Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about ! [View all]PufPuf23
(8,954 posts)203. Is There a Hillary Doctrine?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/hillary-doctrine-goldberg-landler/482667/
It has seemed to me, for as long as Ive been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make foreign and national-security policy, that the differences in outlook and approach between the two of them are fundamental and dramatic. I would call these differences profound, but I dont want to be accused of hyperbole. It is not just that Clinton has a bias toward action in the international arena, and that Obama is far more hesitant, far more aware (too aware, in the eyes of critics) of the downside of action; it is that there are basic differences in the way they understand Americas role in the world, and the qualities that make America exceptional. They also differ, to my eye, in their understanding of American indispensability, and of the relationship between power and diplomacy.
The only person I know who spends more time thinking about the dispositional and ideological differences between Obama and Clinton than I do is Mark Landler, the New York Times reporter who has covered the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department and who recently published a book, Alter Egos (its very long and serious subtitle: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power), that explores these differences through the prism, mainly, of the Middle East crises that have consumed the Obama administration. Landler has written an excellent book, the definitive examination to date of, among other things, a president who has tried to extract the U.S. from the Middle East (without much success, it goes almost without saying). Alter Egos is also the most authoritative attempt to explain Obamas complicated relationship with his first-term secretary of state, a thwarted competitor-turned-staffer who, if she wins the presidency this year, will inherit a world that is in some ways as messy as the one Obama himself inherited from George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
Landler and I dont see eye-to-eye on the differences between Obama and Clinton; he thinks that she will make foreign policy in a more cautious manner than I believe she will. I tend to think, most of the time, at least, that her Libya experience did not diminish her ardor for the arena. On Ukraine and Syria, for instance, she thinks in more overtly interventionist terms than does Obama. In an interview I conducted with Clinton two summers ago (one that drew attention for her implicit criticism of Obamas unofficial foreign-policy slogan, Dont do stupid shit), she convinced me that she, unlike Obama, has the heart of a Cold Warrior. In what I took to be another shot at Obama, she said, You know, when youre down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, youre not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward. One issue is that we dont even tell our own story very well these days.
I didnt have much doubt about the identity of the we in her statement. I responded to her assertion by saying something I believe deeply, which is that America, in the last century, saved civilization. I thought, I told Clinton, that, defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.
more at link.
It has seemed to me, for as long as Ive been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make foreign and national-security policy, that the differences in outlook and approach between the two of them are fundamental and dramatic. I would call these differences profound, but I dont want to be accused of hyperbole. It is not just that Clinton has a bias toward action in the international arena, and that Obama is far more hesitant, far more aware (too aware, in the eyes of critics) of the downside of action; it is that there are basic differences in the way they understand Americas role in the world, and the qualities that make America exceptional. They also differ, to my eye, in their understanding of American indispensability, and of the relationship between power and diplomacy.
The only person I know who spends more time thinking about the dispositional and ideological differences between Obama and Clinton than I do is Mark Landler, the New York Times reporter who has covered the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department and who recently published a book, Alter Egos (its very long and serious subtitle: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power), that explores these differences through the prism, mainly, of the Middle East crises that have consumed the Obama administration. Landler has written an excellent book, the definitive examination to date of, among other things, a president who has tried to extract the U.S. from the Middle East (without much success, it goes almost without saying). Alter Egos is also the most authoritative attempt to explain Obamas complicated relationship with his first-term secretary of state, a thwarted competitor-turned-staffer who, if she wins the presidency this year, will inherit a world that is in some ways as messy as the one Obama himself inherited from George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
Landler and I dont see eye-to-eye on the differences between Obama and Clinton; he thinks that she will make foreign policy in a more cautious manner than I believe she will. I tend to think, most of the time, at least, that her Libya experience did not diminish her ardor for the arena. On Ukraine and Syria, for instance, she thinks in more overtly interventionist terms than does Obama. In an interview I conducted with Clinton two summers ago (one that drew attention for her implicit criticism of Obamas unofficial foreign-policy slogan, Dont do stupid shit), she convinced me that she, unlike Obama, has the heart of a Cold Warrior. In what I took to be another shot at Obama, she said, You know, when youre down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, youre not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward. One issue is that we dont even tell our own story very well these days.
I didnt have much doubt about the identity of the we in her statement. I responded to her assertion by saying something I believe deeply, which is that America, in the last century, saved civilization. I thought, I told Clinton, that, defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.
more at link.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
219 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about ! [View all]
PufPuf23
May 2016
OP
install client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate
arcane1
May 2016
#1
Gadaffi was involved in a lot of military adventures in other North African countries.
Nitram
May 2016
#70
Gadaffi and every bullet point in your OP simply did NOT fit Hillary Clinton's business plan.
CentralCoaster
May 2016
#71
It's what NeoLiberals call "Humanitarian intervention". Funny how sufferring is actually much worse
newthinking
May 2016
#138
And what do you know about the suffering that wopuld have occired if Gaddafi had been left to...
Nitram
May 2016
#178
You of course, have an objective and peer-reviewed source to support your allegation, yes?
