2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary threatens first strike "nuclear option" against Iran, did she misspeak?
Hillary threatens unilateral first strike military action against Iran. Anybody else think that's nuts?
Once you threaten that, once you draw that line in the sand, you pretty much have to follow through, or you cost the USA its credibility as the top world cop.
Apparently Justice Breyer reigned in the insanity a little bit during the Saban forum today. That shouldn't be needed really.
She said there should be no doubt in Tehran that if the United States saw any violations in the deal or an effort to procure or develop nuclear weapons technology, we will stop them, including, she added, taking military action.
At one point, responding to a question, she referred to using the nuclear option against Iran usually interpreted as using a nuclear weapon before her attention was caught by a prominent member of the audience, Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court.
Oh, the military option, thank you, Justice Breyer. Hes a careful listener, Mrs. Clinton said, reiterating that she meant a military option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It was a rare moment: a sitting member of the court rescuing a political candidate from a mistaken comment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-islamic-state-saban-forum.html
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)WTF?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Clinton isn't always capable of modulating when she gets into the bravado.
remember We came, we saw, he died?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Remember the video where she laughs at the thought of going to war with Iran?
Then there was her speech at the Brookings Institute.
And during the debate she declared Iranians are her enemies.
Once is a mistake, what we see here is a pattern.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What's important is breaking that glass ceiling so a woman president will have a chance to start a war too.
Instead of just voting for and promoting other presidents' wars, she'll finally have one of her own.
Sickening.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Or perhaps, "It Takes a Pre-emptive First Strike to Nuke a Village"
kath
(10,565 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Don't get me wrong, I don't believe she said "nuclear option" on purpose (more like a Freudian slip) but do we really want a warhawk like that in the White House?
Response to Divernan (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Iran will be her Falklands, just with nukes.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Even though more and more it's looking like he nailed it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It's really disgusting how little regard she has for human life.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)for those living in parts of the world where cluster bombs have produced such lovely profits for the MIC, or for those living anywhere outside of the U.S. borders . . . . or inside the borders but not legally - send those precious babies back to Central America post haste . . . . or those whose parents dare to ask for $15.00 an hour minimum wage.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)This election is a disaster if this person is on the ticket
DJ13
(23,671 posts)
She is widely known to be a war hawk.
She voted to authorize the Invasion of Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. History and an unmitigated disaster that continues to unfold in the Middle East to this day costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and trillions of dollars that could have been used to help the American people and alleviate human suffering, not cause more of it.
She has been closely associated with human rights/military disasters in Colombia, Honduras, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Calling it CT or RW slander doesnt make it so. Its well documented history.
She is calling for more war, not less.
Google any of those things for all the proof you need.
Those are facts. I know they're tough to swallow. A lot of people want us to turn a blind eye. Why would we? And what price would we pay?
How could any peace-loving person support this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/07/1457682/-Telling-the-truth-does-NOT-a-hit-piece-make
Wilms
(26,795 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)"Nuclear option" with "military option" and "nuclear weapon"
This honestly, really bothers me.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"She said there should be no doubt in Tehran that if the United States saw any violations in the deal or an effort to procure or develop nuclear weapons technology, we will stop them, including, she added, taking military action. She somehow saw violations in Iraq and a half million dead later says she made a mistake. The neocons love her.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)more than a mistake when all the terms are being used at the same time.
However, she should be more careful with something this important if she wants to be president. Imagine what could have been started if someone hadn't caught the slip up.
But it does show that she's too much of a hawk for my tastes.
.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Like where somebody says something but acts like it was a mistake, that way you get the benefits of saying it, like you can raise money from very hawkish billionaires, but still maintain the plausible deniability that it was just a slip.
It's a way to have your cake and eat it too. To take 2 positions at the same time.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)where saying a phrase just a little bit wrong can cause very large problems.
Not to mention this isn't the first time she's talked about attacking Iran.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)He didn't reign in "insanity", he helped her correct a misstatement which could happen to anyone in public speaking.
They were using the words over and over - "nuclear weapons" and "military options".
We all use the term "nuclear option" often when referring to crazy Senate Republicans.
Who knows how the brain stores information? Maybe under terms containing "options" and not separately...
___________
I'm a Bernie supporter, Bernie volunteer, but also an admirer of Hillary. Think of me as neutral and scholarly - something rare in primary season.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Edit to say: That's a great question. I have no idea how the brain stores information.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)___________
I'm a Bernie supporter, Bernie volunteer, but also an admirer of Hillary. Think of me as neutral and scholarly - something rare in primary season.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)wouldn't even wonder about this. This is her version of machismo.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"In all seriousness, ten years from now, neuroscience will FINALLY be in its infancy."
Kablooie
(18,625 posts)I hate all the excessive Bernie boosterism around here but I still think he'll get my vote over Clinton.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)She pisses me off IT's like she WANTS to go to war with Iran.
Which is massively stupid. You think we've had problems in Iraq and with Isis and Al Quadeh?
Those are the Teddy Bear's Picnic compared to what would happen if we go to war with Iran.
jalan48
(13,859 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Not directed at you, of course, but to the author of the piece
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You inspired me to go find the video. This part starts around the 40 minute mark.
But even if she only means the "nuclear option" in the sense of a go it alone US first strike military attack against Iran, isn't that still pretty extreme?
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)She didn't bat an eye saying nuclear option
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)No H's with a rightward pointing arrow jumping in to defend and deflect.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)What would be the defense? She's not going to nuke Iran, she just misspoke? Like it's really that much better.
