The Intercept is not a right wing publication.

[floriduck]

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

As a presidential candidate, Clinton has made her foreign policy experience a centerpiece of her campaign. Under scrutiny, however, Clinton’s acumen has been consistently called into question — from her vote, as a U.S. senator, for the Iraq War (which led to the collapse of that country into near failed-state status) to her relentless push to intervene in Libya (which led to the collapse of that country into near failed-state status); not to mention her handling of the Russian “reset,” the so-called pivot to Asia, and the Arab Spring, among other issues.

Until now, however, there has been little of mention of Clinton’s handling of South Sudan. With strong U.S. support, South Sudan became an independent country while she was secretary of state — and soon spiraled into a disastrous civil war that involved large numbers of child soldiers. The CSPA waivers and the broader panoply of military and diplomatic support that was extended to South Sudan and the government of its president, Salva Kiir, failed to prevent a descent into violence that has cost more than 50,000 lives and forced more than 2.4 million people to flee their homes.

http://interc.pt/1TZs2Fl

Update: The link listed today's news and the article about the PAC isn't my focus. That is old news.

I am referring to the article entitled, NEW NATION, LONG WAR by Nick Turse, located further down the page. It addresses Clinton's State Department approving Rebel forces in southern Sudan using child soldiers long before seceding from Sudan in 2011. The United States, on the other hand, passed a law in 2008 that banned providing military assistance to nations that use child soldiers.

[NurseJackie]

1. Time's running out ... tick-tock! The countdown has begun ...

... enjoy it while you can.

[jillan]

3. It's running out on your side too. Enjoy it while you can. And Lee Fang is NOT a rwer!

He is a progressive journalist.

[NurseJackie]

5. It's called push-back. Cut out the shitty attacks and smears on our party's candidate ...

... and her true supporters are likely to cease the push-back against the loser of the Democratic primary.



You guys are something else.

[840high]

9. You always contribute hostility.

[jillan]

10. Thank goodness she does not live in my state. I would be afraid to have someone so hostile be

my nurse.
I would worry they would put me under for a procedure and she would find out I am a die hard Bernie supporter.

Jurors - just having a little fun.

[840high]

20. heehee - I've thought the

same thing about her.

[PufPuf23]

55. Many members of the Democratic party would like to influence the Democratic party platform

and the presumptive nominee to reflect on past actions and policies and find a new approach.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an adaptable and evolving individual who pays attention to public opinion.

One would hope for two outcomes:

1) The reflection on the recent past regards foreign interventions would evolve to where less aggressive and violent methods would be indicated in a general sense.

2) In the case of child soldiers, waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act would not be a tool used by Hillary Clinton as a Democratic POTUS.

Both these outcomes are on the agenda of anti-war liberals within the Democratic party.

If no one says anything, there is little reason for Hillary Clinton and other political leaders to stop waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act.

Child Soldier Protection Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Soldiers_Protection_Act

The Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 October 2008.[1][2] The law criminalizes leading a military force which recruits child soldiers. The law's definition of child soldiers includes "any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces."

The law was also intended to prevent arms trade by the United States with suspected countries, although the president may waive this rule in the national interest. President Barack Obama most recently waived the application of this rule on 28 September 2013 to Chad, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.[3]

-------------------------------------

Are you for continued waivers of the Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA)?

Where is a better place to voice this opinion than at DU?

How would you voice such an opinion?

[guillaumeb]

32. A typically silly comment that ignores the substance of the post.

Keep your eyes firmly closed and hope for the best?

[NurseJackie]

41. It's an attempt to justify attacks and smears. This shit stops on June 16th.

[guillaumeb]

45. And it should stop on June 16.

But if the charges are true, or have any truth in them, do you suppose that the GOP will play by DU rules in the general election?

[NurseJackie]

48. Do you believe that DUers should be helping them? Giving them a forum?

We already have our nominee, so that makes me question what your true motivation may be. I don't know, and it's difficult for me to know for sure what anyone is actually thinking. It just seems odd.

