Hillary Clinton Sugarcoating Her Disastrous Record
She has the gall to accuse Bernie Sanders of not being transparent. Sanders is a presidential candidate who doesn’t take big-fee speeches or big donations from fat cat influence-peddlers, and his record is as clean as the Clintons’ political entanglements are sordid. (See Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer.)
But it is in the area of foreign and military affairs that “Hillary the hawk” is most vulnerable. As Secretary of State her aggressiveness and poor judgement led her to the White House where, sweeping aside the strong objections of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, she persuaded President Obama to bomb Libya and topple its dictatorial regime.
...
Whether as Senator on the Armed Services Committee or as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton has never met a war or raid she didn’t like, or a redundant, wasteful weapons system she was willing to aggressively challenge. As president, Hillary Clinton would mean more wars, more raids, more blowbacks, more military spending and more profits for the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower so prophetically warned about in his farewell address.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-sugarcoating-her-disastrous-record/
Yep, it's a Nader link. But let me ask you this: if people of like mind with Nader had enough sway to take the election away from Al Gore, why would we want to court disaster a second time by antagonizing them? Sure, they're not "true Democrats", but the votes of "not true Democrats" count just the same. If we want the best outcome for the most number of people, should we not unite behind the candidate that can garner the most number of votes?
For your consideration.
= new reply since forum marked as read