I got to credit the Hillary supporters, they are a lot better organized and disciplined than Bernie supporters. They stick to their approved points. Trying to coordinate Bernie supporters would be like trying to herd cats with email.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I'm sure they'll return after they've eaten their Hot Pockets.
Paka
(2,760 posts)We cannot afford another Clinton in the WH.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I have no idea if she "mis-spoke" this time, but the fact is she's expressed perpetual hostility to that other nation, and so we can't just take it for granted that she tripped on her tongue.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Kagan, the author of PNAC, is an advisor to Hillary.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...and shouldn't that alone disqualify her from being our Democratic nominee?
cprise
(8,445 posts)And yes, that is perverse. But neocons sense their Republican ship is sinking and some are moving... they need a new home in the Democratic Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?_r=0
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish-speech/
The odd twist is: Bill Clinton declared in 1998 that Iraq had WMD and that regime change had to occur -- he swallowed the paranoid PNAC manifesto whole. Hillary had many years to reflect and reexamine this falsehood. She chooses to believe whatever a small cadre of paranoid whackos who preached Communism in college says about the Middle East.... US intelligence, European media, UN investigations be damned.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I hear you. I've been mystified and disgusted by all of this. Nice to commiserate with others who "get it."
And yes, some Democrats, including Hillary--have no shame in acting like neocons. These scumbags are some of the worst humans on the planet.
I'm sure you know about the letter the PNACers wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998. Signed by a cadre of sociopaths, including: John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan (who was an advisor to Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State).
Link to letter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm
Here's what gets me. Those bozos were shopping around the Iraq war since 1998. Hillary knew that because her then-President husband received the letter. Fast forward to when Bush was galvanizing support to invade Iraq after 9/11. Hillary knows that the same warmongers (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc.) who asked her husband for war in 1998, and now in power, in the Bush administration, and asking for it again. This time, they were using 9/11 to go in. Anyone who dared to speak out against war with Iraq was positioned as a terrorist sympathizer.
Of course, the rationale for invading Iraq was ies. All you have to do is read the PNAC manifesto (Rebuilding America's Defenses) to understand that they crafted a plan years ago. They name the countries they want: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya.
Hillary could have singlehandedly stopped the Iraq war by waving around that letter they wrote her husband in 1998. She could have exposed them. But she didn't.
She went further, and banged the drum for war with Iran, when W tried to get that going. She also had a central role in overthrowing the Libyan government--an issue that has yet to be fully examined. It will explode into a scandal if she is our nominee, and there are plenty of emails (her own) to suggest that she was the architect of that failed mess.
She is embroiled in this neocon nonsense. She's their gal. She has betrayed the Democratic party.
More on Libya:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18592/new-clinton-emails-expose-collaboration-with-media-on-benghazi-coverag1
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)PNAC look at the countries they wanted to disrupt or overthrow and what has happened..............
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She can join her close friends the Bushes in judgement later.
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)I think she did simply get mixed up given the crowd and her position. And she was glad to correct her statement when called out. In our world and the DU world, to say such things is egregious. However, were she running with the clown posse . . .
If Trump or Cruz or any of the idiots on the Republican side clearly state, without any equivocation or apology, that they would nuke Iran their poll numbers would only go up up up. And the press would note how the American people back a candidate who's strong on defense and doesn't appear weak. Anybody catch Mara Liasson's BS comments on NPR about how the American people don't think our President is effective in dealing with terrorism and that "we" want a candidate who's strong and confident in fighting ISIS and radical Islam and terrorism? There are two separate narratives running through the media; one for repukes and one for the democrats.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Republicans are worse. Especially one I'm thinking of who seems really really really bad.
cprise
(8,445 posts)And she is consistent enough in it that neocons like Rober Kagan (of PNAC-invade-7-ME-countries fame) have been calling her a fellow neocon.
shadowmayor
(1,325 posts)Despite what Tweedy ranted, we aren't all neocons. I find Hillary even talking to Kagan or his murderous wife Nuland horrifying. I just thought that it sounded more like a slip of the tongue. Perhaps I'm being naive or hopeful??
I think all talk of war is completely mad. I spent OIF3 in Iraq, and people have no idea what war really means. The murder, the senseless destruction, the displacement and the endless propaganda are far beyond the capacity for most to comprehend. We've been killing Iraqi people for nearly 25 years now and I always ask: "What in the hell did the people of Iraq ever do to the people of the United States?
I am a Bernie backer and will vote for Hillary should she win simply because of the Supreme Court nomination process that begins with the President. I'll take Hillary in her choice for Supreme Court Justice over any Republican running. It's kind of a yellow dog thing.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)The Berlin crisis of 1961 does not loom large in the American memory, but it was an episode that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to warnuclear war. Newly available documents reveal that the Kennedy White House drew up detailed plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets, and that President Kennedy explored the first-strike option seriously
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Is this the future of the Democratic Party? Or our downfall?
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Keep that woman away from the WH. Her warmongering is DISGUSTING! Has this country not had enough of war? The MIC us going to bankrupt this country with her help.
KEEP HER AWAY FROM THE CODES! Now I have no doubt she'd use them.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)it sure speaks volumes. Hillary isn't one to make a mistake like that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)for president that the Democrats have considered in quite some time. (Jim Webb was worst, but he wasn't serious).
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE