2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.
Hillary Clinton made headlines with a speech in San Diego casting Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency due to the damage his incendiary rhetoric could cause. Simultaneously, the former Secretary of State sought to convince the California audience that she was the safer choice in foreign policy matters.
But when taking a closer look at US foreign policy under her leadership as the nations top diplomat, its obvious that Clinton could potentially be as disastrous as Trump if given the position of Commander-in-Chief.
Here are a few examples of countries where conditions are tremendously worse as a result of Hillary Clintons policies.
Hillary Clinton made Libya a failed state
In an April interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama, reflecting on his 7 years as Commander-in-Chief, admitted that ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his presidency. While Obama took responsibility for the failure of Libya in that interview, he relied on the input of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State at the time.
In March of 2011, Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, who was leading the opposition to Gaddafi. As the New York Times reported, Clinton asked Jibril a series of questions about how his coalition planned to fill the power vacuum that would be created by Gaddafis ouster. And in the end, it was Clinton who convinced the White House that deposing Gaddafi was the right thing to do:
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafis forces. In fact, Mr. Obamas defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a 51-49 decision, it was Mrs. Clintons support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
<snip>
Hillary Clinton deserves credit for poverty and instability in Haiti
In Haiti, the first state ever founded by freed black slaves, citizens are still fighting for political and economic freedom today, largely due to the influence of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In 2011, Wikileaks published US State Department cables from 2008 and 2009 confirming that State Department officials were meeting behind closed doors with Haitian business leaders, plotting on how to stop the Haitian government from implementing a 37-cent hike in the minimum wage from $0.24 an hour to $0.61 cents an hour.
While Haitian President René Préval was initially neutral on the proposal of raising the minimum wage, he went on the record opposing the wage hike after consistent efforts from within the US Embassy in Haiti and the Haitian business lobby by July of 2009. Politifact rated the claim that Clintons State Department tried to suppress the wage hike as half-true, since theres no link proving that Clinton directly played a role.
<snip>
Honduras downfall resulted from a coup Clinton supported
In 2009, shortly after Obama took office and appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was arrested at gunpoint by the military and forced onto a plane to Costa Rica while a new government took power. While the US State Department didnt directly oust Zelaya, it refused to call his ouster a coup, despite calls from the U.S. ambassador to Honduras and from Congress to do so. In her interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, Clinton defended her decision to keep sending aid to Honduras despite the violent overthrow of Zelaya:
I think, in retrospect, we managed a very difficult situation, without bloodshed, without a civil war, that led to a new election. And I think that was better for the Honduran people. But we have a lot of work to do to try to help stabilize that and deal with corruption, deal with the violence and the gangs and so much else.
However, the result of the coup was a massive amount of bloodshed, as gangs and drug cartels began to take more power in the absence of a stable government. In the year following the coup, Clintons State Department published a list of human rights abuses prevalent in Honduras:
unlawful killings by police and government agents, which the government took some steps to prosecute; arbitrary and summary killings committed by vigilantes and former members of the security forces; harsh prison conditions; violence against detainees; corruption and impunity within the security forces; lengthy pretrial detention and failure to provide due process of law; politicization, corruption, and institutional weakness of the judiciary; corruption in the legislative and executive branches; government restrictions on the recognition of some civil society groups; violence and discrimination against women; child prostitution and abuse; trafficking in persons; discrimination against indigenous communities; violence and discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation; ineffective enforcement of labor laws; and child labor.
<snip>
Clinton is responsible for the fall of Iraq and Syria (and the rise of ISIS)
In late 2011, after months of sustained anti-government protests inspired by the Arab Spring movement, Hillary Clinton called for the resignation of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Then, in April 2012, Clinton gave a speech in Turkey more forcefully calling specifically for regime change, saying, Assad must go. Those three words created the policies that led to both the rise of ISIS in Syria and the European refugee crisis of 2015.
