Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:04 PM May 2016

The Intercept: Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton “Trigger Happy” as She Courts Neocons

"DONALD TRUMP DERIDED Hillary Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy record over the weekend, a glimpse into a potential general election strategy of casting Clinton as the more likely of the two to take the nation to war.

Just moments after maligning Syrian refugees at a rally in Lynden, Washington, Trump pivoted into a tirade against Clinton as a warmonger

“On foreign policy, Hillary is trigger happy,” Trump told the crowd. “She is, she’s trigger happy. She’s got a bad temperament,” he said. “Her decisions in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya have cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and have totally unleashed ISIS.”

And he expressed a rarely heard appreciation for the “other side to this story,” noting: “Thousands of lives yes, for us, but probably millions of lives in all fairness, folks” for the people of the Middle East.

Trump implied that casualties inflicted by the U.S. military were far higher than reported. “They bomb a city” and “it’s obliterated, obliterated,” he said. “They’ll say nobody was killed. I’ll bet you thousands and thousands of people were killed every time you see that television set.”

“If we would’ve done nothing,” Trump argued, “we would’ve been in much better shape.""


https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-trigger-happy-as-she-courts-neocons/

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Intercept: Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton “Trigger Happy” as She Courts Neocons (Original Post) NWCorona May 2016 OP
Donald Trump Won’t Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons in Europe NuclearDem May 2016 #1
I agree with you that trump is bat shit crazy. NWCorona May 2016 #3
And this is why she's vulnerable. RiverNoord May 2016 #2
What will she say in her own defense? I got nothing. yourpaljoey May 2016 #4
the Devil and the deep blue sea reddread May 2016 #9
There isn't anything, but to redirect RiverNoord May 2016 #12
The Neocons are still running amok, and Libya and Syria were the result. HRC is their leader. leveymg May 2016 #5
I don't know where she fits into the modern neocon schema RiverNoord May 2016 #10
Here are a couple takes on that> leveymg May 2016 #13
Thanks for the links. RiverNoord May 2016 #14
Here's something else directly on point> leveymg May 2016 #15
Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families' NuclearDem May 2016 #6
Nope. RiverNoord May 2016 #8
Thanks, Bernie. frylock May 2016 #7
Self-described "biggest militarist" describes potential opponent as "trigger-happy" lagomorph777 May 2016 #11
 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
1. Donald Trump Won’t Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons in Europe
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:10 PM
May 2016
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-europe

Donald Trump refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe during a town hall in Wisconsin on Wednesday. The Republican presidential front-runner was asked about his recent contradictory statements about nuclear proliferation—in which he said he was concerned about the spread of nukes while also suggesting that more countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, should be allowed to acquire them.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the host of the town hall, tried to pin Trump down on what circumstances might compel President Trump to deploy the United States' nuclear arsenal.

"Look, nuclear should be off the table, but would there a time when it could be used? Possibly," Trump said.

Matthews asked Trump to tell the Middle East and Europe that he would never use nuclear weapons, but Trump continued to evade. Asked again if he'd use nuclear weapons in Europe, Trump held firm. "I am not—I am not taking cards off the table," Trump responded.


But yeah, Clinton's trigger-happy for playing a role in enforcing a UN Security Council Resolution in Libya.
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
2. And this is why she's vulnerable.
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:10 PM
May 2016

Trump will go through periods of lucidity when he actually directs criticism precisely where Clinton is weak.

She really is courting neocons, and that's extraordinarily bad news. Most of them should have been imprisoned for crimes against humanity and/or treason years ago.

Let a few of them run amok in State or DOD and who knows who or what we'll be targeting next...

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
9. the Devil and the deep blue sea
Thu May 12, 2016, 02:53 PM
May 2016

considering the not so much precarious as abyssmal environmental prospects facing America and the world in the very near future,
we may only be able to make a symbolic gesture for the faint electronic record that alien Terra specialists will might decipher.
if they have reason.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
12. There isn't anything, but to redirect
Thu May 12, 2016, 03:02 PM
May 2016

it back on Trump himself, pointing out how insane his statements have been.

Which doesn't work against someone like Trump. He's better at BS than she is. It's hard to know if he's actually being truthful or just bullshitting.

Clinton is at ease lying, but not good enough at it to make it convincing.

Right now we've got 2 presumptive nominees, the contest between whom will probably be decided by who is the better bullshitter.

You're right about where we are...

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. The Neocons are still running amok, and Libya and Syria were the result. HRC is their leader.
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:18 PM
May 2016

That's the one area where the hideous caricature of a billionaire is actually less hideous than that caricature of a Secretary of State.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
10. I don't know where she fits into the modern neocon schema
Thu May 12, 2016, 02:56 PM
May 2016

but the incredible thing is that she hasn't called out a single neocon, ever, over the insanity of the Iraq war.

Always with some variation of 'the intelligence community got it wrong on WMDs.'

