The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016
The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016The Nation
Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss on May 27, 2014 - 1:17 PM ET
Then–US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives a speech in Cape Town in August, 2012. (Reuters/Jacquelyn Martin)
Since it’s foreign policy week this week, with President Obama delivering a major speech on Wednesday at West Point, Christie Watch will spend the next few days looking at the foreign policy views of the various 2016 candidates, starting today with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, start first by disentangling the nonsense about Benghazi—a nonexistent scandal if ever there was one—from the broader palette of Clinton’s own, relatively hawkish views. As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016, with wide leads over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one. Expect to be deluged, in the next few weeks, with news about Hard Choices, the memoir of her years as secretary of state under President Obama, to be released June 10.
But we don’t need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about her tenure at the State Department: first, that in fact she accomplished very little; and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.
Continued: http://www.thenation.com/blog/180020/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016
= new reply since forum marked as read
Then she'll get my vote for sure.
like that would ever happen! 
And now crazily says he is a "spy" . THAT alone just made his case worse! Spies that turn over information to other countries.....they go to Leavenworth! So now he is either batshit crazy OR he is a double agent.
Don't let the "my country right or wrong" crowd get you down.
They were fools in 1969 (I remember vividly), and they are fools now.
You don't have to read through the whole Wikipedia article. It has a Table of Contents, and you can easily find "Foreign policy" (hint: it's section 2), and within that you can easily find "Iraq War" (hint: it's section 2.4). Each of those is a wikilink (hint: you can tell because it's in blue), so if you click on "Iraq War" you get taken directly to the "Iraq War" section, which I've helpfully hyperlinked here as well. The first sentence reads:
If your next dodge is that you don't trust Wikipedia, because the article might have been maliciously edited by some misogynist or Warrenite or Snowdenite or Koch hireling or some other bogeyman, you'll note that "
76)" at the end. (OK, in Wikipedia it's in brackets not parens; I changed it so it would display here.) That's a footnote. It's also helpfully hyperlinked, so you don't have to go finding it down in the References section -- you can just click on it. It takes you to this page on the U.S. Senate website, where, without much arduous searching (final hint: the first list is alpha by surname), you find the entry
She wasn't the only culprit, of course. I voted for Kerry, and volunteered for him, even knowing that he also voted Yea. Still, it's a legitimate point to consider when we assess possible candidates for 2016.
If Clinton runs and has a progressive opponent, I will vote for that opponent in the primary. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her in the general election, except in the extremely unlikely event that a better candidate has a reasonable chance of winning.
You asked me what the acronym AUMF stands for. It was spelled out in the quotation from Wikipedia that I took the trouble to cut and paste for you. Here again, though, if you think that Wikipedia is unreliable, you can readily follow the links that the Wikipedia editors have carefully provided to back up their assertions. It took me about 20 seconds to get to the relevant page.
Although I can't rule out the possibility that you're being willfully obtuse, I'll assume good faith (that's a Wikipedia rule but it makes sense to apply it here, too) and go on the basis that you really don't know what happened. So here are the facts.
Per the previous link I gave you, to a page on the U.S. Senate website, you can see that on October 11, 2002, Clinton voted Yea on H.J.Res. 114.
No, that resolution was not about Afghanistan. We had invaded Afghanistan more than a year earlier. Here again, Wikipedia will give you all the sordid details; see the article on "Operation Enduring Freedom". Our attack on Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001.
So what was H.J.Res. 114 about? By following links from the Wikipedia article, I find this page on the THOMAS website (THOMAS being a database of U.S. Congress legislative information, operated by the Library of Congress). That page tells us that the tite of H.J.Res. 114 was "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".
If the title isn't enough for you, THOMAS links also take you to the complete text of what was passed. I don't know how far you want to take this demand for proof of facts that are very widely known, but, in the hope of putting this to rest, I will copy below the ENTIRE text of the resolution that Clinton voted for. You will note the prominent appearance of the word "Iraq" (along with the total absence of the word "Afghanistan"
.
Finally, you ask me about resolution 1441. You're the first person in this thread to mention it, so I'm guessing it's a typo for 114. If you mean something else, you're going to have to spell out your query a little more precisely.
And here's the promised full text:
H.J.RES.114 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
--H.J.Res.114--
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Not a dimes worth of difference, eh?
Abortion rights? Marriage equality? Their positions on these are identical? Hillary would appoint the same kind of justices like, say, Antonin Scalia? 
In 2008 my support FOR Hillary got me branded a PUMA by the DU kewl kids. How times change!
Certainly she has the votes -- AND the support of the establishment. Frankly, she is a good candidate though way too hawkish for my liking (which is why the establishment loves her in the present epoch).
But the dynasty issue is still there. It is a challenge in the general election, though not insurmountable.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. We all know orthodoxy demands obedience and no more than that.
Yea Team! Consider myself chastened by your wisdom!
You don't want YOUR position to be challenged....and I can understand why...
Get it? It's an echo! For the chamber in which you live!
I hadn't heard of the Overton Window before. It would seem to definitely apply here.
I'm tired of progressives "winning the culture war" at the expense of the poor, or civil liberties, or limiting privatization in the public sector, such as health care etc. however.
When people are called traitors for believing in civil liberties... or traitors to liberalism for opposing mandatory private health insurance, not to mention welfare reform and all the rest.
We simply disagree.
That would imply there is any good choice in a race where no matter who wins, programs for the poor will continue to be cut, inner cities will continue to be gutted by developers, domestic spying will continue to be legalized, health care will continue to be made an individual mandate and most importantly, arctic oil exploration and domestic fossil fuel production will continue to accelerate.
I am reminded of a Mr. Natural for president cartoon detailing the qualifications of the other two candidates.
Unfortunately I can't find it.
I believe the operative phrase was "Keep Your Asshole Clenched At All Times."
[font color="grey" face="Helvetica" size=1]But look who else is running! It's Mr. Zip! Big Brother himself![/font]
Or is that not what you meant?