One of Clintons last actions as Secretary of State was to call for the arming of Syrian rebels fighting Assad. As the London Telegraph reported, Clintons plan to give weapons to Assads enemies was backed by not only former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but also by former CIA director David Petraeus and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While Obama initially rejected his Secretary of States plan, he eventually agreed to arm Syrian rebels in the goal of ousting Assad.
However, as ISIS began to get a foothold into Syria and Iraq, the moderates that received weapons from the US were eventually overtaken by ISIS fighters, who suddenly found themselves in the possession of military-grade weapons paid for with US tax dollars. In a study conducted by Conflict Armament Research, which tracks the movement of arms in war-torn regions, researchers found that ISIS has weapons and ammunition not just from the US, but also from coalition forces that are funded by the US government. The access to advanced weaponry was likely the reason for ISIS rapid expansion into Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.
The consequences of destabilizing Syria and Iraq are apparent. Over one million refugees, largely from countries where the US intervened militarily, fled to Europe between 2015 and 2016, creating the worlds largest refugee crisis since World War II.
<snip>
Yemeni blood is on Hillary Clintons hands
Saudi Arabias invasion of Yemen, which started in 2015 and continues today, was made possible with arms purchased by the US government. Since Obamas presidency, the US has sold approximately $46 billion in arms to the Saudis, with many of those weapons sales greenlighted by Hillary Clintons State Department. As US Uncut reported in April, Clinton was particularly focused on making sure the US came through for Saudi Arabia in a 2011 weapons deal. David Sirota of the International Business Times reported that Clinton argued the arms deal was in the national interest.
At press conferences in Washington to announce the departments approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been a top priority for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is very likely using the weapons acquired from that 2011 exchange to wage brutal bombing campaigns in Yemen. In March, Foreign Policy magazine accused the US and its allies of complicity in war crimes by funding and arming the Saudi regime:
Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition.
This week, the United Nations added the Saudi-led coalition to a blacklist of states and armed groups that violate childrens human rights during conflicts, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon personally slamming Hillary Clinton is completely right that Donald Trump is woefully unprepared to take on the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief. But voters should also be leery of Clinton, who, despite having met with more world leaders than any presidential candidate in US history, is responsible for some of the worst foreign policy blunders of the 21st century.
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/
(sorry for putting up such a long piece, but there were so many sections)
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)That's what is unforgivable, in my opinion.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)Skinner said he wants people here to be civil. I still see a lot of veiled and not so veiled threats against the Bernie people here.
Back to he OP, any truth in the OP? Are those the truth and facts or are they made up? Why don't you address that... if you can.
The usual blanket dismissal or shooting the messenger doesn't count. Address the contents of the OP.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)was with rigged Bernie juries. I read all hidden posts so I know the game Bernie folks played.
-none
(1,884 posts)Cause that is the opposite of what I see on the juries I am on.
melman
(7,681 posts)with twelve hides.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)and say they weren't deserved. I mean, I know you will say that but you will know better inside.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I'm not surprised.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)He has said he wants to use nukes in Syria. And you don't give a damn about the kids...only St. Bernie.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)but since you butted in, you have no idea WHAT Trump will do.
Neither do I.
I DO know this...Trump has not killed any innocent children to date.
Hillary has killed thousands...and that kind of blood don't wash off.
has said he will use nukes in Syria...those of you who bash Hillary will have blood on your hands if Trump gets in...you will be helping a true sociopath and a monster. There is no knowing how many people may die because of your actions. Pres. Obama, whom I imagine you must hate set foreign policy. Hillary was never in a position to do the things you accuse her of...and your hatred which has grown because your candidate lost this primary assuming you really are a Bernie supporter has caused you to misjudge the situation ...to imagine it as you wish it was. Trump is a danger to us all and the entire world actually... not Hillary Clinton...I wonder how many people will die if Bernie Sanders and his supporters help elect Trump? Too many for sure.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)supports Israeli terror on Palestinians. Even one Israeli government official admitted apartheid.
