Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:29 PM Jan 2016

Bernie'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

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie's "military adviser" only spoke to him once. (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Jan 2016 OP
Hummm, had difficulity giving a name. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #1
that's alright. HRC knows all the names and speaks with them ... roguevalley Jan 2016 #37
Hillary can give a statement on foreign policy and doesn't have to Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #49
Yes Depaysement Jan 2016 #67
Or in other words, NRA came and paid and he voted and thousands continue to die. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #76
Yes Depaysement Jan 2016 #79
advice? enid602 Jan 2016 #57
Have been told there would be advisors to do the advising. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #60
A pattern emerges... SidDithers Jan 2016 #2
No doubt about it ... GeorgeGist Jan 2016 #74
He has no plans EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #3
+1 Jarqui Jan 2016 #5
Sanders has said he would use military action and drones. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #50
as a last resort EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #52
Whar did you mean in post #3? Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #54
which part? EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #55
He did not elaborate judt stated he would take military action and Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #56
he's not a pacifist EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #61
Did you know Sanders has voted to continue funding to Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #65
I did EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #66
His voting on contual funding o the F-35 is a problem to me. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #69
You realise EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #71
I have heard all the talking points about Hillary and Sanders. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #72
Experience EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #73
Hillary has not been trying okasha Jan 2016 #78
so we're clear EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #83
Waging war is not a sound foreign policy... Human101948 Jan 2016 #4
They are down ships and personnel yeoman6987 Jan 2016 #32
The Founding Fathers did not believe that we should have a standing army... Human101948 Jan 2016 #47
I hear horses are nearly extinct. GeorgeGist Jan 2016 #75
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2016 #6
But surely he's talked to Wolfowitz DefenseLawyer Jan 2016 #15
And who did Clinton consult before casting her vote in favor of the Iraq War? gyroscope Jan 2016 #7
Foreign policy and national defense will be critical general election issues Gothmog Jan 2016 #8
yeah and boy, does Trump have all the answers or, what? Hiraeth Jan 2016 #9
Sanders campaign is scrambling. DCBob Jan 2016 #10
What the hell is a gap. What the hell is Obama's foreign policy? Or Clinton's? ancianita Jan 2016 #17
Gap in experience. DCBob Jan 2016 #20
What IS her experience? What foreign policy has she espoused and practiced. Seriously. ancianita Jan 2016 #22
Have you not been watching the debates?? Did you not watch the Benghazi hearing?? DCBob Jan 2016 #35
Then the issue can be saved for the general election. As I said elsewhere, this is a David Brock hit ancianita Jan 2016 #38
It should not be saved for the general election. DCBob Jan 2016 #41
Clinton and Brock SAY that issue is what Dems care about today -- the day of Iowa caucuses. ancianita Jan 2016 #45
Not sure I understand your reference to David Brock regarding this issue. DCBob Jan 2016 #48
She said the same thing about Obama in 2008 gyroscope Jan 2016 #23
Too bad no one like President Obama is running again. DCBob Jan 2016 #36
Who was the last candidate to have no FP experience, and still beat Clinton.. Flying Phoenix Jan 2016 #81
Bernie just doesn't support enough war. Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #84
Not good KingFlorez Jan 2016 #11
So he did speak to them? As long as he doesn't consult with Kissinger I'm fine with it. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #12
Korb was VP at Raytheon. And the CFAP was founded by the evil Podesta. LOLZ KittyWampus Jan 2016 #19
And? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2016 #34
Pick a lane KittyWampus Jan 2016 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2016 #43
Unprepared, unfit. nt LexVegas Jan 2016 #13
+1 NurseJackie Jan 2016 #68
Wow, that's as dishonest as it gets! R B Garr Jan 2016 #14
It's pretty bad! His campaign and his followers are ... NurseJackie Jan 2016 #70
What's next? "He can worry about that after he's elected"? redstateblues Jan 2016 #80
I'll tell you after I'm elected President. Flying Phoenix Jan 2016 #82
LOL! Korb worked for Raytheon & Center For American Progress was founded by the Podesta KittyWampus Jan 2016 #16
I think that's great Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #18
That right there. A good frame for his foreign policy statement -- during the general election. ancianita Jan 2016 #29
Let's listen to that again: beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #30
But, but, but..... Bjornsdotter Jan 2016 #59
Nope, they can smear and obfuscate but they can't erase the video record. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #62
And the other half have spoken to him how many times? nt ChisolmTrailDem Jan 2016 #21
And yep, Hillary will be great at foreign policy, escalating Syria and antagonizing Russia... AZ Progressive Jan 2016 #24
Why are some here so obsessed with war? Thank God Bernie seeks other solutions. nt Live and Learn Jan 2016 #25
National Defense. nt oasis Jan 2016 #58
I'm voting for the candidate who doesn't have experience in turning the middle east jfern Jan 2016 #26
Word. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #28
Amen Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #33
You're voting for the candidate who loves the MIC and their F-35's. KittyWampus Jan 2016 #42
Your attempt to muddy the waters isn't working jfern Jan 2016 #46
Yep Bjornsdotter Jan 2016 #63
Are we plotting an invasion? Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #31
oh how you HRC people 'attack' Bernie. Bringing up that fact means you are a horrible person. Bill USA Jan 2016 #39
Ha ha. Politico? haha. This is pathetic. dinkytron Jan 2016 #44
Who are his campaign advisors? Do they even CARE any more? NurseJackie Jan 2016 #51
How many times has Kissinger spoke to Clinton? polly7 Jan 2016 #53
hill cant wait to play with her soldiers....she already has blood on her hands and she's hoping for bowens43 Jan 2016 #64
I certainly trust Sanders as Commander in Chief to exercise good judgement more than I do Clinton. californiabernin Jan 2016 #77
Every time I read this my heart sinks. I want to laugh ... it should be funny, but it's just so sad. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #85

