Hillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.

[pdsimdars]

Hillary Clinton made headlines with a speech in San Diego casting Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency due to the damage his incendiary rhetoric could cause. Simultaneously, the former Secretary of State sought to convince the California audience that she was the safer choice in foreign policy matters.

But when taking a closer look at US foreign policy under her leadership as the nation’s top diplomat, it’s obvious that Clinton could potentially be as disastrous as Trump if given the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Here are a few examples of countries where conditions are tremendously worse as a result of Hillary Clinton’s policies.

Hillary Clinton made Libya a failed state

In an April interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama, reflecting on his 7 years as Commander-in-Chief, admitted that ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his presidency. While Obama took responsibility for the failure of Libya in that interview, he relied on the input of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State at the time.

In March of 2011, Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, who was leading the opposition to Gaddafi. As the New York Times reported, Clinton asked Jibril a series of questions about how his coalition planned to fill the power vacuum that would be created by Gaddafi’s ouster. And in the end, it was Clinton who convinced the White House that deposing Gaddafi was the right thing to do:

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

<snip>

Hillary Clinton deserves credit for poverty and instability in Haiti

In Haiti, the first state ever founded by freed black slaves, citizens are still fighting for political and economic freedom today, largely due to the influence of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In 2011, Wikileaks published US State Department cables from 2008 and 2009 confirming that State Department officials were meeting behind closed doors with Haitian business leaders, plotting on how to stop the Haitian government from implementing a 37-cent hike in the minimum wage from $0.24 an hour to $0.61 cents an hour.

While Haitian President René Préval was initially neutral on the proposal of raising the minimum wage, he went on the record opposing the wage hike after consistent efforts from within the US Embassy in Haiti and the Haitian business lobby by July of 2009. Politifact rated the claim that Clinton’s State Department tried to suppress the wage hike as half-true, since there’s no link proving that Clinton directly played a role.

<snip>

Honduras’ downfall resulted from a coup Clinton supported

In 2009, shortly after Obama took office and appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was arrested at gunpoint by the military and forced onto a plane to Costa Rica while a new government took power. While the US State Department didn’t directly oust Zelaya, it refused to call his ouster a coup, despite calls from the U.S. ambassador to Honduras and from Congress to do so. In her interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, Clinton defended her decision to keep sending aid to Honduras despite the violent overthrow of Zelaya:

I think, in retrospect, we managed a very difficult situation, without bloodshed, without a civil war, that led to a new election. And I think that was better for the Honduran people. But we have a lot of work to do to try to help stabilize that and deal with corruption, deal with the violence and the gangs and so much else.

However, the result of the coup was a massive amount of bloodshed, as gangs and drug cartels began to take more power in the absence of a stable government. In the year following the coup, Clinton’s State Department published a list of human rights abuses prevalent in Honduras:

“…unlawful killings by police and government agents, which the government took some steps to prosecute; arbitrary and summary killings committed by vigilantes and former members of the security forces; harsh prison conditions; violence against detainees; corruption and impunity within the security forces; lengthy pretrial detention and failure to provide due process of law; politicization, corruption, and institutional weakness of the judiciary; corruption in the legislative and executive branches; government restrictions on the recognition of some civil society groups; violence and discrimination against women; child prostitution and abuse; trafficking in persons; discrimination against indigenous communities; violence and discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation; ineffective enforcement of labor laws; and child labor.”

<snip>

Clinton is responsible for the fall of Iraq and Syria (and the rise of ISIS)

In late 2011, after months of sustained anti-government protests inspired by the “Arab Spring” movement, Hillary Clinton called for the resignation of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Then, in April 2012, Clinton gave a speech in Turkey more forcefully calling specifically for regime change, saying, “Assad must go.” Those three words created the policies that led to both the rise of ISIS in Syria and the European refugee crisis of 2015.