840high
(17,196 posts)Hillary's record.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)What a crock of shit. Using that term destroys any credibility the OP may have had.
laruemtt
(3,992 posts)is unconscionable.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)No understanding of what this board is, has been, or should become.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)It is the fault of folks like you that we face a choice between someone who helped kill over 500,000 people and someone who would love to kill millions, or making an futile statement by writing in our conscience.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Your partisan support has eclipsed your moral sense. Your post shows you have lost perspective.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)Tal Vez
(660 posts)"its obvious that Clinton could potentially be as disastrous as Trump if given the position of Commander-in-Chief," they can probably convince themselves of anything.
However the question might be phrased, the correct answer can never be President Trump.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Overall? Sure...it's hard to think of a worse choice than Trump. But in the (very goddamn important) area of war, Clinton's record is exceptionally horrible.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)I thought that a lot of what we were seeing was just an act. But, as time has gone on and the antics make no sense whatsoever, I have come to believe that the GOP nominated a man with serious mental problems.
I was born during the Truman presidency. From Eisenhower to Obama, I never believed that there was a real possibility of a nuclear exchange. Even when we were climbing under desks to drill for it, I was always confident that it would never materialize.
With Trump, I think it may be very possible. He is a few standard deviations from the norm.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)However you want to phrase it ("Not Trump/Not Hillary"?), the correct answer is always: Bernie Sanders for President.
Tal Vez
(660 posts)There is nothing wrong with enthusiasm.
dinkytron
(568 posts)tossing out first balls at baseball games.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
reddread
(6,896 posts)Let me see a list of military families who lost someone, who experienced the horrors,
and long term difficulties associated with service in that abominable pursuit, and feels it was worth it.
she wont be fooling people who arent progressives, either.
it is one of the most defining issues about her candidacy and it
is no wonder she is laying low and hiding from unscripted questions.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)because they're lefties trying to punish Clinton, but because they're millions of non-wonks who've been starved and killed by Reaganomics and snap-judgement interventionism
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)Do you have permission to post the whole article? If not, edit it down to a couple three paragraphs.
More info here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hillary has not committed war crimes, nor is anyone who is familiar with international law every accused her of being guilty of war crimes.
We can go through the list of things that have resulted in official accusations and indictments against those accused of war crimes and none of those types of issues would apply to Hillary.
BunkieBandit
(82 posts)I'm for Bernie, but c'mon war crimes?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Normally a conservative trick.
Response to pdsimdars (Original post)
Post removed
bjo59
(1,166 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)raging moderate
(4,304 posts)For example, the OP article says that some weapons for Saudi Arabia were bought BY the United States, when these weapons were actually bought FROM the United States (admittedly, with some assistance because of undue influence by our oil lobby etc. conflating its profits with US interests). And it indicates that Hillary created ISIS when her actions were not at all the decisive factor in the creation of ISIS (although she might have counteracted it more effectively if not for the undue influence of our oil lobby etc.).
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, maybe she can rationalize it with the "everybody does it" line.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Clinton had touted the intervention in Libya as smart power at its best, Before the total shit came down and went to hell.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)with the highest standard of living. Like Iraq, it was generally non-sectarian.
Women had rights. They could own money, own property, own stores, own and drive cars, wear blue jeans on the streets, go to clubs "unattended", sell property, and had rights in the courts.
After Hillary "helped" the Fundamentalists with her Freedom Bombs, all these rights disappeared, and Sharia Law was imposed.
These Billboards depicting how women MUST dress appeared all over Libya:
For Hillary to claim "Women's Rights" as a top issue, how does she apologize to these women in Libya?
or to the dead, maimed, and those millions displaced from their homes and families?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html
"Pan-African means Africa for Africans, NOT for Western Banks...
and NOW we know why Hillary was so hot to destroy Libya.
amborin
(16,631 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)were not in debt to international bankers or IMF and they used their oil money for their people through their independent bank system.
