Hillary Clinton was played for a chump by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy she was the first to name

[dreamnightwind]

21. I think she's a hawk, not a chump

I'm certain she's no chump. It's for you to decide which is worse, being fooled or being aligned with the greater agenda which badly wanted multiple regime changes in the middle east.

If they had gone after the Saudis they could have claimed at least a whiff of moral high ground, that's one regime that is in desperate need of change.

No, they went after Afghanistan (Taliban, so there's that, but mostly just a host country for the terrorist training grounds, whereas the source was Saudi Arabia). They went after Iraq. Their hands were all over the regimes being toppled in Egypt, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, the current mess in Yemen, and they can't wait to "do" Iran.

Hillary dd more than approve the IWR, she and her State Department had their fingers in all of the above.

PNAC anyone?

DLC's PNAC Document - Hillary Clinton On America's Strategy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251495072

There is a frightening amount of overlap between neocon policies and the DLC/New Dem foreign policies.

Calling Hillary a chump, IMHO, for being duped by the right-wing into supporting the Iraq War, misses the mark. Perhaps you were being kind, and suggested the more innocent of reasons she could have supported it.

I have no doubts about Hillary's intelligence, she is nobody's fool. What we're dealing with here is someone that is a true believer in the U.S. as global police and as the military arm of global corporate resource extraction and a permanent state of warfare and foreign interventions.

I think the public deserves a choice in this matter. We have the Republican Party to push this agenda. The Democratic Party needs to offer an alternative foreign policy, one that respects the sovereignty of other nations, values peace over profits, and that doesn't rob the U.S. Treasury of the funds we need to care for our people from birth to death in a dignified manner.

The question is, are we even allowed a choice in this, or are we so far down the foxhole that only candidates who support the war machine have a chance? Scary question.

Bernie's a large step in the right direction. He'll have limited control over the machine, but he's no war hawk, and can make a difference.