What kind of commander in chief would Hillary Clinton be?

[portlander23]

What kind of commander in chief would Hillary Clinton be?
Peter Bergen
CNN

Clinton's record at the State Department demonstrates that she is an interventionist who is quite comfortable with the use of American military power, but at the same time she is willing to pursue negotiations with traditional American rivals such as Iran and the Taliban whenever the right kind of openings seem to present themselves.

The first big national security decision the Obama administration faced in early 2009 was what to do about the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were gaining ground. The U.S. military advocated a substantial surge of troops to blunt the Taliban's momentum.

Clinton also took a hawkish position when Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi threatened to exterminate swaths of his population in 2011, playing the lead role in cobbling together an unusual coalition of NATO and Arab states that ended up removing Gadhafi from power.

Clinton was unafraid to promote hawkish positions even to a reluctant President Obama. Early on in their fight against the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, in 2012 Clinton urged the arming of "moderate" Syrian rebels. At the time, Obama nixed this idea but later he would come to embrace it. Another substantive difference with Obama is Clinton's advocacy of a "no-fly" zone in northern Syria to protect Syrian citizens from Assad's air force, which enjoys total air superiority and has killed untold thousands in indiscriminate airstrikes on civilian areas.

Would a President Clinton invoke some kind of "red line" with Russian President Vladimir Putin, such as incursions by Russian proxy forces into any of the Baltic states? It's not clear from her public pronouncements, but her San Diego speech left no doubt of her lack of patience for Trump's tendency to "praise dictators like Vladimir Putin and pick fights with our friends -- including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the President of Mexico and the Pope."

After a doubling down of third way economic policies, the thought of a Clinton foreign policy frightens me the most about the prospect of a Clinton presidency.

[Nye Bevan]

1. Essentially a continuation of President Obama's policies.

If you hated the Obama presidency, you will probably hate the Hillary Clinton presidency.

[LexVegas]

2. You must've been miserable the last 8 years. nt

[HereSince1628]

3. My guess is she's the kind that visits wound warriors in hospital and rehab

and doesn't draw much attention to her attendance at the repatriation of remains.

[Matt_in_STL]

5. Since she is responsible for creating them, it is only fair she visits them.

[HereSince1628]

6. Yes and doesn't draw much attention to that. n/t

[Matt_in_STL]

9. I try not to draw attention to my mistakes either.

And certainly wouldn't if it was causing death and injury.

[HereSince1628]

14. Many recognize strong quiet leadership in military affairs as a moral obligation.

Though they usually aren't neocons who rather love to shout their jingo from balconies and rooftops.

[bobbobbins01]

4. A bad one.

You think she's secretive now, imagine what she'll do as president.

[YouDig]

7. One of the best since FDR. She has such command of world affairs, unparalleled.

[hobbit709]

10. did you leave this out?

[YouDig]

12. She's great at foreign policy, and everyone knows this.

[hobbit709]

17. Like what happened to Libya or Honduras?

[YouDig]

20. Honduras is her fault now? You guys keep getting funnier.

The view of the world of Bernie or Trump people is so fantasy, there's like no bridge to reality left.

[hobbit709]

21. Funny how that chapter in her book got edited between the hard and soft cover editions.

Leaves out all her fingerprints in the coup.

[YouDig]

23. It's a conspiracy!!!!

[Matt_in_STL]

11. Is "Hillary Smash!" really a command of world affairs?

I mean it works for The Hulk but it doesn't seem to be a good method of presidentin' (said in Hillary's pandering southern drawl).

[YouDig]

13. The Hulk? What. Serious people know Hillary's foreign policy chops. Not you I guess.

[Matt_in_STL]

15. We know it. It is famous for helping to create ISIS and destabilize countries.

Can't wait for the sequel in Iran - "ISIS: Recruitment video 5B". I'm sure the screenplay will be leaked though when someone hacks it from the server in the White House shitter.

[YouDig]

16. Silly isolationism only works in the minds of Berners. They seem to think that if only there was no

US, then the Middle East would be just heaven. I even saw an OP here talking about all the great things Gadafi did for his people.

So clueless. Embarrassing really.

[Matt_in_STL]

19. Oh, I am no isolationist, but I am also not one to base a foreign policy on profit

Hillary is a for-profit war hawk and that does a disservice to our service men and women, putting them in harm's way so Hillary and her cronies can fatten their wallets and purses. Libya wasn't a threat to us and it is quite arguable that the people there are worse off now than they were previously. That isn't to say Ghadaffi was a great and magnanimous leader who did great things, but we certainly haven't improved the situation and have made in worse in many areas. But Hillary doesn't care, because it doesn't affect the one person who matters to her - Hillary.

[YouDig]

22. "For profit" Such a silly conspiracy theory that Libya was "for profit".

Did you even know that there was a civil war going on in Libya and that Gadafi was about to massacre his own people? Small little fact passed you by, huh?

