Hard-line right-wing war hawk Max Boot applauds Hillary Clinton in op-ed

cakewalk! Madam President!!!

Republicans loathe the Clintons.

The GOP establishment are just as terrified of Trump, as the establishment Dems are of Sanders, and for similar reasons. They don't want to upset the corporate goose that lays the golden eggs.

One has to understand the dynamics of this election season to see what is going on. This is the season of the anti-establishment.

lunatic Trump. Who would put our economy in a free fall.

Which to the 1% is unacceptable, because the present order keeps them in power.

He threatens the establishment. They are of the establishment.

If you're going to start accusing Hillary of not being a Democrat you better bring facts and not just half baked insinuations

like trump and even they see the utter lunatic idiocy of doing anything that would let that moron win. They're being practical and not letting purity destroy the country or the world.

Repukes are only 23% of registered voters, he can have them.

This isn't difficult. You disagree with him that Trump is too unstable and erratic?

would love to explain it to you in more detail on how I came to that conclusion, but that could have me bring up things that might go against the new TOS..so I am not going to do that.

One doesn't have to be a 1%er or a right-winger. Just not an idiot.

a conspiracy of the 1 percent.

Is about as credible in his constant outrage as Bill O'Reilly is in his.

and has tax plans that will help them. The reason some of the less extreme people in the GOP support her is not the 1%, but the fact that Trump is dangerous for the stability of this country and Hillary is much more qualified to lead the country. Even hawks don't want to blow up the world.

"total sense" is not contrary to TOS, as it implies rational thought, valid criticism and a dramatic lack of petulance, pejoratives and mud-slinging. Hence, I'm forced to conclude it be either a) absolutely within the parameters of the TOS, or b) it simply doesn't make 'total sense'.

Sid

The more the merrier!!!!!

Trump.

Looking forward to the landslide

Why do you think a guy who understands military strategy might prefer Hillary to an idiot? We are, after all, talking about our own safety. Our actual lives.

whose job it has been to advocate for the very same regime change policy which spawned ISIS in the first place is someone who "understands military strategy"?

Americans and their families are less safe today because of individuals such as Max Boot -- and the politicians whose agenda he pushes.

I really hope you are not.

You're not doing a very good job of it.

are both about regime change and nothing more? You seem to think there's no difference between Iraq and Syria.

You made the inexplicable claim that Max Boot is someone "who understands military strategy", even though it's known that the regime change he championed in Iraq, Syria, and Libya has resulted in the creation of ISIS. Which is, to say, that the guy who you say "understands military strategy" has helped to make the entire nation (entire world, really) less safe than ever before.

Proceed for there.

You're saying "regime change" and applying it to Iraq, Syria, and Lybia as though the very different conflicts there can be boiled down to regime change. You can't put those 3 in the same category and use that premise to ask a question. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

and don't know how to get out of it other than try to change the topic.

To sum up: the guy who pimped for the foreign policies which have led to the creation of ISIS is someone who you say "understands military strategy".

let me explain to you why your question is still not a good one. First, a clue to the problem with your question lies in your lack of understanding of the wars in Syria, Libya, and Iraq, as you attempted to equate all three. When I see someone making such false assumptions, the first question I ask is - what other false assumptions are they making? After asking you for clarification, you walked back your "regime change" theory and now are simply going with "Boot knows nothing about foreign affairs" while sticking with a characterization of him as a one dimensional evil war profiteer. Let's look at both of those.

First, the only source in this entire thread is the notoriously shitty Salon. But even in this article, which does a terrible job of supporting its assertions, I find things that counter its own premise. Boot cites NATO - Trump being against it, Hillary for it - as a big reason for preferring Hillary's foreign policy. Alliances in the war against ISIS I'd say are very important. So I give Boot credit for understanding that. Trump is an isolationist who simultaneously wants to "bomb the shit out of ISIS" as his military strategy. Boot's reaction to this? - "Donald Trump does not have a serious foreign policy thought in his head. He has no ideas, he only has impulses — and those impulses change every 30 seconds." Sounds to me like Boot agrees with nearly every Democrat here.