[guillaumeb]

53. If there is any truth to the charges raised here and elsewhere,

should the official DU response be to ignore the charges, or to respond to them?

Ignoring them might work in the sheltered confines of DU, but the GOP is not bound by the TOS that regulate DU discussions.

And if the charges are without foundation, HRC supporters should refute them.

[NurseJackie]

65. This shit ends on the 16th.

[libdem4life]

72. Such thoughtful introspection.

[Demsrule86]

73. Ignore them on this site...and they are not posted so they can be refuted but as an attack

You think you get away with posting attack article for 'discussion' . I don't think you will. It is clear what your motivation is...to attack the Democratic nominee which should not be allowed on a Democratic site.

[guillaumeb]

86. Your post "assumes" that you can determine my motivation.

If you wish to research what I have posted since becoming a member, you will see that I have never advocated voting for anyone but a Democrat for national office.

And your post also seems to totally miss the point I am making.

[Demsrule86]

89. It is not that hard

You make it pretty clear...posting attack articles will not be allowed.

[guillaumeb]

94. Are you certain that you are responding to what I said,

or are you mind reading and responding to imagined attacks?

[libdem4life]

75. Giving them a forum? Are you kidding me? You think they are

lurking here for their "Democratic Conspiracy Theories" ? Oh my, that's something. Guessing you didn't have a family full of Right Wingers. Trust me, they could care less what DU is or anyone's opinion herein.

Hint: It's called Underground for a reason. Only political hacks, at least used to be progressive, (myself included) read this or Freeper for the RWers, for that matter.

Freedom of discussion is not aiding and abetting the enemy. Really.

[guillaumeb]

87. Well put.

Plus anything raised here will be also raised by the GOP, but far more magnified, in the general election.

[floriduck]

46. Read the update, Nanc. This has zero to do with Clinton's 2008 PAC. Your later response tells me

you were looking at the wrong article. The correct piece addresses child soldiers her State Department approved after a 2008 rule forbidding that. Read it before commenting.

[NurseJackie]

49. My name isn't Nanc. (Did you intend to reply to someone else?)

[floriduck]

78. So sorry Jackie. But my reply was definitely directed at you, not Nancy. Hope you found the

right article to educate yourself on the Sudan rebel child soldiers that Hillary so desperately indicated her favor for by supplying arms. That's the mark of a real leader (sarcasm definitely intended).

She really cares about those children, doesn't she?!!

[NurseJackie]

82. You have until the 16th...

... After that ...

[Glamrock]

67. Conservative Janet Parshall

dealing with facts...

[libdem4life]

70. One minute...wow...such reflexes. It is hubris that will do far

worse than reasoned debate. The higher they fly, the harder they fall. It's a law of physics and society.

[jillan]

2. Lee Fang is one of the most progressive journalists out there. How can anyone call him a RWer?

[Matt_in_STL]

4. Anyone who doesn't fawn over Hillary is part of the RW conspiracy.

It's just a move to sow doubt in the words of anyone who has questions and to create an echo chamber.

[kadaholo]

6. Oh, now..

...the new rules make sense! Thanks Matt!

[Miles Archer]

57. And the new rules do not call for an echo chamber...

...and yet, we have people here doing the countdown to an echo chamber.

I can't even imagine what this site is going to be like on the 16ths. A "personal best" for alerts is my guess. Then 100 threads for every alert that doesn't result in a lock or tombstoning.

[Andy823]

15. Nah, it's more of

A getting rid of the right wing trolls and assholes who only bash and trash on a daily basis and provide no positive input at all. Not and echo chamber, but no longer a place where the majority of posters sound like fox news.

[guillaumeb]

33. But nothing to say about the actual substance of the post?

Sad. Denial is not a winning tactic.

[senz]

21. + 1000 We've seen it here hundreds of times.

[djean111]

12. As I understand it, ANY criticism of Hillary is a "right wing smear" and ANY site that

has anything critical of Hillary is now a right wing site.

