a region for the United States to stand idly by," asserts Clinton. But what kind of "vigorous engagement" is she talking about? Past forms have included intervention in national elections, financial and military support for illegal opposition movements, propaganda campaigns to carry the message of pro-U.S. forces and vilify others. Any "return" to policies like these is not likely to be regarded kindly in Latin America. With few positive examples to cite recently, U.S. engagement to protect "critical" U.S. geopolitical and economic interests has too often been synonymous with intervention. - See more at: http://www.alainet.org/es/node/124156#sthash.qhQq9Uri.dpuf
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Surely some of this does not ring true to you....
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Who We Are
Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.
FPIF provides timely analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs and recommends policy alternatives. We believe U.S. security and world stability are best advanced through a commitment to peace, justice, and environmental protection, as well as economic, political, and social rights. We advocate that diplomatic solutions, global cooperation, and grassroots participation guide foreign policy.
FPIF aims to amplify the voice of progressives and to build links with social movements in the U.S. and around the world. Through these connections, we advance and influence debate and discussion among academics, activists, policy-makers, and the general public.
While all our work adheres to our core values, the views expressed in FPIF publications do not necessarily reflect those of the staff and board of IPS.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)About CFR
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. CFR members, including Chuck Hagel, Fareed Zakaria, Angelina Jolie, and Erin Burnett, explain why the Council on Foreign Relations is an indispensable resource in a complex world.
CFR's current membership of 4,900 is divided among those living in New York, Washington, DC, and across the country and abroad.
For those between the ages of thirty and thirty-six there is the Stephen M. Kellen Term Member Program.
The Corporate Program serves an international membership of about two hundred leading global corporations.
The Think Tank
The David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's think tank—is composed of more than seventy full-time and adjunct fellows who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. The program also includes recipients of several one-year fellowships.
The Studies Program is organized into more than a dozen program areas and centers that focus on major geographical areas of the world or significant foreign policy issues, including the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, the Center for Preventive Action, the International Institutions and Global Governance program, the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy initiative, and the Renewing America initiative.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Sorry, but I've been at this too long.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)you must think all the non-partisan think-tanks are against her. 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)knock yourself out
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and I've posted them for other's future use as well as my own.
Sorry to overwhelm you with facts, but suck is life.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)posted them for future use? On a sub-thread?
Do you realize you have a journal for such things?
Of course not. Suck is life, and you suck at it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and that is juvenile? really? because I posted them where people complaining about supposedly lack of sources would see them, as well as others reading this thread?
or my typo? such is life. 
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The sources were questioned.
The poster addressed the questions by pointing out who the sources were.
And all you have is snark and insults. Not very impressive.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Read the fucking thread, Grumpy, before you start chucking shit.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Including those radicals the Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Policy in Focus.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Our mission is to provide non-partisan information for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity.
We get our information daily from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet -- it is a labor-intensive process that requires countless volunteer hours.
We rely on your support to keep this web site in operation.
Please help us with a donation. Our advertisers partially offset our cash expenses, but we need donations from YOU to keep our volunteers clothed and fed.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)What is Voltaire Network?
Founded by French intellectual Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network International is a web of non-aligned press groups dedicated to the analysis of international relations.
Originating from diversified political, social and cultural backgrounds, the members of Voltaire Network collectively adhere to the principles of the 1955 Bandung Conference:
1. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations
2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small
4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country
5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the the United Nations Charter
6. (a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the United Nations Charter
9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10. Respect for justice and international obligations.
Voltaire Network does not aim to promote a particular ideology or a world vision, but to hone the critical thinking of its readers. It places reflection before belief and arguments before convictions.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)What's the source of this claim? Was the East Wing bugged? Did she have clearance for NSA or DOD briefings?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)EDIT: Excellent comment. Sorry it was lost on me initially -- who could forget the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre or the Nika Riots.
Anyway, your point is dead on.
I have a friend named Theodora. Based on her personality, I am wondering if that is her birth name or one given to her by those who fear her.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Just about guaranteed that any time a woman achieves or comes near political power, the stories start. She becomes a mistress of manipulation who stealthily maneuvers hapless males into doing her bidding.
In some cases it's true, but in this case something more than "I heard it through the grapevine" is required. Secondary sources don't cut it. Who initially reported that s/he was present when Mrs Clinton made her husband change his mind? Otherwise, just more narrative for The Legend of Hillary.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Yes, I full well realize these quotes detail her actions in the Senate - not yesterday! Her supporters tout her Senate years as qualifying her for the Oval Office - so they are on the table for consideration.
Mama Warbucks
Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate – Democrat or Republican – and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as “Mama Warbucks.” She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon, comparing her favorably to the hawkish former Washington Senator “Scoop” Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.
http://fpif.org/hillary_clinton_on_military_policy/
MAMA WARBUCKS (headline)
When someone like Newt Gingrich commends a Democrat's service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know you're looking at a serious hawk. That hawk is Hillary Clinton, junior senator from blue-state New York and possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Gingrich, with an eye on his White House bid, told a group of newspaper editors last month that she'd make a formidable opponent. "Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee," the GOP hard-liner said. Gringrich should know: He sits with her on a star-studded Pentagon advisory group.
When not fending off terrorists or bucking up the troops in Iraq, Clinton has been equally fierce about defending defense dollars for her home state. Senator Hillary Clinton may never see New York return to its glory days of defense contracting, when it was known as the "cradle of aviation." But she's trying. In fiscal 2003 before Clinton got her spot on the committee, New York ranked 13 out of 50 states in contracts, with $4.3 billion. Today, the latest statistics show that the Empire State has nudged up a point to 12 in the nation, with $5.2 billion in procurements.
Just ask Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who got the back-off sign from her at an April 19 budget meeting of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. Clinton isn't assigned to this smaller group, but she showed up anyway. And we know what she said, because her aides sent out a press release and video snippet of their Democratic boss fighting the good fight on Capitol Hill.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-04-26/news/mama-warbucks/
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Mama Warbucks!
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)Because it will be very useful in the general election. Especially in Virginia.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That is mind blowing.
Clinton isn't assigned to this smaller group, but she showed up anyway.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Thanks for your OP referring to this book.
Gail Sheehy Stays Upbeat in Sad Tale of Hillary Clinton
Read more at http://observer.com/1999/12/gail-sheehy-stays-upbeat-in-sad-tale-of-hillary-clinton/#ixzz3ZYEiKiEw
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
Aside from at least three books by President Clinton’s former lovers, none of the many volumes on the Clinton scandals has been written by women, and that fact alone makes Gail Sheehy’s new book, Hillary’s Choice (Random House, 416 pages, $24), welcome. The writer spent quality time with Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1992, on assignment for Vanity Fair , and though Hillary evidently chose not to lie back down on Ms. Sheehy’s couch for this book, Ms. Sheehy has in the last year interviewed many F.O.H.’s. Not that she interviewed any of Hillary’s enemies. The author of Passages is bound and determined to write an uplifting story about a woman charging into what she calls the Flaming 50’s. And still, the weight and thrust of this story is inevitably tragic.
Ms. Sheehy’s insightful take on the Clintons’ marriage is a turn on the theory of the glass ceiling. Hillary Rodham was herself fit to be President. But a patriarchal society, personified first by her sneering, underachieving father, could not abide that. So she chose to make selfish Mr. Clinton President. Doing so involved continual sacrifices of her dignity and integrity, while Bill sacrificed nothing for her. For instance, the night after going before Kenneth Starr’s grand jury, Hillary stayed home, “achingly lonely,” while her husband twinkled forth in a tux.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Biography
A world-renowned author, journalist, and popular lecturer, Gail Sheehy has changed the way millions of women and men around the world look at the stages of their lives. In her 50 years as a writer she has interviewed thousands of women and men and written 17 books. Her earliest revolutionary book, Passages, was named by a Library of Congress survey one of the ten most influential books of our times. Passages remained on The New York Times Bestseller List for more than three years and has been reprinted in 28 languages.
Sheehy is also a journalist who has covered national and world leaders and broken many cultural taboos. She culminated a decade of following Hillary Clinton for Vanity Fair with the biography, Hillary’s Choice, exploring the personal ambitions and vulnerabilities that drive the world’s most public woman. She has written about the character and psychology of presidential candidates from Robert Kennedy to Barack Obama and world leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Saddam Hussein.
Here is what a New York Times book reviewer and Princeton professor Elaine Showalter wrote about the impact of Sheehy’s books:
In 1976, in her best seller Passages, the journalist Gail Sheehy invented a new way of thinking about the phases of adult life…[as] ‘a series of developmental stages and tasks, critical turning points along the life cycle when one’s opportunity for growth is also heightened‘ […] Women embraced Sheehy’s thinking and incorporated it into their expectations…. The New York Times June 7, 1998
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)They will be a major campaign issue, especially if Hillary is the nominee. The tougher the nominee looks the better.
reddread
(6,896 posts)in the nick of time for voters to choose between war President's.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)The clueless and dangerous Walker/Bush/Cruz vs the more sensible Democratic option. But the Democratic option will still have to be a vicious defender of the US.
The republicans will try to not be out "toughed" by the Democrat.
reddread
(6,896 posts)what about the SCOTUS has changed that precludes a rerun of 2000?
There is only one family with the power to take what they want.
those other Republican candidates are no more serious than Donald Trump or John Edwards.
until concerned voters and thinking people understand and acknowledge the meaning of Edwards "candidacy" in 08,
we deserve what we are given.
Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)I have refused to support any Democrat in a primary (including John Kerry & Joe Biden) who voted for the IWR in October 2002.
Given what we here at DU knew at the time, that vote is inexcusable and unforgivable.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)while hi-tech crashed, and to save my life from the registered sex offender next door who decided I was going to "date" him or else.
And I still have my autographed copy of Colin Powell's autobiography.
And I knew he was lying through his teeth.
I never forgave him or anybody who voted for that immoral, illegal reprehensible disaster of a war.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and Bernie has not shown he is ready to take on national security. Why would the Bernie backers want to show a point of extreme weakness on Bernie's part?
cali
(114,904 posts)Perhaps you weren't aware that congressional members deal with national security and foreign affairs?
In addition, his votes demonstrate his judgment is superior to hers on several important issues.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)security and it is also a portion of being a president, he can't hide under other areas he is interested in and from his voting record I don't see any evidence he is ready for that portion of the job.
cali
(114,904 posts)You post nothing here but one or two line automat style defenses of Clinton. He's spoken often of national security and foreign affairs.
do some homework for once.
ah, forget it. continue with your auto-defense of HRC.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)He's been in Congress long enough to have staunchly supported the U.S. bombing campaign in Kosovo (driving one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff). So outraged were peace activists over Sanders' support of the Kosovo War that they occupied his office in 1999. Sanders had them arrested.
Where do you he's been for that last couple of decades?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)think
(11,641 posts)He refused to just go a long with a one of the most egregious tragedies in American foreign policy to ever take place.
Is that weakness?
Here is the full text of Bernie Sanders speech against the Iraq war vote. (Bold added for emphesis.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs. The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?
Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues that are of such deep concern to Americans?
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)security.
G_j
(40,366 posts)is security?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)"Yep, you have listed a vote by Bernie which brings to question his ability to handle national security"
Are sure you're not talking about the Republican version of national security?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)see where he has, if you have information which shows he has please provide.
think
(11,641 posts)What did Hillary do? She voted for the war!
A war based on complete fabrications and lies.
Do you believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? Or that they found WMDs in Iraq?
Voting for the war did NOT support National Security. In fact it was the exact opposite. Voting for the Iraq war sent American men and women into harms way over a complete fabrication of the facts that was so transparent the UN refused to sanction the war.
National security means making the CORRECT decision on matters of war and peace rather than just going along with a war based on lies. Bernie Sanders did not cower and took a firm stand while encouraging his colleagues to make the right vote as well.
Regrettably they chose to go along with the Bush war plans to save their Senate seats rather than doing the hard job of explaining why the war was WRONG to their constituents.....
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In two decades of him in Congress if this is the only vote you are aware of then you need to become familiar with his voting record and then you can defend him.
think
(11,641 posts)Even Hillary admits she got it wrong!
If you can't even respond to that one point what is the use?
Seriously....
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Decades then why in the hell is he just getting paid for doing nothing. What you can not admit is Bernie is nit interested in national defense. He will be ask these questions, national defense is a big part of being president, again he has not shown anything which convinces me he cares about not would he respond to national defense issues.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Gettin'all factual and stuff.
NO FAIRS!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Now expanding War into Ukraine:
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Fri, Feb 7, 2014
By ORIENTAL REVIEW
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Yesterday’s leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Bat’kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as “Yanukovych’s project”. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week “to glue things together”. Referring to the European role in managing Ukraine’s political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: “Fuck the EU”.
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: “this is a new low in Russian tradecraft”), Mrs. Nuland made her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington’s repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the “strategic Transatlantic partnership” is more worthy of an apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland’s diplomatic collapse which was made public, it was unlikely an unfortunate misspelling. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago describing Mrs.Nuland’s blatant lack of professionalism and personal integrity. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian “independent” NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.
CONTINUED w/LINKS...
http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/07/what-about-apologizing-to-ukraine-mrs-nuland/
Lots of money to be made off war. A pantsuit load.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)& Syria
& Libya
imnew
(93 posts)I like Hillary and do believe she would make a good President but it's
pretty well known even in Republican camps she's a war hawk.
The one thing you will not hear from the GOP if she wins the primary is that
Hillary is weak about national defense , weak about securing a huge pentagon budget
or that she would hesitate in deploying combat troops if the slightest need arises .
I'm fairly certain even her strongest supporters on DU wouldn't disagree with anything I posted
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)makes a difference or means she's changed.
It doesn't and she hasn't. This is just a reminder that she has a long history of being an extreme war hawk. Whether her regret over Iraq is sincere or expedient, she is a war hawk to the bone.
