Hillary’s War Whoop

[UglyGreed]

If you’re one of the millions of Americans who think Hillary Clinton would make a lousy president, then pat yourself on the back because she pretty much proved it yesterday. In a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton made it clear that if she’s elected in 2016, she’s going to drag the country straight to war. Invoking the same imagery as her ideological twin, George W. Bush, Clinton fulminated for more than an hour and a half on Syria, war, terrorism, war, no-fly zones, war, radical jihadism, war, and “metastasizing threats”, whatever the heck those are. Oh, and did I mention war?

Seriously, while regretful Democrats can claim that they never thought Obama would turn out to be the disappointment he has been, the same can’t be said about Clinton. Madame Secretary has a long pedigree and the bold print on the warning label is easy to read. There’s simply no excuse for anyone to vote for a proven commodity like Hillary and then complain at some later date, that they didn’t know what a scheming and hard-boiled harridan she really was. Clinton’s hawkishness is part of the public record. It’s right there for everyone to see. She voted for Iraq, she supported the Libya fiasco, and now she’s gearing up for Syria. Her bloodthirsty foreign policy is just slightly to the left of John McCain and his looneybin sidekick, Lindsey Graham. Simply put: A vote for Clinton is a vote more-of-the-same death and destruction spread willy-nilly across the planet in the endless pursuit of imperial domination. It’s that simple. Here’s an excerpt from her speech:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/20/hillarys-war-whoop/

[NCTraveler]

1. Hillary's War of Electoral Whooping Ass and Taking Names. nt.

[UglyGreed]

3. Seems to be deflection

but I could be wrong. Thank you so very much for the reply and I hope you have a wonderful day.......

[NCTraveler]

7. You as well. Thanks. nt.

[AlbertCat]

35. Seems to be deflection

Kinda like when I posted on this and the Swarm ignored the "whoop" and focused on some detail about whether I think anyone should be called a "Presidential Candidate" before the primaries are over.

Oh and then the inevitable... "So what's Bernie gonna do"

Even tho' he issued a statement yesterday, they are STILL asking "What's he gonna do?"

[UglyGreed]

42. “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

[Bubzer]

46. +1

[EndElectoral]

2. While I've serious concerns to her banking ties, the above OP is what concerns me the most

[UglyGreed]

4. +100000

[Hiraeth]

19. me too. I just don't want to study war no more.

[jwirr]

22. They are connected - war brings profits to her banksters. Plus

this is a weathervane issue. People are afraid and she just gives them what they want to hear.

[magical thyme]

27. There was a time when I thought it was just rhetoric so she wouldn't appear "weak"

And I would have supported her wholeheartedly.

But her voting record combined with her various and sundry one-liners and ill-timed laughter proved to me that this was not mere rhetoric, but deeply ingrained militaristic instincts and beliefs.

She is a warhawk. She is ginning for war and yes, if she is elected, there will be more wars.

And she lost my support on that issue, first. The Wall Street ties came later. And the blatant corruption still later. I cannot vote for her.

[zeemike]

40. That first video was the deal breaker for me.

It showed a level of sociopath that eliminates her from any position of power IMO.

But contrary to what Papa Bush said we have not become a kinder gentler nation, quite the opposite. We have leaders with blood on their hands and supporters that don't care.
Somewhere we have learned to accept that the ene justifies the means.

[femmedem]

66. That second video, when she says, "I want the Iranians to know that if I am President

I'm going to attack Iran" combined with her saying in the first debate this year that Iran is one of the enemies she's most proud to have is a frightening prospect.

[maddiemom]

28. I agree.

I'm for Bernie. However: If Hillary gets the nomination, just who among the possible Republican candidates wouldn't have her "faults" just to begin with? I know, I know...no more of the lesser of two evils...I hope we, at least, we'll have a start for the better this election. More important than the presidency: getting rid of the crazy-ass Republican obstructionists in Congress and at state levels. They'll oppose ANY Democratic (or sane Republican) POTUS. I'm from Pennsylvania and glad I worked locally for Gov. Wolfe's election, as neither he nor any Democratic congressman from this state has joined the anti-Syrian refugee chicken hawks, as far as I know.