One of Clinton’s last actions as Secretary of State was to call for the arming of Syrian rebels fighting Assad. As the London Telegraph reported, Clinton’s plan to give weapons to Assad’s enemies was backed by not only former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but also by former CIA director David Petraeus and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While Obama initially rejected his Secretary of State’s plan, he eventually agreed to arm Syrian rebels in the goal of ousting Assad.

However, as ISIS began to get a foothold into Syria and Iraq, the “moderates” that received weapons from the US were eventually overtaken by ISIS fighters, who suddenly found themselves in the possession of military-grade weapons paid for with US tax dollars. In a study conducted by Conflict Armament Research, which tracks the movement of arms in war-torn regions, researchers found that ISIS has weapons and ammunition not just from the US, but also from coalition forces that are funded by the US government. The access to advanced weaponry was likely the reason for ISIS’ rapid expansion into Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.

The consequences of destabilizing Syria and Iraq are apparent. Over one million refugees, largely from countries where the US intervened militarily, fled to Europe between 2015 and 2016, creating the world’s largest refugee crisis since World War II.

<snip>

Yemeni blood is on Hillary Clinton’s hands

Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, which started in 2015 and continues today, was made possible with arms purchased by the US government. Since Obama’s presidency, the US has sold approximately $46 billion in arms to the Saudis, with many of those weapons sales greenlighted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. As US Uncut reported in April, Clinton was particularly focused on making sure the US came through for Saudi Arabia in a 2011 weapons deal. David Sirota of the International Business Times reported that Clinton argued the arms deal was “in the national interest.”

At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

Saudi Arabia is very likely using the weapons acquired from that 2011 exchange to wage brutal bombing campaigns in Yemen. In March, Foreign Policy magazine accused the US and its allies of complicity in war crimes by funding and arming the Saudi regime:

Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition.

This week, the United Nations added the Saudi-led coalition to a blacklist of states and armed groups that violate children’s human rights during conflicts, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon personally slamming Hillary Clinton is completely right that Donald Trump is woefully unprepared to take on the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief. But voters should also be leery of Clinton, who, despite having met with more world leaders than any presidential candidate in US history, is responsible for some of the worst foreign policy blunders of the 21st century.


http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/


(sorry for putting up such a long piece, but there were so many sections)

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. Double kick... so hopin' I won't be faced with that decision.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[MineralMan]

2. Accusing the likely Democratic nominee of war crimes is unforgivable.

That's what is unforgivable, in my opinion.

[Gomez163]

7. We'll just alert this crap after June 16. Once they get to 5 hides, they're gone

[-none]

28. That can be a two way street, and

Skinner said he wants people here to be civil. I still see a lot of veiled and not so veiled threats against the Bernie people here.
Back to he OP, any truth in the OP? Are those the truth and facts or are they made up? Why don't you address that... if you can.
The usual blanket dismissal or shooting the messenger doesn't count. Address the contents of the OP.

[Demsrule86]

66. In reality the only time I saw Hil people hidden including me once

was with rigged Bernie juries. I read all hidden posts so I know the game Bernie folks played.

[-none]

86. Selective memory, huh?

Cause that is the opposite of what I see on the juries I am on.

[melman]

51. Says the person

with twelve hides.

[Gomez163]

54. In 13 days that will be zero hides and then I won't be leading with my chin.

[Demsrule86]

67. Bernie juries nt

[melman]

72. You can't look at those hides

and say they weren't deserved. I mean, I know you will say that but you will know better inside.

[bvar22]

17. Partisan politics is more important to you than innocent children being blown to pieces?

I'm not surprised.

[Demsrule86]

68. How many children do you think Trump will blow up?

He has said he wants to use nukes in Syria. And you don't give a damn about the kids...only St. Bernie.

[bvar22]

76. I wasn't talking to you,

but since you butted in, you have no idea WHAT Trump will do.
Neither do I.
I DO know this...Trump has not killed any innocent children to date.
Hillary has killed thousands...and that kind of blood don't wash off.

