2016 Postmortem

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)

101. Since when is being a warmonger a sign of strength?

Fri Sep 11, 2015, 10:38 AM

Sep 2015

I'm sorry but you are giving Hillary Clinton "slack" when no warmonger deserves slack.

You are equating being pro-war with being strong and masculine.

Those who propagate war are sociopaths and psychopaths. They're not strong.

You do realize that these wars are designed specifically to pillage the Middle East of their resources and to take control of the land there for geopolitical reasons, right? They're slaughtering innocent men, women and children because of GREED, and because war makes a ton of money for the companies who deal in war. And those who sell war have funneled a lot of money into the campaigns of war-friendly politicians.

That's not strength. That's disgusting.

Strength--is a woman or a man who stands up to this diseased bunch of war kooks who are murdering people, bankrupting our nation and lying to "We The People" about their intentions.

If Hillary Clinton, or any other politician (or presidential candidate) can't stand up to these people--then they ARE weak. That is weakness.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When HRC was SoS one of her foreign policy advisors was famed neocon [View all] cali Sep 2015 OP

Makes sense since HRC is the leading neocon in the Democratic Party. leveymg Sep 2015 #1

Appears that way...see Post #14 below..n/t KoKo Sep 2015 #17

A number of career foreign policy aparachiks are committed neocons. They serve GOP and Dems alike, leveymg Sep 2015 #35

Another big reason for us to do whatever it takes to prevent Clinton from Zorra Sep 2015 #2

Birds of a feather. eom NorthCarolina Sep 2015 #3

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #4

I think the Iraq War went rather well Armstead Sep 2015 #5

She also referred to meeting with this noted peacenik to get his views LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #6

this is one area i cut hillary a lot of slack. mopinko Sep 2015 #7

I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse cali Sep 2015 #8

Totally agree. And that's why we should prefer candidates that have a human side, a conscience. erronis Sep 2015 #10

"I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse" asjr Sep 2015 #13

I did not put words in her mouth. I addressed why I don't cut HRC the excuse cali Sep 2015 #22

And when someone expresses their "feelings" zeemike Sep 2015 #23

Cali did not attack the poster passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #34

well asjr LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #46

I see by your number of posts you have asjr Sep 2015 #48

Post count...okay n/t. LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #98

I will not excuse a neoconservative foriegn Ed Suspicious Sep 2015 #9

Agreed 100% hifiguy Sep 2015 #26

That may be true but that is damned scary. What is jwirr Sep 2015 #12

George HW Bush had that "wimp" perception to deal with by killing people. arcane1 Sep 2015 #53

"I don't want to be seen as weak, so let's take a chance on killing Zorra Sep 2015 #16

I have seen this rationale from Hillary apologists several times now LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #20

persona = politics ish of the hammer Sep 2015 #24

A lot of male Democrats did also. Ever since Viet Nam and being called soft. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #28

In other words, she voted for the war to advance her career. arcane1 Sep 2015 #52

Since when is being a warmonger a sign of strength? CoffeeCat Sep 2015 #101

i'm not equating those things, but people do. mopinko Sep 2015 #102

Uh huh, yeah, got it. Darb Sep 2015 #11

so you're on board with an aggressively I interventionist foreign policy? cali Sep 2015 #15

No, however, I am against guilt by association, or even by consult. Darb Sep 2015 #18

it's hardly just association. it's her record cali Sep 2015 #21

What? Darb Sep 2015 #37

careful! you are being baited into getting a hide.... bettyellen Sep 2015 #44

"Aggressively interventionist foreign policy"? Where do you get THAT from? George II Sep 2015 #89

Robert Kagan & his NeoCon Wife Victoria Nuland who served Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and SOS Hillary KoKo Sep 2015 #14

KoKo, thanks so much for this info. summerschild Sep 2015 #25

Clearly you're just an irrational hater who hates Obama's race and Clinton's gender. arcane1 Sep 2015 #54

The vast universe of my ignorance is now a teeny bit smaller. Thanks KoKo. Scuba Sep 2015 #99

Once again I bail out of Hillary's boat on the way to the primaries. summerschild Sep 2015 #19

...! KoKo Sep 2015 #100

During Obama's first term... wyldwolf Sep 2015 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Sep 2015 #30