[magical thyme]

44. it remains to be seen.

they aren't all warhawks, are they?

[maddiemom]

48. Who? The Republicans?

Hard to tell. They seem cowed to the prevailing party line which is cowed by the teabaggers...I get infuriated by Lindsey Graham, for example. Yes, he "served,"... as a JAG. Always wants to go to war. I just want to slap him and shove him into immediate combat.

[magical thyme]

49. yup. the warhawkier among them stand out.

but the more libertarian types are going to be less interested in war. or at least that's how I see it.

[demwing]

45. I see them as the same issue

whether the moneyed interests are the bankers or the MIC, Hillary has a "This Space for Rent" sign on her moral center.

[Scuba]

5. Hillary is #4(!) among recipients from the defense industry (i.e., war profiteers) ...

According to opensecrets.org, Hillary is #4(!) among recipients from the defense industry (i.e., war profiteers), and is the sole Democrat among the top 14 of the list.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3swcpz/sanders_i_have_never_heard_a_candidateneverwhos/cx15ahp

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2016&ind=D

[Bread and Circus]

17. That is very impressive.

[azmom]

68. [phone]

[RiverLover]

6. "bold print on the warning label"

Ain't that the truth.

[brooklynite]

8. "War whoop"?

Sure you don't want to photoshop a war bonnet on her to build the analogy?

Is there anything in her comments that suggests she's enthusiastic about her assessment of what we need to do? Or is this just a lazy "we all know" comment?

[azurnoir]

26. she has already said she'd bomb Iran

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/clinton-will-not-hesitate-on-military-action-if-iran-edges-toward-bomb-522196035920

[magical thyme]

29. you realize that's the title of the article, not the OPers statement, right? nt

[brooklynite]

32. The OP chise to post it without elaboration

I have no reason to believe it doesn't capture his/her opinion

[JTFrog]

34. It's nothing but a bunch of libertarian sexist drivel.

Not surprised the OP brought it here and has the usual folks lapping this up.

[magical thyme]

43. 1. it's not uncommon to post article excerpts without elaboration, but to allow readers to draw

their own conclusions.

2. the term "war-whoop" is often used in reference to the Rebel yell, a combination of the Scottish howl-like war cry and the Native American war cry.

"The Confederate war whoop intimidated the Union soldiers."
https://books.google.com/books?id=lY6WAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=war+whoop+confederate+army&source=bl&ots=k1-MWS71LA&sig=ucWhMOAi4SyxwA80hKpjlQWT3nM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-4JCH2p_JAhXBOCYKHWs0AEkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=war%20whoop%20confederate%20army&f=false

"The South understood the peculiar position of this state, and when the Abolition hordes of the North landed on Kentucky soil against the wishes of her citizen, all that this people had to do was raise the war-whoop..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=eIJLBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=war+whoop+confederate+army&source=bl&ots=-57f0KAnKg&sig=XLWpP4f5w721kU_bO4Pqb7b5g9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd0eGS25_JAhXM7SYKHdNVBE84ChDoAQgcMAA#v=onepage&q=war%20whoop%20confederate%20army&f=false

"Words and phrases that have a meaning related to war whoop: (1119 results)

Synonyms: state of war, warfare

Often used in the same context:

battle, peace, fight, land, blood, warrior, men, south, wars, country, soldier, army, died, soldiers, enemy, field, revolution, score, bone, combat, crime, danger, destruction, independence, navy, north, sacrifice, slavery, states, suffer, victory, weapon, wedding, youth, battles, bloodshed, conflict, deadly, debt, dogs, duty, dying, fighter, fighting, flag, force, fought, jealous, killed, meat, minister, pause, pound, rattle, remorse, returned, slave, suffering, sword, torn, weapons, william
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?typeofrhyme=rel&loc=dmapi5&Word=war%20whoop
(note lack of mention of Native Americans, war bonnets, painted faces, etc.)

[tularetom]

9. She thinks she has the nomination in the bag, so there's no need to pretend to be a "liberal" any longer

Now she is concentrating on getting those hard working white americans to vote for her.

Of course she will advocate starting wars all over the globe. Those arms dealers contributed a lot of money to the Clinton Foundation and they expect to sell a lot of weapons in return.

