2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's "military adviser" only spoke to him once.
What the hell?
-----------
Facing skepticism about his foreign policy expertise, Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he speaks to "many, many, many people" who provide him with advice on the subject.
But the sole person Sanders cited by name told POLITICO that he's spoken to Sanders only one time recently.
"I was asked to go over and speak with him just once, which I did," said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Korb said the wide-ranging conversation "probably" occurred in December.
Korb was among about a half-dozen foreign policy experts who spoke to POLITICO on Friday after Sanders' campaign cited them as recent sources of advice for the Vermont senator. At least half of them say they have only spoken to Sanders once or twice in the past year.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-korb-military-adviser-218482
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)kissinger, all of the bush neocons, her confessor having voted for a war crime... she has it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Claim advisors.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)She came, she saw, thousands died. All for her greater glory and political calculation.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Bernie earned that D- from the NRA, totally in their pockets.
enid602
(8,598 posts)Why would someone who already knows everything have a need for military or foreign affairs advice?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)DU rec.
Sid
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)you are predictable.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)To use the US military. Yes years of war criminals have used the US military excessively, and people like that - or people like Hillary that make millions from weapons manufacturers - probably need endless "advice" on where the most profitable place to bomb next is...
Bernie doesn't.
It's a good sign.
Who do you think is going to get money from Bernie:
a) the Military
b) the people struggling to get by
Rhetorical question.
Mom and Dad, get you kids ready for college because it's unlikely you'll need them to get a uniform for the Middle East.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)and only if he feels he can avoid civilian casualties... and unlike pretty much any one else in the US government I'd suggest he actually means that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)He's not going to be starting wars, and unless you've heard something I haven't he's not planning on engaging in things like the war crimes the US is currently involved in in Yemen.
Will he fight ISIS, yes, will he have advisors when he needs to? Of course...
But is he running on a platform of fear and the need to endlessly bomb other countries, run no fly zones against the Russians or topple other governments? No.
The military is well aware of the situation and honestly, as someone in the Senate, so is he.
Hiring hacks to tell him what to say to make himself look Presidential is BS and he's not engaging in that.
On top of ALL of that, Americans don't WANT fear... Bernie is not pushing fear, unlike Hillary, and if he starts trying to push fear he's going to alienate the very people he has energised.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Use drones, I took him at his word, maybe he mispoke one time or the other.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)but 99% of the military action our country has taken since the 1950s has been aggressive and unnecessary. That's the shit he won't do. At least we all hope he won't. And considering his stances on the recent popular wars we've had, the Iraq Wars, it's hard to believe he's suddenly going to become a hawk.
I'd also suggest that the fact that his competition - Hillary - has a campaign run by a guy that owns a lobbying firm that represents weapons manufacturers and countries like Saudi Arabia - a country who we're currently help starve Yemen with... I'd suggest that her policies would be dramatically different.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Lockheed Martin for the F-35 program? Currently over a trillion dollars. The helmet costs $400,000 a piece. The F-35 is supposed to carry bombs but if bombs are attached it is unable to do the maneuvers needed. He also votes to fund the manufacture of drones, maybe this is why he says he will use military action and drones.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)And I am not a complete idiot.
I recognize he is a politician.
But he's not even vaguely on the same scale of corrupt as Clinton or any Republican.
I'll never find a candidate that it perfect in my eyes, but I'm also not going to ignore all the Clinton corruption because Bernie has voted for some pork which benefits his state. If that was my bottom line I'd never vote again..
I hate his position on guns as well... But again, all the candidates are equally shit in my eyes regarding guns. It's not something I can base an opinion on. Except to laugh at Clinton's lame attempts to look like a super gun control hawk. Lol.
So yeah. I know the score.
He's also as close to a real progressive as our broken and corrupt system can create.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)As you make your decision on which candidate is "worse or better" and I choose to support Hillary.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Clinton has been actively hawking the F35 to other countries.
She's in no way against the F35.
And she's taken millions from weapons manufacturers...
More specifically:
Her campaign chairman OWNS the lobbying firm that Lockheed Martin paid to get the F35 approved and the Clinton Foundation has taken millions from Lockheed AND Bill has been paid 200,000 in speaking fees from Lockheed.
Which candidate is more tied to the F35? The guy who votes for it to bring jobs to his state? Or the Clintons that have been paid Millions by the manufacturer of then F35, and who take hundreds of thousands in donations from the F35 manufacturers lobbying firm and who HIRED the owner of that lobbying firm to run their campaign.
So is either perfect? No.
But to pretend that Bernie is worse re the F35 is a joke.
And if you KNEW this and still brought it up... Well... That's kinda weak.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Whether Hillary is or is not for a program I can accept, I am not claiming her innocence but I know Sanders does not come with clean hands but as you say you already knew this. IMO, Hillary is the most qualified candidate running, she has knowledge and experience, she has advocated for women's issues for many years, against violence against women, it is important to me to continue the fight.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Is meaningless if it's not tied to good judgement.
Without the help of the firm owned by the person she chose to have as her campaign chairman the F35 wouldn't exist. Sanders couldn't vote for it.
She has lots of experience but so do many many awful politicians.
There's plenty of people that fight for women's rights as well. Bernie has been talking about and fighting for equal pay for years.
I understand you want a woman to win. Totally get that.
But a corrupt woman? Someone that takes millions from arms dealers? Someone who while at state was twice as likely to approve a weapons deal for a country - including MANY that oppress women - if they donated to the Clinton Foundation?
That's her experience.