[Demsrule86]

94. Trump

has said he will use nukes in Syria...those of you who bash Hillary will have blood on your hands if Trump gets in...you will be helping a true sociopath and a monster. There is no knowing how many people may die because of your actions. Pres. Obama, whom I imagine you must hate set foreign policy. Hillary was never in a position to do the things you accuse her of...and your hatred which has grown because your candidate lost this primary assuming you really are a Bernie supporter has caused you to misjudge the situation ...to imagine it as you wish it was. Trump is a danger to us all and the entire world actually... not Hillary Clinton...I wonder how many people will die if Bernie Sanders and his supporters help elect Trump? Too many for sure.

[JRLeft]

109. You keep glossing over the fact she's already committed massive atrocities and

supports Israeli terror on Palestinians. Even one Israeli government official admitted apartheid.

[840high]

85. I don't know. I do know

Hillary's record.

[SCantiGOP]

119. "War crimes" ?

What a crock of shit. Using that term destroys any credibility the OP may have had.

[laruemtt]

32. Excusing horrendous actions just because there's a D after her name

is unconscionable.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. That's a telling statement.

[MariaThinks]

52. i completely agree. why is this poster on DU?

[leveymg]

128. You've been here for less than 3 months. You aren't really equipped to judge who's fit to be on DU

No understanding of what this board is, has been, or should become.

[MariaThinks]

133. you're too funny.

[reformist2]

69. This is the kind of loyalist mentality I cannot abide.

[jack_krass]

89. If repubs did what HRC has done, we'd (all) be screaming bloody murder

[yurbud]

97. which part of it wasn't true?

[Android3.14]

104. Not nearly as unforgivable as ignoring war crimes

It is the fault of folks like you that we face a choice between someone who helped kill over 500,000 people and someone who would love to kill millions, or making an futile statement by writing in our conscience.

[leveymg]

126. What is unforgivable are the acts themselves.

Your partisan support has eclipsed your moral sense. Your post shows you have lost perspective.

[LexVegas]

3. Losing hurts, huh? Get it out of your system...it's ok. nt

[Tal Vez]

4. If a person can convince themselves that

"it’s obvious that Clinton could potentially be as disastrous as Trump if given the position of Commander-in-Chief," they can probably convince themselves of anything.

However the question might be phrased, the correct answer can never be President Trump.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. In that one area (warmongering), there is every reason to believe just that.

Overall? Sure...it's hard to think of a worse choice than Trump. But in the (very goddamn important) area of war, Clinton's record is exceptionally horrible.

[Tal Vez]

44. I don't believe that Trump is faking. I think he really is nuts.

I thought that a lot of what we were seeing was just an act. But, as time has gone on and the antics make no sense whatsoever, I have come to believe that the GOP nominated a man with serious mental problems.

I was born during the Truman presidency. From Eisenhower to Obama, I never believed that there was a real possibility of a nuclear exchange. Even when we were climbing under desks to drill for it, I was always confident that it would never materialize.

With Trump, I think it may be very possible. He is a few standard deviations from the norm.

[JimDandy]

26. The correct answer for me, a Bernie supporter is, I am voting for Bernie.

However you want to phrase it ("Not Trump/Not Hillary"?), the correct answer is always: Bernie Sanders for President.

[Tal Vez]

39. I understand.

There is nothing wrong with enthusiasm.

[JimDandy]

41. ...

[dinkytron]

5. Time to slam the door on neocons for good. The only safe place for them is

tossing out first balls at baseball games.

[SidDithers]

6. Get 'em in while you still can...nt

Sid

[reddread]

8. and it isnt just progressives who object to the obscenity of Iraq

Let me see a list of military families who lost someone, who experienced the horrors,
and long term difficulties associated with service in that abominable pursuit, and feels it was worth it.

she wont be fooling people who arent progressives, either.
it is one of the most defining issues about her candidacy and it
is no wonder she is laying low and hiding from unscripted questions.