LanternWaste
May 2016
#187
"That's all of American history, summed up in a single sentence." I thought this was?
Glassunion
May 2016
#20
Maybe that's why Saint Hillary of Walmart wanted to get Ghaddafi out of the way:
Betty Karlson
May 2016
#161
Huh? Gadaffi was removed and killed in 2011 under the Obama Administration with Clinton SOS.
PufPuf23
May 2016
#9
How can one argue that in total the people and women of Libya are far worse off now and live in
PufPuf23
May 2016
#23
She is perhaps the most horrible democratic canddate in my lifetime of 72 years...
pangaia
May 2016
#99
A lot of our actions seem to be around fears of losing control of the monetary system (competition)
newthinking
May 2016
#139
Or maybe Hillary wanted to install a client regime to subordinate the country’s wealth...
ChisolmTrailDem
May 2016
#18
The Libyan opposition were expat groups aligned with fundamentalist muslim groups
newthinking
May 2016
#141
Thanks Polly. I also posted a link about it. Most of the so called "arab springs" were not really
newthinking
May 2016
#143
I don't think life in Libya was quite the utopian experience as described above.
LonePirate
May 2016
#16
It wasn't too shabby either: Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa under Gadaffi
CJCRANE
May 2016
#21
What is the matter with you that you support what happened to the common people who live in Libya?
PufPuf23
May 2016
#27
From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention
polly7
May 2016
#28
"Democracy"? "US-led bombing campaign"? Try "dictatorship" and "French-led bombing campaign". nt
ieoeja
May 2016
#89
Sigh. Criticizing the NATO led bombing is not synonymous with whitewashing Gaddafi.
cali
May 2016
#190
Reductio ad absurdum is valid rhetoric. It is NOT a fallacy. . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
May 2016
#157
Pinochet? The guy Nixon, Kissinger and CIA installed as a model for USA's future?
Octafish
May 2016
#43
Clinton was against Gaddafi, therefore DUers need to find excuses to be for him.
Donald Ian Rankin
May 2016
#81
Mussolini was a competent administrator. The first Kim was a hero in the fight against Japan.
ieoeja
May 2016
#100
All my adult life I have watched these foreign interventions in slow motion knowing that,
PufPuf23
May 2016
#61
Thank you for this incredible post. What we did to Libya is such a war crime.
FighttheFuture
May 2016
#104
For a Dictator, he was doing a great job of making life better for Libya's neighbors, too.
Octafish
May 2016
#47
that individuals and corporations and others try to profit off this shit, is fact
cali
May 2016
#189
So? If CNN did not at least in part respect the document, why continue to carry it on their website
PufPuf23
May 2016
#69
Several times in this thread I have stated I regarded Gadaffi a dictator but deliberately
PufPuf23
May 2016
#78
The main point I meant to make in this thread is that the common people of Libya
PufPuf23
May 2016
#112
You are conflating lots of things. Bottom line: Qaddafi was a greedy dictator
Albertoo
May 2016
#123
Not to excuse the unnecessary intervention, but some of these "facts" sound too good to be true.
TacoD
May 2016
#122
I am disappointed by those at DU that spin that because Gadaffi was an asshole
PufPuf23
May 2016
#127
Agree the points were incomplete initiatives and serve as anti-intervention propoganda.
PufPuf23
May 2016
#142
Yes, it was a classic oil state dictatorship. The government bought the loyalty of the people with
Zynx
May 2016
#146
I have made at least 10 posts in this thread stating the intent of this OP is
PufPuf23
May 2016
#150
"... it turned out well enough, eventually." < If you are white, perhaps. For a person of color, or
jtuck004
May 2016
#192
Given that your OP is a 16 bullet point plus extolling of the virtues of Gadaffi....
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2016
#164
I think if you repeat it all about 10 more times you are certain to have a great impact.
jtuck004
May 2016
#193
And, and then there's that little human rights issue and sponsoring terrorism
Feeling the Bern
May 2016
#158
I spoke about this numerous time right here at DU several years ago...before Obama was
Jitter65
May 2016
#162
It's the same sort of binary thinking you saw when people praised Putin a few years back.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2016
#166
Look at history. Gadaffi had renounced terrorism and was attempting to modernize Libya and
PufPuf23
May 2016
#199
Gadaffi is a tyrant who fleeced his country and murdered his citizens. He is the ultimate 1% asshat
hueymahl
May 2016
#201
My own idea of a socialist paradise would be closer to the Scandinavian countries
bhikkhu
May 2016
#169
Its pretty obvious to everyone now that this is the wrong way..or is it?
LiberalLovinLug
May 2016
#179
Yes, Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie 270 dead and his treatment of the Libyan people?
Lady_Chat
May 2016
#188
Gadaffi had renounced terroism, turned over perps for prosecution, and was paying damages to victims
PufPuf23
May 2016
#194
I did read the ridiculous OP. I regret wasting my time on this shameless Qaddafi apologia.
SunSeeker
May 2016
#208