All of her financial support is coming from corporations. She's surrounded herself with people that lobby for them and for foreign countries.
That's the kind of stuff that proves to me that experience without good judgement is meaningless.
okasha
(11,573 posts)to get more contracts for F-35's. She's been trying to dump the ones we're already stuck with.
This thing isn't just pork for Vermont. It's a poorly designed system that constitutes a danger to the pilots, the civilians on tbe ground, and the troops it's supposed to support because it cannot perform the missions it was intended for. How many lives are 200 jobs in Vermont worth?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)your defence is that Hillary is just trying to sell our allies hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons, that she knows will kill civilians and pilots in the UK, India and Israel?
And this is why you think she's great?
Never mind her endless connections and money she and her husband, and her campaign, have received from the manufacturer, and their lobbyists, and never mind that she hired the owner of their lobbying firm - who helped get the thing approved and funded - because she's just gonna dump these ally killing planes on our allies?
It's definitely a bit long for a bumper sticker, but maybe a t-shirt...
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The military should be reduced to "peacetime numbers." WW II is over. The Cold War is over. Stop invading and occupying countries.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Not sure how much smaller they will go. They say ships are at WW I levels. Personnel WW II levels which is low.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
Comparing staffing levels to World War numbers is very dishonest on the part of hawks.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Pearle? Rumsfeld? John Yoo? What, no? Very telling. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Dick Cheney? Henry Kissinger?
Sanders has been in the US congress for how long 30, 40 years? As one of the longest serving members of the US Senate I think he understand foreign policy a lot better than the average politician of either party, and his voting record certainly reflects it.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Bernie can mail it in in his sleep and still be the mental giant compared to that hot mess
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They know the foreign policy gap is becoming a huge issue.
ancianita
(35,950 posts)This may be important in the general, but for now it's a play by David Brock.
I don't care if Bernie makes a foreign policy statement at all.
But I'll expect an immediate foreign policy speech from the 'most qualified' candidate herself, since her people brought up this "issue."
Can't wait to hear her lay it all out for Haim Saban. And out-Republican the Republicans.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ie.. Bernie essentially has none.. Hilary has alot.
ancianita
(35,950 posts)As a feminist I paid attention to her as Secretary of State, but must have missed the foreign policy statements parts over the 'dodging bullets' and 'meet and greet' photo ops with future trade partners.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Hillary has an amazing understanding and tremendous knowledge of foreign policy. Seems she can discuss at length with much detail any issue relating to foreign policy. Bernie can barely finish one sentence before falling back on his comfort zone.. economics.
ancianita
(35,950 posts)Benghazi hearing, eh. I watched. She in no way laid out any foreign policy statement. That was attack/defend filibustering shows of tough guy politics and an armchair 20/20 hindsight proxy war against the president.
My position is There Is No "Issue." There Is No "Gap."
Bernie's campaign priority of rebuilding democratic and economic policy and practice is, right now in a presidential run, more important than making any foreign policy statement or keeping ANY military industrial complex reassured of status quo "security" funds.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Foreign policy and national security are issues most Democrats care about.
ancianita
(35,950 posts)If Hillary gives this all important issue the attention of a speech -- tonight -- I will overlook the David f***g Brock playbook strategy here.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Regardless.. foreign policy should be an important issue to all Democrats. I am surprised anyone would disagree with that.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)"Obama can't be prez because he has no foreign policy experience."
how'd that work out for her?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)Oh that's right, President Barack H. Obama.
*hums "Hail to the Chief"*
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is a HUGE gap between Clinton and Sanders in war-mongering. I don't think the American people are ready for not going to war all over the place all the fucking time.
Nope and No Change 2016!
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When your candidate consults Republicans and war criminals for foreign policy advice it's probably best not to gasp in horror at Bernie's consultants.
Another non-issue from the folks who don't want to discuss issues.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Korb- vice president of corporate operations at the Raytheon Company; and director of defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
The Raytheon Company is a major American defense contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and commercial electronics.
BUT SANDERS WON'T GREENLIGHT THE FDA NOMINEE CAUSE HE WORKED FOR PHARMACEUTICALS.
More hypocrisy from Sanders and his supporters.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That was the right call. What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #19)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Response to KittyWampus (Reply #40)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)And this is about an important election platform, not what someone remembered or misremembered from decades ago.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... in panic mode. I doubt they'll have much success in trying to convince everyone that foreign policy isn't important. (Looks like they're trying though.)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)....said who?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Korb- vice president of corporate operations at the Raytheon Company; and director of defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)Biggest mistake our country has faced - Sanders had the right judgment.
Consequences of Hillary's lack of judgement and her support of Bush's war:
The rise of ISIS, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, approx 4,500 dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of Americans wounded and about $6 trillion in costs.
What he said at the beginning was very astute and has come to pass:
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.
One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
No President makes foreign policy decisions in a bubble. I am quite sure that when Bernie Sanders is President, he will have proper counsel and appropriate advisors. Sanders has as much experience as Hillary had before she became Secretary of State. I'll stick with Sanders judgement thanks.
ancianita
(35,950 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Compare that to Hillary:
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts).....never gets old.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)- http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33589-why-rand-paul-called-hillary-clinton-a-neocon
- http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)oasis
(49,338 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)into a hellhole
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)The person who saw through the bullshit and voted no on going into Iraq.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,315 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)dinkytron
(568 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)californiabernin
(421 posts)She has traveled the world it's true, but she has not exercised good judgment when it matters most. She seems too concerned with politics and not enough with principle in the foreign policy arena.