Now let's look at your simplification of Boot as just some evil supporter of war profiteers. In that same interview Salon cited, Boot says he's pro immigration, anti-tea party, and calls Trump a "fascist demagogue." He also says there's a "vein of xenophobia, protectionism, racism, and other sentiments out there" that accounts for a "significant share" of Trump's base. Does this sound like the caricature you put forth of Boot as some one dimensional, evil war profiteer?

It sounds to me like you heard someone say he supported the Iraq war, then boiled him down to some cartoon character who couldn't possibly have any knowledge of foreign affairs or care about anything or anyone. Except the facts show differently.

Here's a final quote from the Boot interview. You tell me if he sounds like an insane, evil war profiteer, or like a reasonable person who (while I disagree with many of his political stances) is not an insane person and whose support of Hillary on foreign policy makes perfect sense. Note also that he has learned somewhat from his past beliefs on the Iraq invasion. (emphasized in bold)

"Trump loves dictators. He praises Putin, he loved the Tiananmen Square crackdown, he praises Kim Jong-Un. He said Saddam Hussein was great because he killed terrorists, which is a hell of a way to characterize the hundreds of thousands of victims Saddam Hussein claimed.

At the same time, he saves his venom for democratic allies like South Korea, Japan, and Germany because he thinks they're freeloaders. That's because, as he's repeatedly said, he admires strength and leadership, and people like Putin have it.

I do think there's been a swing in the Republican Party against the perceived excesses of the George W. Bush administration. I don't think we should go around, necessarily, toppling every dictator in the world — but I also don't think embracing these murderous thugs is going to be the solution to our foreign policy problems. And I think Donald Trump is certainly prone to embracing them."


Am I saying I agree with Boot on everything? No, but the evidence I provided you with showed the danger of turning those you don't agree with on everything into cartoon characters who are without souls or brains. Many of us have family who disagree with us on political matters, but we don't go around saying those family members are evil people who care only about getting blood money.

Also, going around condescending to people isn't very attractive. Get your facts first. Research things. Don't just react to headlines and run with it.

Here is Hillary’s current policy on dealing with ISIS, more or less. Continue our commitment to our NATO alliances (Trump wants to go it alone). Embed special forces in the local armies to gain intelligence for important strategical purposes such as carrying out better airstrikes, as Obama did in Afghanistan. Also, help Sunni and Kurdish moderates take back their territories by giving them weapons and tactical advice, (Obama initially was initially unwilling to do this, and Congress actually blocked him from sending weapons after it became clear we needed to do this, because you know, it was Obama that asked and the answer must always be no.) She also emphasizes getting more commitment from Saudi Arabia and Turkey (vital to the offensive). Saudi Arabia just pledged full support earlier this year. These proposals, by the way, are very similar to those put forth by Bernie Sanders. Max Boot agrees with all of it as well. Whatever Boot believed at the time of the Iraq invasion, it appears he has a grip on the current situation. So when I say he understands military strategy, it seems to me he understands pretty well what needs to be done right now.

But I know knee jerk reactions like: "A republican agrees with her, and republicans are always wrong! So Hillary must be wrong too!" is easier than researching a complicated issue. It's what led you to think there's no difference between the conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Researching requires work, but I'm glad those in power are doing the hard work, amidst all the insults and second-guessing by voters who can't even bother to gather information on the very issues they are screaming about.

You may want to (for the sake of consistency) apply the same question (and critique) to yourself.

Who want every vote in November to show just how horrid Trump is.

Republicans.

the same thing as attracting the support of hard right wingers who are championing someone they consider a kindred spirit?

Will bring us. No one with a brain that is.

Max Boot, the individual hawking for HRC in the OP, wants investment profits and another lucrative gig on the Council of Foreign Relations. He is one of the tools who pimped for the very same foreign policies -- ME regime change -- which helped create ISIS in the first place. He does not want "sanity"; he wants war and $$$.

championing a kindred spirit, and the voting record and the tweets supporting that kindred spirit made that clear. Republicans are supporting HRC because they fear trump, and are willing to allow progressives to win, because they know the dangers he presents. They're not cheering on a candidate that supports their big money donors over the victims of violence for example.

So, the two things that puzzle you are not equivalent at all, they hate HRC and have done so for decades due her progressive agenda and the actions, it's why they supported their kindred spirit who joined them in defeating amendments their donor didn't like and who voted in ways their base approved of. They were always anti-HRC, they never did one thing to support her in the primary, quite the contrary, tells you a little something about their feelings about her, about Trump and their desperation at this stage when it's between her and Trump.

Maybe this guy just actually understands military strategy and realizes we can't afford to mess up the war on ISIS by electing a doofus like Trump. Whether we like it or not, we are in a necessary war to stop ISIS from expanding or taking control of a country. A lot of people don't understand that and just label it "hawkish." It's not. It's called survival. Pull out of all the fighting in the Middle East and see how violent and unstable the world gets as ISIS grows.

All this hawk labeling usually boils down to a lack of understanding of what's actually happening in foreign affairs. Just shouting for peace all the time sounds good, but life isn't so simple.

...to some, but life isn't quite that simple, either.

You ok with letting isis take over the Middle East?

Unintended consequences, and such.

What does that have to do with the reality we are in now? What Bush did and what we are forced, by common sense, to deal with now because of it cannot be compared.

There are always lots of sponsors for the seemingly "easy solution" of a military response.

The costs are never seemingly borne by those who stand to profit off such things the most.

Peace is always much harder. And requires much more skillful leadership.

How is what Obama is doing, or what Sanders and Hillary both proposed, which are all very similar, the "easy solution?" And what Boot is advocating is also similar to what all the Democrats mentioned believe should be done. None of these four want U.S. ground troops in large numbers as we had in Iraq. All four want a more nuanced approach that emphasizes alliances with NATO and Iraq's border states.

You're using very broad statements to describe this issue, but the fact is that anyone who has studied the ISIS problem knows that not getting involved at all means ISIS gains control of multiple countries, gains massive resources, and starts doing to us what they did in Paris.

Yes, you truly are.

My point being that ISIS is a result of policies already favored by Boot, and Boot fans such as yourself.

I'm simply advocating a less reckless approach, going forward, than we've used in the past.

Aside from shouting "peace" at everything, what exactly are you saying? Boot agrees with Hillary, Sanders, and Obama about what needs to be done right now. "Peace" is not an option on the table. Do you know more than Sanders, Hillary, and Obama about how to handle ISIS? Do you think none of those three show restraint?

Aside from shouting "war" at everything, what exactly are you saying?

The people who "know" these things -- like your pal Boot -- are the ones who gave us ISIS.

In other words, ISIS was created from prior "lack of restraint."

Do you think you know more than the historical record in front of us?

All I am suggesting, is that it's dangerous to sign off unhestitatingly on the plans of warmongers.

The current year is 2016. Let's start with that. I'll say it again because you still don't realize what the point is- Obama, Sanders, and Hillary all agree on the same strategy. Boot agrees with them. Therefore, Boot appears to, in 2016, have a grasp of what the correct strategy should be. So yes, he does have a grasp of military strategy in 2016, the current year. What he knew or didn't know about strategy 15 years ago, he appears, in 2016, to have grasped what the current situation requires.

If you still can't grasp it, I don't care. I can't control that. But I'm not bumping this smear piece on Hillary again. End of this conversation from my end.

That's the whole point.

And do you have a link showing Max Boot and Bernie Sanders' foreign policy prescriptions in alignment?

Thanks.

Will probably end up voting for Hillary or sit out the election in the fall.

A small minority of republicans to be sure but its a win for democrats either way!

If all the Republicans jump ship, Hillary is going to win in a landslide!

I am glad our nominee is doing that

them.

From the article in the OP.

The GOP has become hostile territory for Neocons which accounts for their new found love of the Dems. This foray into Democratic Party cheerleading has as much, if not more, to do with the fact that the great Republican masses are largely populist/Tea Party oriented and very chilly to "establishment" Neoconservatism than it does with Hillary's stand on issues.

Trump didn't happen in a vccuum. The GOP establishment courted and groomed the Tea Party/Populist folks thinking they could be controlled and for awhile it looked just like that would be the case but the monster broke free and what you have is today's Republican party.

At best he and the others will be derisevly labeled "cuckservatives" and dismissed as traitors.

Who'd have thunk that RWer would have the decency to vote for the only person who isn't a raving lunatic in this race?