2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Seeks NEO-CON Shelter (against the Sanders storm)
Comment: Having lived through eight years of a Neocon president in the White House, and eight years of Neocon "aftertaste" within the Obama administration, has been more than enough Neocon to last me for the rest of my life. I CERTAINLY don't wish to see a new fully Neocon administration led by a professed Democrat.If anybody really wanted another Neocon President, "Jeb!" would be in the lead for the GOP nomination. Seems that even Republicans don't want a Neocon encore.
This article describes a lot of Hillary's behind-the-scenes neocon-maneuverings within the Obama administration, of which many are probably not aware. I strongly suggest reading the whole article. ~ John Poet
Stunned by falling poll numbers, Hillary Clinton is hoping that Democrats will rally to her neocon-oriented foreign policy and break with Bernie Sanders as insufficiently devoted to Israel. But will that hawkish strategy work this time?
by Robert Parry
In seeking to put Sen. Bernie Sanders on the defensive over his foreign policy positions, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is embracing a neoconservative stance on the Middle East and gambling that her more hawkish approach will win over Democratic voters.
Losing ground in Iowa and New Hampshire in recent polls, the Clinton campaign has counterattacked against Sanders, targeting his sometimes muddled comments on the Mideast crisis, but Clinton’s attack line suggests that Sanders isn’t adequately committed to the positions of Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his American neocon acolytes.
Clinton’s strategy is to hit Sanders for seeking a gradual normalization of relations with Iran, while Clinton has opted for the neocon position of demonizing Iran and siding with Israel and its quiet alliance with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states that share Israel’s animosity toward Shiite-ruled Iran.
By attaching herself to this neocon approach of hyping every conceivable offense by Iran while largely excusing the human rights crimes of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-run states, Clinton is betting that most Democratic voters share the neocon-dominated “group think” of Official Washington: “Iran-our-enemy, Israel/Saudi Arabia-our-friends.”
She made similar calculations when she voted for and supported President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq; when she sided with the neocons in pushing President Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan; and when she instigated “regime change” in Libya – all policies that had dubious and dangerous outcomes. But she seems to still believe that she will benefit politically if she continues siding with the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” side-kicks.
:::snip:::
Arguably, Obama’s most fateful decision of his presidency occurred shortly after the 2008 election when he opted for the trendy idea of a “team of rivals” to run his foreign policy. He left Bush family loyalist Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, retained a neocon-dominated senior officer corps led by the likes of Gen. David Petraeus, and picked hawkish Sen. Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Thus, Obama never took control of his own foreign policy.
The troika of Clinton-Gates-Petraeus challenged Obama over his desire to wind down the Afghan War, bureaucratically mouse-trapping him into an ill-advised “surge” that accomplished little other than getting another 1,750 U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. Nearly three-quarters of the 2,380 U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan were killed on Obama’s watch.
:::snip::::
Gates also reported on what he regarded as a stunning admission by Clinton, writing: “The exchange that followed was remarkable. In strongly supporting the surge in Afghanistan, Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary [in 2008]. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’
:::snip:::
Read more:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/24/hillary-clinton-seeks-neocon-shelter
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, John Poet.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I was previously unaware of some of her maneuverings within Obama's administration which kept breathing new life into the neocon policies of the Bush administration. Now I know who to blame.
Frankly, her continuing support for the Iraq-war policies of George W. Bush (as detailed in the article) are a total disqulifier for me, for any candidate for the Democratic nomination for the White House.
She shouldn't even be in the running for it-- now or EVER.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)I've always thought highly of Parry's work.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hillary has no real philosophy beyond what brings her closer to her lifelong dream of being the first woman President, one moment she's proudly progressive the next she pleads guilty to being moderate and center. One minute marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman the next it's gay rights are human rights.
I think it's great when have people have dreams but don't ask me and my kids and grandkids to give up ours so you can have yours.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)someone who's been consistent on the issues that matter most... Bernie!
Great thread. HRH has no moral compass whatsoever.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)This makes me sick!
Hillary supporters - please have a heart and vote for someone who does not love war!!!
