General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Hawk Named Hillary
by Anatol Lieven
Hillary Clinton is running for president not only on her record as secretary of state, but also by presenting herself as tougher than Barack Obama on foreign-policy issues. With this stance, she presumably plans to distance herself from a president increasingly branded as weak in his approach to international issues, and to appeal to the supposedly more hawkish instincts of much of the electorate.
It is therefore necessary to ask a number of related questions, the answers to which are of crucial importance not just to the likely course of a hypothetical Clinton administration, but to the future of the United States in the world. These questions concern her record as secretary of state and her attitudes, as well as those of the US foreign-policy and national-security elites as a whole. They are also linked to an even deeper and more worrying question: whether the countrys political elites are still capable of learning from their mistakes and changing their policies accordingly. I was brought up to believe that this is a key advantage of democracy over other systems. But it cant happen without a public debateand hence mass mediafounded on rational argument, a respect for facts, and an insistence that officials take responsibility for evidently disastrous decisions.
The difficulties that a Democratic politician must overcome in designing a foreign and security policy capable of meeting the needs of the age are admittedly legion. These include US foreign-policy and national-security institutions that are bloated beyond measure and spend most of their time administering themselves and quarreling with one another; the weakness of the cabinet system, which encourages these institutions and means that decisions are constantly thrown in the lap of the president and a White House staff principally obsessed with the next election; an increasing political dysfunction at home, partly as a result of the unrelenting American electoral cycle; a Republican opposition that is positively feral in its readiness to use any weapon against a Democratic White House; a corporate media that, when not working for the Republicans directly, is all too willing to help turn minor issues into perceived crises; and problems in some parts of the world (notably the Middle East and Afghanistan) that are indeed of a hideous complexity.
Even more important and difficult than any of these problems may be the fact that designing a truly new and adequate strategy would require breaking with some fundamental American mythsmyths that have been strengthened by many years of superpower status but that go back much further, to the very roots of American civic nationalism. These myths, above all, depict the United States asin one of Clintons favorite phrasesthe indispensable nation, innately good (if sometimes misguided), with the right and duty to lead humankind and therefore, when necessary, to crush any opposition.
more
http://www.thenation.com/article/191521/hawk-named-hillary
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If she's a Democrat, then our tent is too big.
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)Perfectly stated.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)but there is NO room for those who advance the agenda of the RICH and POWERFUL
at the expense of the Working Class and Poor.
The LAST thing this country needs is Hillary, or any other "centrist" NeoLiberal
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I like that Scuba. Gonna use it
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As someone wrote on DU
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Thanks, to the 3rd-Way infidelity
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)let's just call her a McCulloch Democrat
there are REAL CONSEQUENCES for party, country, and anyone stuck in-between the hammer and the anvil: this is where "not as bad" has led us; this is where "just let the Dems handle it: if they do anything pro-corporatist it's because the ungrateful American people didn't give them the House/WH/both houses/supermajority" has led us, this is where "circular firing squad" and "purist" and "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" and "Nader" and "agent provocateur" and "leftbagger" and "wait for all the facts to come in" has led us
the party is just riding on past accomplishments like whenever the GOP invokes Lincoln: it's a rattling skeleton propped up in a chair while a million people tell you you're having a satisfying conversation with the bones because it resembles a human being
2banon
(7,321 posts)CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)"Military Clinton"
perfectly in line with reasonable expectations
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)walkingman
(7,671 posts)if she is indeed a "hawk" then I'll probably opt for someone else in the primaries (I did the same in 2012). I just hope that someone, anyone, makes ending our foolish "war is peace" ideology a thing of the past. IMO, if we continue this we are setting ourselves for a very bad ending. I can see so much reluctance from young people that we will move even more to a private military. To me this has nothing at all to do with "fighting for our freedom" but mostly fighting for the military industrial complex or the anti-Muslim loonies in America. Either way it is nuts!
cali
(114,904 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)walkingman
(7,671 posts)if it means selecting who is the lessor of two evils then sometimes that is just the way it is. I don't see people protesting the feds at this point but at some point the people will hopefully be in control.
Peace
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)allow themselves to be manipulated, we will continue our slide into the quagmire.
H. Clinton-Sachs has shown zero inclination to help the 99%. Why would we settle for her? She gave her integrity to George Bush.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We seem to be moving in the right direction? Is it just not fast enough for you? In the face of a Congress that passed 2 Bills and obstructed everything....you are pissed it wasn't enough????
You people are NEVER happy!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The problem is the people that settle for next to nothing and call it progress and then turn around and disparage those that "are NEVER happy" as long as millions of children go to bed hungry.
"We seem to be moving in the right direction? " Seems you aren't even sure if we are. We aren't even slowing down the sinking of our middle class. It isn't the direction anywayz it's the momentum. All we have gained in the last few years can be quickly undone unless we get the Conservatives out of control. They are bleeding the American middle class dry.
I will NEVER be happy until we lower our infant mortality rate, poverty rate, homelessness, joblessness, etc.
The Oligarchs are feeding us "cake" and some call that progress. Dare to hold out for freedom and liberty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You won't be happy until EVERYTHING on your list is perfect....no matter that the President IS NOT a magician!
This is not about YOU...it is not the Party of YOU....its a party of US...
You are an Left Leaning Independent....not a TRUE Democrat....but YOU reserve the right to piss and moan about who WE the actual Democrats select in a PRIMARY Election...
cali
(114,904 posts)Reading your posts that would be the logical conclusion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its the party of "Kick Republican ass in 2016" and LOGIC tells me....I go with whom polls 50 points ahead of the pack...AND ahead of EVERY Republican possibility....THAT is logical!
cali
(114,904 posts)grew up in the U.S.A. and hilly will lose in 2015. wait and see.
We have a reactionary electorate at the moment. That may or may not change, just as hilly's polling may change. She's a shit campaigner and I think her support is a mile wide and a millimeter thick. time will tell.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do you also pronounce it "winj"? Stop "winj"ing?
cali
(114,904 posts)and now you tell me I'm misusing it. Honesty thy name is not Vanilla Rhapsody.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I used one.....you know they have them on the Internet now...
cali
(114,904 posts)in the correct manner.
oh, and because you almost surely don't know the word "indubitably:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indubitably
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but again....WHO is focused solely on a word here?
Can we try to get back to my actual point?
cali
(114,904 posts)of the word.
oh yeah, your point is that hilly will win no matter what and she's faultless. I think that's foolish.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And even if Cali said "whinge", that doesn't call her nationality into question, because all sorts of people in all countries use loan words from other countries.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)....Hillary has name recognition right now, and the machine - for the moment.
But if she wants the nomination and the presidency, she will have to work for it. She "campaigned" in 2008 as if she was entitled to both - hence her inability to put Barack Obama away on Super Tuesday. As a result - she got neither.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democratic Party has been infiltrated by Conservatives that now define everyone to the left of H. Clinton as "non-Democratci" or "Left Leaning Independent". These Conservative Democrats think that if they support social issues they can define themselves as the "New Democrats". But if they support the Oligarchy they can't be a Democrat in spite of what they call themselves.
Democrats don't support the Keystone Pipeline, fracking, the "Free" Trade agreements, Chained CPI, bailouts for Goldman-Sachs, domestic spying, the Patriot Act, drone killing, continuous war in the Middle East, a unregulated Security State. Those are not issues that Democrats support. Maybe people calling themselves Democrats do, but one either follows Democratic Principles or not.
If Christie started calling himself a Democrat today, would you support him? Do think we should blindly follow all or anyone that calls themselves a Democrat?
I think principles are more important than a label, and I think all good Democrats would agree.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)even IF it is Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Can you say that?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)candidates that have proven they have zero integrity.
If Christie ran for president as a Democrat, I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT HIM. Can you say the same thing?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)right now the polls show her running away with it.....AND show her beating ALL Republicans.....that is not blindly following now is it?
Christie is NEVER going to run as a Democrat so I don't have to answer a fantastical question....
WiLL YOU support whom WE select in a Primary ELECTION?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...but that doesn't really matter since there is no provision on the ballots for the use of such necessary tools when voting for such Third Way Stench.
But if it keeps the Repubs out, I'll drag them with me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and degrading and berating others who do support her.....makes you a hypocrite.
A real Democrat supports the Party....the Party is made up of US....a collective...we are like a Union of like minded folks. In a Union of like minded folks....not everyone will agree on EVERY ISSUE....therefore in our Union of Like Minded people .....we come to a consensus....that is called a Primary Election! Right now polling numbers....and that is really all we can judge by....show that our members in the Union of Like Mindedness....are far and away in support of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who happens to ALSO poll winning against the entire Opposition Union field...
You want to berate the Dems who support their Union of Likemindedness because of whom THEY are agreeing on....and then in the end....YOU admit you WILL vote for whom the Union elected!
I call that hypocrisy.....and non-productive...
Lead, follow or.....
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...it's acknowledging the sad fact that there are only two viable candidates in any given presidential election.
And we know what we're going to get with Repubs - the Paul Ryan budget, increasingly overbloated military spending, and the completion of the conversion of our society to Corporate Feudalism.
So I've already said that IF HRC gets the Dem nod, I'll vote for her. But not with any pleasure or enthusiasm.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)elzenmahn
(904 posts)...but thanks for playing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;
antonyms: sincerity
Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis acting of a theatrical part, from hupokrinesthai play a part, pretend, from hupo under + krinein decide, judge.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...my stance on HRC is not hypocritical. And I've already said that I will vote for her, to keep the Repubs out. If SHE wants or expects enthusiasm, then she will have to earn it. Up to now, she hasn't.
So what is your issue? That I don't enthusiastically support her? There is no provision on any ballot for enthusiasm - it only allows one to vote for one or the other.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)elzenmahn
(904 posts)...one ROTFLMAO smilie figure doesn't answer any of the questions I posed in my previous post.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)uH What????? Are you sure about that nickname? What are you trying to say?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)DEmocrats that act like Republicans. I support Democrats but not all Democrats. Some don't deserve the label Democrat.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and please PROVE how that person has acted like one...
I think those that will NOT pledge to vote for OUR Primary winner chosen in a Democratic ELECTION deserve the label Democrat!
By the way...EVEN Bernie Sanders would make that pledge!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Acting in lock-step is a conservative behavior.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That the Grand Jury was right???
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in your "We". The Democratic machine at the top is corrupt with Conservatives. I am not part of that We.
I will never support the Oligarchs and their puppets. Goldman-Sachs is sponsoring Clinton. How can you see that as a good thing? We have candidates that have integrity.
My question about Christie was rhetorical as I knew you won't answer. The question is meant to reveal whether you support the label or the ideology. You won't tell us. I support Democratic ideology and if someone puts a (D) behind their name I won't automatically follow.
If one rejects Free Trade agreements when Republicans call for them and accept Free Trade agreements when a person with a (D) behind their names calls for them, then they have "situational principles". The same holds true for those that disparage Bush for lying us into war while accepting the same lies from HRC.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...I'm not part of that We, either.
I will admit to being concerned about keeping the Repubs out, however. We know what we'll get with them - and it makes what the ConservaDems support pale in comparison: the Paul Ryan budget, massive cuts to infrastructure and social spending, etc.
This is what sux about having a two-party, corporate-backed system.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If you are not pledged to vote for whom WE Democrats elect in OUR Primary....
You got a problem with that?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)....and so do many, many other people who feel like they are having a particular candidate rammed down our throats.
And as for "whom WE Democrats elect in OUR Primary"...THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AWAY! The Democrats have chosen NOBODY as of yet!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)even Bernie Sanders would make that pledge....sorry....WRONG!
Independent = not dependable....thus your not pledging to vote for the Primary winner....means you are NOT dependable...thus Independent!
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...who is "WE", 'NillaRap?
The primaries haven't even started yet and already you're talking about the candidate "WE" selected!
Who is this "WE" you reference? I've had no say yet, and neither has anybody else - the PRIMARIES that decide those matters are over 1 1/2 years away.
Now if you decide to pull out your polls, please remember: at this stage, those poll numbers mean absolute SQUAT. LOTS can happen between now and primary season. Point being - HRC is entitled to NOTHING. She'll have to earn my vote.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)a Union of "likeminded" adults....
what did YOU think it meant?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...aaaah, so GET IN FORMATION TO SUPPORT HRC!
Is that what you're suggesting?
If that's what you mean by "likeminded", then no thank you. I think for myself.
(And, I would submit, most Democrats.)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thats a line I don't mind standing in....
Not to mention I pledge to vote for whomever my fellow "Union of Likeminded" choose in a Primary ELECTION....(you know....DEMOCRACY in action!)
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...that's your right, and I do, in fact, respect it.
But I think for myself. HRC, like any candidate, needs to EARN my vote. Nobody is entitled to it.
To me, thinking for ones' self is DEMOCRACY in action.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)single digits except for Joe Biden who polls second behind her at 11%!
She has EARNED their support with a 50 point lead over the pack because she polls ahead of all Republicans....and none of the others can boast that!
You are in the minority....
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...but again, I state that at this stage of the game, polls mean SQUAT.
The only polls that matter are the ones held in Primary Season 2016 and the General Election, when VOTERS (rather than poll respondents) will have their say.
As for me being in the minority, well, that's fine by me. I vote my conscience, not just because a pack (or leader of same) says so. And I still say - Hillary is not entitled to ANYTHING.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Quote Vanilla: Get in line behind the person that polls at 64%
and who polls beating all Republicans
Post a link to this poll or stop making
misleading assertions that 64% of DEMOCRATS
support Hillary
64% of any poll is NOT a WINNER since
500 people is not the Democratic Party.
I guarantee that poll you are trying
to twist into something relevant
has less than 500 people supporting Hillary!
I am also confident that her like/dislike numbers are abysmal
and lastly I highly doubt her "beating" ALL republicans
is by any significant margin, if at all.
So please, post that specific 64% approval poll link!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)with historical record of ALL polls...I have the trend lines supporting my contention...its right at my link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
OH and she is at 57% because everyone took a hit after the Midterms...but everyone else are still nearly 50 points away....you covering that spread?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is just calling yourself a Democrat. Zell Miller called himself a Democrat as did Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman.
St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch calls himself a Democrat but he and I are not like-minded.
There are people calling themselves Democrats that support fracking, yet fracking benefits the 1%.
This war isn't between Democrats and Republicans, it's between Conservatives and non-conservatives. There are Democrats that vote with Republicans. Are you like-minded with them?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)in a Primary Election! You know those inconvenient "election" thingys!
Marr
(20,317 posts)Just let me know if you ever want to take a week off. I'll give you a great deal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Epic fail....you are going to have to do sooo much better...such a sad pathetic effort. Grade F.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)No.
I won't actively post for anyone other than a Democrat on DU, but I will not support Hillary in a general election. I think millions of Dem voters feel the same as I do as well.
I honestly believe a primary vote for Hillary is a general election vote for a third party or Republican.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not a Dependable Democrat! That means its not really your primary anyways....its a Democratic Primary....of Democrats...dependable ones. When you are not part of the "Union" ...well you know how Unions feel about outsiders...
obxhead
(8,434 posts)but you have another agenda.
I'm guessing that if a Dem ran on a platform of making puppy murder fun, you would be in support of that candidate.
I, on the other hand, can see that puppy murder is just wrong. I wouldn't support that candidate just because they had the proper letter next to their name.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the front-runner with the polls to show that they also beat ALL Republicans....because I AM a Democrat...not a Left-Leaning Independent.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...you may disparage Left-Leaning Independents, but once the General rolls around and assuming HRC has clinched, you and your folk had better find a way to win them over. You can forget the WH without them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that YOU do not support its called a Primary.
and now you sound JUST like a Teabagger with that statement. That is THEIR M.O. exactly.....they are a vocal MINORITY that holds the Republican party hostage.
I oppose that....because I am a DEMOCRAT!
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...and I'm not a Teabagger, and I don't see how you would conclude such a thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You will find them all over DU! They are the majority here whether YOU like that or not...
A true Democrat would vote for whomever their fellow Democrats selected....that is called Democracy and Democracy means you don't always get what YOU want.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)So if she is the candidate, you are supporting
a candidate that WILL lose.
You want the Democratic Party to lose?
Hillary for President is a LOSER in most polls!
