HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bill Richardson On Ed Sch...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:35 PM

Bill Richardson On Ed Schultz Show Tonight: "Hillary Will Tell Putin We Tried It Your Way...

which is not working, so now we're gonna try it my way... I'm putting in a No Fly Zone over Syria..."

So THIS plan is somehow more responsible than Donald Trump's bombastic comments?

Anyone think that this might just increase the potential to start WWIII?

And what "pipeline" might these arms sales be going through?

43 replies, 6082 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill Richardson On Ed Schultz Show Tonight: "Hillary Will Tell Putin We Tried It Your Way... (Original post)
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 OP
MADem Jun 2016 #1
thesquanderer Jun 2016 #3
MADem Jun 2016 #5
thesquanderer Jun 2016 #13
MADem Jun 2016 #25
thesquanderer Jun 2016 #30
MADem Jun 2016 #36
thesquanderer Jun 2016 #37
FSogol Jun 2016 #40
MADem Jun 2016 #42
onehandle Jun 2016 #2
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #4
MADem Jun 2016 #8
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #14
MADem Jun 2016 #24
icecreamfan Jun 2016 #6
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #7
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #9
MisterP Jun 2016 #23
icecreamfan Jun 2016 #38
BootinUp Jun 2016 #10
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #15
BootinUp Jun 2016 #16
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #17
BootinUp Jun 2016 #18
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #19
BootinUp Jun 2016 #20
Shemp Howard Jun 2016 #28
BootinUp Jun 2016 #32
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #39
bjo59 Jun 2016 #27
BootinUp Jun 2016 #33
Robbins Jun 2016 #11
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #22
azurnoir Jun 2016 #29
4139 Jun 2016 #12
Doctor_J Jun 2016 #21
bjo59 Jun 2016 #26
tk2kewl Jun 2016 #31
davidn3600 Jun 2016 #34
pinebox Jun 2016 #35
amborin Jun 2016 #41
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #43

Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:39 PM

1. Bill Richardson is NOT a friend to Hillary Clinton; many grains of salt

should be taken with that opinion of his. He was rather a disloyal shit in the last election which is why neither Clinton nor Obama trust him. His personal life is a mess, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:44 PM

3. Still, HRC favors the no-fly zone, Obama does not.

HRC voters are voting for a more hawkish foreign policy, it's a real issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:55 PM

5. Don't trust Bill Richardson to give you ANY guidance as to her POV. He doesn't know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to thesquanderer (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:43 AM

25. Again, Bill Richardson has zero insight into Clinton's thought process today.

He has no access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:12 AM

30. I don't care about what Richardson said, I'm just talking about the Syrian no-fly zone idea

Do you have any reason to believe Hillary no longer wants such a thing? It's still even on her web site

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/01/17/the-truth-about-clintons-record-in-syria/

My point, again, as has been discussed in the past from this and other perspectives, is that Hillary is more hawkish than Obama. I'm not even saying that everyone thinks that's a bad thing, but there are many who do, and it is a legitimate issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:59 AM

36. I think HRC will make judgments based on the conditions on the ground.

I don't think she'll hold fast to/reject anything based on "Because I said this once" or "Because I felt that once."

Her responses to any issues will be situational and appropriate to the matter at hand. There is no point in saying she WILL do X or she WON'T do Y now--things can and do change.

But again, my point was about Bill Richardson. They aren't buddies--he screwed her over in 08. He's duplicitous, and also has a corrupt stink about him, which is why Obama didn't give him any love either. He also has a messy personal life.

