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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Sanders must call out Clinton's militant foreign policy
Hillary Clintons glaring vulnerability: Why Bernie Sanders must call out her militant foreign policySEAN ILLING
Salon
Although Clinton has more experience working in international affairs than Sanders does, Sanders does have a record on foreign policy, and its far better than Clintons. In the last fifteen years or so, Sanders has consistently opposed military interventionism, with the exception Afghanistan after 9/11 a justifiable conflict if there ever was one. As Vermonts U.S. representative, he declined to rubber stamp Bushs war in Iraq one of the few members of Congress, on either side, to do so. As a senator, he also wisely denounced Obamas plan to fund and train 5,000 moderate (whatever that means) rebels in Syria. And hes been steadfastly critical of the hawks pining for war with Iran.
Clintons foreign policy record, on the other hand, is undeniably maximalist. On Syria and Libya and Iran, she has staked out interventionist positions, often well to the right of Obama. And, as everyone knows, she bowed to the Washington consensus in 2002, approving the disastrous Iraq War resolution. Clinton will say, as many Republicans have, that she voted for the Iraq War based on the intelligence that was available at the time. But thats not a compelling justification.
On Wednesday, Clinton gave a sweeping foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution. Focusing mostly on the Iran deal, the speech was characteristically hawkish, and not quite what youd expect from a Democratic candidate for president. After perfunctorily endorsing President Obamas Iran deal (with a few caveats), she tried to distinguish her approach to the broader region from Obamas.
In case Clintons pro-Israel position wasnt clear enough for the largely pro-Israel audience, she insisted that one of the first things she would do as president is invite Prime Minister Netanyahu to the White House to talk about all these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation. This, one assumes, was a not-too-subtle reference to the deteriorating relationship between Obama and Netanyahu.
Clinton also doubled down on her view that we should have armed Syrian rebels (no concerns, apparently, for the unintended consequences), and she vowed to be more aggressive in dealing with Russias expansionism: You remember President Reagans line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify. Clinton added, We have not done enough [in Russia], which is why she wants us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.
Clintons foreign policy record, on the other hand, is undeniably maximalist. On Syria and Libya and Iran, she has staked out interventionist positions, often well to the right of Obama. And, as everyone knows, she bowed to the Washington consensus in 2002, approving the disastrous Iraq War resolution. Clinton will say, as many Republicans have, that she voted for the Iraq War based on the intelligence that was available at the time. But thats not a compelling justification.
On Wednesday, Clinton gave a sweeping foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution. Focusing mostly on the Iran deal, the speech was characteristically hawkish, and not quite what youd expect from a Democratic candidate for president. After perfunctorily endorsing President Obamas Iran deal (with a few caveats), she tried to distinguish her approach to the broader region from Obamas.
In case Clintons pro-Israel position wasnt clear enough for the largely pro-Israel audience, she insisted that one of the first things she would do as president is invite Prime Minister Netanyahu to the White House to talk about all these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation. This, one assumes, was a not-too-subtle reference to the deteriorating relationship between Obama and Netanyahu.
Clinton also doubled down on her view that we should have armed Syrian rebels (no concerns, apparently, for the unintended consequences), and she vowed to be more aggressive in dealing with Russias expansionism: You remember President Reagans line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify. Clinton added, We have not done enough [in Russia], which is why she wants us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.
Related:
Its something that might have been called neocon ... her supporters are not going to call it that
Robert Scheer: Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record
What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a war hawk
Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 401 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Sanders must call out Clinton's militant foreign policy (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)1. I see this "journalist" didn't do their homework on Bernie.
From Bosnia, to Somalia, to Israel, to Afghanistan, to Libya, to Russia.