[MisterP]

11. that's the crux of the vote: Sanders supporters who switch to Trump aren't doing it

because they're lefties trying to punish Clinton, but because they're millions of non-wonks who've been starved and killed by Reaganomics and snap-judgement interventionism

[emulatorloo]

9. Please don't get DU in trouble for copyright violation

Do you have permission to post the whole article? If not, edit it down to a couple three paragraphs.

More info here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright

[CrowCityDem]

10. You might want to learn what a war crime actually is.

[stevenleser]

23. I was just going to say that. Things arent war crimes just because OP doesn't like them.

Hillary has not committed war crimes, nor is anyone who is familiar with international law every accused her of being guilty of war crimes.

We can go through the list of things that have resulted in official accusations and indictments against those accused of war crimes and none of those types of issues would apply to Hillary.

[BunkieBandit]

83. Me too. "War Crimes" accusations have been thrown around a lot lately. Granted,

I'm for Bernie, but c'mon war crimes?

[Blanks]

103. Sadly, it falls into the category: if you repeat it enough it becomes true...

Normally a conservative trick.

[bjo59]

13. Great post.

[stevenleser]

24. No, it's not. OP does not get to invent war crimes where none have been committed. nt

[raging moderate]

101. The OP has some really wild exaggerations fueled by unbridled anger.

For example, the OP article says that some weapons for Saudi Arabia were bought BY the United States, when these weapons were actually bought FROM the United States (admittedly, with some assistance because of undue influence by our oil lobby etc. conflating its profits with US interests). And it indicates that Hillary created ISIS when her actions were not at all the decisive factor in the creation of ISIS (although she might have counteracted it more effectively if not for the undue influence of our oil lobby etc.).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. No! No! No! They weren't really war crimes...just following orders or mere "mistakes". K&R

Or, maybe she can rationalize it with the "everybody does it" line.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Clinton had touted the intervention in Libya as “smart power at its best,”

Clinton had touted the intervention in Libya as “smart power at its best,” Before the total shit came down and went to hell.

[bvar22]

20. Before Hillary, Libya was the most advanced country in North Africa,

with the highest standard of living. Like Iraq, it was generally non-sectarian.
Women had rights. They could own money, own property, own stores, own and drive cars, wear blue jeans on the streets, go to clubs "unattended", sell property, and had rights in the courts.

After Hillary "helped" the Fundamentalists with her Freedom Bombs, all these rights disappeared, and Sharia Law was imposed.
These Billboards depicting how women MUST dress appeared all over Libya:


For Hillary to claim "Women's Rights" as a top issue, how does she apologize to these women in Libya?
or to the dead, maimed, and those millions displaced from their homes and families?

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

"Pan-African means Africa for Africans, NOT for Western Banks...
and NOW we know why Hillary was so hot to destroy Libya.

[amborin]

22. yes, exactly! even the pro-HRC NYT Condemns Hillary's Regime change in Libya:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004216623/hillary-clintons-legacy-in-libya.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

[jwirr]

75. Thank you bvar22. I think the times article says it all. They

were not in debt to international bankers or IMF and they used their oil money for their people through their independent bank system.

She bombed the hell out of them for the same reason she supports the rich in this country. The Empire.

[bvar22]

80. Thats how I see it.

The Western Banks and the IMF piggy-backed on the legitimate Arab Spring to take sides in an ongoing civil/tribal war....on the side of the Islamic Fundamentalists to bring down Gaddafi, The Libyan Central Bank, and the Pan-African movement that was blocking the IMF from making predatory "loans" collateralized by the immense natural resource wealth of Africa.

Disaster Capitalism at its finest.
If you don't have a disaster, the USA will be glad to create one for you!

[jwirr]

82. So many times when we recognize these kinds of truths I

just want to get down on my knees and say "God, forgive us." I know that sentiment is not welcome here on DU but it is how I feel and have felt for a long time.

[Tarc]

18. A litany of whining and non-sequiturs

Also, Sanders bears as much blame for Iraq as Hillary, seeing how he voted, repeatedly, to fund the war.