[AntiBank]

19. THIS^^^^^^ THIS THIS ^^^THIS THIS^^^^

It's astounding cognitive dissonance, willful selective denial and a maddening dose of normalcy bias.

[senz]

22. ^^^ Absolutely ^^^

[Miles Archer]

56. Mother Jones, Huffington Post, The Young Turks...

...they've all been burned at the stake on DU for not celebrating Clinton.

[bigtree]

7. that time when Hillary was president

[frazzled]

8. But it's a libertarian one

Its billionaire creator and funder is a hardcore free-market libertarian, and its editor, GG, came out of the libertarian blog world.

[randome]

37. Exactly.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

11. We do have some people who don't like the Intercept because of Glen Greenwald.

A couple of them have outed themselves as homophobes, they despise "Gigi" as they like to call him.

[jillan]

14. Greenwald? Really??? I don't always agree with him but how can any true Democrat not appreciate

a whistleblower like Greenwald?

We really have moved to the right, haven't we?

[djean111]

31. Any more, for myself, "they" have moved to the right; I have not and will not. n/t

[Old Codger]

51. What he said ^^^^

[senz]

24. I'll never understand homophobia.

Perhaps their selective homophobia is conditioned by their political views.

[TwilightZone]

13. I find it somewhat amusing that your chosen link went to "Unofficial Sources"

The irony is rather palpable.

[jillan]

17. What? The link went to an article written by a journalist for the Intercept.

[TwilightZone]

18. Look on the left side of the linked page.

The joke seems to have gone over your head.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. FOUR MORE DAYS

[senz]

25. Yes, your cozy echo chamber awaits you.

No more uncomfortable facts!

[floriduck]

42. ;-). I knew I could count on ya, dsb. ;-))

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. At least you can say I don't camouflage my true feelings.

[floriduck]

47. Nope. Make sure you read the child soldier article I was trying to link to. See my update.

[PufPuf23]

58. Yeah Folks at DU that don't agree with you should be

metaphorically "punched in the face".

Sweet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Thank you for misinterpreting what I said.. That seems to be the m.o. of you and your cohorts.

The purpose of this site is to elect Democrats. It's in the Terms Of Service:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

If somebody comes to this site and denigrates Democratic candidates for office in the hope of diminishing their fortunes at the ballot box it is fair to assume he or she is looking for a fight, albeit a verbal one, and should be treated accordingly... That is, well, axiomatic.

[PufPuf23]

60. You are the individual that posted folks should be "punched in the face".

No reason to ever use that specific rhetoric. No excuse.

I am an independent mind and 99% of the political posts I have ever made on the internet are at DU under PP23 (DU2 on) or PP93 (old DU).

I have been a registered and voting Democratic voter since McGovern in 1972.

Some folks seem to think that talking policy internal to the party is going to be prohibited.

Nothing I have ever posted at DU is from a right wing source or my non-right wing mind; I see current Democratic leadership and the presumptive POTUS nominee Hillary Clinton as more right wing than my druthers for the future of the party and USA.

I will continue to suggest policy alternatives where I believe that the alternative is a better position than the status quo.

Note that I have made posts urging people to not leave the Democratic party and that I have no inclination to leave myself.

There is too much bullying at DU; hopefully the pending changes will diminish bullying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Whether or not someone has been a Democrat since Thomas Jefferson's days is of no moment.

The raison d'etre of this board is to elect Democrats to higher office:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

There are myriad sites where one can trash the current presumptive Demotic nominee. In fact there are sites where it's encouraged. If one comes here to denigrate the current presumptive Democratic nominee for president and reduce her fortunes at the ballot box it is only logical to assume that person is looking for a fight, albeit a verbal one, and deserve no quarter.

[PufPuf23]

63. Does my post #55 in this thread meet your approval?

I am in life for the long haul and see no reason to change.

As long as the USA is under a two-party system, I will remain a member of the Democratic party and within the system.