She bombed the hell out of them for the same reason she supports the rich in this country. The Empire.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Western Banks and the IMF piggy-backed on the legitimate Arab Spring to take sides in an ongoing civil/tribal war....on the side of the Islamic Fundamentalists to bring down Gaddafi, The Libyan Central Bank, and the Pan-African movement that was blocking the IMF from making predatory "loans" collateralized by the immense natural resource wealth of Africa.
Disaster Capitalism at its finest.
If you don't have a disaster, the USA will be glad to create one for you!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)just want to get down on my knees and say "God, forgive us." I know that sentiment is not welcome here on DU but it is how I feel and have felt for a long time.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Also, Sanders bears as much blame for Iraq as Hillary, seeing how he voted, repeatedly, to fund the war.
-none
(1,884 posts)and supplies. That is what would have happened. Our MIC wants to be paid on time.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)If funding for a war ends, soldiers are not stranded like some refugees on a deserted island.
They are...wait for it...withdrawn and brought home. I realize your entire premise depends on this not being true, but what can ya do?
-none
(1,884 posts)That is no way to end any of our wars. It still takes money.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Almost as funny as the blind eye turned to Bernie's culpability in prolonging the Iraq invasion
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and 2...supporting troops is humanitarian and, you forgot 3) The NRA
What's to let go? On that one, you're absolutely right. He has begun the long journey back to what used to be called the Democratic Party. Will it happen by July? No. But it has already begun, President or not.
This "Revolution" that you people deride, has started already and continues regardless. That's your blind spot, IMO.
So we can agree to disagree. Peace out.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)The party he joined a little more than a year ago.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)losing power with the new breed of Unwelcome Intruders and declining of The Faithful.
Some see past 2 weeks or even November. It's not a sprint.
Response to Tarc (Reply #18)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
20score
(4,769 posts)These are extremely important, and obviously true stories, completely ignored by her supporters. Its frightening how these stories are handled by true-believers.
Their motives for denying reality vary. For some, its just plain stupidity. For others its a childish inability to admire without worshiping, guaranteeing real and important stories will be ignored and/or ridiculed. For many, its how reactionaries handle the world. With the same deep, critical thinking skills used by someone proving the earth is only 6,000 or so, years old. Only the young-earthers are more polite, in general.) For some, (and there are no exact numbers for this, but theyre always there - throughout history, no matter what the problem - its a sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of others).
But these people are the enablers of the sadists, power-starved, greedy assholes who have always made the world much worse place, for billions of people, throughout all of written history. Without their help, the vast majority of our social ills could/would be solved. The sadists, power-starved, greedy assholes who have always made the world much worse place, could not have pulled off their crimes - from wars, to world hunger, to global warming, to overpopulation, to slavery, Jim Crow, genocides, the exploitation of billions
and the list goes on endlessly
without the help of the non-thinkers who ignore reality - if it happens to be unpleasant to them.
amborin
(16,631 posts)very bad judgment or very bad intentions
840high
(17,196 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)trudyco
(1,258 posts)Clinton Foundation. Always decisions that cause violence and horrible living conditions for the people affected. How can this NOT be corruption?
This quid pro quo, about face policy after the Foundation or Clintons have been enriched is the definition of corruption to me.
Thanks for the article amborin
MFM008
(19,808 posts)OH ME!
We were stationed at Wheelus AFB in the 60s, my brother was born there.
We lived among the general population in a walled off building.
It was bad then, sure its worse now.
How anyone can think HRC had something to do with the State of that place has never been there, I lived it for 4 long years.
Just Sanders talking points.
reddread
(6,896 posts)so, Libya with and without Gaddafi is the same thing?
if you think those are Sanders talking points, I dont know what to tell you.
these issues extend back years and decades.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)not deferring to a damn thing.
thank you no.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)20score
(4,769 posts)You're using the same non-thought that fuels global warming deniers. Temperature goes up and down, so, no global warming. Things were bad in Lybia before, so she didn't advocate a crime.
WTF is wrong with you? Sanders talking point? SHE MADE THINGS WORSE. You are helping to continue sadistic policies, with your reactionary leanings. You really are making things in the world, worse. You really are.