[-none]

31. Riiiightttt. Vote to defund the Iraqi war and hang our troops out to dry over there, without ammo

and supplies. That is what would have happened. Our MIC wants to be paid on time.

[Tarc]

63. Another silly conjecture from people who really don't understand how things work

If funding for a war ends, soldiers are not stranded like some refugees on a deserted island.

They are...wait for it...withdrawn and brought home. I realize your entire premise depends on this not being true, but what can ya do?

[-none]

84. Meanwhile, while they get setup to bring our troops home, they are short of supplies anyway.

That is no way to end any of our wars. It still takes money.

[libdem4life]

108. Weak, just plain weak. Cheerleading better suits you.

[Tarc]

114. It's funny how y'all can't let this go :)

Almost as funny as the blind eye turned to Bernie's culpability in prolonging the Iraq invasion

[libdem4life]

115. Let's see...you responded to me (point 1...can't let go)

and 2...supporting troops is humanitarian and, you forgot 3) The NRA

What's to let go? On that one, you're absolutely right. He has begun the long journey back to what used to be called the Democratic Party. Will it happen by July? No. But it has already begun, President or not.

This "Revolution" that you people deride, has started already and continues regardless. That's your blind spot, IMO.

So we can agree to disagree. Peace out.

[Tarc]

116. The voters have spoken, and soundly rejected Sanders "vision" for the party

The party he joined a little more than a year ago.

[libdem4life]

118. I believe they are a couple of points apart. And FWIW, The Parties are

losing power with the new breed of Unwelcome Intruders and declining of The Faithful.

Some see past 2 weeks or even November. It's not a sprint.

[20score]

19. Thank you, thank you!

These are extremely important, and obviously true stories, completely ignored by her supporters. It’s frightening how these stories are handled by true-believers.

Their motives for denying reality vary. For some, it’s just plain stupidity. For others it’s a childish inability to admire without worshiping, guaranteeing real and important stories will be ignored and/or ridiculed. For many, it’s how reactionaries handle the world. With the same deep, critical thinking skills used by someone proving the earth is only 6,000 or so, years old. Only the young-earthers are more polite, in general.) For some, (and there are no exact numbers for this, but they’re always there - throughout history, no matter what the problem - it’s a sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of others).

But these people are the enablers of the sadists, power-starved, greedy assholes who have always made the world much worse place, for billions of people, throughout all of written history. Without their help, the vast majority of our social ills could/would be solved. “The sadists, power-starved, greedy assholes who have always made the world much worse place,” could not have pulled off their crimes - from wars, to world hunger, to global warming, to overpopulation, to slavery, Jim Crow, genocides, the exploitation of billions…and the list goes on endlessly… without the help of the non-thinkers who ignore reality - if it happens to be unpleasant to them.

[amborin]

21. Her record is scary and horrifying! She is reckless, and either has

very bad judgment or very bad intentions

[840high]

88. Perhaps both.

[amborin]

25. plus, her terrible action in Colombia:

http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

[trudyco]

96. I don't understand. She did this in multiple SOS decisions with financial gain to the Clintons or

Clinton Foundation. Always decisions that cause violence and horrible living conditions for the people affected. How can this NOT be corruption?

This quid pro quo, about face policy after the Foundation or Clintons have been enriched is the definition of corruption to me.

Thanks for the article amborin

[MFM008]

27. Whose lived in LIBYA?? Raise your hands.

OH ME!
We were stationed at Wheelus AFB in the 60s, my brother was born there.
We lived among the general population in a walled off building.
It was bad then, sure its worse now.
How anyone can think HRC had something to do with the State of that place has never been there, I lived it for 4 long years.
Just Sanders talking points.

[reddread]

29. he died she came we saw

so, Libya with and without Gaddafi is the same thing?

if you think those are Sanders talking points, I dont know what to tell you.
these issues extend back years and decades.

[libdem4life]

105. Did/do you live there? If not...defer to someone who has...or just don't post.

[reddread]

112. sounds like they missed some important decades

not deferring to a damn thing.
thank you no.