Even the polls YOU CITED as proof she is a "WINNER"
she would lose to Romney or Christie,
and is tied with Paul, Bush and Huckabee!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Bush 14, Paul 8, Christie 11, Ryan 7, Huckabee 7, Perry 3, Walker 6, Rubio 3, Cruz 5, Jindal 3, Santorum 2 Bush +3
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Quinnipiac Clinton 57, Warren 13, Biden 9, Cuomo , Sanders 4, O'Malley 1, Webb 1 Clinton +44
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Christie 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Paul 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Ryan 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Huckabee 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 48, Cruz 37 Clinton +11
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Again....I support whomever wins the Primary....but IN the Primary....I stand behind whoever has ^^^ THAT record....because I want to WIN!
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)This is the last direct refutation of your misguided reading
of a poll and meager attempt to distort what is plain for all to see.
It will be 2 TWO years of this inane cheer leading.
Most people are better served by clear-eyed, and critical thinking...
not simpleminded distortions intended to mislead the DU membership.
In the poll you posted, HILLARY IS TIED or LOSES to the republicans!
The Margin of Error (MoE) is +/- 2.4 percentage points.
That means, there could be a swing of up to 4.8% in the matchups.
As you will see Hillary is +1 against Christie she is TIED with him or could LOSE
Hillary is +4 against Ryan, again a dead heat or she could LOSE
Hillary is +5 against Paul, Bush, and Huckabee THAT IS NOT a WINNER!
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Paul 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Ryan 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Huckabee 41 Clinton +5
The survey YOU CITED only interviewed 610 DEMOCRATS, by phone, and did not include demographics
610 DEMOCRATS! And you think that makes her a WINNER?
In the poll YOU CITED Hillary has a 50 - 45 percent favorability rating
She is ALMOST disliked as much as she is liked, again NOT A WINNER.
So keep on cheer leading if you want to, but don't try to tell REAL Democrats
that she is a WINNER, because the POLLS show she is not.
And please refrain from distorting polls and misleading the DU membership.
A poll of 610 Democrats, who we can't even identify demographically,
isn't worth the effort to repeat in any intellectually honest conversation.
And lastly, until we know the sampling method to capture those 610 Democrats
we have to assume the results could be biased.
Did they call 610 Democrats in a nursing home?
Did they call 610 Democrats who are likely to support Hillary?
Did they call 610 Democrats who also are just bored and willing to do a survey?
Did they call 610 Democrats who support the TPP or a war against Syria?
Who did they call, EXACTLY?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NO you do not!
Therefore I WIN!
Deny the polls all you want!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)than a right supporting Democrat.
I have the ability to think and reason and that ability allows me to support my own best interests. Hillary does not represent my own best interests, or the best interests of our nation. I'll put my efforts and support behind a candidate who represents us.
We've been through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. That road has been tested and failed. There is no need to repeat the lesson.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wednesday, November 26
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
Quinnipiac Bush 14, Paul 8, Christie 11, Ryan 7, Huckabee 7, Perry 3, Walker 6, Rubio 3, Cruz 5, Jindal 3, Santorum 2 Bush +3
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Quinnipiac Clinton 57, Warren 13, Biden 9, Cuomo , Sanders 4, O'Malley 1, Webb 1 Clinton +44
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Christie 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Paul 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Ryan 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Huckabee 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 48, Cruz 37 Clinton +11
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Is not a victory.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I know who is NOT a Democrat! Someone that cannot pledge to vote for the winner of the Primary no matter WHO that is!
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bernie Sanders will vote for the winner of our Primary....even if it is Hillary? Want to bet on that?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)because you sure sound like you're making a list.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Plus, as we have all seen, pledges are not enforceable.
Oh, speaking of "words" - I do love the word "whinge" - more descriptive, makes me think of more relentless, dreary, hoping to wear you down whining. You DO know that Americans and the British do swap and borrow words, right?
Currently, I am fond of the word "gutted". Does that make me some sort of infiltrator? Bwah! Born in South Philly, lived in the US all my life. Got out a bit and read and traveled, though, that does make a difference.
The "word" that cracks me up?
"Alot" instead of "a lot".
Always makes me picture a young teenage girl, popping her bubble gum and furiously texting away.
Not to be taken seriously.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have officially made yourself an Independent ....by definition....
Independent = "Not Dependable"
You may be a Left Leaning one......but you are still not a dependable one if you cannot make that pledge
djean111
(14,255 posts)(pointless) pledges from anyone whatsoever.
What you think of me or my political leanings is not in the least bit important.
"Officially"????? Bwahahahaha!
And stop acting as if you don't demand that HRC be the candidate. With no opposition. Not going to happen, you know.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)even Bernie Sanders would pledge to vote for whomever wins that Primary!
Its called Democracy....it involves elections....if you don't support the choice your FELLOW Democrats make....you ARE by definition an Independent albeit a Left Leaning one...
Sorry you may get your own opinion but you don't get your own facts!
djean111
(14,255 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democracy works....WE hold our own DEMOCRATIC Elections.....We choose a set of Candidates.
No one asked you if you ONLY support ONE of them......its about SUPPORTING the decision of your FELLOW Democrats.
\
For example Barack Obama was not my choice in the run up....but I vote for whomever MY FELLOW Democrats selected.....
You see...its not about CANDIDATES....its about our MEMBERS and what we COLLECTIVELY decide...
djean111
(14,255 posts)So your shift from "Hillary IS NOT a hawk" to "You all better pledge right here right now" is foolish. And off-track.
This thread is not about making pledges.
Democracy is now decided by the 1%, in case you have not noticed. I have even seen the argument that Hillary HAS to be the candidate because she has the mostest money evah! So depending on the current state of Democracy seems a bit iffy.
This thread is about a potential CANDIDATE. We have not collectively decided anything.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that by definition makes you an Independent....albeit a Left Leaning one!
djean111
(14,255 posts)And not at all relevant to this OP, but you surely must know that. Can't jack a thread by sticking to the actual OP, I guess.....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You don't have to like it...
and I am responding to your position....you just don't like that!
djean111
(14,255 posts)My position is that I don't like Hillary. That is all anyone needs to know for the time being.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yes or no...it is a very simple equation!
djean111
(14,255 posts)I suggest you start your very own poll or OP, asking this question.
Then you can have a meaningless list of names or whatever, without hi-jacking someone else's thread. Or could that be the point...hmmmm.
Honestly, I cannot think of anyone - Obama on down through supporters, who has the standing to demand an answer to that or the ability to see who I actually vote for. So the question is just a hilarious version of McCarthyism, that's all it is. :-O
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...the Democratic label doesn't mean a whole lot unless it's attached to genuine Democratic principles, which as you say above, don't support things like the the Patriot Act, Chained CPI, etc.
As for supporting anybody with a "D" next to their name - this mentality brought us Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and other alleged "Dems" whose voting patterns were as (if not more so) more pro-corporate than the Republicans.
And I would agree with the assertion that you can't support the Oligarchs and be a true Democrat - and that's HRC for you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You know "independent" means "undependable" right?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...especially when you are the one assigning the definitions. Thought you'd have your handy-dandy dictionary ready for this one!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You need a dictionary to know what an Independent political position is?
elzenmahn
(904 posts)I'm looking forward to seeing your source, too...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Funny the Elected Republicans I see do not seem to support those positions.......I think your calculations might be a bit off...
Here....I will let her own words do the talking for her..
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Crime.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Government_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Immigration.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Jobs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Technology.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... do you not consider "right-wing"? Do you actually believe these policies are good for America?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)of quotes (aka evidence) I have to the contrary....You see YOU don't get to cherry-pick the issues....YOUR measly list is not the ONLY issues that determine who is or isn't....
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Does "comfortable with same-sex marriage" cover it for you?
See, for me, being pro-war is a disqualifier, regardless of any other positions the candidate may espouse.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 29, 2014, 03:31 AM - Edit history (2)
Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlementMrs. Clinton said it was a mistake in retrospect to demand in 2009 a complete freezing of Israeli settlement construction as a precursor to peace talks. This allowed the Arab states and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to essentially stand back from negotiations until the U.S. could deliver on Obama's demand:
"That made it very hard for either one to climb down or compromise. The Arab states were happy to sit on the sidelines and use the dust-up as an excuse for their own inaction. And Abbas, who had consistently called for a halt to settlement construction for years, now claimed it was all our idea and said he wouldn't come to the peace table without a moratorium on settlement construction." (Page 316)
Source: Wall Street Journal on Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton , Jun 17, 2014
I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, along with regional partners
I returned to Washington reasonably confident that if we decided to begin arming and training moderate Syrian rebels, we could put in place effective coordination with our regional partners.
The risks of both action and inaction were high. Both choices would bring unintended consequences. The Presidents' inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels. No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the President's call and I respected his deliberations and decision. From the beginning of our partnership, he had promised me that would always get a fair hearing. And I always did. In this case, my position didn't prevail.
Source: Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014
Contain Russia or Putin will expand beyond Crimea
During her remarks in San Francisco, Clinton said Russian President Vladimir Putin would not be satisfied with Russia's annexation of Crimea. Clinton said Putin "will go as far as he can go unless he is contained. I don't believe Putin will be satisfied with Crimea."
Her comments came at a marketing industry conference as pro-Russia protests in the eastern part of Ukraine were ongoing. The United States has condemned the protest as the transparent work of Russia attempting to provoke a response.
Clinton has spoken out a number of times against Putin's action in Crimea. She reiterated a point she has made before that the Russia leader is a "tough guy with thin skin."
In the past, she has said Russia's pretext for invading Crimea in order to protect ethnic Russians was similar to arguments made by Germany in World War II.
Source: Mario Trujillo on The Hill weblog, "Thikning about 2016" , Apr 9, 2014
Supported decision to target Osama bin Laden
In our interview, she emphasizes her "personal friendship" with Obama, with whom she had developed a kind of bond of pragmatism and respect--one based on shared goals, both political and strategic. "I feel comfortable raising issues with him," she says. "I had a very positive set of interactions, even when I disagreed, which obviously occurred, because obviously I have my own opinions, my own views."
The killing of bin Laden, she says, was a bonding experience. Obama's Cabinet had been split on whether to attempt the mission, but Clinton backed it and sweated out the decision with the commander-in-chief. "I've seen the president in a lot of intense and difficult settings," she says, "and I've watched him make hard decisions. Obviously, talking to you on September 11 as we are, the bin Laden decision-making process is certainly at the forefront of my mind."
Source: New York Magazine interview, "Hillary in Midair" , Sep 22, 2013
Obama rejected her 2012 plan to arm the Syrian rebels
Although Hillary Clinton hasn't weighed in on possible military intervention in the days since the latest chemical attack in Syria, she discussed the conflict in Syria in January, when asked what it would take for "America to intervene."
Clinton answered that while she thinks "we have been very actively involved," there needed to be a "credible opposition coalition," saying, "You cannot even attempt a political solution if you don't have a recognized force to counter the Assad regime."
"I think I've done what was possible to do over the last two years in trying to create or help stand up an opposition that was credible and could be an interlocutor in any kind of political negotiation," Clinton said.
In February it was revealed that the president rebuffed a plan last summer by Clinton, the CIA Director & Defense Secretary to arm the Syrian rebels.
Source: ABC News "Candidates stand on Syria" , Aug 31, 2013
OpEd: Iraq war follows tradition of active US leadership
Most of the prominent Democrats in Congress, including Senator Hillary Clinton, decided to support the 2002 Iraq resolution, casting votes that they would all find themselves obligated to justify for years afterwards.
For the Democratic foreign policy elite, the Iraq War was a disaster both politically and for the ideas they had come to hold. The war reopened old divisions between the Democratic Party's leaders and the party's base. At the grass roots, since Vietnam, liberals had been instinctively skeptical about the use of force. By contrast, many of the party's foreign policy hands, particularly the alumni of the Clinton administration, had a different outlook. They viewed themselves as heirs to the foreign policy traditions of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy, all proponents of national strength and an active leadership role for the US. The Clinton administration had put its imprint on the general idea of regime change in Iraq, though not by American military invasion.
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p. 47 , Jun 14, 2012
Clinton-Gates combo won push for Afghan surge
Just as the Obama administration was beginning to hold meetings to decide [whether to send a troop surge to] Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal's report leaked out.
Robert Gates gradually came around to supporting the McChrystal request, and Hillary Clinton did, too. During that period, the two often sided with each other in administration debates; they were happy to show that the secretaries of state and defense could work smoothly together, unlike their immediate predecessors, Donald Rumsfeld with Colin Powell & Condi Rice. The Clinton-Gates combine helped to win over the president to sending more troops, despite the skepticism of other senior administration officials such as Biden; the president was not prepared to override the recommendations of the two departments primarily responsible for foreign affairs. Obama approved the deployment of 30,000 more American troops for Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 100,000, and also called on NATO allies to provide another 5,000 or more of their own.
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.134-136 , Jun 14, 2012
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war
Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241 , Nov 9, 2010
War authorization vote made primary harder than general
Bill Clinton knew his wife could do it, and do it damn well, too. Some felt that she had the nomination locked up but would face a daunting challenge in the general election. Bill believed the opposite--a point he made repeatedly to anyone who would listen. "This primary is gonna be harder than the general," he would say.
Clinton's assessment was based primarily on one thing: the anger of the party's liberal base at Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraq War and her continued refusal to recant it. With elections in Iraq scheduled for that December, the body count rising, and sectarian violence raging in the region, calls were intensifying for a troop reduction or even a full-scale withdrawal. On Nov. 13, Edwards, whom the Clintons considered Hillary's most serious rival for the nomination, published an op-ed in "The Washington Post" apologizing for his own Senate vote in favor of authorizing the war. (It's first sentence: "I was wrong." The pressure was mounting on Hillary to do the same.
Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 39 , Jan 11, 2010
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label
Hillary had no intention of saying she was sorry [for her Iraq war vote]. "I don't have anything to apologize for," she thought. "You want me to apologize for the fact that the president is an idiot?"
Hillary liked to say that she was blessed (or cursed) with a "responsibility gene." It was why, as a NY senator in the wake of 9/11, she had voted to authorize the war in the first place--and why she was resistant to pushing for a date certain for withdrawal now. If she reversed herself now, she would be buying a one-way ticket to Kerryville: the GOP would tattoo her forehead with the lethal "flip-flopper" label.
The Iraq dilemma was a pure Hobson's choice. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't--so she adopted her husband's method & split the difference. Hillary claimed that she wasn't voting for war in 2002 but instead for more diplomacy. Now she decided to add her name to legislation that urged the president to begin a "phased redeployment" of the troops by the end of 2006.
Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 45 , Jan 11, 2010
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: I will take no options off the table. It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, and the US would take appropriate action.
CLINTON: I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. #1, weve got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran. #2, weve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
Calling for troop withdrawal pressures Iraqi government
Q: You started calling for pulling US troops out of Iraq in November of 2005. If we had followed your policy, wouldnt Al Qaeda by now be able to say that they had driven the US out of Iraq?
A: The so-called surge was designed to give the Iraqi government the space and time to make the tough decisions that only the Iraqis can make for themselves. Its my assessment that only now is the Iraqi government starting to grapple with problems that many of us have been pushing them to resolve for 5 years. And the problem is that they have up until now believed that they didnt really have to take any tough action, that President Bush had given them basically a blank check, that the American military would be there to protect them and protect other parts of the country. I think weve got to bring our troops home and really require and put the pressure on the Iraqis to make the tough decisions that they have to make.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: Choosing the President series , Feb 3, 2008
Some tactical success in Iraq, but no strategic success yet
Q: Last September when General Petraeus testified before Congress about the surge working, and you said, The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. Since then, the violence is clearly dropping. Baghdad is sharing oil revenue with the provinces. They are allowing some Sunnis back into the government. Clearly, there are a lot of problems, but why are you so determined to declare defeat?