This..."The troika of Clinton-Gates-Petraeus challenged Obama over his desire to wind down the Afghan War, bureaucratically mouse-trapping him into an ill-advised “surge” that accomplished little other than getting another 1,750 U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans. Nearly three-quarters of the 2,380 U.S. soldiers who died in Afghanistan were killed on Obama’s watch."
--
"Hillary Clinton seems to be betting that rank-and-file Democrats remain enthralled to Israel and afraid to challenge the powerful neocon propaganda machine that controls the U.S. establishment’s foreign policy by dominating major op-ed pages, TV political chat shows and leading think tanks."
--
"...some prominent neocons have made clear that they would be happy with Hillary Clinton as president."
--
"For instance, neocon superstar Robert Kagan told The New York Times in 2014 that he hoped that his neocon views – which he now prefers to call “liberal interventionist” – would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration. After all, Secretary of State Clinton named Kagan to one of her State Department advisory boards and promoted his wife, neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the provocative “regime change” in Ukraine in 2014."
---
"According to the Times’ article, Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”
--
So much more in the article!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)and are standing in the way of a Democratic win in November.
"Don't stand in the doorways, don't block-up the halls"
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bush and want to nominate Hillary. Go figure.
pengu
(462 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Just listen to Hillary vs. Barack in 2008...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511061359
This post, and the article, is so important to get to the top of the greatest.
This article makes me so mad.
I knew Barack wanted Peace and Hillary was why we do not have it.
So many dead.
It's a sin being done in our name.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)That part was news to me....
Enlightening also was the part about Hillary having spoke against the Bush surge "for political reasons"--- to appear to be less the warhawk in Iowa in 2008. Nicely played, Hillary, nicely played.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Vote Bernie!
Response to John Poet (Reply #9)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Sorry, that is my honest opinion. And it is very upsetting to me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is what Hillary said about what we did to the Iraqi people in 2008:
"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.
http://huffpost.com/us/entry/89729
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Good.
What she said was despicable.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're goddamned right it struck a nerve.
My family has friends in Iraq and we never found out what happened to them.
It should strike a nerve in all of us.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do you have anything to say about the Iraq war or are you going to continue with this inane banter?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And saying nothing.
How odd.
It's almost like you're trying to provoke me into something alertable.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to direct me to the threads you think I should participate in.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)IMO...just kind of struck me as I read through the subject and all the responses. No big deal.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She is completely without conscience.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and the freedom to not go to schools that didn't exist anymore.
Saddam was not a good man but he had good infrastructure and kept the peace within his borders between opposing religious groups. We ruined all that with our invasion, an invasion that was based on a lie and went after the wrong person and the wrong country.
.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Universities, museums, government buildings looted, millions of dollars missing, priceless artifacts missing or destroyed...
See how we paved over Babylon to construct a base:
Babylon wrecked by war
is it safe to assume she may be against the TPP "for political reasons" or is she sincere? It is frustrating to have to ask such a question.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)of the past, I'd say it was safe to assume that
she is now lying about her flip-flop to opposition to TPP.
Talk, after all, is cheap.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)2010:
"First, let me underscore President Obama's and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass it. We think it's strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade Agreement finally ratified." (June 11, 2010: On RCN Television. She also flew her husband in for dinner in Bogota, Colombia, with key players. Bill Clinton has always been in favor; his foundation has taken money from people with business interests there, as reported and written about in a forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer.)
2011:
"Getting this done together sends a powerful message that America and Korea are partners for the long-term and that America is fully embracing its role as a Pacific power. ... I want to state as strongly as I can how committed the Obama Administration is to passing the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement this year. ... This is a priority for me, for President Obama and for the entire administration. We are determined to get it done, and I believe we will." (April 16, 2011: In a talk to a business group in Seoul, South Korea.)
2012:
"We need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. ... This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment." (Nov. 15, 2012: Comments in Australia.)
2014:
"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. ... It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia." (From her second memoir, Hard Choices.)
2015:
"Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests. First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade's sake."
Specifically regarding TPP: "She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
She Is all in for the TPP in my opinion. She did play a major role in writing it after all. She worked very hard for big businesses globally while serving as "our" SoS.
Clinton has directed a lot of her attention to opening new markets for the U.S. in the developing world, where China is establishing a significant presence. Chinese companies have poured capital into poor regions of Africa where foreign aid from Washington once gave the U.S. leverage. In resource-rich countries such as Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, U.S. companies have recently lost major contracts to state-subsidized Chinese outfits.
In the global economic order that emerged after World War II, the U.S. and its allies took American dominance for granted. They “did not envision China as the second-biggest economy in the world,” Clinton says. She doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with China’s desire to extend its reach. “I don’t hold that against them,” she says. “I just hold it against us if we’re not out there pushing back.”
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors. The State Department even has had limited success in prying open Chinese markets to U.S. companies. In 2011, after extensive haggling with U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke, the Chinese government allowed Titanic 3D and other Hollywood movies to be shown in Beijing theaters. And that same year, after talks with Clinton, the Chinese relaxed so-called indigenous innovation rules that kept U.S. companies from competing for government technology contracts there. “Not that they would ever admit that the Americans—that the secretary—said this, and therefore [they] changed,” says Clinton, who’s been careful not to brag too loudly about these deals. “A lot of this you cannot claim, because then you kind of force the people on the other side to lose face.”
For U.S. companies overseas, a personal appeal from Clinton opens doors and unravels red tape....
Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department
tecelote
(5,122 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Because this is awesome.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)This quote from you sums it up for me: "She worked very hard for big businesses globally while serving as "our" SoS."
That's precisely who and what she is. I couldn't get over her smug little smiles at someone in the audience, during a couple of the debates, while Bernie talked about income inequality and the oligarchy -- like she thought he and his concerns were amusing.
She is like a Trojan Horse for transnational corporations, fooling the American people.
It is not healthy to trust people like that.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)the media frames her without any deeper look at what she has actually done. And not done.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
lets get this move up.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)I always read Robert Parry's work and he's always spot on.
Obama's biggest mistake in terms of foreign policy was showing too much deference to Bush regime neocons and allowing them to call the shots in his State Department. They've laid waste to several more countries in the world, undermining governments and democracies that don't play by our rules, and because the president is a Democrat, anti-war activists have been non-existent. For the military industrial complex and the neocons who support it (and profit from it), having another neocon Democrat is the best option.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Actually, the Clinton campaign is mischaracterizing Sanders’s position as expressed in last Sunday’s debate. Sanders opposed immediate diplomatic relations with Tehran.
“Understanding that Iran’s behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with; their support of terrorism, the anti-American rhetoric that we’re hearing from their leadership is something that is not acceptable,” Sanders said. “Can I tell you that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don’t think we should.”
Agony
(2,605 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...of US relations with Iran, similar to what is happening with the US and Cuba.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Q: Should we re-open the US embassy in Tehran?
BERNIE SANDERS: I think what we've got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with; their support terrorism, the anti-American rhetoric that we're hearing from of their leadership is something that is not acceptable.
On the other hand, the fact that we've managed to reach an agreement, something that I've very strongly supported that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. And that I believe we're seeing a fall in our relationships with Iran is a very positive step. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes.
Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don't think we should. But I think the goal has go to be as we've done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And remember that normalized relations involve having an embassy.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...but doesn't want to re-open the embassy tomorrow.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)implies he wants it done shortly after taking office.
More to the point, are you operating under the belief that our diplomatic strategy since 1979 is working?
Madmiddle
(459 posts)policy on the Middle East. Hillary has a clear plan also. Her sad indecent plan; keep the war going, build more of the war machine, collect more money for her war effort. VOTE BERNIE SANDERS, is the very clear message here. Peace, out!!!
summerschild
(725 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 07:38 PM - Edit history (2)
But before I got to it, I determined she was much more the HAWK of the two. So I changed to support Barack and voted for him twice. I never regretted my votes.
For 2016, once again I was headed toward voting for Hillary - with some reservations over her hawkishness. Then I discovered she had a major PNAC player on her staff at the State Department - Victoria Nuland Kagan, wife of one of the FOUNDERS of PNAC.
I've continued to search for policy that would confirm my fears and this article certainly cements it.
I don't know what idiot is telling Hillary Democrats will support voting more neocons into the White House. This voter sure won't!!!
John Poet
(2,510 posts)in this thread.
I guess they're finding it too hard to defend the indefensible,
so they're avoiding kicking this thread.
That would mean that this is a very potent line of attack against her.
It appears I've also been making a mistake about Hillary...
Regarding her vote to enable Bush to make war against Iraq,
I have been giving her credit for political cowardice and calculation...
That is, I believed she felt she had to vote for it because she knew she would seek the presidency,
and could not afford to "appear weak", partly because she is a woman,
but that if she could have voted her true convictions, she would have voted 'no'.
The content of this article has made it clear to me that no,
she actually DID vote her convictions to go to war in Iraq.
She was FOR it all along... because she really IS
a Neocon on foreign policy, and kept pushing President Obama
in that direction during her entire tenure at the State Department.
This is starting to look like a major deal-breaker for me, a tipping point.
If she does manage to become the Democratic party nominee,
then I am going to have a major problem... bigger than the one I had before.
senz
(11,945 posts)Thank you, John Poet.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Started reading his reports during the Iran/Contra scandal when he worked for AP and Newsweek. He's been writing about the neocons for years and I'm so thankful he's still around, doing what he does best, shedding light on their filth.
K&R
amborin
(16,631 posts)i'm cross posting this:
Hillary Clinton is a war mongering neocon, through and through. A key goal of neo-conservatism is regime change. Neocons want to spread American democracy around the world, and they’re willing to use military force to topple governments and/or leaders that don’t meet their criteria of democratic. Neocons implement this policy in an arbitrary manner; they’re willing to tolerate many non-democratic, brutal dictators, but seek to topple others. And sometimes neocons aren’t necessarily interested in spreading democracy so much as they’re interested in a nation’s oil reserves, as in the case of Iraq, or ensuring Wall Street hedge funds can access sovereign wealth funds, as in the case of Libya.
Demonstrating her neocon instincts, Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war, but failed to learn from this fiasco. Once appointed Secretary of State, she set her regime change sights first on Libya, then on Syria, both leading to disastrous consequences.
Despite the fact that Libya’s Qaddafi had adopted an increasingly open stance toward the west, Hillary advocated deposing him. How much of this was motivated by her ties to Wall Street? Hedge fund billionaires, Goldman Sachs, Citi, and many others were eager to access the hundreds of billions in Libya’s sovereign wealth funds. Now Qaddafi is gone and Libya is in chaos, a haven for terrorists and warring militias. Did Hillary learn from this? No.
Hillary Clinton next zeroed in on Syria’s Assad. We all know how this saga played out. Hillary urged Obama to support various “friendly” rebel groups to the tune of billions of U.S. dollars, all toward the goal of toppling Assad. A recent example of how U.S. taxpayer dollars were squandered is the fact that a $500 million program to train rebels yielded a grand total of only five viable rebel fighters. Worst of all, as Syria deteriorated into chaos, a space was created for ISIS and other terrorist groups. Now we have a safe haven for ISIS in Syria, and millions of traumatized Syrians flooding into Western Europe.
As Bernie Sanders noted, before rushing in to topple the disliked dictator du jour, is there a plan for the day after? Are there established institutions in place that will ensure peaceful transition? Are there legitimate reasons for removing a particular government or leader? Will doing so aid U.S. national security or the security and stability of the specific region? Have we considered all likely consequences? Hillary ‘s record in foreign policy has shown that she is unqualified to be in charge of our nation’s foreign policy.
A few references for further reading, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/world/finger-pointing-but-few-answers-after-a-syria-solution-fails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/africa/14diplomacy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/business/global/04sovereign.html
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)I hope we're not going to compound the error
by making another neo-conservative
the new commander-in-chief.