[marym625]

10. it benefits her, the MIC, big oil and Wall Street.

You know, her constituents, Wall Street, corporations.

Ninnnne ELEVEN!

[bbgrunt]

11. It can't be any more obvious except

to those who wish for more war and oligarchy.

[OilemFirchen]

12. "(H)er ideological twin, George W. Bush..."

Sorry, I nodded off. Was there content beyond that?

[cpwm17]

13. From what I can tell, Hillary supporters here want war.

Her war-mongering is a plus for them. They considering the anti-war liberals to be from the far left. Murdering brown people on the other side of the world is their bag.

[AlbertCat]

38. is their bag.

Well, it's worked so well so far.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. at this point it is clear that whichever way she is pointing that is what they believe.

And their beliefs are "serious" and "well thought out" and will change tomorrow if required.

[Dems to Win]

14. Stopped reading at 'harridan'

I'm plenty disgusted by Clinton's speech, but I can find non-sexist ways to express it.

[Vincardog]

21. Look it up it is an apt description

[shenmue]

23. No. It's a disgusting word, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Vincardog]

24. If you have a problem with the definition please expand on it.

[AlbertCat]

39. It's a disgusting word

Hardly that bad.

But, y'know.... it's a succinct but accurate description

[leftofcool]

50. But, they aren't ashamed at all.

We have already had the "women who vote for Hillary are dumb" thread today. Calling Hillary sexist names is par for the course.

[TM99]

52. Yeah, because what is really disgusting is the one

word in the article and not the fact that Clinton is a hawk.

[geardaddy]

31. Yeah, that's not cool. n/t

[eridani]

69. That was a quotation, and not the sentiment of the poster. However, s/he should have edited it out

Like substituting [sexist slur deleted] or something of the sort.

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. People should read the whole piece, it's very good

There are so many good excerpts but here is a short one.

Here’s more: “We need to lay the foundation for a second “Sunni awakening.” We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally, stand up a national guard.” (CFR)

Yes, and we also need to ride unicorns over rainbows to a shiny bright future in Candyland. It’s about the same thing, isn’t it?

Washington has been trying to accomplish what Clinton is recommending for the last 10 years and, guess what, it’s never worked. And it won’t work, because it’s a pipedream. The Iraqis are not “going to stand up, so we can stand down.” (Remember that one?) It’s not going to happen. She knows it and everyone in the audience knows it too. She’s just blowing smoke to convince the bigshots that she’ll faithfully prosecute their freaking wars until hell freezes over. That’s what’s really going on, or does someone actually believe these cutthroat plutocrats really want a more stable and secure Middle East?

[kristopher]

20. Might want to check your excerpt formatting nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

36. Looks ok from here

"Here's more" is part of the excerpt.

[MADem]

53. But "Washington has been trying to accomplish what Clinton is recommending ..." is not.

You need to move your 'slash div' to separate your remarks from the excerpt.

That said, this article, from its racist title to its sexist commentaries, is libertarian garbage. This ass of an author doesn't like Obama, either.

[Cheese Sandwich]

62. It's all excerpt. I don't know what you guys are talking about

This is all excerpt:

Here’s more: “We need to lay the foundation for a second “Sunni awakening.” We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally, stand up a national guard.” (CFR)

Yes, and we also need to ride unicorns over rainbows to a shiny bright future in Candyland. It’s about the same thing, isn’t it?

Washington has been trying to accomplish what Clinton is recommending for the last 10 years and, guess what, it’s never worked. And it won’t work, because it’s a pipedream. The Iraqis are not “going to stand up, so we can stand down.” (Remember that one?) It’s not going to happen. She knows it and everyone in the audience knows it too. She’s just blowing smoke to convince the bigshots that she’ll faithfully prosecute their freaking wars until hell freezes over. That’s what’s really going on, or does someone actually believe these cutthroat plutocrats really want a more stable and secure Middle East?

[MADem]

63. Please accept my apology! You are quite right!

I thought surely that was commentary...not an actual part of the piece!!

Wow, COUNTERPUNCH has really sunk down in the "internet publication" rankings, when their published opinion pieces are completely indistinguishable from the opining of partisans on political discussion boards!