HAHAHA! Love it! LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #47

Hahahahahahahahaha dorkzilla Sep 2015 #31

tongue halfway in cheek for sure wyldwolf Sep 2015 #32

And the piling on continues.... George II Sep 2015 #29

uh oh. wyldwolf Sep 2015 #33

According to wiki passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #38

He wasn't hired at the same time as the appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State. George II Sep 2015 #39

I tried to research it (google) and I couldn't find who and when he was hired passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #40

I think the responsibility to check his background belongs to the OP. She's the one who threw out.. George II Sep 2015 #41

If she has better access than I do, then yes, she could do that passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #43

Sorry, I haven't presented his resume here as being what it is in the OP..... George II Sep 2015 #50

I'm sorry, but passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #55

And kudos to you too, passiveporcupine. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #60

She got a hide for the OP passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #65

No, for a post in another thread. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #66

I missed that passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #72

It is being done by both sides. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #76

I don't understand why this is allowed passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #78

There's no easy solution. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #79

Be careful passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #81

Aw, right back atcha, pp! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #82

No kidding, I have three now, and just survived another jury verdict arcane1 Sep 2015 #83

I own up to mine too, lol! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #84

I have two recent hides, both ridiculous. Vattel Sep 2015 #94

Did the alerter lie about your posts? beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #95

I am being more careful now. Vattel Sep 2015 #96

"until you can legitimize your position, her statement stands" George II Sep 2015 #97

Clinton did hire him, for a 2-year term in 2011 arcane1 Sep 2015 #61

Post 56, post 56, post 56. George II Sep 2015 #91

And she selected him to work on her Foreign Affairs Policy Board arcane1 Sep 2015 #92

Maybe now it's time for YOU to go read "Post 56" - have a great evening. George II Sep 2015 #93

See post 56. This poster's claim is pure made-up bullshit. arcane1 Sep 2015 #57

No it isn't. Do you know when Kagan started working for the State Department? It wasn't during... George II Sep 2015 #64

December, 2011. Unless you have a link to refute my link direct from the State Department. arcane1 Sep 2015 #67

The Obama administration was not his first stint at State, the first was under Reagan and George Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #70

Somehow I don't think that fact will bolster their argument arcane1 Sep 2015 #75

Like I asked rhetorically earlier, I'll say it outright now - you don't know how..... George II Sep 2015 #85

I DO know, and I've led you to the post several times proving it. Here it is again to ignore: arcane1 Sep 2015 #86

Simply NOT true - Kagan has been working for the State Department for more than 30 years! He.... George II Sep 2015 #88

Please point out exactly what is incorrect in the State.gov article. arcane1 Sep 2015 #90

"This is an pointless discussion." beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #87

State.gov: "Secretary Clinton selected a distinguished, diverse, and bipartisan membership..." arcane1 Sep 2015 #56

WELL DONE!!! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #59

Thanks, they make it too easy sometimes. arcane1 Sep 2015 #62

It was, and then they came after me. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #63

And my post goes ignored while other posts get replies telling me I'm ignorant. arcane1 Sep 2015 #68

You don't know what you're talk...SQUIRRELL!!! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #69

Oh my! passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #73

Many neocons on that list. AtomicKitten Sep 2015 #107

it's we report, you decide. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #49

It's truly sad that here, on DEMOCRATIC Underground, that this tactic is used. George II Sep 2015 #51

What's being omitted in this case? arcane1 Sep 2015 #58

If you follow the whole thread, you will see passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #74

the shit does keep piling up... Agony Sep 2015 #71

Yawn trumad Sep 2015 #36

Wake up. There's a warmonger advising a leading presidential candidate. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #77

Who happened to be John McCain's adviser in 2008. arcane1 Sep 2015 #80

Maybe some Democrats believe that having neocons in high level positions Zorra Sep 2015 #103

I'm not too crazy about it, personally. Old Iran/Contra people aren't welcome either. arcane1 Sep 2015 #104

The difference between neocon and neolib? Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #42

She evolved from Kissinger to Kagan. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #45

Why didn't we invaded something then? JoePhilly Sep 2015 #105

I guess it isn't only Clinton supporters who have questionable hides. n/t demmiblue Sep 2015 #106