A: Well, thats not at all what Im doing. I think theres a difference between tactical success on the ground, and strategic success. And I think youre overstating what is happening in Iraq. Theres a lot of problems getting money from the central government into the Sunni areas. The oil bill hasnt been resolved yet. De-Baathification is tied up in their Parliament because there is such a reaction to it by many of the Shiite factions. You know, this is, obviously, a fractious and often contentious government.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: Choosing the President series , Feb 3, 2008
Would have never diverted attention from Afghanistan
Its clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York, in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was welcomed to the forgotten front lines in the war against terror, that just struck me so forcefully. We have so many problems that we are going to have to untangle. It will take a tremendous amount of effort. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required. We had to fight to get body armor. Bush sent people to war without body armor. We need a president who will be sensitive to the implications of the use of force and understand that force should be a last resort, not a first resort.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel wrath of US
In early Oct. 2002, the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution that would give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed. For Hillary, it amounted to the most important vote of her public life.
Coming to a decision involved a knotty set of calculations. Hillary had put down, as she put it, a pretty pugnacious marker the day after Sept. 11 by saying that those helping terrorists would face the wrath of the US. Retreating from that muscular stance would be tricky. On the other hand, if she voted yes, she would be giving Bush the authority to launch a pre-emptive war--a concept that reminded her of the failed war in Vietnam.
Voting against the resolution would also mean retreating from the policies of another president--her husband. Bill has signed a law in 1998 that contained non-binding provisions calling for regime change. Finally, there was Hillarys concern that she could never win the presidency if she didnt prove that she was tough enough.
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.240-241 , Jun 8, 2007
1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam
By 1968, there were far fewer bitter debates among students about the wars merits, particularly following the Tet Offensive. The nightly news was filled with images of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese inflicting casualties against American troops in the heart of Saigon, and journalists were now explaining the war in increasingly worrisome ways. By then, Hillary was no longer trying to reconcile conflicted feelings about the war, or the leftward drift of her own politics. She was already beginning to call herself a former Goldwater Girl, demonstrating her newfound political beliefs most dramatically by supporting the anti-war campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in his bid to displace President Johnson as the Democratic nominee. Along with a few classmates, Hillary traveled to New Hampshire on weekends to stuff envelopes and campaign on Senator McCarthys behalf.
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p. 30 , Jun 8, 2007
At Wellesley in 68, steered anti-war movement within system
During Hillarys freshman year, she eased into the leadership of the Wellesley Young Republicans club, and by the end of the second semester, was elected president. Meanwhile, she had begun questioning her partys policies on civil rights and the war.
At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.
Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillarys strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p. 43-45 , Jun 5, 2007
I have seen firsthand terrorists terrible damage
I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11. And I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda. And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
Supports border security fence in Israel
Hillary worked closely with Jewish leaders to oppose the International Court of Justice passing judgment on the legality of Israels security fence. Clinton released a statement supporting the fence as a legitimate response to terrorist attacks.
In 2004 Hillary stated that a suicide bombing in Jerusalem shows the day-to-day danger that Israelis face and that has caused the Israeli government to decide that it must build a fence to protect its people.
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p.128 , Oct 11, 2006
Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago
OBAMA: [to CLINTON]: I stand by my statement that I would go into western Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed.
CLINTON: We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago, based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences. I think its imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistans territory be given the most careful consideration. And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know theyre on the way. Because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that weve got to have a plan to try to make sure we dont ignite some kind of reaction.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2006
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.
[On the 2002 Iraq war vote], she managed to sound vehemently anti Saddam without sounding pro Bush. In a floor speech on the measure to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Hillary managed quite a juggling act. She criticized the United Nations for puttin limits on inspection sites. She warned of Saddam Husseins ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. she concluded that going to war against Iraq on the present facts is not a good option but voted to enable George W. Bush to lead the nation into war.
Source: Madame Hillary, by R. Emmett Tyrell, p. 48-49 , Feb 25, 2004
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally
Q: In recent weeks, scores of people have been killed in the Middle East. In view of whats happened, do you think there should be a Palestinian state now?
CLINTON: Only as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. Thats always been my position, that [it should] guarantee Israels safety and security and the parties should agree at the negotiating table. A unilateral declaration is absolutely unacceptable and it would mean the end of any US aid.
LAZIO: Thats a change of heart for Mrs. Clinton, because back in 1998 you called for a Palestinian state. You undercut the Israeli negotiating position. The people of New York want to have somebody who has a consistent record. For eight years I have been consistent and strong in my support for the security of the state of Israel. Without equivocation. Without a question mark next to my name.
CLINTON: There is no question mark next to me. Theres an exclamation point. I am an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israels safety and security.
Source: NY Senate debate on NBC , Oct 28, 2000
Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel
LAZIO [to Hillary]: Its very hard to accept a claim of consistency [on Israel] when you called for a Palestinian state with full military powers. Its difficult to accept that you are a consistent supporter when you stand on the sidelines while Suha Arafat issues a blood libel suggesting that Israelis have been orchestrating an attack on Palestinian women and children with poison. Its hard for us to imagine youve been a consistent supporter when you refused to support the law which says that we should move our embassy to Jerusalem, not next year, but right now. For eight years Ive wanted the embassy to be placed in Jerusalem. CLINTON: My positions for more than 20 years have been to do everything I could to support Israel and to increase the relationships between the US and Israel. Ive worked on everything from the National Council of Jewish Womens program to bring a preschool instruction program for children of the US, to speaking out, time and time again, about violence and terrorism.
Source: (X-ref Lazio) NY Senate debate on NBC , Oct 28, 2000
Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace
Hillary Clinton supports a move [of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem]. She spoke more generally yesterday about what she called her longstanding respect for the country and its people. The United States has been and will be always there for Israel, she said. And we will always support the Israeli government and Israeli people as they struggle to find a safe and secure peace.
She stayed away from more controversial topics, such as whether there should be an independent Palestinian state. Mrs. Clinton angered many Jewish voters last year with when she voiced support for such a state. But the animosity felt by some in the crowd toward Mrs. Clinton was evident on nearly every block, with some holding signs recalling her embrace last year of Yasir Arafats wife, Suha.
Source: Associated Press in NY Times , May 26, 2000
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese
The message of Oslo [was]: How we can fulfill Rabins legacy by bidding farewell to generations of war and ushering in a new century of real and lasting peace? The same must be true on all of Israels borders so that the peace that now covers some will be a peace that extends to all-Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.
Source: Remarks at Tel Aviv Performing Arts Center , Nov 11, 1999
Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power
OBAMA: [to Clinton]: If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, [within Pakistan], and Pres.Musharraf cannot act, then we should. I think thats just common sense.
CLINTON: People running for president should not engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence--but remember, weve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence--might lead to a certain action. But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons. So you can think big, but remember, you shouldnt always say everything you think if youre running for president, because it has consequences across the world.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007
Hillary Clinton on Iran
Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes
Q: Your predecessor, Henry Kissinger, said that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that it is a turning point in history.
A: Our policy is prevention, not containment. And we have, through hard work with the international community, imposed the toughest set of sanctions on any country. We know it's having an effect. We have to continue to keep them isolated, and keep Russia and China on board. [But] we've said from the very beginning, we're open to diplomacy. We are doing so in the so-called P5-plus-1 format.
Q: What about military action against them?
A: Well, we've always said all options are on the table. The president has been very clear about that. [With regards to the] terrorism aspect of Iran's behavior, when I came into office, there were too many countries that were turning a blind eye to it. We have worked very hard to get the international community to say these guys need to be stopped on the terrorism front. They cannot be permitted to go forward.
Source: Fox News "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" , Jan 29, 2013
Trust but verify Iran: goal is diplomacy & open inspections
Q: With sanctions on Iran, where are they getting the money to fund Hezbollah and Hamas?
A: Well, they are a rich country. They have economic strength that has been built up over many years. These sanctions are truly biting, but there are outlier countries that still try to evade the efforts. But there's more to come. We'll be issuing more sanctions. Ultimately, what we want to see is Iran come to the negotiating table and say they're going to have open inspections. They claim that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Q: You don't believe that.
A: I'm from the trust-but-verify camp when it comes to Iran. You know, this is what they say. But we have a body of evidence that points in the other direction. If that is true, then why are they developing intercontinental ballistic missile capacity? Why are they adding centrifuges and more enriched uranium? They owe the international community an explanation as to what it they're doing if they claim they're not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Source: Fox News "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" , Jan 29, 2013
Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran
Q: Do you agree with the presidents assessment that Iran still poses a threat? And do you agree that the NIEs news shows that isolation and sanctions work?
A: Im relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothings changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think thats what the president should do.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon
Q: Are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?
A: Well, many of us believe that. Earlier this year, Senator Edwards told an audience in Israel that the nuclear threat from Iran was the greatest threat to our generation. Back in 2004, Senator Obama told the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board that he would even consider nukes to take out Irans nuclear capacity. So there was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb
Q: Would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
A: I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University , Oct 30, 2007
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice
Q: Why did you vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
A: I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February & say Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran. Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but Im also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound--its not even a question of whether, its a question of when and what weapons to use--and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University , Oct 30, 2007
Irans Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism
GRAVEL: [to Clinton]: This is Fantasyland--were talking about ending the war; my God, were just starting another war! There was a vote in the Senate today--Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution, and its essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. I want to congratulate Biden & Dodd for voting against it, and Im ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. Youre not going to get another shot at this--we invade and theyre looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
CLINTON: My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the leaders.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first
Q: [to Clinton]: Would the Israelis be justified in taking military action if they felt their security was threatened by a nuclear presence in Iran?
CLINTON: Im not going to answer that because its hypothetical. There would need to be a high standard of proof.
Q: Rudy Giuliani said, Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where theyre going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them; we will set them back 8 to 10 years. That is not said as a threat; that should be said as a promise. Would you make that promise?
CLINTON: I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming an nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks. We havent even tried. Thats what is so discouraging about this. We need a concerted, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran. We havent had it. We need it. And I will provide it.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007
Rule out nukes against Iran
Q: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bushs use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran:
Clinton on videotape:
I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we havent seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think thats a terrible mistake.
Q: Whats the principal difference there?
CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administrations policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get what are called bunker-buster bombs, nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
OBAMA: Theres no difference [in our policies].
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on This Week , Aug 19, 2007
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable
I am very concerned about Iran, and we should have been using diplomacy for a number of years now. I am pleased that Bush is starting to talk to the Iranians, but it is way overdue. We have allowed the Iranians to begin their nuclear program, to imprison Iranian Americans as they are now, to send weapons across their borders to be used against our young men and women, and we need a process of engagement. Bushs policy has been, we dont talk to people we dont agree with or that we think are bad. All during the Cold War, we always talked to the Soviet Union. They had missiles pointed at us. They had leaders who said they would bury us. They waged wars around the world. We never stopped talking. In my administration, patient, careful diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that really gets people to stay with it over time. Are you always going to get good results? No. But youve got to start the process. However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
Hillary Clinton on Iraq War
I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote
Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful.
I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.
Source: Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014
2007: I'm most qualified to end war in Iraq
[In 2007] Hillary had whipped Obama in the interminable series of Democratic debates that had taken place since April. Her mastery of the issues, her knowledge of every jot and tittle about every aspect of public policy, had been on full display--and Obama had been exposed for the naif she knew he was, coming across as vague and weak and windy. She had neutralized many of her most glaring vulnerabilities. She had blurred the distinctions between her and Obama on Iraq, adroitly changing the subject from which candidate was most anti-war to who was more qualified to bring the conflict to an end.
|
She's watched as Obama's campaign was hammered for producing a proposal that was an obvious rip-off of hers. She'd begun to defuse her rival's message, where she said, "change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen." And finally, in the 3rd quarter of the year, she had succeeded in raising more money than Obama.
Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 98-99 , Jan 11, 2010
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation
In May 2007, the Senate voted on $100 billion for Iraq. For Clinton, the bill presented an excruciating choice. Should she bow to reality, support a bill certain to pass, and risk losing enough support among the Democratic base? Or should she stand firm against the president, and face Republican charges in the general election of turning her back on the troops?
Clinton's campaign advisers were unanimous--surprisingly so. All recommended a no vote. But a no vote would seem to violate her nearly 5-year effort to preserve her credentials as a future commander in chief.
In a statement, she said, "Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the president should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation."
Just 14 senators opposed the measure. She had moved dramatically to where she was in a minority within her Democratic caucus.
Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 80-81 , Aug 4, 2009
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists
"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts. That he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons."
--Sen. John Edwards, Sept. 12, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2003
"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
--Sen. Joseph Biden, Sept. 4, 2002
Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 28-29 , Oct 1, 2008
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have
I would begin that with a very clear message to the Iraqis that they no longer had a blank check, as they had been given by Bush, that as we withdraw our troops, probably one to two brigades a month, they would have to step up and make these decisions. I believe that is in the best interest of our military, which has been stretched thin. I do not think it is in the interest of America or of the Iraqis that we continue to be there. It is up to the Iraqis to decide the kind of future they will have.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication
Bush intends to leave at least 130,000, if not more, troops in Iraq as he exits. Its the most irresponsible abdication of what should be a presidential commitment to end what he started. So, we will inherit it. Therefore, I will do everything I can to get as many of our troops out as quickly as possible, taking into account all of these contingencies that were going to have to contend with once we are in charge and once we can get into the Pentagon to figure out whats really there & whats going on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year
Q: Can you make a commitment that 16 months after your inauguration will be enough time for all combat troops to get out of Iraq?
A: I certainly hope it will be. I hope to have nearly all of them out within a year.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Cant leave Iraq safely without a plan
Its not only bringing our young men and women and our equipment out, which is dangerous. They have got to go down those same roads where they have been subjected to bombing and so much loss of life and injury. We have to think about what were going to do with the more than 100,000 Americans civilians who are there, working for the embassy, working for businesses, working for charities. Weve got to figure out what to do with the Iraqis who sided with us. A lot of the drivers and translators saved so many of your young men and womens lives, and I dont think we can walk out on them without having some plan as to how to take care of those who are targeted. At the same time, we have got to tell the Iraqi government there is no more time. They are out of time. They have got to make the tough decisions they have avoided making. They have got to take responsibility for their own country.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Cant let the Iraqis think the US will be there forever
We have to send several messages at once. We are withdrawing, and I believe that is the best message to send to the Iraqis. That they need to know that they have to get serious, because so far they have been under the illusion that the Bush administratio and the Republicans who have more of the same will be there indefinitely. Its important to send that message to the region, because Iran, Syria, the other countries in the neighborhood, are going to find themselves in a very difficult position as we withdraw. Be careful what you wish for. They will be dragged into what is sectarian divisiveness with many different factions among the 3 main groups. Therefore, we need to start diplomatic efforts immediately, getting the Iranians, the Syrians, and others to the table. Its in their interest, our interest, and certainly in the Iraqis interest. Bush has taken the view that I find absolutely indefensible, that he doesnt have to bring any agreement about permanent bases and ongoing occupation.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq
Q: Before the US invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin Amendment which required Bush to report to Congress about the UN inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?
A: Although I believe we needed to put inspectors in, that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give Bush the authority, put those inspectors in, figure out what is there and what isnt there. The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the US would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the UN Security Council. I dont think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it. I did vote to limit the authority that was being given to Bush to one year, and that was not approved. Ive said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused and misused that authority.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption
I warned at the time the Iraq war authorization was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today. Now we have to look at how we go forward. There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to Bushs policy, and some are more committed than others, with McCains recent comments. Hes now accusing me of surrendering because I believe we should withdraw startin within 60 days of my becoming president. Well, that is a debate I welcome, because the Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation that we are confronting. We have to continue to press that case. It will be important, however, that our nominee be able to present both a reasoned argument against continuing our presence in Iraq and the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander-in- chief. That has to cross that threshold in the mind of every American voter.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used
Q: Would you say that you were naive in trusting Bush?
A: No. When the Iraq war vote came to the Senate, we were confronting the reality of trying to deal with the consequences of Bushs action. It is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution--not going to war, but going to the resolution--was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. Some now think this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War. Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians
Withdrawing troops is dangerous. Thats why Ive been working to make sure that we knew all of the various steps we would have to take, because its not just bringing our troops and equipment home. We have more than 100,000 civilians there, working for the embassy, businesses, and charities. We have a lot of Iraqis who sided with us, translators and drivers who put their lives on the line. Im committed to withdrawing our troops and to put the Iraqi government on notice that their time is running out.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution
Im looking to bring our troops home, starting within 60 days of my becoming president. I have the greatest admiration for the American military. Ive been to Iraq three times and met with the leaders of the various factions. But there is no military solution, and our young men and women should not remain as the referees of their conflict. The so-called surge was able to pacify certain parts of Iraq. If we put enough of our men and women and equipment in, were going to be able to have some tactical military success. But the whole purpose of the surge was to force the Iraqi government to move quickly towards the kind of resolution that only it can bring about. What is motivating the Iraqi government is the debate in the political campaign here. They know they will no longer have a blank check from Bush, that I will with draw troops from Iraq. That will put even more pressure on the Iraqis to finally make the decisions that they have to make.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008
Called war on terror Bushs war but has played active role
[After 9/11], Clinton called for punishment for those responsible, the hijackers, and their ilk and vowed that any country that chose to harbor terrorists and in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.