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
37. that's alright. HRC knows all the names and speaks with them ...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:37 PM
Jan 2016

kissinger, all of the bush neocons, her confessor having voted for a war crime... she has it.

enid602

(8,598 posts)
57. advice?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:40 PM
Jan 2016

Why would someone who already knows everything have a need for military or foreign affairs advice?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
3. He has no plans
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:33 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
5. +1
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:39 PM
Jan 2016

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.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
52. as a last resort
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:22 PM
Jan 2016

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.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
55. which part?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jan 2016

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)
56. He did not elaborate judt stated he would take military action and
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:34 PM
Jan 2016

Use drones, I took him at his word, maybe he mispoke one time or the other.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
61. he's not a pacifist
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:45 PM
Jan 2016

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)
65. Did you know Sanders has voted to continue funding to
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jan 2016

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)
66. I did
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:18 PM
Jan 2016

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)
69. His voting on contual funding o the F-35 is a problem to me.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:06 PM
Jan 2016

As you make your decision on which candidate is "worse or better" and I choose to support Hillary.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
71. You realise
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:22 PM
Jan 2016

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)
72. I have heard all the talking points about Hillary and Sanders.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:56 PM
Jan 2016

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)
73. Experience
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:03 PM
Jan 2016

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)
78. Hillary has not been trying
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:17 PM
Jan 2016

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)
83. so we're clear
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 05:12 AM
Feb 2016

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)
4. Waging war is not a sound foreign policy...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:39 PM
Jan 2016

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)
32. They are down ships and personnel
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:23 PM
Jan 2016

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)
47. The Founding Fathers did not believe that we should have a standing army...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:52 PM
Jan 2016

I believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Comparing staffing levels to World War numbers is very dishonest on the part of hawks.

Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
15. But surely he's talked to Wolfowitz
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:10 PM
Jan 2016

Pearle? Rumsfeld? John Yoo? What, no? Very telling. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here.

 

gyroscope

(1,443 posts)
7. And who did Clinton consult before casting her vote in favor of the Iraq War?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:42 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Hiraeth

(4,805 posts)
9. yeah and boy, does Trump have all the answers or, what?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:55 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie can mail it in in his sleep and still be the mental giant compared to that hot mess

ancianita

(35,950 posts)
17. What the hell is a gap. What the hell is Obama's foreign policy? Or Clinton's?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jan 2016

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.

ancianita

(35,950 posts)
22. What IS her experience? What foreign policy has she espoused and practiced. Seriously.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:17 PM
Jan 2016

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)
35. Have you not been watching the debates?? Did you not watch the Benghazi hearing??
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:29 PM
Jan 2016

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)
38. Then the issue can be saved for the general election. As I said elsewhere, this is a David Brock hit
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:39 PM
Jan 2016

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)
41. It should not be saved for the general election.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:42 PM
Jan 2016

Foreign policy and national security are issues most Democrats care about.

ancianita

(35,950 posts)
45. Clinton and Brock SAY that issue is what Dems care about today -- the day of Iowa caucuses.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:48 PM
Jan 2016

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)
48. Not sure I understand your reference to David Brock regarding this issue.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:55 PM
Jan 2016

Regardless.. foreign policy should be an important issue to all Democrats. I am surprised anyone would disagree with that.

 

gyroscope

(1,443 posts)
23. She said the same thing about Obama in 2008
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:17 PM
Jan 2016

"Obama can't be prez because he has no foreign policy experience."

how'd that work out for her?

 

Flying Phoenix

(114 posts)
81. Who was the last candidate to have no FP experience, and still beat Clinton..
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jan 2016

Oh that's right, President Barack H. Obama.

*hums "Hail to the Chief"*

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
84. Bernie just doesn't support enough war.
Mon Feb 1, 2016, 09:17 AM
Feb 2016

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!

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
12. So he did speak to them? As long as he doesn't consult with Kissinger I'm fine with it.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:05 PM
Jan 2016

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)
19. Korb was VP at Raytheon. And the CFAP was founded by the evil Podesta. LOLZ
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:14 PM
Jan 2016

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)
27. And?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jan 2016
BUT SANDERS WON'T GREENLIGHT THE FDA NOMINEE CAUSE HE WORKED FOR PHARMACEUTICALS.


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)

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #40)

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
14. Wow, that's as dishonest as it gets!
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jan 2016

And this is about an important election platform, not what someone remembered or misremembered from decades ago.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
70. It's pretty bad! His campaign and his followers are ...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:11 PM
Jan 2016

... 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.)

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
16. LOL! Korb worked for Raytheon & Center For American Progress was founded by the Podesta
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:11 PM
Jan 2016

Korb- vice president of corporate operations at the Raytheon Company; and director of defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nanjeanne

(4,915 posts)
18. I think that's great
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:13 PM
Jan 2016

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.

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)
24. And yep, Hillary will be great at foreign policy, escalating Syria and antagonizing Russia...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:17 PM
Jan 2016
Further, Secretary of State Clinton was reportedly among the most hawkish on President Obama's foreign policy team when it came to military intervention in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.

- http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33589-why-rand-paul-called-hillary-clinton-a-neocon

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.

- http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/
 

californiabernin

(421 posts)
77. I certainly trust Sanders as Commander in Chief to exercise good judgement more than I do Clinton.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:11 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie's "military a...