Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumA Hawk She is Not: The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Views (Clinton Group)
[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
Trevor LaFauci | March 21, 2016
Start by turning a candidate's strength into a weakness.
This strategy is often employed in politics when a candidate is going up against someone who has a clear advantage. However, in the year 2016 we've seen this strategy employed not by a particular candidate but rather by a media obsessed in creating competition where this is none. In the field as it stands, we currently have one candidate who is his own foreign policy adviser, another candidate who can't name his foreign policy team, another candidate who wants to carpet bomb the entire Middle East, and a final candidate who contradicts himself constantly. The only candidate left is the one who served as Secretary of State, one who consistently demonstrates a superior knowledge and understanding of foreign policy that none of the other candidates can come close to matching.
So the media attempts to smear this candidate's record to bring her down on a level playing field with everybody else. This year, the media has prided itself on trying to twist and manipulate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's stellar foreign policy experience time and time again. We've seen it in debates where Jorge Ramos asked Clinton about her involvement in everyone's favorite non-scandal in Benghazi which led to eight seconds of booing from the live audience in Miami. A few days later at the MSNBC Town Hall, anchor Chris Matthews asked Hillary Clinton point blank if she was a "hawk" and attempted to list several foreign policy decisions that Clinton was a part of that resulted in military action abroad. It was a question directed at Clinton for the sole reason that she, unlike any other candidate running, was a key part of an administration and was involved at the elite level of the decision making process when it came to foreign affairs. The question also was a reflection of Matthews' personal beliefs that the United States should not be the world's policemen as Matthews himself previously admitted he voted for George W. Bush because he mistakenly believed Bush would prevent us from being an occupying force around the globe.
Both questions, asked within a week of each other, began to shift the media's attention toward Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. Bernie Sanders has consistently used Hillary Clinton's vote on Iraq as a talking point about what he considers to be her lack of judgment and it has gotten so ubiquitous in either his stump speech or a debate that audience members can now predict when and how Sanders will mention her Iraq vote. Jorge Ramos was apparently like the vast majority of Republicans and was still concerned about Clinton's involvement in Benghazi despite seven separate investigations having cleared her of any wrongdoing including an 11-hour marathon hearing 'designed to go after' her where Republicans learned nothing new that they hadn't already known. And Chris Matthews was apparently concerned that as Secretary of State, Clinton had somehow adopted a 'hawkish' mentality where she would push for war if elected president even though she was part of the Obama administration that Matthews said as recently as December has been 'right about war policy.'
Because people like Bernie Sanders, Jorge Ramos, and Chris Matthews know that to question Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials is to attack her strength. They are leery of both her worldview and her understanding of the world and the pragmatic approach she takes to various situations. When she responds openly and honestly at a town hall event that she can't promise not to use the American military they see this as an indication of a warlike mentality rather than one of brutal sincerity where she knows that the world is unpredictable in a way that military intervention should always be a last resort but at the same time it should always be an option. This is the same view that Barack Obama has taken and he has wound down two disastrous wars and has avoided additional quagmires despite the consistent beating of the drums of war from both congressional Republicans as well as our mainstream media.
But don't take my word for it.
To truly understand Hillary Clinton's record, let's look at her own words and actions in an effort to see if she truly is a war hawk. Let's start with the Iraq vote because that is seen as the apex of her warlike desires. Clinton has gone on record by describing the reasoning behind her vote and the reason is as follows: George W. Bush lied about his intentions. To understand this, you have to look back to the events of October 2002 where Congress was about to vote on a resolution that would force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations inspectors to verify whether or not Hussein had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. Hillary Clinton, like many of her peers, believed that a yes vote would be a strong piece of leverage to finish the negotiations between the United Nations and Saddam Hussein. In fact, she spoke on the Senate floor and explained her position:
Read More; http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/20/hillary-clinton-is-not-a-hawk-foreign-policy
Good read.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The decision to remove the inspectors before their mission was complete nor did she make the decision to invade Iraq. Why sanders and others continue to falsely blame the Iraq invasion on Hillary and let Bush/Cheney off the hook is beyond me.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"nattering nabobs of negativism" who spread malicious misogynistic propaganda out of pure hate.
No matter how her own words explain and defend her choices and declare a much different view than the twisted narratives thrown out for over a decade, it just goes on and on.
Please, "Western Tuesday" - one more big nail!
(hey, she!)
sheshe2
(83,646 posts)Cha
(296,821 posts)Yes, what the rw does but I was on a jury last night that hid an OP 4-3 that said ..
Hillary will start a war just to prove her toughness
So, as we know it's all over the place.
Hillary will start a war just to prove her toughness
So, as we know it's all over the place. "
Well, they are so wrong. Hillary will start Peace to prove her toughness.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)I hate it when anyone outside of cartoons is called a war hawk but especially when Hillary is called that by people who claim to be 'peace activists" who oppose all war and violence. Nice words but meaningless if you are President. They must believe that Sanders will disband the military if he becomes President.
Response to sheshe2 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
peggysue2
(10,823 posts)Really enjoyed this in-depth analyses of HRC's foreign policy chops and past decisions. Too bad we don't see more of this in the general press which would rather pass on all-familiar memes and accusations. I know I heard Hillary say that her time as SOS strengthened her belief in diplomatic remedies. This piece helps in explaining why and how much of the work is done behind the scenes, often taking time to fully produce positive outcomes.
Hillary's speech on the Iraq vote should be required reading by her critics. There's little there to spin into the war-mongering accusation that her opponents love to throw.
Btw, I read Sanders' so-called foreign policy speech, another broad brush approach to disguise the man's obvious lack of specific knowledge and/or interests. He might be wiling to boast that he'd match his record to Hillary's. But his speech belies the boast x 1000.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)that's my girl. Rock on