He had a Bigger Things future once. He doesn't anymore because he got greedy and tried to bigfoot Clinton. He's desperately trying to find his way back into the fold, and he has endorsed HRC (for whatever that is worth) but I am guessing she'll keep him at arm's length, unless she needs a high profile character to go to North Korea and negotiate this or that (he's done that before, and well).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:34 PM

37. Sure, she can change her mind based on a changing situation.

But with the situation as it is today (or at least as it was earlier this year), she supports the no-fly zone. Sanders and Obama have been against it. The point is, everything we know about her tells us that she leans more hawkish than Sanders (or Obama), and that is one of the things that tends to work against her among those on the left. How it plays in the general, I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:36 AM

40. Obama trusted him enough to let him negotiate the release of hostages in North Korea.

He also considered him for a cabinet post, which Richardson recused himself from. Notice the allegations against him never materialized and no charges were brought?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:08 AM

42. Quite a step down from the job he wanted (SECSTATE). He thought kneecapping Clinton would get him

that gig.


Didn't work out so well for him.

He "recused" himself from a crap cabinet job (Commerce--not the one he wanted) because he was UNDER INVESTIGATION. It's likely he was TOLD to "recuse himself" to spare himself the public embarrassment of having his nomination rescinded. And no, he wasn't prosecuted, but that's not because there weren't "problems" with those pay-to-play charges. Was he completely innocent? Only he knows. On the one hand, money DID change hands, lots of it. On the other hand, the BUSH administration was targeting Democratic governors like a house on fire during that time.

The statute of limitations expired on the charges, and DOJ didn't try to extend them.

It's not because he was proven "innocent" that he didn't get prosecuted (though he might well have been), it's because the clock ran out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082702376.html

That scandal still reverberated years later: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/pay-to-play-scandal-lingers-long-after-richardson/article_57ef5349-1b9b-5590-b21d-c5496da75961.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:52 PM

4. Sorry, Mucho "Issues" That Remain Unsettled... Here Ya Go....

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:49 AM - Edit history (5)

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:00 PM

8. Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Chuck Todd? You mean the guy whose WIFE works for Sanders, and she has been enriched by $1.3 million since the establishment of her association with him? That Chuck Todd?

He certainly has a reason to boost Sanders, with positive words for him, negative ones for his opponent, and softball interviews that are close to gushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:51 PM

14. Your Assertion Is Complete Nonsense! Todd Has Been Carrying H2O For Hillary Throughout

the campaign ad nauseum! The POINT IS... Todd, Andrea... All water carriers for Clinton solemnly stated the TRUTH! So I guess there are people who do not "hear" the prevarication in the about half a dozen Hillary interviews where she is completely in opposition to the FACTS! Unbelievable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:15 AM

24. No, he hasn't. He handles BS like a rare Faberge Egg. As he did last week.

So do what you will with your "FACTS! Unbelievable!" griping.

His wife is $1.3 MILLION dollars richer, thanks to Bernie Sanders' campaign. You can be damn sure he's aware of that. It certainly comes out in the way he approaches his interview subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:55 PM

6. When did ISIS get aircraft?

Is this "no-fly zone" Clinton wants about protecting civilians and bringing an end to hostilities or pushing the geopolitical (oil and gas pipeline) interests of Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US vs. Russia and Iran?

We should be fighting the radical Sunni terrorists ISIS and Al Nusra not further destabilizing the region and risking a Vietnam-like conflict with Russia and Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to icecreamfan (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:00 PM

7. Very Sober Analysis... Such As Many Have Made About This Current Or Pending Hillary Miscue!

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Do we need more of THIS?

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to icecreamfan (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:04 PM

9. Apparently not enough blood in the Middle East for her to sate her appetite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to icecreamfan (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:43 PM

23. she thinks Libya was a bloodless success with just a few flaws, which are caused solely by not

intervening hard enough, and that Syria should be more like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:30 AM

38. It seems "no-fly zone" is her code word for active US-imposed regime change in Syria

From the limited information that's out there on what would replace Assad, it's very likely Syria would continue to be a failed state for a long time if she got her "no-fly zone."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:08 PM

10. No fly zones are defensive in nature. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:54 PM

15. A Matter of Perception! Whose Planes Would WE Be "Policing" Over Syria? RUSSIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ya think something ill considered might happen to trigger hostilities IF we put in place a NO FLY ZONE?