Bush apparently liked what he heard. He echoed her language and issued an almost identical threat, eight days later, in his address to Congress.
On the campaign trail, and especially in television debates, Clinton is at pains to frame the so-called war on terror as Bushs war, but shes had an active part in it. It isnt as if her 9/11 speech was an exception. Clinton supported Bushs invasion and bombardment of Afghanistan. She voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave the government new unconstitutional tools of search and seizure even as federal agents were sweeping thousands of innocent civilians off the streets of US cities, notably in New York.
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 18-19 , Nov 11, 2007
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda
When the US-led invasion of Iraq lay in the balance, pending a vote in Congress, Hillary rose in the Democrat-controlled Senate and voted to give the president the authority he sought to decide to attack.
But Clinton not only gave Bush and Cheney her vote, she embraced their argument, saying that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stocks... and his nuclear program.
Alone among Democratic Senators, she accused Iraqs leader of giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. That link, so shamelessly pushed by the Bush administration, was always doubted by most in so-called intelligence--and most Democrats, not to mention war critics. It was later publicly debunked as false.
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 19 , Nov 11, 2007
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism
EDWARDS: [To Clinton]: Good people have differences about this issue. I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, thats a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq, and when Im on a stage with the Republican nominee come the fall of 2008, Im going to make it clear that Im for ending the war.
CLINTON: I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
EDWARDS: I would not continue combat missions in Iraq. Combat missions mean that the war is continuing
Q: Would you send combat troops back in if there was genocide?
EDWARDS: I believe that America along with the rest of the world would have a responsibility to respond to genocide. But its not something we should do alone.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 26, 2007
No funding that does not move us toward withdrawal
Q: The president is going to submit a new spending bill this week calling for another $200 billion in spending for Iraq. Last May you voted to cut off spending. Will you do so again with this spending bill?
A: I will not vote for any funding that does not move us toward beginning to withdraw our troops, that does not have pressure on the Iraqi government to make the tough political decisions that they have, that does not recognize that there is a diplomatic endeavor that has to be undertaken. This has gone on now, unfortunately, for years, with the president holding on to his failed policy and with Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail deciding to support that failed policy, and its really the only way that I can register my very strong disapproval of this policy, and I will continue to do so.
Q: But some of this money goes to protect our troops from mines and IEDs.
A: I think the best way to protect our troops is to start bringing them home.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer , Sep 23, 2007
Push Pentagon to start planning for Iraq withdrawal
We need to begin moving our troops out, and we have to do it carefully and responsibly. Moving troops out cannot happen without careful planning, which is why Ive been pushing the Pentagon to make sure theyre actually planning because theyve been resistant to doing so.
Secondly, we need much stronger pressure on the Iraqi government than this administration has been willing to bring. And I would certainly condition any aid of any kind on their actually making the political decisions that they have been reluctant and unwilling to do so far. There is no military solution. Everybody agrees with that. And the political solutions seem to be out of the grasp of the Iraqis, because theyre still jockeying for power.
If you look at how we would have to take our troops out, plus the equipment, which we would not want to leave, plus what we do with the Iraqis who sided with us--thousands of them--plus more than 100,000 American contractors who are there--this is a massive, complicated undertaking
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on This Week , Aug 19, 2007
Redeploy responsibly, with regional diplomatic effort
I have a 3-point plan to get out of Iraq, starting with redeploying our troops, but doing it responsibly and carefully, because taking troops out can be just as dangerous as bringing them in. And weve got to get out of Iraq smarter than we got in. Secondly, weve got to put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including withholding aid from them if they dont begin to stabilize the country themselves. And thirdly, we need an intensive diplomatic effort, regionally and internationally.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan
Q: The 2006 election gave the Democrats in office a mandate to end the US occupation of Iraq. Is the reason why we are still in Iraq and seemingly will be for some time due to the Democrats fear that blame for the loss of the war will be placed on them by the Republican spin machine?
A: Since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support with a simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now. I happen to agree that there is no military solution, and the Iraqis refuse to pursue the political solutions. In fact, I asked the Pentagon a simple question: Have you prepared for withdrawing our troops? In response, I got a letter accusing me of being unpatriotic; that I shouldnt be asking questions. Well, one of the problems is that there are a lot of questions that were asking but were not getting answers from the Bush administration.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC , Jul 23, 2007
Deauthorize Iraq war, and dont grant new war authority
The American military has done its job. Look at what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, they gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections, they gave the Iraqi government the chance to give the people of Iraq a better future.
Now, I see the signs Lead us out of Iraq now. That is what we are trying to do. I have joined with Senator Byrd to sponsor legislation to deauthorize this war. The point of our proposal is very simple: To end the presidents authority for the war and force him to seek new authority.
If he thinks that he can get any kind of authority through the Congress, I think that hes mistaken. But we need to end the authority that he is currently operating under, in order to strip him of the legitimacy of going forward with his policy. When Im president, we are going to have a different foreign policy. Were going to start talking to people again. Were going to start rebuilding our alliances again.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
Phased redeployment, not irresponsible immediate withdrawal
Hillarys remarks in 2007 struck an array of themes: Bush had mishandled the war; military men & women were doing a fantastic job; troops should be gradually redeployed out of Iraq. She said nothing about her original vote. But she did say she favored capping the troops at their current levels, though she acknowledged it was impractical for Congress to stop the presidents surge. She called for a troop surge to Afghanistan. Hillary also proposed a series of political, military, and economic conditions to be met by the Iraqis and certified by the president. Absent that certification, she proposed cutting off further funding--not to American troops, but to Iraqi security forces and to the contractors guarding Iraqi officials.
She continued to support phased redeployment, as opposed to the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 troops proposed by John Edwards, or a dramatic funding cutoff mentioned by others. Her approach, she told a reporter, stemmed from being cursed with the responsibility gene.
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.301-302 , Jun 8, 2007
Bush misused authorization for war
Hillary had this interview with Joshua Green four years after she voted for the war (as Green recalls it):
Q: Was Bushs decision to go to war really something she didnt expect at the time?
A: Ive said that he misused the authority granted to him.
Q: Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Do you mean you were not among them?
A: Well, I think thats correct.
But here are the facts. A heated national debate preceded the vote, with the antiwar voices from both the Left and the Right demanding the president seek congressional authority before proceeding. He did so. The measure was entitled, A Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Nothing ambiguous about it--and Hillary voted for it.
Now Hillary claims she didnt believe that she was voting for war. She doesnt defend her vote or call it a mistake. She wants to blame it on someone else--because Bush misled her.
Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p. 86 , Jun 5, 2007
The Iraq war is Bushs war
The Iraq war is Bushs war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war. We are trying to end the war. And each of us has made that very clear. We have different approaches. I have a three-step plan to bring the troops home starting now, put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility, and cut off aid when they wont, and engage in intensive diplomacy regionally and internationally.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
Iraq war wouldnt have happened had the inspectors been sent
Q: Do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before the Iraq war vote? A: I feel like I was totally briefed, I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from all directions. I thought the best way to find out who was right in the intelligence community was to send in the inspectors. If Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish the job they started, we would have known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and we would not have gone and invaded Iraq.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war
If I had known then what I know now I never would have voted to give Bush authority. It was a mistake to trust Bush that he would do what he told all of us he would do. He made it in speeches, he told us in private that he would put the inspectors in to determine whether or not the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Clinton administration, many other countries who thought that there were stores of chemical and biological weapons were true or not.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US
Q: Harry Reid recently said the war in Iraq is lost. Some call his comments treasonous. Do you agree with the position of your Senate leader?
A: The American people have spoken. The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war. And now we can only hope that the president will listen. Im very proud of the Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for putting together a piece of legislation which says we will fund our troops and protect them, we will limit the number of days that they can be deployed, and we will start to bring them home. And I think that is exactly what the American people want. This is not Americas war to win or lose. We have given the Iraqi people the chance to have freedom, to have their own country. It is up to them to decide whether or not theyre going to take that chance.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC , Apr 26, 2007
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq
Q: You say you envision a continuing presence in Iraq to protect vital American interests?
A: My goal is to end the war when Im President & to bring our troops home. But as has been stated in [April 2007 legislation], we do envision a vastly reduced residual force to remain for some limited period of time to train Iraqi troops, to provide logistical support, for counter-terrorism missions, to protect the Kurds if necessary. That does not mean we would have a permanent force. I am absolutely clear: we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission to protect Americas vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, [leaving] as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org , Apr 10, 2007
Online petition to pressure Bush & GOP for redeployment
Q: You recently launched a petition urging President Bush not to veto the Iraq bill and you said we need to begin phased deployment of the troops out of Iraq.
A: We need to keep the pressure on Bush not to veto it, which is why I have launched this online petition drive, to have pressure put on Republicans particularly in the Senate, because we have to do everything possible to put pressure on the President so that we can make it absolutely undeniable that we have to reverse course. I think we should let the American people understand, and let President Bush fully understand that it is he who is rejecting the funding. We have passed funding, but we did it within the context of timelines, and if he can be held responsible for vetoing the funding because he will not start to follow the will of the American people, and de-escalate this conflict, and bring our troops home, I think that puts tremendous pressure on Republicans who are going to be running for office again in 2008.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org , Apr 10, 2007
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake
Q: Why wasnt your vote authorizing the Iraq war a mistake?
A: My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time. And I have taken responsibility for my vote, and I believe that none of us should get a free pass. It is up to the voters to judge what each of us has said and done. But I think the most important thing now is to focus on what we have to do together to try to force this president to change direction.
Q: Why are you against bringing the US troops home right now by cutting off funding?
A: I have introduced legislation to stop the escalation & to protect our troops. My legislation also says to the Iraqis: Enough. We are not going to fight your battles. We are not sending our young men and women in. You have to be on the front lines of your own defense. People ask me, why dont you want to cut money for American troops? I want to cut money for Iraqi troops, because theyre not standing up and fighting the way that they have said they would.
Source: 2007 AFSCME Democratic primary debate in Carson City Nevada , Feb 21, 2007
Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war
I propose capping the troop levels. I want to make it clear that we need to threaten the Iraqi government, that were going to take money away from their troops, not our troops who still lack body armor and armored vehicles; that were going to send a clear message that we are finished with their empty promises and with this presidents blank check.
Source: Speech at Democratic National Committee winter meeting , Feb 2, 2007
Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops
Q (to Sen. McCain): Senator Hillary Clinton says we should not cut off funding for American troops, but cut off funding for the security for Iraqi government officials and cut off funding for the Iraqi army because they simply have not measured up. Would you support her in that effort?
McCAIN: I dont see any place in the Constitution where that kind of authority is granted to the Congress. The Congress can cut off funding. And if my colleagues believe that theyre going to send young Americans to die in an unwinnable situation, it seems to me that their conscience would dictate that they cut off the funding for the entire effort. This resolution is basically a vote of no confidence in the men and women we are sending over there. Were saying, Were sending you-were not going to stop you from going there, but we dont believe you can succeed and were not willing to support that. I dont think the troops would find that an expression of support.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 Meet the Candidates series , Jan 21, 2007
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately
Q: What should be done in Iraq?
A: #1: We need to resolve the political problems in Iraq. Theyve been allowed to fester. How are you going to guarantee the reasonable Sunni majority a place in the government? How are you going to distribute the oil revenue, so people dont feel that theyre being ripped off? These are key issues for political resolution of sectarian violence. #2: Weve got to have the regional neighbors involved--with a high-level contact group, where we bring the regional powers together. #3: The Presidents strategy has basically been, Well, when the Iraqis stand up, well stand down. Well, the Iraqis have been standing up, but they havent been fighting. Thats why we need a phased redeployment--moving our troops out so they have to stand and fight for themselves.
Q: Give us a timetable for that phasing out.
A: When we originally proposed it, we said that 2006 should be a year of transition. Were running out of time in 2006. I think this needs to be done immediately.
Source: NY 2006 Senate Debate, at University of Rochester , Oct 20, 2006
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged
Hillary's vote to give Pres. Bush authority to go to war gives her the ability to criticize how it has been waged. That's how politics works. She is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has been an unequivocally strong supporter of the troops. No voting for and against for Hillary. Only hawks can criticize wars.
"I was one who supported giving Pres. Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that this was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Council on Foreign Relations, Dec. 15, 2003
Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p.214 , Oct 11, 2005
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it
Hillary ultimately voted for the resolution empowering President Bush to wage war, but she did so with a perfect equipoise. She managed to sound vehemently ant-Saddam without sounding pro-Bush.
In a floor speech on the measure to authorize the use of force against Iraq, Hillary managed quite a juggling act, keeping a whole cupboard of teacups and saucers spinning in the air. She criticized the United Nations for putting limits on inspection sites. She warned of Saddam Hussein's ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. She worried that an unchecked Saddam could endanger the entire Middle East (read: Israel). She fretted that a "unilateral" attack could prompt Russia to attack Chechen rebels in Georgia, China to attack Taiwan, and India to attack Pakistan. She concluded that going to war against Iraq "on the present facts is not a good option"--but voted to enable George W. Bush to lead the nation into war.
Source: Madame Hillary, by R. Emmett Tyrrell, p. 48-49 , Feb 25, 2004
Hillary Clinton on Middle East
2012: We helped Syrian rebels, but we should have done more
Mrs. Clinton argues that President Obama made a mistake by not more aggressively arming the moderate Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad's forces:
"As more parts of Syria slipped free from the regime's control, we would also help local opposition groups provide essential services, such as reopening schools and rebuilding homes. But all these steps were Band-Aids. The conflict would rage on. (Page 464)
Source: Wall Street Journal on Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton , Jun 17, 2014
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record
Iraq war vote was meant to be used as coercive diplomacy
Q: Why cant you just say right now that vote was a mistake?
A: I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam being both an owner of and a seeker of WMD. The ide of putting inspectors back in was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. You try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences. If you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that weve used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior. What no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed Bush was with this particular mission. Unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, let the inspectors finish their work do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday , Jan 31, 2008
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US
Q: In 2002, Sen. Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, which called for the UN to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his UN efforts failed. You did not participate in that vote.
A: Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I dont believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president. Number two, I have the greatest respect for Senator Levin. He is my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And immediately after we did have the vote on the authorization, went to work with him to try to make sure that every piece of intelligence we had was given to the UN inspectors. Number three, I actually joined with Senator Byrd on an amendment that would limit the presidents authorization to one year.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 Meet the Candidates series , Jan 13, 2008
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not
Q: You made a high-profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake. Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?
EDWARDS: No, I think thats a question for the conscience of anybody who voted for this war. Senator Clinton and anyone else who voted for this war has to search themselves and decide whether they believe theyve voted the right way. If so, they can support their vote.
CLINTON: I take responsibility for my vote. Obviously, I did as good a job I could at the time. It was a sincere vote based on the information available to me. If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way. But I think that the real question before us is: What do we do now? How do we try to persuade or require this president to change course? He is stubbornly refusing to listen to the will of the American people.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC , Apr 26, 2007
Critic of Iraq war, but wont recant 2002 vote in its favor
She voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force and has refused to recant her vote. But Clinton has been a vocal critic of the way the war has been conducted.
Source: Peoples Daily (China), Contenders views on the war , Nov 23, 2006
Regrets Bushs handling of war, but not her war vote
Q: Youve been critical of Pres. Bushs handling of the war. But you have not apologized for your vote to authorize that action.