And she damn well knows the truth - Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld conspired to co-opt the 'intelligence community' with complete bullshit, generated by Douglas Feith and many others through a con job office explicitly set up in the Pentagon for the purpose.

I still remember wincing in pain and despair when Colin Powell started his BS about 'mobile WMD labs' cruising around Iraq, in front of the UN General Assembly.

Never having directed blame appropriately at the architects of the Iraq debacle makes me think that she's got associated stuff to keep under wraps. I hope it's not that she simply recognizes the usefulness of various neocons to her, because, if that's the case we are in a really bad place...

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
13. Here are a couple takes on that>
Thu May 12, 2016, 05:21 PM
May 2016

Hillary, herself, observes she "fell in love with Israel about twenty years ago."

This article in Counter-Punch casts her as the neo-interventionist Svengali behind the thrown as First Lady:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/15/hillarys-neocon-problem/
Was Hillary in on Bill’s political choices? Recently speaking to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Clinton’s secretary of labor Robert Reich said that Bill never made an important decision without consulting the first lady. What are the programs to which Hillary can claim advisory credit during her husband tenure? NAFTA, welfare reform (“ending welfare as we know it,” said Bill), balancing the budget (inflicting austerity measures), the 1994 crime bill (“three strikes and you’re out”), bank deregulation (a sonata for the Great Recession). All of these projects, says author Thomas Frank, were for working Americans and people of color absolute disasters. And one might add to his list the expansion of NATO and the assault on Yugoslavia.

As secretary of state, Hillary backed CIA director Petraeus’ plan to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, from which Obama eventually backed away, thanks to Russia’s intervention and defense of Syria’s sovereignty. As a good neocon soldier for American exceptionalism, Clinton aligns herself with whatever appears at the moment to be the “national interest” center of political gravity (promoting the oil industry, arms sales, the pro-Zionist alliance, divide and rule aid to opponents of secular nationalism, right-to-protect military and economic interventions). The distraction over her emailgate and the Benghazi investigation hides the real crimes of her active support for the bombing of Libya, the overthrow of the government, and the resulting chaos and ISIS organizing in the country, not to mention her backing for the Honduran coup d’etat. Former secretary of defense Robert Gates says that it was Hillary who pushed Obama into the decision on Libya, for which the president now publicly expresses regret, calling the present condition of the country (his words) “a shit show.”

Her champions who cheer her work with women and children ignore the thousands of women and children in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East, who were slaughtered under her leadership in the State Department. Speaking on regime change, even a right-wing former Pentagon analyst, Michael Maloof, didn’t believe it was appropriate to attack Iraq. “Now with Libya,” he says, “it’s the same. And Hillary Clinton was very much responsible for that.”


A much longer, and more detailed article by Robert Parry unfortunately only traces back to 2002, but is worth the read: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/23/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite-2/
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
14. Thanks for the links.
Thu May 12, 2016, 05:24 PM
May 2016

I'll have to take some time, when I have some time, to read through and see what I think of it.

Thanks again for the info, although I'm sure I'm not going to like it .

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
15. Here's something else directly on point>
Thu May 12, 2016, 05:44 PM
May 2016
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton
February 25, 2016

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s cozy ties to Washington’s powerful neocons have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton would pursue, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel’s interests.

In a Washington Post op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trump’s rise and then asked, “So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out.”

Then referring to himself, he added, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

While many of Kagan’s observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.

The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented an aggressive “regime change” strategy against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line or that deviate from Israel’s goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.

Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and “liberal interventionists” who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.

Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton’s “regime change” strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of “income inequality” for which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a “single-issue candidate.” Whether Sanders has the will and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton’s status as the new neocon choice remains in doubt.

A Reagan Propagandist

Kagan, who I’ve known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan’s State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department’s chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton’s patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative “regime change” in Ukraine in 2014.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had begun to call “liberal interventionist” would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration. The Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes” and quoted Kagan as saying:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.
 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
6. Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:18 PM
May 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

Washington (CNN) Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.

The billionaire businessman was asked by the hosts of Fox News' "Fox and Friends" how to fight ISIS but also minimize civilian causalities when terrorists often use human shields.

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

Trump said he would "knock the hell out of" ISIS, and criticized the U.S. for "fighting a very politically correct war."


So, now Donald Trump's concerned about civilian casualties?
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
8. Nope.
Thu May 12, 2016, 02:47 PM
May 2016

He's just lucid enough at times to make an actual argument that strikes directly on point.

Which means that, in the back of his bizarro mind, lurk valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton's campaign that might just pop out in extremely effective ways.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
11. Self-described "biggest militarist" describes potential opponent as "trigger-happy"
Thu May 12, 2016, 02:58 PM
May 2016

Perhaps he meant it as a compliment. They are buddies after all.

Both of them should be made to live in the Middle East.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Intercept: Donald Tru...