My worth and vote is at least equal to yours. You threatened more violence in one post at DU than I have in my entire life and I am a senior citizen. That dislike of violence (and bullying) forms the heart of my political philosophy.

Don't accuse me of being against electing Democrats or right wing as it is untrue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. It has nothing to do with my approval or disapproval. I have no delusions of grandeur.

To put it colloquially, if a person comes here to trash Hillary in the hope she loses the election that person is up to no good.

[PufPuf23]

66. For Hillary Clinton to campaign, "There will be no waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act"

when I am POTUS would attract anti-war and moral votes in the general election and please antiwar liberal Democrats.

Is my post #55 "trashing "Hillary Clinton? If so, how?

I don't want the GOP or Trump to win the 2016 POTUS election. I have never voted for any pol but a Democrat in any final election and don't intend to change. I voted for John Anderson in the 1980 California GOP primary to weaken Reagan.

While I don't want Hillary Clinton to be POTUS, I also do not want Clinton to lose the election when there is no better option.

Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic party but rather a likely Democratic POTUS.

The Democratic party has pushed farther to the right than at any time in my life and it is not unreasonable to think that the party is at or near the point where the movement will tend back to the left.

[All Done]

76. Enjoy the echo chamber that's coming up.

[OKNancy]

23. It's not right-wing, but it has an agenda

and as such articles from there can be looked at through that lens.
For example, if something from "Correct the Record" is posted a bunch of people hop on the thread and shout... Hillary mouthpiece.
Even though everything in the article is true, it is still criticized by partisans.

The Intercept is anti-Hillary. In fact in many ways it is anti-USA.

---
As far as this article is concerned... it's bullshit. 1. It's total gossip and un-sourced. 2. LOL - this is the irony. The Victory fund that it is talking about gave $10,000 to Bernie Sanders for his Senate run. He gladly took it.

[senz]

27. The Intercept is anti corrupt establishment.

There's more to the USA than crony capitalism and corrupt politicians.

Seriously, there is.

[OKNancy]

34. LOL - but they love them some Putin/Russia....

Seriously

[Demsrule86]

74. Many of the Bernie supporters now listen to a Russian radio station.

I saw links for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Pretty soon we'll be allowed to only link to articles in Homes & Gardens and Car and Driver.

Will pom-poms be issued after the Loyalty Oath signings?

[senz]

28. There are greener pastures, my friend.

But I'm sure you know that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I like pastures.

[senz]

30. Me too.

Been spending too much time at the computer trying to save the world.

Need to get out and see it more often!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. The daily magic show continues even without the internet.

We actually own about about 2 acres of meadow and woods. I was joined by three deer last week watching me mow the meadow. I was entranced watching them watch me.

[senz]

52. Yep and it hits deeper, resonates on more levels.

What you have sounds lovely. Wildlife encounters always feel like a narrow opening. I have birds and small critters nearby and deer, egret, occasionally coyotes, within what used to be walking distance, sometimes still is. On inside days, the changing light alone can do it.

[annavictorious]

35. People can link to whatever they want,

but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when the only support they have for their increasingly bizarre right wing claims consists of very questionable, melodramatic musings about events long ago written by a bitter burner.

I would have thought that people had learned some lessons after their misplaced reliance on the "blockbuster" WSJ story this week.

If people want to play for the other team, then they need to get out of our dugout.

[SidDithers]

39. It's a Libertarian publication...

The Ron Paul crowd loves them.

Sid

[Lord Magus]

40. Wasn't familiar with The Intercept at all, but that explaisn a lot. -nt-

[felix_numinous]

44. The RW conspiracy

is as real as the complicity. Just another mind job.

[blue neen]

50. And, I am not the Tooth Fairy.....

.....but, I'm not the Easter Bunny, either.

[leftofcool]

54. "Unofficial sources" Fox News "some people say"

[Juicy_Bellows]

61. KICK

I hope articles like this will be allowed here in the near future but I am thinking probably not.