[libdem4life]

113. So, you didn't live there. Just getting news like the rest of us?

[reddread]

129. I guess that depends, are you not getting cable, also?

[20score]

30. It's worse now because of our intervention. That's what matters. That's a fact.

You're using the same non-thought that fuels global warming deniers. Temperature goes up and down, so, no global warming. Things were bad in Lybia before, so she didn't advocate a crime.

WTF is wrong with you? Sanders talking point? SHE MADE THINGS WORSE. You are helping to continue sadistic policies, with your reactionary leanings. You really are making things in the world, worse. You really are.

Not many people in the world knew about how Gaddafi was raped with knives in the streets during the coup. But she did, and she cackled about it. Go on. Defend that too. Show us how low Sanders is? Please, have at it.

And you living there almost 50 years ago means absolutely nothing, because that is what you've learned.

[Starry Messenger]

33. CALL THE HAGUE RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

[obamanut2012]

40. THE NETHERLANDS IS AT DEFCON FIVE!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!1!1!!

[Starry Messenger]

42. TULIP DRONE: 3-2-1

[obamanut2012]

45. WINDMILL DRONE LAUNCHED BY THE HOUSE OF ORANGE

[CanadaexPat]

34. Amen. It's distressing how unconcerned people are about this.

[Buzz cook]

35. No true Scotsman would vote for Hillary Clinton nt

nt

[JoePhilly]

37. The High Priests of Liberalism look down from on high ...

... and pronounce their judgement on the sinners, once again.

[DerekG]

38. A number of Democrats DON'T CARE about war crimes

As long as they have their reproductive and LGBT rights, they're sound as a pound.

Don't bother the beautiful people with dead children.

[stevenleser]

93. Sure we do, and Hillary hasn't committed any. If you disagree, name a war crime

Specify the war crime under international statute.

And no, what I'm asking isn't particularly hard or out of order. If you are claiming someone committed a crime, the least you can do is name the crime. Murder? Rape? Larceny? Fraud? Burglary?

If I say you committed a crime that's the first thing you would ask me to do, name the crime.

What war crime has Hillary committed? There are several kinds. Name one.

[libodem]

46. Very Interesting

But I'm concerned that you are over the 4 paragraph limit for copyright purposes. I'd like to see this stay up but you may be alerted and locked because of the rules for posting.

Suggesting it be shortened to 4 paragraphs.

[pdsimdars]

47. I've seen so many long posts, I had no idea. I hope it stays up. I did cut the article down

quite a bit but there is an awful lot of information there and people seem to be appreciating it.
I usually don't like to read long posts but sometimes it is necessary.

Hope it's OK.
If it's not OK, then maybe I can break it into a 3 or 4 part OP. But that seems a bit much.

[libodem]

57. Nobody seems to be alerting

So maybe we are good. I like to see the rules followed but my real reason is this is so great it might be locked someone who doesn't like the content, can use the 4 paragraph rule, to lock your post.

I'm not 100% sbout the copyright thing but if it could get the site in trouble, if you borrow too much from the source. Maybe another host will know?


Very interesting article . Thanks for sharing.

[pdsimdars]

71. I put the link to them so there shouldn't be any copyright problem. I gave them full credit.

I'd say if you keep posting about this, someone will get the idea.

[riversedge]

53. Zach Cartwright is just another H. A. Goodman. Slander is his main objective.

[libdem4life]

110. Kill the Messenger. Impressive.

[TeddyR]

55. Not a Hillary fan

But I find these accusations pretty ridiculous. She was secretary of state, not president. Are we really going to blame Hillary Clinton for the rise of ISIS?

[AtomicKitten]

56. She blamed Obama for the rise of ISIS.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

[TeddyR]

59. Like I said

I don't like Hillary, so I'm not surprised she might have made baseless accusations. That doesn't mean we should make the silly claim that she was somehow responsible for ISIS. And Hillary isn't a war criminal. Hitler was a war criminal. Dinko Sakic, war criminal. Hillary is not a war criminal.