Not many people in the world knew about how Gaddafi was raped with knives in the streets during the coup. But she did, and she cackled about it. Go on. Defend that too. Show us how low Sanders is? Please, have at it.
And you living there almost 50 years ago means absolutely nothing, because that is what you've learned.
Response to MFM008 (Reply #27)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #33)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)nt
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and pronounce their judgement on the sinners, once again.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)As long as they have their reproductive and LGBT rights, they're sound as a pound.
Don't bother the beautiful people with dead children.
Response to DerekG (Reply #38)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Specify the war crime under international statute.
And no, what I'm asking isn't particularly hard or out of order. If you are claiming someone committed a crime, the least you can do is name the crime. Murder? Rape? Larceny? Fraud? Burglary?
If I say you committed a crime that's the first thing you would ask me to do, name the crime.
What war crime has Hillary committed? There are several kinds. Name one.
libodem
(19,288 posts)But I'm concerned that you are over the 4 paragraph limit for copyright purposes. I'd like to see this stay up but you may be alerted and locked because of the rules for posting.
Suggesting it be shortened to 4 paragraphs.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)quite a bit but there is an awful lot of information there and people seem to be appreciating it.
I usually don't like to read long posts but sometimes it is necessary.
Hope it's OK.
If it's not OK, then maybe I can break it into a 3 or 4 part OP. But that seems a bit much.
libodem
(19,288 posts)So maybe we are good. I like to see the rules followed but my real reason is this is so great it might be locked someone who doesn't like the content, can use the 4 paragraph rule, to lock your post.
I'm not 100% sbout the copyright thing but if it could get the site in trouble, if you borrow too much from the source. Maybe another host will know?
Very interesting article . Thanks for sharing.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I'd say if you keep posting about this, someone will get the idea.
riversedge
(70,204 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But I find these accusations pretty ridiculous. She was secretary of state, not president. Are we really going to blame Hillary Clinton for the rise of ISIS?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I don't like Hillary, so I'm not surprised she might have made baseless accusations. That doesn't mean we should make the silly claim that she was somehow responsible for ISIS. And Hillary isn't a war criminal. Hitler was a war criminal. Dinko Sakic, war criminal. Hillary is not a war criminal.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'm not big on tagging people, especially politicians like Hillary who change positions so easily and often. How do you define "neoliberal hawk"?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
Maven
(10,533 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)him into it and afterwards he thought it has been his biggest mistake and the result of taking Kadaffi out is what gave the space for ISIS to grow up.
But you would have had to have been paying attention. You could probably find some articles if you were interested.
I guess the authors can't explain every issue in every detail every time they say something. I think they expect their readers to have been paying attention all along.
tandot
(6,671 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)riversedge
(70,204 posts)This from on the Sanders fans favorite websites!
February 16, 2016
Blood Traces: Bernies Iraq War Hypocrisy
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/
by Jeffrey St. Clair
Bernie Sanders has been tagging Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote in support of George W. Bushs war against Saddam Hussein. Here Sanders is closely following Obamas 2008 playbook, where Obama used the Iraq war vote to repeatedly knock Clinton off balance.
But Sanderss shots at Clinton havent inflicted much damage this time around, largely because theres so little breathing space between the two candidates on foreign policy. Both Clinton and Sanders are seasoned interventionists, often advancing their hawkish policies under the ragged banner of humanitarianism. (See: Queen of Chaos by Diana Johnstone.)
Sanders supported Bill Clintons war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obamas Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.
More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. These measures gave congressional backing for the CIAs covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.
Even Hillary belatedly admitted that her Iraq war vote was a mistake. Bernie, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam. On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being almost unanimous. I went back and checked the record. In fact, many members of the progressive caucus in the House, as well as a few libertarian anti-war Members of Congress, vote against the Iraq regime change measures. Heres a list of the no votes on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:.................
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Now ends my Hillary supporter impression.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)like that? Well, I guess the rainbow covers it, and the cartoon character. .. . .