CLINTON: I regret the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him. I thought it made sense to get inspector back into Iraq, and backing it up with coercive diplomacy. I was worried that there were residual WMD, and that Saddam could have done something quite irrational. We know now that this administration never intended to let the inspectors do their job and contain Saddam. I take responsibility for my vote. I regret that weve had strategic blunders and misjudgments. But if we knew then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and there never would have been a war. This president chose that war and unfortunately, was ill-prepared for what was needed to be done to be successful.
Q: Do you regret voting that way at the time?
CLINTON: I regret the way he used it. I dont believe in do-overs in life. I made the best judgment at the time.
Source: NY 2006 Senate Debate, moderated by Bill Ritter , Oct 22, 2006
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.
Vote on a "Sense of the Senate" amendment, S.Amdt. 3017, to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act), that finds:
that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.
Reference: Sense of the Senate on Iran; Bill S.Amdt. 3017 to H.R. 1585 ; vote number 2007-349 on Sep 26, 2007
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
Reference: US Policy in Iraq Resolution; Bill S.J.Res.9 ; vote number 2007-075 on Mar 15, 2007
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.
Supporters of the Resolution say:
Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.
Reference: Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act; Bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 ; vote number 2006-181 on Jun 22, 2006
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reference: Committee to Investigate War Contracts; Bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-316 on Nov 10, 2005
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.
Amendment to express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A YES vote would:
Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.
Reference: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act; Bill S.AMDT.464 to H.R.1268 ; vote number 2005-96 on Apr 20, 2005
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
$5.1 billion for security
$5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
$65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
$1.3 billion for veterans medical care
$10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.
Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan; Bill S1689 ; vote number 2003-400 on Oct 17, 2003
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Reference: Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.
Clinton co-sponsored the Resolution on bigotry against Sikh Americans:
Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.
Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR255 on Oct 4, 2001
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.
Clinton co-sponsored opposing troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq
Sponsor's introductory remarks: Sen. BIDEN: This bipartisan resolution opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence. Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Excertps from resolution:
Whereas the US strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;
Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the US in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;
Whereas more than 3,000 US military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;
Whereas on January 10, 2007, Pres. Bush announced his plan to deepen the US military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional US combat forces to Iraq;
Whereas an open-ended commitment of US forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
Resolved: That it is the sense of Congress that it is not in the national interest of the US to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq;
the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.
Source: Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq (S.CON.RES.2 ) 07-SCR2 on Jan 17, 2007
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur.
Clinton co-sponsored deploying UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur
Calling for the urgent deployment of a robust and effective multinational peacekeeping mission with sufficient size, resources, leadership, and mandate to protect civilians in Darfur.
Whereas hundreds of thousands of people have died and approximately 2,500,000 people have been displaced in Darfur, Sudan since 2003;
Whereas Congress declared on July 22, 2004 that the atrocities in Darfur were genocide;
Whereas the Sudanese President refused to allow the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur;
Whereas deliberately targeting civilians and people providing humanitarian assistance during an armed conflict is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, and those who commit such violations must be held accountable;
Whereas on June 11, 2007, Sudanese President al-Bashir pledged to accept unconditionally the full United Nations-African Union hybrid deployment;
Whereas to establish conditions of peace and security, the peacekeeping mission must be accompanied by a peace-building process among the parties to the conflict;
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate urges the President of the US to work with members of the UN Security Council and the African Union to ensure the expeditious deployment of the United Nations-African Union hybrid peacekeeping force with a mandate affirming that civilian protection is a primary mission objective;
Provide the UN-African Union hybrid force with sufficient logistical support and airlift capacity; and necessary vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters for tactical reconnaissance and armed deterrence;
Be prepared to implement meaningful measures, including the imposition of multilateral sanctions, an arms embargo, and a no-fly zone for Sudanese military flights over Darfur, if the Government of Sudan obstructs deployment of the agreed upon peacekeeping mission.
Legislative Outcome: Agreed to by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Source: Resolution on Darfur (S.RES 276) 07-SR276 on Jul 19, 2007
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran.
Clinton co-sponsored requiring Congress' approval before military action in Iran
RESOLUTION Affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress.
WHEREAS article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power to declare war:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.
Sen. DURBIN. "We are now more than halfway through our fifth year in this war in Iraq. We find ourselves stuck as an occupier in a Middle East civil war. Thousands of our sons & daughters have been killed or injured. The total financial cost may be well over $1 trillion--money, I might add, that this administration has borrowed against our children's future.
"America's reputation internationally has been severely damaged and critical military, diplomatic, and intelligence resources have been diverted from the war in Afghanistan--a war I supported, and a country this administration has increasingly neglected. And now, after so many errors, so many lives, and so much damage, this administration is again raising the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East--this time a war with Iran.
"I fear this administration has learned nothing from the colossal error, colossal misjudgment in the invasion of Iraq. Let me be clear: I am gravely concerned about Iran's activities in the region and its nuclear agenda. But any offensive action against Iran must be approved by Congress.
"Recent statements by this administration give me concern that this administration is considering just this--an offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Both Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney have made public remarks about Iran that suggest an administration readying for military aggression. We know Cheney's historic views on fundamental checks and balances in our constitution. They are disturbing."
Source: Resolution on Iran (S.RES.356) 2007-SR356 on Oct 25, 2007
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlement. (Jun 2014)
Putin's annexing Crimea plays outdated zero-sum game. (Jun 2014)
Putin wants to reassert Russia's dominance in its own areas. (Jun 2014)
I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, along with regional partners. (Jun 2014)
Contain Russia or Putin will expand beyond Crimea. (Apr 2014)
Supported decision to target Osama bin Laden. (Sep 2013)
Obama rejected her 2012 plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Aug 2013)
OpEd: Iraq war follows tradition of active US leadership. (Jun 2012)
Clinton-Gates combo won push for Afghan surge. (Jun 2012)
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war. (Nov 2010)
War authorization vote made primary harder than general. (Jan 2010)
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label. (Jan 2010)
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
Calling for troop withdrawal pressures Iraqi government. (Feb 2008)
Some tactical success in Iraq, but no strategic success yet. (Feb 2008)
Would have never diverted attention from Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel wrath of US. (Jun 2007)
1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam. (Jun 2007)
At Wellesley in 68, steered anti-war movement within system. (Jun 2007)
I have seen firsthand terrorists terrible damage. (Jun 2007)
Supports border security fence in Israel. (Oct 2006)
Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago. (Jan 2006)
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N. (Feb 2004)
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace. (May 2000)
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese. (Nov 1999)
Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power. (Aug 2007)
Iran
Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes. (Jan 2013)
Trust but verify Iran: goal is diplomacy & open inspections. (Jan 2013)
Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran. (Dec 2007)
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon. (Dec 2007)
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb. (Oct 2007)
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice. (Oct 2007)
Irans Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first. (Sep 2007)
Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)
Iraq War
I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote. (Jun 2014)
2007: I'm most qualified to end war in Iraq. (Jan 2010)
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation. (Aug 2009)
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists. (Oct 2008)
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have. (Feb 2008)
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication. (Jan 2008)
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)
Cant leave Iraq safely without a plan. (Jan 2008)
Cant let the Iraqis think the US will be there forever. (Jan 2008)
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption. (Jan 2008)
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used. (Jan 2008)
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
Called war on terror Bushs war but has played active role. (Nov 2007)
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2007)
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
No funding that does not move us toward withdrawal. (Sep 2007)
Push Pentagon to start planning for Iraq withdrawal. (Aug 2007)
Redeploy responsibly, with regional diplomatic effort. (Aug 2007)
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
Deauthorize Iraq war, and dont grant new war authority. (Jun 2007)
Phased redeployment, not irresponsible immediate withdrawal. (Jun 2007)
Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
The Iraq war is Bushs war. (Jun 2007)
Iraq war wouldnt have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
Online petition to pressure Bush & GOP for redeployment. (Apr 2007)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war. (Feb 2007)
Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops. (Jan 2007)
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately. (Oct 2006)
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged. (Oct 2005)
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it. (Feb 2004)
Middle East
2012: We helped Syrian rebels, but we should have done more. (Jun 2014)
Voting Record
Iraq war vote was meant to be used as coercive diplomacy. (Jan 2008)
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US. (Jan 2008)
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
Critic of Iraq war, but wont recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
Regrets Bushs handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq. (Jan 2007)
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote. (Jun 2014)
2007: I'm most qualified to end war in Iraq. (Jan 2010)
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation. (Aug 2009)
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists. (Oct 2008)
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have. (Feb 2008)
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication. (Jan 2008)
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)
Cant leave Iraq safely without a plan. (Jan 2008)
Cant let the Iraqis think the US will be there forever. (Jan 2008)
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption. (Jan 2008)
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used. (Jan 2008)
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
Called war on terror Bushs war but has played active role. (Nov 2007)
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2007)
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
No funding that does not move us toward withdrawal. (Sep 2007)
Push Pentagon to start planning for Iraq withdrawal. (Aug 2007)
Redeploy responsibly, with regional diplomatic effort. (Aug 2007)
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
Deauthorize Iraq war, and dont grant new war authority. (Jun 2007)
Phased redeployment, not irresponsible immediate withdrawal. (Jun 2007)
Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
The Iraq war is Bushs war. (Jun 2007)
Iraq war wouldnt have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
Online petition to pressure Bush & GOP for redeployment. (Apr 2007)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war. (Feb 2007)
Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops. (Jan 2007)
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately. (Oct 2006)
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged. (Oct 2005)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... she didn't just vote for the Iraq war, she made a big speech for it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but you want to ignore all evidence that negates your bullshit narrative...
I don't expect politicians that can walk on water....I want politicians that I mostly agree with and can BEAT the F' out of Republicans! She fits that bill....YOU will never find a candidate that is perfect....sorry to disappoint you....but they all will in some way if that is what you expect.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And you don't disappoint me. I know no candidate will ever be perfect. But is far less perfect than many, more electable, others.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Scrolling through that trash was like watching a petulant child throw a tantrum in public.
That's the silliest waste of bandwidth I've ever seen at DU.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Because some seem to be afraid doing so will screw up their "perfectly good narrative"...
"surely you didn't expect people to read that whole post" is exactly what a Teabagger might say in the face of a mountain of evidence that they are wrong. If you read even a bit of it you would see that every bit is sourced.......So say for example Climate Change....If I posted a long list of facts about Climate Change.....they would say:
"surely you didn't expect people to read that whole post"
but just for you....I give you the synopsis version
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)ie, Her answer to climate change is change light bulbs & oil independence?
A: I believe there is so much we can do that would not demonstrably undermine our standard of living, but it would give us the opportunity to set an example an to be a model. There are simple steps any one of us can take--turning off lights when one leaves a room, unplugging appliances, changing to compact fluorescent bulbs--my husband and I have done that & we feel like were making a small contribution to limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that, as president, I can model that and lead that effort so that people dont feel so threatened by the changes were talking about when it comes to dealing with global warming. And we can do more. Now theres so much that I have to do as president with the cap-and-trade system, with moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, but Im going to look for ways that will cushion the costs on middle class and working and poor people.
This is so blatantly Third Way I want to be sick. We need BOLD action towards sustainable alternative green energy. Not the same old BS as atmospheric CO2 continues on its path of destruction.
Go, Hillary, be authentic, be free, be Republican! But stop trying to fool us by pretending to be a Democrat.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is my point.....you cannot go by ONE bullet point because.....another candidate might have ANOTHER bullet point YOU don't like....
That is HOW Democracy works....you don't get to cherry-pick YOUR bullet points....
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)She has PROVEN to be for shipping our jobs overseas(TPP), pro-oil, pro-war, pro-wall street.
I could give a flying f*ck about her women's rights, that's a democratic stance that anyone in office would have as a "D".
She's a fake dem and I will give up all hope if she's nominated to run in the general election as a real one.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)narrative....can't have that now can we?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)I'm not going to do it, but I hope someone will.
You don't do Hillary one tiny bit of good how you carry on.
Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)On Fri Nov 28, 2014, 10:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
EASY PEASY....is this enough for ya?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5882536
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 28, 2014, 10:23 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And Hillary has a 50 point lead....I don't think this is going to set that back!
but you don't seem to like SOURCED information. If you bothered to read even a scintilla of it...you would see that it is ACTUAL quotes from Hillary herself including when and where the statements were made...
THAT's called EVIDENCE!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)promote the war using the same lies that Bush used. She betrayed her constituents, her country, our troops and the innocent people of Iraq. Why would we ever trust her again?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are HER words and when and where she made them.....
You cannot lie about her any more....she is leading the pack by 50 pts...you might need to start "adjusting".
I WILL pledge to vote for her or anyone else who wins the Dem Primary because I AM a Democrat!
cali
(114,904 posts)she is.
screw her and the corporations that she rode in on.
from now until she is (maybe) nominated, I pledge to post against her being nominated. and there ain't nothing that 'nilla can do about it.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Calling posting a Democrat's record 'spam.' Your sense of comic timing is awesome. Make sure to pack sunblock.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025075831
Hey, spam is against DU's TOS. Did you alert the post?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)endlessly long posts. in any case, wolf, that post of hers contained much that makes the case that hilly is a warmongering corporate critter.
and sorry, I think I'll stick around if hilly is nominated and just not engage on the subject.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)I could write a book on the way progressives are trying to redefine words, revise history etc. etc.
I hope you're around long enough to add more words to it. Sure am going to miss you when you're gone.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am presenting FACTS!
POLL taken Nov. 26th
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Clinton 57, Warren 13, Biden 9, Cuomo , Sanders 4, O'Malley 1, Webb 1 Clinton +44
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Christie 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Paul 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Ryan 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Huckabee 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 48, Cruz 37 Clinton +11
"Spam" indeed....
Central Scruitinizer
(57 posts)Is how the late great Bartcop described people who stood up against Democratic leadership kissing up to the lobby instead of legislating for their voters.
Of course Democrats are never going to get a pony for their party, we must settle for a donkey is the rationalization.
The trouble is, if that donkey carries water against our interests, why bother voting for who survives the primaries?
But then again, Al Gore won then lost because Nader stole critical votes in 2000.
That margin could have been a world of difference, now I shall vote against my desires not to vote, and fill in the square for whatever Democrat is there; if for no other reason than Supreme Court appointments.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ponies and flying cars yet!
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)But now that he's gone it really is just a matter of time before the left co-ops his words.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I have seen them using MLK's words.....
Central Scruitinizer
(57 posts)Unless you are a Wall Street Bankster or neo con war industrialist.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)You could have quoted a phone book and made as much sense. When Bartcop made fun of people 'wanting a pony,' he was referring to 'progressives.'
jwirr
(39,215 posts)or Bill Clinton as the lessor of two evils. At the time of the election they both appeared to be very hopeful picks. Only after the fact did we see that they were not getting what we wanted done. I think Bill had a lot of the problems that are still connected to Hillary but we did not see them at the time. As to the president - the mess we are in did not come solely from him. The Congress had a lot to do with it.
So as I see it how are we going to know what we are getting? Except maybe Bernie who has been practicing what he preaches for many years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 29, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)
we hoped for the best. Those that promote accepting the lesser of evils have given up. I am not looking for perfection just honesty and integrity. Some are willing to settle for less.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have even less honesty and integrity....because I CAN and would be quite willing to prove you wrong about that....
Do you want me to prove that to you?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You just have to make it personal. Go find someone else to insult.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)let's begin shall we?
Here is Hillary Clinton
supporting evidence found at: http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
and here is Barack Obama
supporting evidence found at: http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
and here is Bill Clinton
supporting evidence found at: http://ontheissues.org/bill_clinton.htm
I can back up my claims....can YOU?
NOW who has the "integrity" problem?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so I am out of here. Go insult someone else.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You might have your narrative blown UP in your face! YOU have NO evidence to support your bullshit claims!
I DO have evidence to support MINE!
YOU just want to spam democratic underground with hateful nonsense about Hillary Clinton being a Republican....
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Regardless of who she faces.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)would be more evil than Bush, Paul, Christie, Ryan, Huckabee, Perry, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum ?
Do you really want to take THAT position? Because that is an alertable offence I believe because it is Rightwing bullshit!
2banon
(7,321 posts)If you haven't seen it yet, better catch up with the past decade of her documented positions as a Senator and Secretary of State.
This article is as good as place as any to get started. I hope you're not going to "wait and see" before she tosses her hat in the ring and campaigns on lies and misinformation!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Now that's a rallying cry that most Americans can get behind.
