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
In reply to the discussion: Clinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)32. Columbia Professor of the University: ''Hillary is the candidate of the war machine.''
Words of wisdom:
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
by Jeffrey D. Sachs
Common Dreams, Feb. 5, 2016
There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Hillary and Bill Clinton's close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman's collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.
Yet Hillary's connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
SNIP...
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."
CONTINUED w/links...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/05/hillary-candidate-war-machine
Wars without end. Amen.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
68 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
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