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
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Clinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency [View all]
Clintons Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency
Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post
Hillary Clintons recent foreign policy speech was an attack on Donald Trump but was also a reminder that Clinton is a deeply flawed and worrisome candidate. Her record as Secretary of State was one of the worst in modern US history; her policies have enmeshed America in new Middle East wars, rising terrorism, and even a new Cold War with Russia. Of the three leading candidates, only Bernie Sanders has the sound judgment to avoid further war and to cooperate with the rest of the world.
Clinton is intoxicated with American power. She has favored one war of choice after the next: bombing Belgrade (1999); invading Iraq (2003); toppling Qaddafi (2011); funding Jihadists in Syria (2011 till now). The result has been one bloodbath after another, with open wounds until today fostering ISIS, terrorism, and mass refugee flows.
In her speech, Clinton engaged in her own Trump-like grandiose fear mongering: If America doesnt lead, we leave a vacuum - and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then theyll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety - and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
This kind of arrogance - that America and America alone must run the world - has led straight to overstretch: perpetual wars that cannot be won, and unending and escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and others that make the world more dangerous. It doesnt seem to dawn on Clinton that in todays world, we need cooperation, not endless bravado.
Bernie Sanders, by contrast, not only offers a vastly better economic program than Clinton, but also a foreign policy based on wisdom, decency, and especially restraint. As a result, the American people trust Sanders rather than Clinton. She wins the closed primaries while he wins the open ones, that is, primaries that include the independent voters who will decide the November elections.
Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post
Hillary Clintons recent foreign policy speech was an attack on Donald Trump but was also a reminder that Clinton is a deeply flawed and worrisome candidate. Her record as Secretary of State was one of the worst in modern US history; her policies have enmeshed America in new Middle East wars, rising terrorism, and even a new Cold War with Russia. Of the three leading candidates, only Bernie Sanders has the sound judgment to avoid further war and to cooperate with the rest of the world.
Clinton is intoxicated with American power. She has favored one war of choice after the next: bombing Belgrade (1999); invading Iraq (2003); toppling Qaddafi (2011); funding Jihadists in Syria (2011 till now). The result has been one bloodbath after another, with open wounds until today fostering ISIS, terrorism, and mass refugee flows.
In her speech, Clinton engaged in her own Trump-like grandiose fear mongering: If America doesnt lead, we leave a vacuum - and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then theyll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety - and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
This kind of arrogance - that America and America alone must run the world - has led straight to overstretch: perpetual wars that cannot be won, and unending and escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and others that make the world more dangerous. It doesnt seem to dawn on Clinton that in todays world, we need cooperation, not endless bravado.
Bernie Sanders, by contrast, not only offers a vastly better economic program than Clinton, but also a foreign policy based on wisdom, decency, and especially restraint. As a result, the American people trust Sanders rather than Clinton. She wins the closed primaries while he wins the open ones, that is, primaries that include the independent voters who will decide the November elections.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
68 replies, 4386 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (70)
ReplyReply to this post
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency [View all]
portlander23
Jun 2016
OP
Columbia Professor of the University: ''Hillary is the candidate of the war machine.''
Octafish
Jun 2016
#32
Hillary Clearly Is A FERVENT PROPONENT OF AMERICAN "EXCEPTIONALISM!" Very Republicanesque?
CorporatistNation
Jun 2016
#43
Her foreign policy speech was excellent. She pointed out what a loose cannon Trump would be.
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#4
Sanders was not a conscientious objector. He applied, never got it. Ali went to jail for objecting.
merrily
Jun 2016
#5
They are free to take that stand. I didn't question that. But, that disqualifies them from being the
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#7
I'd rather a CIC who took a moral stand against a war than one who advocated for an immoral war.
merrily
Jun 2016
#9
Sometimes war is unavoidable as was the case after 911. No place for a conscientious objector
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#11
The direct result of 911 was the war in Afghanistan. A sloppy dodge on your part. That is an
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#20
Sanders had no moral objection to the Afghanistan War. He voted for it. So, I have no clue
merrily
Jun 2016
#24
He was a conscientious objector and, therefore, unfit to be Commander in Chief.
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#25
Both parts of your statement are false and you know that very well at least as to the first
merrily
Jun 2016
#46
By definition a conscientious objector opposes ALL war, not just a specific one.
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#33
Um, no. He was not being drafted. He was never drafted. And most people agree that the
merrily
Jun 2016
#45
I don't know if he had a draft number or not and neither do you. You don't know if he appealed,
merrily
Jun 2016
#66
Where in the Constitution does it say a CO status prohibits one for being President?
EndElectoral
Jun 2016
#58
Getting a student deferment is so much more aceptable than being a conscientious objector
Autumn
Jun 2016
#17
Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft, got a deferment and I respected him on that.
Autumn
Jun 2016
#22
In my personal opinion, someone who took a public stand against an immoral war,
merrily
Jun 2016
#27
I don't know and I don't feel like googling. I just hope a man of conviction is resting in peace.
merrily
Jun 2016
#65
I don't think it's possible for the Huffington Post to embarrass itself any further.
BobbyDrake
Jun 2016
#8
God forbid there were a few media stories that did not tear down Sanders. The horror!
merrily
Jun 2016
#10
You don't have to "tear down Sanders" to report the truth. HP made a choice to lie in support
BobbyDrake
Jun 2016
#12
Many media outlets online and in RL have discredited themselves on behalf of Hillary.
merrily
Jun 2016
#14
Jeffrey Sachs was the guy who told Bernie it was a good use of $500,000 to go to Rome?
brooklynite
Jun 2016
#15