[Matt_in_STL]

24. He was about to? I am sure we had intelligence on that.

Did Hillary ever help W. find the WMDs she so sorely wanted to believe existed?

[YouDig]

25. You know who believes your silly line on this? Russian and Iran, that's who.

That fact that you're even comparing to the WMDs in Iraq shows how badly informed you are.

[Matt_in_STL]

27. It has to do with her judgment, and the poor level of it.

She leans toward war and, for the sake of my children, I'd prefer she doesn't start any more of them as we clean up the messes from her previous body of work.

[YouDig]

28. But since you know none of the facts about Libya, your judgement of her judgement is worthless.

You're trying to deny that Gadafi was going to massacre his own people (was in the process of it already actually). He had already been murdering civilians. There was a UN resolution, he was referred to the ICC. You're trying to pretend it was "for profit", which is straight out of Putin, when actually it was in international coalition acting on humanitarian grounds, to protect civilians.

Do you have no idea about any of this? It's like, you can't let even one fact into your worldview. It's got to be totally fact-free.

[rock]

46. +1

Love your posts.

[firebrand80]

8. She'll start wars for fun nt

[DrDan]

18. I think she would listen to her generals more than either trump or bernie who

Both believe they have all the answers

[VulgarPoet]

26. At least four middle eastern nations will have been turned into parking lots.

Another hundred, maybe two hundred thousand service members will have given their blood to water foreign sands. The VA will only bog down further with the influx of wounded veterans. But hey, maybe oil will be down to a buck fifty a gallon!

[BootinUp]

29. She never advocated for military intervention in Iraq. nt

[hobbit709]

30. She sure voted for it though.

[BootinUp]

31. If it makes you feel cool to distort the meaning of the IWR I could give a fuck. nt

[hobbit709]

33. The meaning of it was to give "legal" cover to what Idiot Son wanted to do anyhow.

And she went along with it.

[BootinUp]

35. For Bush and Cheney it did mean that. For the Far left it means that too.

YOU are giving cover to Bush and Darth Cheney right now.

[hobbit709]

36. You must be a real contortionist.

[BootinUp]

42. Here's a thought for you. Assume for a minute that Sadaam Hussein was not stupid, ok?

And that he could read the IWR only it was different, it didn't actually authorize an invasion after all inspections and other conditions.

Suppose he figured out the US government and United Nations would never FORCE him to allow inspectors full access because Bush didn't have support, Hussein was just going to give them full access anyways?

The people of New York and many other Democratic voters and of course Republican voters wanted that vote passed not to invade but to use as leverage for inspections.

You can't be so dumb that you cannot understand. Must be obstinance.

[hobbit709]

43. And it takes a real contortionist to put your foot in your mouth while your head is up your ass.

Bush/Cheney wanted to invade from the get go and we all knew it.

[BootinUp]

44. As I said, voters wanted the thing passed, just because you can read minds

You knew jack shit.

[portlander23]

32. ok

[BootinUp]

34. Why is your clip so short? I just happen to have some quotes from her speech that are NOT in

your little clip.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

...this course is fraught with danger.

...a unilateral attack...on the present facts is not a good option.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
...

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.

http://www.hillaryhq.com/2015/05/hillary-clinton-never-supported.html
http://www.hillaryhq.com/2015/02/flashback-that-famous-2002-antiwar.html

[portlander23]

37. Hillary Clinton on Iraq

Hillary Clinton on Iraq
Stephen Zunes

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from "containment" – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq's neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to "regime change," which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that "It is clear...that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq's possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling" although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

If you're going to rewrite history, you're going to have to wait until those of us who lived through it are dead.

[BootinUp]

38. This article is far left propaganda. Show something to back up the authors AND your charges.

[Smarmie Doofus]

39. Sounds like "advocacy". nt

[BootinUp]

41. Ever heard of taking words out of context?

[beachbum bob]

40. continuation of obama's policies...which is way better than anything trump will do

by a factor of 1000

[kentuck]

45. She would listen to her generals.

She would not be an independent thinker. That's OK if you trust the generals.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. She's a neoconservative on foreign policy. As long as she perceives that to be the smart stance

politically, she will continue to be a neoconservative. On the other hand, if she sees political advantage from altering those positions, she will undoubtedly alter them to conform with the moment.

[Smarmie Doofus]

48. The risk of war is off the charts.

>>>>After a doubling down of third way economic policies, the thought of a Clinton foreign policy frightens me the most about the prospect of a Clinton presidency.>>>>>

Esp. if she's an unpopular president. She'll want to change the discussion BIG time.

(Hint: She's *already* unpopular and will only be elected in the first place if her opponent is perceived as even MORE unpopular.)

Things ain't lookin' good for citizens of planet Earth right about now. Esp. if said citizens are non-white inhabitants of "troublesome" 3rd world regions.