What could go wrong?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the we hate Hillary Clinton brigade has arrived on Black Friday...
Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy
2012: Take a harder line with Russia's Putin. (Jun 2014)
2009: Chose Japan as first destination to emphasize alliance. (Jun 2014)
Some world leaders are still misogynistic. (Jun 2014)
Idealistic realism: embody hybrid rather than categorizing. (Jun 2014)
Eastern Europe in NATO keeps Putin from moving beyond Crimea. (Jun 2014)
End the Cuban embargo; that will shift onus to Castros. (Jun 2014)
Smart power: combine civil society & traditional diplomacy. (May 2014)
Does US still have what it takes to lead? Yes!. (May 2014)
Distinguish inherited problems from new ones & opportunities. (May 2014)
"Smart power" combines diplomacy and development. (Sep 2013)
Work toward Arab Spring not being hijacked by extremists. (Jan 2013)
Afghan women are better off, but we must prevent reversal. (Jan 2013)
America is the "indispensable nation". (Jun 2012)
Ceremonial role abroad as First Lady, but no NSC meetings. (Jun 2012)
Focus on BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India, China, & South Africa. (Jun 2012)
New American Moment: new ways of global leadership. (Jun 2012)
Obama: Her stature abroad meant she carries message further. (May 2010)
2009: Regrets US not part of International Criminal Court. (May 2010)
2007: Traveled to Iraq & Afghanistan before announcement. (Jan 2010)
2007: Naive to meet with leaders of Iran & North Korea. (Aug 2009)
Commit to helping people abroad before committing troops. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Accomplished but exaggerated foreign experience. (Mar 2008)
Meet with Cuban leaders only after evidence of change. (Feb 2008)
Diplomacy with Iran & Cuba, but no presidential meetings. (Feb 2008)
Bill made deal with Kazakhs to bring in HIV drugs. (Feb 2008)
Establish leadership & moral authority via multilateralism. (Dec 2007)
Deeply involved with Bill Clintons foreign policy team. (Dec 2007)
Operate from a position of strength, but not confrontation. (Dec 2007)
2001 speech to AIPAC pledges money for Israeli military. (Nov 2007)
Supported strong funding for international development. (Oct 2007)
Cuba deserves peaceful transition to freedom & democracy. (Sep 2007)
Should not telegraph our adversaries about preconditions. (Aug 2007)
US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Arabic and Muslim countries take women leaders seriously. (Jul 2007)
Diplomacy yes; propaganda no; when meeting enemy leaders. (Jul 2007)
Allegedly pro-PLO in 1960; but pro-Israel by 1981. (Jul 2007)
NATO-enforced no-fly zone to end Darfur genocide. (Jun 2007)
Supported Palestine in 1998, before Bill officially did. (May 2007)
Obligation to support Israel with more than foreign aid. (Oct 2005)
Support UN reform because US benefits. (Oct 2005)
1995: Spoke as voice of United States on Latin America trip. (Jun 2004)
Supports USAID projects in developing world. (Nov 2003)
Focus on women's rights in international policy. (Nov 2003)
Alienated Jewish voters by kissing Mrs. Arafat. (Oct 2001)
Engage in world affairs, including human rights. (Oct 2000)
Human rights are central to our objectives abroad. (Oct 2000)
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills. (Oct 2000)
Smartest strategic choice is peace. (Nov 1999)
Puerto Rico: Stop using live ammo at Vieques. (Oct 1999)
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged. (Feb 1997)
Supports micro-loans to third-world women. (Sep 1995)
China
China never fits neatly into category like friend or rival. (Jun 2014)
Freedom of navigation & open access in South China Sea. (Jun 2012)
Boycott Olympic ceremony to pressure China on Tibet & Sudan. (Apr 2008)
Establish coherent diplomatic approach toward China. (Dec 2007)
China respects us if we call them on human rights breaches. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Chinese did black out Hillary, but DID invite her. (Dec 2007)
Our fiscal responsibility undercuts Chinese power over us. (Aug 2007)
China: criticized authoritarianism with women & children. (Dec 1999)
Israel & Palestine
Political restraint against Iran's Ahmadinejad was a mistake. (Jun 2014)
Middle East
2011: we abandoned Egypt's Mubarak too readily. (Jun 2014)
Political Hotspots
1998: organized women's peace conference in Northern Ireland. (Jun 2014)
2009: Northern Ireland shows any adversaries can make good. (Jun 2014)
Push Russia on press freedom; they've killed 20 journalists. (Jun 2014)
Committed to maintaining economic embargo against Cuba. (Dec 2008)
Voting Record
Would use very vigorous and bipartisan diplomacy. (Feb 2008)
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Oct 2008)
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)
Increase aid to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
Implement Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force. (Feb 2008)
Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s. (Mar 2007)
Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
Call for Burma's junta to release political prisoners. (Jun 2007)
Develop a strategy to protect civilians in Darfur. (Feb 2007)
Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)
Pressure friendly Arab states to end Israeli boycott. (Oct 2007)
Hillary Clinton on Homeland Security
Benghazi: Figure out what happened to prevent repeating. (Sep 2013)
Congress' tight security money partly caused Benghazi. (Jan 2013)
Benghazi was a tragedy, but we get it right 99% of the time. (Jan 2013)
Described Benghazi as "armed militants" in "act of terror". (Jan 2013)
Benghazi was a tragedy but we get security right 99% of time. (Jan 2013)
We responded to Benghazi immediately, and for the long run. (Jan 2013)
Worked with Libya before Benghazi, but they had no capacity. (Jan 2013)
Smart Power: blend of military power and soft power. (Jun 2012)
Long-held pro-defense spending stance; not a move to center. (Mar 2008)
AdWatch: Ensured health coverage for Guard & Reserve. (Dec 2007)
Examine registering 18-year-old women for selective service. (Dec 2007)
National security is more important than human rights. (Nov 2007)
2001: Called for wrath on those who attacked America on 9/11. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, in 2006 condoned exceptions on torture. (Oct 2007)
Torture cannot be American policy, period. (Sep 2007)
Wants to repeal dont-ask-dont-tell, but not until 2009. (Aug 2007)
Should have criticized JCC for calling homosexuality immoral. (Aug 2007)
Opposed to draft, but register women for draft. (Jul 2007)
Forgive student loans for universal national service. (Jul 2007)
Administration secrecy shreds the Constitution. (Jun 2007)
9/11: Got $20B to rebuild lower Manhattan. (Jun 2007)
Served on Armed Services Committee & was always prepared. (Jun 2007)
Fund first responders with extra $1.7 billion. (Mar 2007)
Homeland security not simply about reorganizing bureaucracy. (Oct 2006)
Marshal resources against proliferation of nuclear weapons. (Jan 2006)
There is no safe haven for the terrorists. (Jan 2006)
Consistently supported tough anti-terrorism measures. (Oct 2005)
Hillary hugs hawkish line on terrorism. (Oct 2005)
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military. (Sep 2005)
Muscle, not rhetoric, leads to strong homeland security. (Sep 2005)
Leadership role on Senate Armed Services Committee. (Feb 2004)
At age 27, tried and failed to enlist in Marines. (Feb 2004)
Send 70% of homeland security funding to cities & counties. (Feb 2004)
I despise terrorism and the nihilism it represents. (Nov 2003)
Supports funding research on missile defense. (Oct 2000)
Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia. (Dec 1999)
A safe world needs the nuclear test ban treaty. (Sep 1999)
Benghazi
Dozens of Benghazi attackers had dozens of motives. (May 2014)
Benghazi security was simply inadequate in a dangerous city. (May 2014)
Benghazi talking points were written by CIA for Congress. (May 2014)
Benghazi: focused on rescue & prevention, not retrospection. (May 2014)
Voting Record
Passed legislation to treat veterans traumatic brain injury. (Jan 2008)
Proposed Federal Interoperable Communication & Safety Act. (Oct 2006)
Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces. (May 2005)
Sponsored bill for increased security of radiation sources. (May 2005)
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11. (Dec 2007)
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans. (Jun 2008)
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (Feb 2008)
cali
(114,904 posts)whinge on, 'nilla.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)who polls higher than ANY Republican.....
I guess would take a loser and their "superior morals" to get them through a Republican President, House and Senate...
cali
(114,904 posts)Let me help you out and educate you, 'nilla.
whinge
(h)winj/
Britishinformal
verb
verb: whinge; 3rd person present: whinges; past tense: whinged; past participle: whinged; gerund or present participle: whingeing; gerund or present participle: whinging
1.
complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.
"stop whingeing and get on with it!"
noun
noun: whinge; plural noun: whinges
1.
an act of complaining.
And Hilly is a loser: 2008. 'nuf said. I tend to think we'll see her lose again- perhaps not the nomination, but the GE. She's a for shit campaigner.
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that speaks volumes doesn't it....
by the way....do you spell it colour and favour too? It would explain ALOT!
OOOH its raining out....better take your bumbershoot!
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)that "a lot" is one word, you might consider leaving the vocabulary critic role to someone better qualified.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But some seem much more focused on a word than my actual point....can we we get back to that?
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)on a bandwagon...you would know I also said...
and what I adore is a WINNER!
who polls higher than ANY Republican.....
I guess would take a loser and their "superior morals" to get them through a Republican President, House and Senate...
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)What on earth are you talking about?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It's hard to know if you can't read a poll result
or if you deliberately misrepresent the results?
The polls show Hillary TIED, at best, with republicans.
That's not what most people call a WINNER.
Hillary has greater name recognition than other Dems.
Again, that is not what we would call a WINNER.
Show us the poll where Hillary "polls higher than ANY Republican..... "
And results that have her "winning" within the MoE is NOT WINNING.
Wait, are you using "WINNER" in the Charlie Sheen sense of the term?
WINNING! Are you punking us?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this poll is from Nov 26th...
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Quinnipiac Clinton 57, Warren 13, Biden 9, Cuomo , Sanders 4, O'Malley 1, Webb 1 Clinton +44
General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Christie 42 Clinton +1
General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Paul 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Ryan 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Huckabee 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 48, Cruz 37 Clinton +11
NOW try to trump that.....
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #36)
Post removed
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Drop the mic and strut off the stage.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hahahaha He who laughs last....laughs harder!!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The Sarah Palin of DU honor has already gone to someone else. I dubbed another recipient a long time ago.
Not going to link to the post, but there is another member who fits the bill to a tee. I swear when I read her posts (if I read her posts) I hear Sarah's voice loud and clear.
So....don't sweat this one.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)They try so so very hard....they want so badly for me to get angry enough to give them a hide on me.....but this one backfired! Shot self in foot!
neverforget
(9,437 posts)or a train wreck.....
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Their total disregard for historical accuracy while trying to bend events to their worldview is so Sarah Palin like.
Some of the statements made by you guys rival Sarah Palin's Paul Revere quote.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Oddly you must agree with my labeling of the progressives here as Sarah Palin like
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)You should really learn to stay on task. I'll bet you get absolutely nothing done on your job.
Logical
(22,457 posts)no thought necessary.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)so what makes this the nation editorial any more relevant than an editorial from FOX News? Both are going to take a slant both are anti-Hilary I don't see really any difference.
Logical
(22,457 posts)So your view is the old George Bush view......"Either you are with us or against us"??
I can dislike Hillary but still be a Democrat. And if you are now claiming the Nation is a right wing publication I suggest you get a subscription. They are really a liberal bunch. It has been published since 1865. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation
Seriously, they are liberal. If you want some blue links to some of their liberal stories then let me know.
A one year online subscription is only $18 if you can afford it.
To make you happy, I have posted here that I will vote for hillary if she is the nominee. I would never vote against the Democratic party no matter how bad our candidate is.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)You're relying on editorial sources that have an anti-Clinton bias so there is no difference between a progressive source like that and the Fox news source like that they're both going to play fast and loose with the facts.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)They generally have an anti-democratic party bias as well.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)And will bend, overlook or deny facts that don't fit that world view.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Logical
(22,457 posts)you are a subscriber. LOL, you really ave just been messing with me, correct?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)They have the exact same agenda when it comes to Hillary. Opposites side of the same coin.
Yeah, there's been a subscription in my household for 40 years at least.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)don't you?
Oh right.....
Logical
(22,457 posts)many candidates running besides Hillary. I am sure in your mind she is the only candidate so you have jumped to the general election already but that is not how it works.
Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
Sorry, I assumed you knew about the primary part.
And I have told you many times I would votes democratic winner no matter how terrible a candidate they are. So yes, I would vote for Hillary if she wins.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Both major political parties of the U.S.the Democratic Party and the Republican Partyofficially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions. Each of these conventions is attended by a number of delegates selected in accordance with the given party's bylaws.
Both parties operate with two types of delegates: pledged and unpledged. The group of unpledged delegates, also known as superdelegates, generally comprising current and former elected officeholders and party leaders, are free to vote for any candidate they wish at the convention. The group of pledged delegates, comprising delegates representing the party committee of each state, are expected to vote in accordance with the rules of their state party.
Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be voting to actually award delegates bound to vote for a particular candidate at the state or national convention, or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AFTER that Primary.....whoever WE select!
That is HOW Democracy works.....YOU don't get to be a "rugged individualist"!
YOU cannot say yes to that anymore as you have said NO many times....therefore you are NOT really a Democrat...you are Independent....BY DEFINITiON!
Logical
(22,457 posts)I WILL NOT Support Hillary during the PRIMARY SEASON! I have made that very clear!!
But have said many time I will vote for her if she is the nominee! I will not be happy about it as I want Warren, but I will vote for her.
Jesus, are you just not really reading anything?? LOL, it is almost a parody. Like a SLN skit.
Here you go so maybe we settle this once and for all and you quit making up shit. You find one time where I said I would not support the Democratic presidential candidate!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023409716#post21
"Anyone who will not vote for her if she gets the nomination should be banned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5550780
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025781866#post96
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)her NOT being a Democrat and a Republican etc.....disparaging anyone who DOES support her (even though she receives 57% support by actual Democrats as of Nov. 26th! )
Real Democrats do not have to trash other Democrats with bullshit in the run up to the Primary....
THEN you are going to vote for her AFTER the Primary?
THAT is the epitome of hypocrisy!
Logical
(22,457 posts)really fun to argue with.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)fun. Heads will explode if Hillary loses or doesn't run.
Logical
(22,457 posts)neverforget
(9,437 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Hilly is a corporate pro-war critter.
screw her and the corporations boosting her.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Progressives have "I want my pony" agenda.
Enjoy your self-exile coming up soon.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)becomes a Democrat? Do you think he will turn down the Democratic money?
and Screw her?
Here is a mirror...
for clarification I give you...
Hillary Clinton Record on Corporations....
Take back $55B in Bushs industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; govt oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)anti-Clinton. The truth hurts sometimes.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)it will show the electorate how illogical her detractors are.
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Hence the remarkable Sarah Palin resemblance
Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Post 231 - "George Bush view."
And post 218.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You certainly match your candidate well, I can say that for you.
Rex
(65,616 posts)or anyone in the Democratic Party.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)huh? Yeah?
You are here to divide people up until 2016, pretty fucking obvious. You and 3 or 4 other 'people'.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)You certainly match your unorganized little corner of the net well.
cali
(114,904 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and was rightly hidden for it!
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In that case...it explains ALOT!
think whining better describes what the American haters are doing...
cali
(114,904 posts)more utter garbled nonsense from you. how on earth does using the word whinge explain anything? You do realize that the British are allies, right, nillly? No? Quelle Surprise. ooh, now I used a french phrase. I must be an "America Hater". I hate to break this to you, nilly, but whinge is a not uncommonly used in American English- as are lots of foreign phrases and words.
but it's your garbled gunk that I find interesting. You actually seem to think you make sense. You're just not very....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Stop "winj"ing?
Lets see....Left Leaning Independent right?
cali
(114,904 posts)I can't stop laughing over your bizarre fixation with my using the word "whinge".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I only mentioned it in passing...YET you and your cohorts seem to be the ones "fixated" on the word....because you so blindly ignored the point and the rest of the very post it appeared on....
Right and I am the "fixated" one!
I am SOOOO convinced...
neverforget
(9,437 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do go on Mr or Ms Cali....
cali
(114,904 posts)it may not be very nice of me, but yeah, you're fun to toy with. It's not much of a challenge but it does sort of amuse me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)as you have been having your lunch eaten all over this thread....but I am the mouse!
As a Matter of FACT since you are not really a Democrat and insist that you are even though you cannot support whomever is the winner of OUR Democratic Primary ELECTION....that actually makes you more like a wolf in sheeps clothing!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)than principles. How'z that been working for yeah? The people recognize a weak character with no integrity. Your post indicates to me that you recognize MIC-Hillary for what she really is but are willing to support her because you THINK she is a winner. Her active promotion of the Iraq War, a neo-con war, proves she has zero integrity.
Democrats must get back to standing for something, for standing for principles is a good start. I think some are willing to sell their souls to defeat the "Damn Yankees."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because the word "whinge" is.....I think THAT might sum up the problems some of the Haters have around here....
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Just sayin'
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)nearly no "Americans" use that spelling....it explains alot!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"chiefly British"....I have never heard a single American use that word in my entire life....and I have lived all over this country...
whinge...pronounced "winj" chiefly British people use it...and it is a different word than:
"whine" pronounced /(h)wīn/
cali
(114,904 posts)I read. It's not that uncommon here in the states. Not only that, but as we speak English, most of our vocabulary is from the British.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I have never used a bumbershoot nor do I put groceries in a boot....
LiberalLovinLug
(14,178 posts)just because they spend more and can put the best team on the field means they have the best chance at winning. No matter if they are pumped with steroids or act like entitled assholes...they are WINNERS! And you will always cheer for the team that has the best chance at winning so that later you can gloat in your Yankee jersey about how you picked them all along.
I can forgive someone using this method in the sport fan world, but using it as the be all and end all in picking the President is rather shallow IMO.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we have historical records too...
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Lets have a critical look at the FACTS.
Exercise some intellectual honesty, not rhetoric.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)So lets look at those "powerful" numbers
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2116
The Quinnipiac poll has Hillary ahead with a +57% among Dems! WOW!
She has 348 supporters, big deal.
Once you drill down and she is really a loser to the right-wing
November 26, 2014 - Romney, Bush Are Top GOP Contenders For 2016 Race,
Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Clinton Leads, Tied With Christie Or Romney
She is TIED with a Govenor under investigation for abusing his office
and the guy who lost the last election!? Not a inspiring candidate.
And likely to lose against a republican.
Moving on...
From November 18 - 23, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,623 registered voters nationwide
with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.
The survey includes 610 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points
and 707 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.
Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
So, Hillary has 57% of 610 democrats?
348 Democrats prefer Hillary? WOW!
348 people is somehow a sign she can win?
348 people is hardly inevitable.
Those are not POWERFUL NUMBERS
Now the Margin of Error.
Is a MoE of +/- 4% statistically significant?
What is the P-value?
How was the sample derived?
There are NO posted demographics.
Are these mostly men or women? Rich or poor?
College educated or high school only?
Moving on...
November 26, 2014 - Romney, Bush Are Top GOP Contenders For 2016 Race,
Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Clinton Leads, Tied With Christie Or Romney
Romney runs best against Clinton in a general election, taking 45 percent to her 44 percent.
She can't even BEAT ROMNEY? or CHRISTY? She is TIED?
And you WANT her to run? Seriously?
Why do you hate the Democratic Party?
Moving on...
In other matchups:
Clinton gets 43 percent to Christie's 42 percent;
Clinton tops Paul 46 - 41 percent;
She beats former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 46 - 41 percent;
Clinton tops Jeb Bush 46 - 41 percent;
She gets 46 percent to 42 percent for U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin;
Clinton tops U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas 48 - 37 percent.
You do realize with the MoE the ONLY candidate she beats is Cruz!
Think about that, Hillary can not deliver a definitive lead against
the leading republican candidates.
Just wait till the right-wing swift-boats her, and MSM buries her in scandal.
Lewinsky,
whitewater
Goldwater Girl
Vince Foster
and on and on.
And you are so confident in her numbers???
You need to understand polling methods,
not cherry pick the parts you like.
Seriously, why do you want the Democrats to lose?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I have the "power" of multiple polls....so please produce your "power"...
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)In each of these polls she BARELY wins or ties
the sample size is MINISCULE
and her republican opposition is laughable to anyone
with more than 2 brain cells!
Apparently two cells are need to generate enough friction
and create what tragically passes for an original thought
Do we need to deconstruct all her flimsy or shoestring "polling leads"?
That would be a lot of embarrassment!
Just because you back a losing cause
don't look to disparage other options.
I'm in no hurry for a coronation or
anointment of any candidate.
Lets try this the democratic way...
Lets see what democratic voters want.
So far it's not Hillary.
Well, except 348 people who answered a poll.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ask Nate Silver about the significance of polling data!
obxhead
(8,434 posts)If it came up Hillary I would go best of 3, then do a write in or third party.
We need a Dem, not another Clinton.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)
is trying to create political dynasties rather
than work for the middle-class and the majority
of American's interests.
Bill-n-Hillary & the Bush's, working together to destroy America.
Worse is the inane cheer leaders,
defending the indefensible.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)as proof of a left policy.
If Hillary is the definition of the party, I'm done with it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)still have: what are Hillary's top five wins, in your opinion.
William769
(55,148 posts)Ever see the movie Groundhog Day?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because just like Teabaggers don't read....it would spoil the narrative...
William769
(55,148 posts)I am a Host in the Hillary Clinton Group and my meaning was supposed to be we that we see the same shit posted every day about Hillary hence the reference to the movie Ground Hog day. My apologies for not being more clear (I'll chalk it up to being hung over from the festivities yesterday).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its okay....they are just a loud minority like the Teabaggers on the Right....they are just all puffed up!
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)
No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)
No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)
Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Crime.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Government_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Immigration.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Jobs.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Technology.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)"blue links" no doubt being your term of choice to scorn those pesky sourced facts that always pop up to disprove fundamentalist talking points - left and right. Interesting it comes from someone named 'Logical' with Darwin avatar. Leftwing dogma.
Logical
(22,457 posts)to posts and stories that support my view and to you that would be proof? LOL, you are easy to convince. Link to internet stories.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Most would agree posting links to actual senate votes and quotes would trump links to editorials from The Nation.
Logical
(22,457 posts)blind Hillary supporters like you, get ready for disappointment. No one can lose a sure lead like she can. Just ask Obama.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)And avoiding oh those pesky facts.
Logical
(22,457 posts)out of poverty might not be enough for her to get the nomination.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)... a lot of crow-eating or a lot of tumbleweeds rolling through DU.
The Left Media (like the Nation), who have survived worse rebukes, will once again be exposed as essentially toothless and without influence.
IF she wins the nomination...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and are currently voting for the candidate whose polls put her ahead of the pack by 50 points AND who kick every Republican ass in polls....
cali
(114,904 posts)you and her other adorers (I call you adorers, because what you folks express about her tends to go waay beyond support.) have to stomach, should she lose the GE.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)I hear Discussionist is a great tropical spot to throw bombs at the Democratic nominee.
cali
(114,904 posts)in any case, I have no intention of taking a vacation from du, wolf. I simply won't discuss hilly if she's the nominee- until she blows it- then I"ll have a lot to say to you conserva-corporate dems.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)I'm looking forward to your self-imposed gag rule. But you are making progress:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025075831
I missed that.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)cali... I apologize. I had you all wrong.
I appreciate the principled stand you have taken.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I hope you're taking names!
We need a DU Black List!
DU needs people like you to OUT those who
dare object to Queen Hillary's coronation!
You could be the Joseph McCarthy of DU!
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Do you report people who don't comport to your views?
Or is it that you like to use technicalities to bludgeon dissent?
Why do you hate the Democratic Party?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)No...?
That's the standard DLC angle. We've seen it for decades now, repeated over and over. If a right-wing Dem wins an election, and it's a vindication of center/right politics and proof that the left is meaningless. If that same Dem loses an election, it means we must move further right and proof that the left is meaningless.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)... uh, wait, they rarely win statewide, and don't ever win, national elections. That's why they can say shit like you just posted.
That's the standard DLC angle.
Then it will be easy for you to provide a few examples.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It wasn't liberal Democrats.
And yes, it would be easy to provide a few examples of the rhetoric I referenced. It would be easy to post a few pictures proving that pigs have four legs, too-- but I'm not going to waste my time.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Translation: You got nothing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people to George Bush. She made a choice and chose to side with the Bush/Cheney side and against the American people. I do have to give her credit for audacity now that she wants to be president she wants her integrity back.
There are better choices than the Oligarch's candidate HRC.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MIC-Hillary sold out America when she chose to actively support the NeoCon Iraqi War that has had devastating consequences. Let's discuss that instead of "hey look over there at the thing with the ISIS."
We have great Democrats to run for president that have integrity. Why promote one that proved that she has none and makes it clear that she supports Wall Street over the 99%.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Protecting ISIS. As much as I dislike Bush I like ISIS less.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But if you wish to talk about ISIS I can do that. The Iraq War created a lot of push back like ISIS and H. Clinton promoted that war.
H. Clinton not only supported Bush's War she made speeches where she repeated the lies. The fact that a prominent Democrat echoed the same lies the Republicans were pushing was very damaging.
ISIS is very important to H. Clinton and the Neocons. It gives them an excuse to continue fleecing the American middle class via the war tax.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)But siding with ISIS isn't the answer. Makes me wonder of they can make proper decisions when needed. We don't need a president to protect those who can not make decisions to protect this country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Stand such as Warren has voted recently has on ISIS, Hillary can make the hard decision.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Her "hard decision" to help Bush sell his war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and ruined millions. You seem to either agree with that decision or willing to forgive. I will do neither.
Sadly, as long as we have people willing to support the status quo, we will continue our slide into the quagmire of Oligarchy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)not acceptable, and the current state of affairs for Warren remains the same for me.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)You're happy with the state of the Union?
No wonder our party has abandoned every single principle it once stood for.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)as a Democrat, and perhaps I will not bend to the "values" some are trying to get changed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)American children going to bed hungry? That's not very DEmocratic.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I have been a part of the history of the run away executive pay, have contended for many years the gap should never be as large as it is. I have written posts on DU about income disparity. Don't accuse me of agreeing with income disparity, baseless rumors apparently has some believing this crap. I have pushed for minimal wage increases over the years and I know we need Democrats in Congress in order to accomplish this. The status quo of this accusation of other Democrats playing along with income disparity needs to change and what is sad is this is coming from within our Democratic Party. Let's put facts out and stop this rumor.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MIC-Hillary in betraying our country.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Seriously, is your case that Clinton isn't a hawk or is your point that being a hawk is good or is this a baffle them with bullshit tactic or is your argument whatever Clinton does, says, or desires is great?
Do you read what you copy and paste?
Seems like a lot of expand NATO, put Putin in his place, support the Patriot Act, increase the size of the military, condoned exceptions on torture, thinks we abandoned Mubarak too soon, hugs hawkish line on terrorism, globalized with US prominence, send 70% of homeland security funding to cities & counties, keep Cuban embargo, naive to meet with leaders of Iran & North Korea, opposed to draft, but register women for draft, does US still have what it takes to lead? Yes!, political restraint against Iran's Ahmadinejad was a mistake, America is the "indispensable nation" which is hardly a compelling case that she isn't a hawk fluffed up by filler like "Dozens of Benghazi attackers had dozens of motives", "Some world leaders are still misogynistic", and "Ceremonial role abroad as First Lady, but no NSC meetings".
What in the world is the argument you are making here? That indeed Clinton is a hawk?
I'm pretty sure if similar stock was used to call Clinton out you'd be crying foul and huffing and puffing up and down the thread but yet this is your argument to the contrary?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But let's take a look at your list.
Honestly I just choose this one at random, but reading most of the list it could have been any of them.
How nice to think of the troops, right? Now let's analyze, not enough troops to do what we are doing in the world seems to be the problem, would you agree? The conservative approach would be to increase the number of troops, damn the troops and the cost. What would a liberal do? Maybe decrease our presence in the wars we have unjustly started thereby decreasing the need for troops and decreasing the cost to the taxpayers? As a Hillary supporter, what do you think is the best approach?
Now you pick one and analyze it or better yet have me analyze it. Come on, I dare you.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)LOL. How sane is it to make up that Bosnia story? and gt your child to support that same insanity on the campaign stages?
Really....
and pro-peace? who the fuck is kidding here? Dated 2003 when the Bush went a Huntin' in Iraq and Hillary supplied him with shells.
That list is ridiculous and hilarious. But thanks for posting it so often because I find a good gem to laugh at each time.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)Its fine to have a broad article about US international policy, but to justify the title shouldn't also be based on some facts, quotes or actions of Mrs. Clinton during her time as secretary of state?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)America, at its best, is a problem-solving nation. And our continued commitment to renovating and defending the global order will determine whether we build a future of peace, progress and prosperity in which people everywhere have the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential, she writes.
Her bond with the former Nixon national security advisor, who she boasts, checked in with me regularly during her time as President Obamas secretary of state, reflects the paradoxes inherent in both their tenures. She says they both share a belief in the indispensability of continued leadership in service of a just and liberal order, yet Kissinger is best known for expanding the war in Vietnam. In the interest of global order he pushed for continued air strikes on Laos and helped initiate a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia without congressional approval, ultimately strengthening the genocidal trajectory of the Khmer Rouge.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-inc-the-military-industrial-candidate/5415651
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)equating the two and heaping Kissinger's mistakes upon her is a bit disingenuous. Can you criticize her on her own record, rather than what someone else did while she was young?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And, more famously, Clintonjoined by several other administration officials, including Samantha Power and Susan Ricepushed hard, and successfully, for the United States to go to war in Libya. For Republicans whove endlessly waved the bloody flag of Benghazi, Clintons hawkish view on Libya contradicts much of the nonsense they go on about. But for progressives, its an ugly blot on Clintons résumé.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180020/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)If I understand kissinger (and I'd admit to having avoided much of the controversy over him over the years), his ideal was stability was best, even if the status quo sucked. So I'd imagine he would have sided with Assad. On the other hand, there was already significant instability there, and perhaps the better alternative was to overthrow a failed leader quickly and create a stable government under a different regime. Recent experience in Afghanistan and Iraq notwithstanding, I'm inclined to think that either of those choices would have been ok - let him win (or help him win), or replace him. End the war, end the destruction of lives. Both could be described as hawkish.
Obama's approach was similar to what was applied throughout the Arab Spring uprisings - limited military support for the will of the people involved, and no support for corrupt regimes. I think it worked well in some cases. Libya, for example, was a fast war of limited destruction, and the opportunity (whether taken or not) of a lasting peace to follow.
But it has worked miserably in the case of Syria. Hillary's approach may have led to a better result, as we have a terrible result currently - a long grinding civil war, countless shattered lives, and little hope for a lasting peace. Helping Assad may have also led to a better result, in a quicker peace, less destruction, and perhaps the opportunity to apply leverage toward a more just government structure after the war.
I don't dislike people for having to make difficult decisions, as long as intentions are sound, all facts are taken into account, and the goal is peace.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)So its with respect that I disagree with~
"Hillary's approach may have led to a better result"
Because I personally don't think ISIS is our problem. We have many many many problems at home. And we are wasting valuable resources in people and billion$ in an ENDLESS, UN-WINNABLE war that is creating MORE hatred towards the US.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the worst. How can anyone forgive that choice? The Iraq War was probably the event that brought down America as it once was. As president she could do it all again and why wouldn't we think she would?
She can't atone for the damage she and Bush did to Iraq and our nation. Why would we give her a second thought when we have candidates that will support the 99% in lieu of the Neocons and Wall Street?
obxhead
(8,434 posts)The business is war and business will boom under Clinton. All you need to confirm that is the donor list.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)H. Clinton is the Wall Street choice, the Banker's choice, the Neocon's choice, the NSA/CIA Security State's choice.
How ironic that Citizens United, once aimed at defeating MIC-Clinton, may be the very tool to elect her at least to the general. If she runs against Jeb or Christie in the general, all bets are off as to who the Oligarchs will support.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)When it counts, Wall Street, Bankers, Neocons and NSA/CIA will back the Boss's Boy, Jebthro. Crime Family Tradition:
Agents for Bush
The 1980 Campaign
by Bob Callahan
Covert Action Information Bulletin
George Bush owed his recent political fortune to several old CIA friends, chiefly Ray Cline, who had helped to rally the intelligence community and started "Agents for Bush."
Bill Peterson of the Washington Post wrote in a March 1, 1980 article, "Simply put, no presidential campaign in recent memory perhaps ever has attracted as much support from the intelligence community as (has) the campaign of former CIA director George Bush."
George Bushs CIA campaign staff included Cline, CIA Chief of Station in Taiwan from 1958 to 1962; Lt. Gen. Salm V. Wilson and Lt. Gen. Harold A. Aaron, both former Directors of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Also included were retired Gen. Richard Stillwell, once the CIAs Chief of Covert Operations for the Far East, and at least 25 other retired Company directors, deputy directors and, or, agents.
Angelo Codevilla, informed a congressional committee that was "aware that active duty agents of the CIA worked for the George Bush primary election campaign.
Ray Cline claimed that he had been promoting the pro-CIA agenda that Bush had embraced for years, and that he had found the post Church-hearings criticism had died down some time ago. "I found there was a tremendous constituency for the CIA when everyone in Washington was still urinating all over it," Cline said. "Its panned out almost too good to be true. The country is waking up just in time for Georges candidacy.
In July 1979 George Bush and Ray Cline attended a conference in Jerusalem. (with) leaders of Israel, Great Britain and the United States. The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was hosted by the Israeli government and most of Israels top intelligence officers were in attendance.
The Israelis were angry with Carter because his administration had recently released its annual report on human rights wherein the Israeli government was taken to task for abusing the rights of the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Republican delegation was led by George Bush. It included Ray Cline and Major Gen. George Keegan (former USAF intelligence chief) and Harvard professor Richard Pipes.
Looking for a mobilizing issue to counter the Carter-era themes of détente and human rights, the Bush people began to explore the political benefits of embracing the terrorism/anti-terrorism theme.
Ray Cline developed the theme that terror was not a random response. but rather an instrument of East bloc policy adopted after 1969 when the KGB persuaded the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to accept the PLO as a major political instrument in the Mideast and to subsidize its terrorist policies by freely giving money, training, arms and coordinated communications.
Within days after the conference the new propaganda war began in earnest. On July 11, 1979, the International Herald Tribune featured a lead editorial entitled "The Issue is Terrorism," which quoted directly from conference speeches.
SOURCE: Covert Action Information Bulletin No.33(Winter 1990) "The Bush Issue"
http://mediamayhem.blogspot.com/2004_04_11_archive.html
Still, if Jebthro's not around, someone's gotta step up to fill the, ah, bill:
Wallace and his third wife, the former Lisa Taylor, meet with Vice President George Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton at a lobster bake at Bush's residence at Kennebunkport, Maine, July 30, 1983. The third Mrs. Wallace, whom the governor married in 1981, was 30 years his junior and half of a country-western singing duo, Mona and Lisa, who had performed during his campaign in 1968.
CREDIT: AP/Birmingham Post
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/george-wallace/13/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people were getting a little too restless with Bush/Cheney so they let Obama win in 2008. They figured he couldn't do too much damage once they informed their Brown Shirts (Republican Party) to obstruct at every turn. But I think they will figure that the American public will recognize that the DEmocrats couldn't deliver on Obama's promises and will be indifferent between MIC-Hillary and Christie or Jeb.
It will be a close race (looks more like democracy) but the voting machine will be set to let the Repub win by a small margin.
I have a question. Can Citizens United justify Goldman-Sachs running for president directly in lieu of thru a proxy? I mean if corps are people can't they run for president?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Sounds like the perfect business plan for the 21st century: "Hey! That's not a hob-nailed boot! That's a red-or-blue solenoid-activated articulated lamellae and setae pseudopod system stamping on humanity's face forever.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)For starters, there's Honduras:
Hillary Clinton's Real Scandal Is Honduras, Not Benghazi
By Emily Schwartz Greco
Truth-Out, OtherWords | Op-Ed, Saturday, 26 July 2014
EXCERPT...
Clinton's apparent unbeatability this time around helps explain the right-wing hysteria over the Benghazi tragedy. The conspiracy theories about the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya amount to a desperate effort to discredit the Democratic Party's strong centrist candidate. It's no surprise that this ploy isn't making a dent on her popularity.
What beats me is why more Democrats aren't deeply troubled by the legacy of Clinton's foreign policy blunder in Honduras.
Maybe you've forgotten what happened in that small country in the first year of the Obama administration more on that in a moment. But surely you've noticed the ugly wave of xenophobia greeting a growing number of Central American child refugees arriving on our southern border.
Some of President Barack Obama's supporters are trying to blame this immigration crisis on the Bush administration because of an anti-trafficking law George W. signed in 2008 specifically written to protect Central American children that preceded an uptick in their arrivals. But which country is the top source of kids crossing the border? Honduras, home to the world's highest murder rate, Latin America's worst economic inequality, and a repressive U.S.-backed government.
When Honduran military forces allied with rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton sided with the armed forces and fought global pressure to reinstate him.
Washington wields great influence over Honduras, thanks to the numerous military bases built with U.S. funds where training and joint military and anti-drug operations take place. Since the coup, nearly $350 million in U.S. assistance, including more than $50 million in military aid has poured into the country.
That's a lot of investment in a nation where the police, the military, and private security forces are killing people with alarming frequency and impunity, according to Human Rights Watch.
CONTINUED...
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25184-hillary-clintons-real-scandal-is-honduras-not-benghazi
Then there's the time the Senator sided with the Republicans over democracy in Haiti...
Bill and Hillary Clinton: Friends of Haiti?
Marty Goodman
Black Agenda Report, Wed, 12/05/2012
Bill Clinton and Obamas Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are called the Friends of Haiti. Oh, really?
After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, President Obama appointed Bill Clinton as US envoy, partnering with the Katrina and Iraq criminal George Bush, Jr., a supporter of the 2004 CIA-backed military coup which overthrew the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After the earthquake, Bill headed relief agencies, while excluding Haitians themselves. The stated theme of the Clinton-Bush effort was to build back better. Today, Bill is the UN envoy and acknowledged guiding hand behind international relief efforts.
Both Bill and Hillary are promoters of the U.S. dominated World Bank low-wage sweatshop plan for Haiti, angrily dubbed the American Plan by Haitians. Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti. The agreement includes massive tax breaks for sweatshop bosses. Workers there are making the starvation wage of about $3.50 a day.
On Oct 22, 2012 Bill and Hillary were on hand for the inaugural ceremony in Caracol. Also there was Haitian President Michael Martelly, a pro-coup right-winger linked to Duvalier era thugs. Hillary praised Martelly as Haitis chief dreamer and believer. Martelly, once again, declared Haiti open for business.
The sweatshop park was launched with $3 million from the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, set up by the two Obama appointees to spearhead so-called earthquake relief fundraising. One park occupant, Sae-A Trading, is a large textile company cited by the AFL-CIO for acts of violence and intimidation against workers in Guatemala.
Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti.
In 1993, during Bill Clintons administration, he appointed his close friend Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce. In the early 1980s, Brown was a partner in the powerful Washington law firm of Patton, Boggs & Blow. Brown was a paid attorney and a lobbyist for Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Baby Doc Duvalier and his family. Brown was also personally linked to wealthy Haitian pro-Duvalier figures.
CONTINUED...
http://blackagendareport.com/content/bill-and-hillary-clinton-%E2%80%9Cfriends-haiti%E2%80%9D
Then again, War Inc needs the oil. Right? Let's ask
'We came, we saw, he died': What Hillary Clinton told news reporter moments after hearing of Gaddafi's death
UPDATED: 06:07 EST, 21 October 2011
Hillary Clinton joked with a TV news reporter moments after she learned that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya.
She told the reporter: 'We came, we saw, he died' as she learned of the dictator's grisly end.
When the TV reporter asked if her recent visit to Libya had anything to do with Gaddafi's downfall, the Secretary of State quipped: 'No,' then rolled her eyes before adding 'I'm sure it did.'
Mrs Clinton was preparing for interviews in Kabul, Afghanistan, when top aide Huma Abedin handed her a BlackBerry with the first news of Muammar Gaddafis capture.
CONTINUED...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051826/We-came-saw-died-What-Hillary-Clinton-told-news-reporter-moments-hearing-Gaddafis-death.html
Hah. Hah. It is to laugh at death and suffering and wars for profit.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)^ That thing was the "Chief Diplomat" of the Once Great United States
and things like THAT are what causes THIS reaction from around the world:
"You've gone from being the most intelligent, literate, morally back-boned citizenry in the history of the world to the laziest, dumbest, most capitulating human trash that has ever existed"- Vinny Eastwood, New Zealand
I wouldn't vote for that thing if someone threatened to shoot me. Period. Talk about voting against one's own interests.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Finally, something we can agree upon!
Happy post Thanksgiving Day!
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)not very.
but hey, she'd make a great smasher of that glass ceiling, so whateva!! She will smash that ceiling with the broken bodies and bones she has been responsible for.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Despicable. And that horrible little grotty man, Lanny Davis at her side doing bidness for the her, Bill and Friends.
It makes me feel physically sick, that this person is touted as some great possible leader of the left when there is so much evidence she is the opposite and more a friend of war and of vile repuglicans.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)
... to never support or vote for her or any other DINO again. Not ever.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)http://books.google.com/books?id=FxBw15kJimEC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=Was+Franklin+Roosevelt+a+war+hawk?&source=bl&ots=e9e2zpuIVr&sig=89wk4ml14icpQaJoxUPRhT52CXg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-Zd4VMuFHOfHsQSDloCgDw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Was%20Franklin%20Roosevelt%20a%20war%20hawk%3F&f=false
2016 might feature an unusually grand bipartisan foreign policy debate, with an interventionist Clinton squaring off with her partys dovish wing, while the isolationist-leaning Sen. Rand Paul sparks a parallel debate with the militaristic hawks that have long dominated the Republican Party. In some ways, the discussion recalls the one that occurred in each party three quarters of a century ago before World War II, with Clinton cast as the interventionist Franklin Roosevelt facing down cautious Democrats and Paul playing the part of the isolationist Robert Taft, who took on Wendell Willkie, a more internationalist Republican rival, in the fight for the 1940 GOP nomination. Taft lost that battle to Willkie, moving the country away from its post-World War I isolationism and freeing up Roosevelt to take the controversial step of compulsory military service without jeopardizing his campaign for an unprecedented third term.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/is-hillary-too-hawkish-to-win-in-2016-110054.html#ixzz3KNYtmqYv
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)And you're saying WWII wasn't fought over resources like oil, land, iron, etc.? Just trying to set the rules for the coming debate. I have my notes in order. Do you?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Go find someone else.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)But ...
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Just saw the same story relayed on ep 1 of "Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States."
And an essay on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-foreign/
Do you want more?
Are you denying the events happened or discounting them because one of several sources (and their are more) was from writers you don't care for?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Announced she is running for president but maybe this is another detail which does nit need to be accurate in the cognitive dissonance game.
djean111
(14,255 posts)anything negative about her. Sheesh! Why all the blue linkies, copy and paste of the same canned crap, little charties, ridiculous thread hijacking - if Hillary is not going to run? Why bother with all the poll crap?
Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And yes to the cognitive dissonance posted by Hillary bashers.
djean111
(14,255 posts)has not even announced as yet?
And what cognitive dissonance about Hillary? Because some of us do not like her views and policies? Because we don't sit down and shut up and wave our little Ready for Hillary flaggies? This is politics. This is how it works. Hillary does not get gifted with the candidacy. Yay for you, supporting her as a candidate when, evidently, she may not even run. But - there will be primaries, there will be people that other Democrats like better, for good and valid reasons. Can't shout that down.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)yellowwoodII
(616 posts)I hope that she will not become the Presidential candidate. I don't think that I can vote for her.
Some people say that she didn't know better when she voted for the Iraq War. Then she's not smart enough to be our President. I knew better. Why wouldn't she?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)in the arena of conflict, with the Repuglicans support. I really don't like how cosy she and her husband are with some of the vilest creatures on earth.
That Blue Wall of electorates could almost ensure that the next President will be a Democrat. That is both promising and frightening. The promise part is someone like a Sanders or Warren could get elected. The frightening part is someone like Hillary (who has backing from Republicans and from Wall Street huge dollars) could and she will work with the Republicans to ensure the special status of the U.S. is protected with a hammer and fist and not with diplomacy.
The writing is large on the wall. Hillary is no progressive, no liberal and barely a Democrat. With her record of some absolutely completely moronic things she has said and done I can't understand how anyone could believe she is qualified to run the joint.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)America will not elect another Clinton nor, sadly, a woman.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)what's amusing (and pathetically disgusting as well) is that the hawk-lovers appear to think they have the moral high ground on the matter.
She lost me a long time ago, and has only added to the reasons since with things like this
https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+cluster+bombs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Just keep believing that you're getting hope and change.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Going on 14 years of continuous war.
Can we find someone who will finally bring peace to this nation?
libodem
(19,288 posts)Is to see her physically whither and grey from her naked ambition.
Go for it sister. You will morph into an apple doll of your former being.
OTOH no better way to break that glass ceiling.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It's borne out in multiple, reliable public opinion surveys. Even while the electorate is largely progressive on a number of economic issues, such as minimum wage and Social Security, the electorate is more "conservative" on national security and national defense than the typical DUer.
Anti-war, Code Pink, progressives are a minority in this country.
Hillary is a hawk, there should be no doubt about it.
Nonetheless, a status quo politician from one party or the other will be the next president. I'll fight for the Democrat.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)anti choice.
Unless Bernie wins, which I am in favor of.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Old but still the truth about her
''Profound Ambivalence""
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)But for panel #5, that could have been written yesterday!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Unfortunately the elites do not share the sensibility and common sense of the American people.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)If she hadn't had this attitude under Bush, she would have been President in 2008. But she never learns. She still thinks the country is wrong and she was right about Iraq.
And ironically she proudly advertised her "hawkishness" because she believed it to be an asset - and apparently believes Obama is weak, which no one on Earth other than her and the GOP believes.
This person has no connection to reality, and would be swatted aside like a scarecrow by a halfway clever Republican opponent.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)something like Maggie Thatcher. Because she was a woman she thought she had to be tougher than the boys.
Maggie the Iron Lady
Hillary the Hawk
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)The protagonist/villain of the original UK House of Cards, Francis Urquhart, was based somewhat on how she thought and operated.
But Hillary Clinton is unbelievably childish and weak by comparison, and her self-delusions aren't even leavened by benevolent ideals.
If by some miracle she defeated a Republican in a nationwide election, it's hard to imagine her administration being anything but a nonstop spectacle of self-inflicted disasters, pratfalls, and disgraceful kowtowing to everyone who passionately hates her: The worst of her husband's administration with all the charm and gravitas surgically removed.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)well said.
2banon
(7,321 posts)This is an excellent analysis, highly recommended reading. Thank you for posting n2doc.
catbyte
(34,485 posts)Anonymous Martyr
(5 posts)It became obvious that after her loss to Barrack in the primary that her ego was her main objective to be filled. I really believe in women in politics. The trouble is that those, at this point, who are successful are because they act like the men they compete against. They dont act like a woman because that is considered a liability.
Derek V
(532 posts)The Republicans always eventually succeed in the enforcement of neocon orthodoxy.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Americans have no choice, it is always voting for the lesser of two evils. Can't you all get people who cares, like Howard Dean, to run. If Hillary is the nominee, you all will vote for her as she will be better than a Republican!
Republicans are not for the people of America, and that leaves you without a choice. How is it that the most powerful country in the world has only two parties? This amazes me!
A leaner Democrat is better than a republican any day! You all have to vote in people in the House and Senate who represent the majority in America.
Even if you are not on the ballot, elect people who will represent you!
Slowly and surely, we becoming like the US with Harper at the Helm and that is not good for Canada. Harper is mini Bush, I bet he is salivating now!
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The idea of Harper working with Hillary is scary, Keystone will then be allowed to run amok. It would be the two centrist Republicans tryign to save the dying creed in 2/3 of North America, with Mexico ready to run amok.