WTFU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:57 PM

16. Putin is full of bluster but he is not stupid

in other words, if the majority of the world supports the idea (of a no-fly zone) there is little chance of him militarily opposing it. And thats an understatement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:03 PM

17. Putin is a KGB Officer. Lt. Col. In the KGB.

 

He'll have some "expendable" people shoot at our planes as they patrol any no-fly zone.

He is not stupid, as you say. But may I add that "not stupid" is like saying the star Polaris isn't far away? After all... we can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:09 PM

18. And then what? Seriously? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:13 PM

19. I guess your incapability to see possibilities brands you for the Hillary supporter you are.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:16 PM

20. Again, wide support plus the ease of enforcement

of a defensive zone leaves little choice for Putin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:14 AM

28. Putin would have little choice, but not the way you think.

Who are we to declare no-fly zones over some other sovereign country?

Besides that, Putin would not accept a no-fly zone in Syria, no more than Obama would accept one over Afghanistan.

Putin would have to challenge it. And then America would either have to back down, or deliberately destroy a Russian airplane.

I can't believe anyone is even contemplating this. We are not at war with Syria. And we are not at war Russia. Shoot down a plane and things could easily spiral out of control, as they did in 1914.

No more wars, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shemp Howard (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:36 AM

32. SInce neither side wants war between the two

it would never come to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:32 AM

39. And that is why the Russians will violate a no-fly zone with impunity. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:10 AM

27. He's not going to go along with anything that is aimed at bring down Assad and destroying Syria

as a cohesive state. Why do you think he got involved there militarily in the first place after trying to get the US government to deal with him diplomatically? The US is playing a very dangerous game. You should read up on Russia's new weapons, some of which Putin rolled out in Syria not too long ago, catching the US completely off guard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bjo59 (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:37 AM

33. Not willingly no. Which is why it would take

some additional leverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:08 PM

11. And they wonder why we call Clinton a neocon

just terrable what democratic party is turning into.and what give sus the right to declare no fly zone In Syria.I will be blasted for it but i didn't support that In Iraq eather.yes i am showing my age here.

With iraq you at least had excuse it wa spart of ceae fire.I forget when we had every right to tell syria what they could do.and do you think Putin will just sit back if russians are killed even by accident.an american president would be pressured to act if americans were killed by other country like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:36 PM

22. We might as well be nominating another Bush

 

Utter disaster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:24 AM

29. well iI have read that Bill Kristol is running a 3rd party candidate there by splitting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:08 PM

12. That's psycho!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:30 PM

21. So one of the main perpetrators of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Honduras wants a war with Russia

 

Good God, what a disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 04:04 AM

26. Well if you read news sites that merit the term "left," you've noticed that political

commentators have been talking about the drum beat of WWIII beating ever more strongly as time goes on. Refusing to seriously engage diplomatically with Putin has been a very big mistake. If Clinton wants to play chicken with Putin, she won't win. It's sheer madness. After watching that video of she and James Baker chortling with glee over the idea of "taking out" Iran, you can see how a WWIII would happen. Russia will never allow the US to "take out" Iran (which will be in the crosshairs as soon (and if) they manage to get rid of Assad and balkanize Syria. Even members of the military have been quoted as saying that Hillary Clinton is by far the most militaristic presidential candidate to come down the pike in a long, long time. I pray that her monkeying around as Secretary of State will bring her down before she gets into the position of Commander in Chief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:40 AM

31. for someone who loves to wrap herself in Obama

 

She's seems to be in a big hurry to undo his foreign pain Syria and Iran

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:47 AM

34. Putin won't back down to Hillary Clinton, that's for damn sure.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:51 AM

35. LOL Seriously, does Hillary know that people don't use folding maps anymore?

 

Out of touch is out of touch.
Maybe she should have used this to back up her emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:49 AM

41. this is insanity! she is hell bent on her neo con agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:11 AM

43. Hillary will tell Putin "we tried it your way"

 

and we won the primary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread