UPDATE: Read my follow-up diary – Obama Can’t Protect the Saudi Kingdom .
Where HRC hangs herself with a commitment to the Saudi Kingdom and other Gulf States.
Conservatives aren’t just backing Clinton because Trump is scary| The Intercept |
Clinton has an impressively hawkish track record as a senator and as Secretary of State. She supported the USA Patriot Act, voted for the Iraq invasion. Later, Clinton said that vote was a mistake and blamed the Bush administration for misleading her and other lawmakers.
That explanation is bullshit–she had access to the same info that those who voted against the war did and she still endorsed that horrific, murderous war. She supported the coup in Honduras. She backed the surge in Afghanistan (which produced nothing but more deaths of Afghans and U.S. military personnel). She teamed up with then-CIA Director David Petraeus in 2012 in an effort to convince Obama to authorize a covert plan to arm so-called rebels in Syria.
Is she the ideal candidate for these Republican dissenters? No. But Hillary Clinton is American royalty. It is not shocking that George H.W. Bush–and possibly even Jeb and George W.–would vote for her. She is a known entity. She is predictable. And she is an Empire insider. With all the cards on the table, she’s viewed as the best bet by some really reprehensible people.
- ○ Honduran Democracy Still in Crisis 7 Years After Coup | TeleSur |
○ Lanny Davis, a Clintonista, up to his earlobes in the lobby for Honduras coup players
○ Our Hawk Running the State Department with USIP Support – June 2012
○ Qatar’s Emir Al Thani, Sultan Erdogan and HRC Foreign Policy of Revolutions
Fact-checking the fact-checkers after the debate on arming rebels in Syria
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: Foreign Policy Fact-check | Newsweek |
So there were at least six years before Clinton took up the role of secretary of state while ISIS was evolving, and the group’s explosive growth occurred largely after she had left office. The question of whether the withdrawal of U.S. troops aided ISIS’s growth remains open, but Clinton advocated the arming of moderate rebels in Syria as a means of filling the space left behind, according to The New York Times.
It’s well known Hillary Clinton was fervent activist for Libyan intervention and the removal from power of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. The Libyan arms and jihadists were transported from Libya through Turkey into Northern Syria to fight the proxy war at the behest of Israel to break the Shia crescent running from Teheran, through Baghdad and Damascus into Lebanon, Hezbollah. Three big funders for the Clinton Foundation were Qatar (Muslim Brothers), Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf States were allied with the US, UK and France for regime change at the outset of the Arab Uprising.
The same trick of secret arms transport (Croatian Pipeline) with logistical support from the same nations were used by the Clinton administration during the Bosnian-Serb war of attrition. Yeah, Clinton certainly has credentials and experience in foreign policy disaster fighting wars by proxy.
○ How ISIS Got Oxygen In Syria and Matured in Iraq
○ Flawed Reasoning and Misleading Projection On ISIL Origin
○ Obama’s Militaristic Policy of Regime Change and Propaganda
What is up with you? When did you join the Trump campaign?
○ Why Donald Trump can’t stop feuding with Alicia Machado, explained
Hillary Clinton has certainly earned a reputation for being a hawk. However, it’s not quite clear that she’s more hawkish than Trump.
Trump initially supported the Iraq War and the Libya intervention and then turned against them when things started to go badly.
Clinton supports the deal with Iran. Trump is against the deal and has said he would respond to taunts from Iranian sailors by blowing their ships out of the water.
Trump also believes that one way to keeping America secure is by bringing back torture.
No issues with criticisms of HRC’s record but if you’re making this case then we should cover both candidates.
There’s only one candidate in this race who constantly pounds home in their stump speeches how badly they want to jack up DoD spending.
When we add this fact to his preposterously thin skin, it becomes ridiculous to claim that Trump is the dove in this campaign. Yet, so many “liberals” wish to engage in this ridiculous stuff.
I don’t care about pleasing the generals with DoD spending … keep the troops happy and well equipped. Just don’t send arms to war zones in support of those damn jihadists and the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and the terror from the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar, Turkey and as HRC did with Morsi in Egypt.
In Syria, the US supplied arms to the moderate FSA were transfered to Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and ended up in the hands of ISIL. Recently, proxy forces paid by the CIA were fighting forces supported by the Pentagon. Great stuff, except in 5 years the innocent civilian population of Syria paid the heaviest price. The R2P advocates in the Obama administration dare to call Russian air strikes on Al Qaeda forces near Aleppo as “barberism.”
Obama and HRC fu*ked up big time in the Middle East with the flow of refugees across Europe from Turkey.
I’m in no way a fan of DT!! It’s such a shame a modern [?] state as the U.S. had such an abhorrent poor track record in domestic policy due to the stalemate in U.S. Congress. At least DT thinks outside of the Foggy Bottom bubble and tells the voters it’s better to be friends with Russia than initiating the Cold War 2.0 strategy of the Pentagon, right-wing Republicans and the Atlantic Council / Hudson Institute think-tanks.
In the debate he clearly stated as President he won’t be the first to use nuclear weapons. Ain’t quite a neocon statement or a follower of Bush II.
HRC is too cozy with religious fanatics of the Gulf States … speaking of women rights?? Or human rights or the rights of migrant workers employed in the household of the fat Saudis, abused and thrown out of the kingdom as men pleases. What a fu*cked up world we live in … Islamophobia was initiated by Israel after 9/11 and spread across the Western world. Right-wing politics followed in its footsteps. Blaming poor economics on the immigrants … see my diaries about the likes of Geert Wilders, Marie LePen, Farage, FEAR in the US.
It’s fine to criticize HRC’s record. But you’re also down-playing Trump’s hawkishness in doing so. Seems you’re falling for the campaign rhetoric.
Since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate I’ve never fallen for any [campaign] rhetoric whatsoever. I don’t fall for any bs or propaganda from any nation. Look at my track record of diaries and comments @BooMan since 2005.
HRC is just a poor presidential candidate … see her experience vs. Obama in 2008 and the expected blowout this year against ‘teflon’ Trump.
Oui, I don’t care about your track record. She is indeed a hawk and may well be a poor Presidential candidate. I’m just pointing out that you’re utterly ignoring Trump’s hawkishness when making the case that HRC is more hawkish. You’re not interested in an objective look at both candidates.
As far as I’m concerned, HRC is an enabler of war crimes during her 4-year stint as Secretary of State from 2009-2012. Long before her decision to run as candidate for the presidency. Don’t blame me, blame DWS and the DNC. The Republicans endorsing HRC is quite scary. See my earlier diaries.
By her own words, HRC will be more hawkish than Barack Obama. A proven track record of ill conceived backing of right-wing dictators and the worst of Wahhabists on the globe: KSA.
Plenty of ostriches to go around at the pond.
Lots of Clinton Derangement Syndrome to go around also.
It’s eating you up.
.
Martin Longman’s blog was never intended to be an echo chamber or preaching to the choir. Period!
Doing psychiatry nowadays? You must have a busy practice with all craziness in America.
I’m only a single person who has read your diaries for 10+ years.
It’s eating you up.
.
Dr. Psycho – bullshit!
With Bolton on Trump’s team, it’s far too premature to declare that Clinton is “More Hawkish.” We simply don’t know and never will if Clinton is less, equally, or more hawkish than Trump. The best conclusion at this point is they’re both a clear and present danger to peace.
>>The best conclusion at this point is they’re both a clear and present danger to peace.
The best conclusion at this point is one candidate is acceptable and the other is not.
Disagree. Neither is acceptable.
Yet one will be elected President.
As you are coming to this liberal/progressive website and asking community members not to support Clinton, you have made yourself an asset to the Trump campaign. You are not going to conservative blogs and asking their community members not to vote for Trump.
It’s very simple. I see what you’re doing here.
Martin Longman’s blog was never intended to be an echo chamber or preaching to the choir. Period!
“I think that hate is a thing, a feeling, that can only exist where there is no understanding.”
Tennessee Williams
.
Yes, I agree with you on this. And this is exactly why I bothered to challenge you on whether Clinton is actually more hawkish than Trump. Now its become a discussion and not an echo chamber.
Martin Longman’s blog was also not intended to be a forum for rhetoric intended to suppress turnout for the only viable POTUS candidate who is running on a broad slate of progressive policies, the only viable candidate standing in the way of a regressive, sexist, racist, militaristic, corporatist, eliminationist demagogue holding the most powerful office in the world.
[Some links added are mine – Oui]