[AtomicKitten]

61. But she IS a neoliberal hawk.

[TeddyR]

64. Eh

I'm not big on tagging people, especially politicians like Hillary who change positions so easily and often. How do you define "neoliberal hawk"?

[AtomicKitten]

79. Promotes aggressive military intervention with the private sector (MIC) profiting.

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

[Maven]

111. So is Obama then.

[pdsimdars]

73. I think that comes from the fact that Obama didn't want to go into Libya and Hillary talked

him into it and afterwards he thought it has been his biggest mistake and the result of taking Kadaffi out is what gave the space for ISIS to grow up.
But you would have had to have been paying attention. You could probably find some articles if you were interested.
I guess the authors can't explain every issue in every detail every time they say something. I think they expect their readers to have been paying attention all along.

[tandot]

58. I am very thankful that this lunacy will end 6/16

[JoePhilly]

70. No kidding.

[riversedge]

60. Blood Traces: Bernie’s Iraq War Hypocrisy

This from on the Sanders fans favorite websites!


February 16, 2016
Blood Traces: Bernie’s Iraq War Hypocrisy


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

by Jeffrey St. Clair


Bernie Sanders has been tagging Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote in support of George W. Bush’s war against Saddam Hussein. Here Sanders is closely following Obama’s 2008 playbook, where Obama used the Iraq war vote to repeatedly knock Clinton off balance.

But Sanders’s shots at Clinton haven’t inflicted much damage this time around, largely because there’s so little breathing space between the two candidates on foreign policy. Both Clinton and Sanders are seasoned interventionists, often advancing their hawkish policies under the ragged banner of “humanitarianism.” (See: Queen of Chaos by Diana Johnstone.)

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.

Even Hillary belatedly admitted that her Iraq war vote was a mistake. Bernie, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam. On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being “almost unanimous.” I went back and checked the record. In fact, many members of the progressive caucus in the House, as well as a few libertarian anti-war Members of Congress, vote against the Iraq regime change measures. Here’s a list of the “no” votes on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:.................

[cpwm17]

62. Hillary Clinton’s war crimes - well:

Now ends my Hillary supporter impression.

[pdsimdars]

74. shouldn't there be a unicorn trotting across or an ostrich with head in the sand or something

like that? Well, I guess the rainbow covers it, and the cartoon character. .. . .

[Demsrule86]

65. What will 'real' progressives do I wonder?

When Hil is the nominee ...I guess these 'real and pure' types will support Trump one way or the other...and they call themselves 'progressive'. ROTFL

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. No true Scotsman would ever support her either.

You may think that progressives are wrong to support her. But if you think that many of them don't, and that none of the majority of Democrats who support her are true progressives, you're deliberately ignoring facts just because you don't like them.

[Hekate]

78. This post is unforgivable. Also it violates 4-paragraph copyrighted material limits.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. "No True Scotsman"

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

LOL

[EndElectoral]

87. Easy to banter Trump, but her foreign policy record leaves a helluva lot to be desired.

[840high]

90. That's exactly what I thought.

[EndElectoral]

95. Sadly so

[Jitter65]

92. "war crimes" oh, please! She made some decisions that some don't agree with...some do.

She committed no "war crimes" and you shouldn't allege that she did. That is shameful.
The way BS supporters talk one would think that she cast the determining vote for invasion of Iraq; that she alone determined to take down Gaddafi; that she almost staged the Benghazi attacks and dared anyone to send help.

This not only hurts Hillary, this hurts the Democratic party in the long run.

[senz]

98. Thanks for this. The censorship crew is itching to shut down all truths about HRC

and it galls them that we still have the freedom to openly share information for another two weeks.

I hope everyone will use these two weeks to let the readers/lurkers know about this person who wants us to elect her to the presidency.

Americans have a right to know.

Thanks for your courage, pdsimdars. Don't let them bother you.