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)When Hil is the nominee ...I guess these 'real and pure' types will support Trump one way or the other...and they call themselves 'progressive'. ROTFL
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)You may think that progressives are wrong to support her. But if you think that many of them don't, and that none of the majority of Democrats who support her are true progressives, you're deliberately ignoring facts just because you don't like them.
Hekate
(90,667 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)LOL
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Response to pdsimdars (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)She committed no "war crimes" and you shouldn't allege that she did. That is shameful.
The way BS supporters talk one would think that she cast the determining vote for invasion of Iraq; that she alone determined to take down Gaddafi; that she almost staged the Benghazi attacks and dared anyone to send help.
This not only hurts Hillary, this hurts the Democratic party in the long run.
senz
(11,945 posts)and it galls them that we still have the freedom to openly share information for another two weeks.
I hope everyone will use these two weeks to let the readers/lurkers know about this person who wants us to elect her to the presidency.
Americans have a right to know.
Thanks for your courage, pdsimdars. Don't let them bother you.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)thanks
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Muammar Gaddafi made Libya into a failed state. And President Obama did not in fact say that Gaddafi's removal was the biggest mistake of his presidency, he said that failing to do more to stabilize Libya in the aftermath was the mistake. Hillary also did not have anything to do with the Honduran coups and ISIS was already around for years before 2011. Nor was Syria "stable" prior to Hillary correctly saying that Assad should step down. His brutal dictatorship had already spawned rampant protests that he had quashed with mass slaughter. That is not stability.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and mow over any attempts to reveal or slow down the MIC War Machine, known as the US.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... that they're not true, not horrible, not exemplifying her terrible judgement.
They're arguing semantics. The definition of "is."
Sound familiar?
.
reddread
(6,896 posts)instead, they crawl a cracked and broken path.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Please, it's really going to help in November.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)I am not fond of interventionism.
We usually almost always fuck it up -- even after we were attacked and entered WWII completely vs just supporting our allies economically, it took killing millions in two dropped bombs to end the war in the Pacific, Europe still hasn't recovered, and we're in both places still militarily. It's been *how* long? Not to mention the decisions arrogant stupid white Europeans made about the "Palestinian Mandate" and drawing lines on maps without understanding the people and culture, even though they were trying to do good in their still anti-Semitic attempts to give Jews their own state (instead of accepting more asylum applications and welcoming them to their own countries, it still reflected Europe's anti-Semitic views to try to suggest the best solution, even before Hitler's rise was fully understood, really was for them to leave Europe) and how well that's worked out.
People act like Gadaffi is a martyr. I wasn't privy to all the intelligence, and I am not going to say the right decision was made. But he shot his own people rather than let them demonstrate, and that's a fact rather than a scare tactic like claiming Saddam had WMDs. Sure, he might have lowered food prices and tried to do things to help his people, but he shot them rather than allow dissent. We didn't act unilaterally, without approval from the UN and NATO. If we screwed the pooch again, we weren't alone.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Libya literally was worse under Gaddafi than it is now.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Including Saudi Arabia.
moriah
(8,311 posts)All I am saying is that while I detest interventionism, if it's going to be done we have an international community that works together to make those decisions, and that international community made the decision. Libya's own ambassador to the UN defected because he felt war crimes were committed. The Arab League even refused to recognize his government.
This pooch wasn't screwed by any one nation, or any one woman.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It hurts my heart that anyone can vote for her knowing these atrocities.
It's incredibly painful.
jamese777
(546 posts)not at the desk of the Secretary of State, ever. It stops at the desk of the President of the United States who is the commander in chief.
So everywhere in the drivel posted above that you see "Hillary Clinton" substitute the name "Barack Obama."
I plan to continue to call myself a progressive and I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic Party's nominee. If Bernie Sanders pulls off some kind of super delegate miracle and becomes the nominee, I'll support him too.
Defeating Donald Trump is job one for me, whether you call me a progressive, a liberal, a moderate or a conservative.
"What's in a name?"