[Demsrule86]

69. I hope they will not be allowed. I woud hide them if I were on a jury.

We need to help elect our nominee and not attack her. June 16th can't come too quickly for me.

[Demsrule86]

68. Let's try this one more time

President Obama runs the foreign policy show...the SOS implements his policy. Also, why have you turned on fellow Democrats (Bernie worship?) when clearly, Bush destabilized the entire region when he invaded Afghanistan (which Bernie voted for) and Iraq. Why blame Democrats who are merely dealing with the fallout from a Republican administration? Time to stop attacking fellow Dems and help defeat the worst Republican nominee of my lifetime...Donald Trump. Bernie will not be the nominee thus we have a choice Clinton or Trump...Trump would pack the courts thus destroying all progressive achievement over the last 80 years. And with a GOP administration combined with Congress...if Trump wins more likely than not he gets Congress...we would lose health care, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Food stamps, LGBT right,abortion rights (after a right wing SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade),voting rights ET AL. Hillary had a 93% liberal voting record. Clearly, she is the best choice. So put on your big boy or girl panties and help save America.

[Demsrule86]

71. Attacks from the left which do nothing but help Trump should also be banned. You should delete this.

I don't care who writes the crap that attacks our nominee. They should not be posted here.

[floriduck]

77. Relax 86. I am bringing up news about the Democratic presumptive nominee. She's not my choice

but neither is Trump. I think you need to consider the fact that no candidate is perfect. And that includes Bernie. But it's a matter of degree to which we can trust the candidates will do as they say. Trump is deceitful and clueless. But Hillary's past decisions indicate what she will likely do in the future. And that does not please me. So I am not a big Clinton fan, of either Clintons.

On June 16, you will have your day. I am following the rules that apply today. Like it or not, either ignore me or read the informational links I post until then.

Have a nice election.

[Demsrule86]

80. You are attacking the Democratic nominee, and you won't fool anyone.

On the 16th, these sort of posts will not be allowed and shouldn't be. It is unbelievable to me that so many that consider themselves the 'real' progressives...want to help elect Trump...disgraceful if you ask me. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could believe that the disaster that is Trump is not a terrible danger to any progressive accomplishments...and our country.

[Demsrule86]

81. you think this is so hillarious.

My daughter is gay. How do you suppose she would fare under a government controlled completely by the GOP. Do any of you ever consider the people that would be hurt if Trump is elected? What about the millions he would deport...think it would not happen? He will pack the courts. It will happen. He is a dangerous man and a potential despot...we have never had a candidate as dangerous. It is terribly irresponsible to make posts like this that help him and hurt the Democratic nominee.

[floriduck]

85. Youll have this place all to yourself, come June 16th. Until then, I have just as much right to

express my concerns with both presumptive nominees as you do. And once again you are wrong. I take these matters as seriously as you do. I am concerned about LBGT rights and minority rights. We just have different perspectives. I see both PNs as dangerous.

[Demsrule86]

91. Well June 16th can't come soon enough.

I am sick of those who post shite in order to soothe their sour grapes and supporting Trump in the process.

[On the Road]

79. South Sudan is a Promising Tourist Destination

and they have such imaginative city planners:

[img][/img]

[font size = 1]http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/477-animal-vegetal-municipal-south-sudans-zoomorphic-cities[/font]

[swhisper1]

83. Its scary how history taints a candidate

[Scuba]

84. After Thursday, any publication that publishes any criticism of Hillary, no matter how mild ...

... will be considered right-wing. Now get in line and like it!

[CorkySt.Clair]

88. But that doesn't mean people hav e to stop posting material from those sources.

[Demsrule86]

90. Yes it is

It is a libertarian publication...thus, it is right-wing.

[Darb]

92. Second guessing, revisionist horseshit that

passes as journalism. Eaten up with a huge spoon by many here at The DU.

[MaeScott]

93. It's a refreshing alternative to the paid for media