[pdsimdars]

124. The information should get out there even if people are uncomfortable with it.

thanks

[Lord Magus]

99. Who appointed you the arbiter of "real progressives"?

Muammar Gaddafi made Libya into a failed state. And President Obama did not in fact say that Gaddafi's removal was the biggest mistake of his presidency, he said that failing to do more to stabilize Libya in the aftermath was the mistake. Hillary also did not have anything to do with the Honduran coups and ISIS was already around for years before 2011. Nor was Syria "stable" prior to Hillary correctly saying that Assad should step down. His brutal dictatorship had already spawned rampant protests that he had quashed with mass slaughter. That is not stability.

[libdem4life]

107. Simple. Empire. We know what is best for the entire world

and mow over any attempts to reveal or slow down the MIC War Machine, known as the US.

[Scuba]

100. Her defenders argue that these aren't war crimes, but none seem to be arguing ...

... that they're not true, not horrible, not exemplifying her terrible judgement.

They're arguing semantics. The definition of "is."




Sound familiar?





.

[reddread]

102. against the facts of history.

instead, they crawl a cracked and broken path.

[moriah]

106. Keep on dividing us and being the authority in what progressives can and can't think/suppprt.

Please, it's really going to help in November.

[yurbud]

117. So Progressives can support killing over a million people who weren't a threat to us?

[moriah]

120. Can progressives support leaders who open fire on peaceful protesters?

I am not fond of interventionism.

We usually almost always fuck it up -- even after we were attacked and entered WWII completely vs just supporting our allies economically, it took killing millions in two dropped bombs to end the war in the Pacific, Europe still hasn't recovered, and we're in both places still militarily. It's been *how* long? Not to mention the decisions arrogant stupid white Europeans made about the "Palestinian Mandate" and drawing lines on maps without understanding the people and culture, even though they were trying to do good in their still anti-Semitic attempts to give Jews their own state (instead of accepting more asylum applications and welcoming them to their own countries, it still reflected Europe's anti-Semitic views to try to suggest the best solution, even before Hitler's rise was fully understood, really was for them to leave Europe) and how well that's worked out.

People act like Gadaffi is a martyr. I wasn't privy to all the intelligence, and I am not going to say the right decision was made. But he shot his own people rather than let them demonstrate, and that's a fact rather than a scare tactic like claiming Saddam had WMDs. Sure, he might have lowered food prices and tried to do things to help his people, but he shot them rather than allow dissent. We didn't act unilaterally, without approval from the UN and NATO. If we screwed the pooch again, we weren't alone.

[yurbud]

121. Like Saddam, whatever Khadaffi's sins, we've managed to leave the place far worse off

[Lord Magus]

131. No, we haven't.

Libya literally was worse under Gaddafi than it is now.

[yurbud]

132. Do you have any sources you can cite for that?

[yurbud]

122. if abuse of their own people was really a reason for intervention, we'd invade a lot of allies first

Including Saudi Arabia.

[moriah]

123. And ourselves for the campus shootings during Vietnam, I'm aware.

All I am saying is that while I detest interventionism, if it's going to be done we have an international community that works together to make those decisions, and that international community made the decision. Libya's own ambassador to the UN defected because he felt war crimes were committed. The Arab League even refused to recognize his government.

This pooch wasn't screwed by any one nation, or any one woman.

[riderinthestorm]

125. Thanks for this. Shameful and maddening.

It hurts my heart that anyone can vote for her knowing these atrocities.

It's incredibly painful.

[jamese777]

130. The buck stops...

not at the desk of the Secretary of State, ever. It stops at the desk of the President of the United States who is the commander in chief.
So everywhere in the drivel posted above that you see "Hillary Clinton" substitute the name "Barack Obama."
I plan to continue to call myself a progressive and I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic Party's nominee. If Bernie Sanders pulls off some kind of super delegate miracle and becomes the nominee, I'll support him too.
Defeating Donald Trump is job one for me, whether you call me a progressive, a liberal, a moderate or a conservative.
"What's in a name?"