That guy had best not quit his day job!

[Cheese Sandwich]

64. LOL!

[UglyGreed]

65. A racist, sexist and a

Libertarian walks into a bar...........

[Dragonfli]

25. A Sunni awakening is a very, very, bad idea - Daesh Is a Sunni awakening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016137161

Karbala and Najaf, the two places that have notably taken in Christian refugees and others fleeing Daesh within Iraq, are Shia cities and Al-Sistani, the leader of the mosques that have given them refuge there preaches religious tolerance, and has throughout his tenure sought peaceful solutions.These Shia and all shia, are the main targets of DAESH as the Wahhabi Sunni seek relgeous purity and consider Shia infidels for their tolerance.

Something to think about.

[CharlotteVale]

16. K&R

[EndElectoral]

18. I read transcript again. Seems more a speech on war, than of foreign policy.

A few points.

1. ASSAD - It specifically advocates not only the destruction of ISIS but of regime change with Assad. In Clinton's own words she describes this as a Civil War" between Assad and the Rebels. No one questions ISIS should be addressed, but should the US intercede itself into a Civil War in another country for regime change? Let's say Assad is toppled. What are the ramifications of that? Russia is an ally of Assad. Will they stand by and allow Assad to be toppled? What will happen between Russia and US as a result of a US forced regime change in a soviet allied country? What happens to Assad's forces and men? Do they become rebels, or terrorists as they are excluded from the new government? Would this be the next terrorist group we would then be left to fight? In the event Assad falls, how do other mid-eastern countries and groups respond that are allied with Assad. There is silence in her speech on these possibilities.

2. ISIS - What are the root causes of ISIS? What lead to their emergence? Does killing the leaders of this group destroy their cause, or does it simply create new splinter groups we will be perpetually fighting? The problems of the mid-East only seem to get worse. But WHY is that? WHY do people strap on suicide bombs and risk their lives for this cause? Because they are madmen or fanatics? It seems there are a lot of fanatics susceptible to their call. Is there a way to reach these people? I often think that after WW2, Israel was formed and for 20 years, Palestinians and Jews lived in a frustrating existence together, until it erupted in 68, and the war began there, and next Sirhan Sirhan became the first Islamic terrorist assasinating RFK because of his advocacy to send missles to Israel. Shortly thereafter the PLO formed and it has been one terrorist group after another. Either we accept we will continue to be fighting these kinds of groups in perpetuity, or we find a way to address their needs, or annihilate them (the Republican plan).

I just don't see much in the way of finding a way to bridge this insanity in her speech except annihilation and uncertainty in the future. I want to believe there is a saner and better way than that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Her much ballyhooed "foreign policy experience" is highly overrated.

See IWR vote, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, drones, torture, for indications.

[UglyGreed]

33. We have a winner

[Ikonoklast]

41. "Stop already, my d**k can only get so hard!"

Henry Kissinger, HRC's best pal.

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!!

:banhead:

[SoapBox]

47. She's a War Hawk.

But even at that, she'll never win the General.

[MADem]

51. Ah, yes, the ALWAYS RACIST COUNTERPUNCH, at it again....what a title.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [e-mail].

This loser-author is NO FRIEND to DEMOCRATS, either...but hey, whatever.

Anything goes when the whistle blows here at DU, these days...

[Romulox]

54. LOL. Good defense to Hillary's warmongering! nt

[MADem]

56. So you approve of this jerk's comments? Good to know!

He regards Obama as the enemy as well.

[Romulox]

57. I oppose Hillary's warmongering, no matter who the speaker is denouncing it. nt

[MADem]

58. Yeah, sure. nt

[Romulox]

59. Good one! nt

[UglyGreed]

67. '

[d_legendary1]

55. Why do people think that sending soldiers off to war

makes them look like a hardass? Don't people remember the Vietnam War? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars? War is a never a good thing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

60. You're right. But war is always a good thing for those who profit from it. n/t

[d_legendary1]

61. And those are the people who are pumping money into

our election systems. The candidates who speak about going to war are the ones who have no qualms throwing our soldiers into a meat grinder if money comes out the other end for their donors.

[UglyGreed]

71. K