Salon: Is Hillary Clinton a neoconservative hawk?

[Bonobo]

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_hillary_clinton_a_neoconservative_hawk_what_iraq_and_libya_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/

Is Hillary Clinton a neoconservative hawk? What Iraq and Libya decisions tell us about her foreign policy
Hillary got Iraq vote wrong, and Libya and Syria too. If she were setting the policies, what would they look like?



Two election cycles after losing the Democratic Party nomination because of her Iraq War vote, Hillary Clinton finally seems to have put it behind her. In fact, with the latest wave of ISIS hysteria, her hawkishness is seen by some as a plus. At the same time, striking a balance, a good case can be made that, though she did vote to authorize the Iraq War, she would never have started it herself if she had been president.

You’ll note that there’s nothing new in the idea that invading Iraq benefited the Jihadi cause. Liberal hawks may have been mistaken, but not nearly as much as the neocons, whose trap they fell into. So has the liberal hawk position finally been fully vindicated? Is Hillary Clinton finally in the right place, at the right time?

Electorally, perhaps. But in terms of actually having a working policy? That’s a whole different story. After all, Clinton herself pushed hard for a similarly flawed regime change strategy in Libya—Conor Friedersdorf even compared her role in Libya to Cheney’s in Iraq. Hyperbolic? Yes. But he did have a point. As summarized by Joel Gillin at the New Republic, she did get carried away with questionable intelligence, over-focused on deposing a long-time U.S. bogeyman, and failed to give sufficient consideration to the depths of difficulties that would follow afterwards. All of which allowed the broader jihadi threat increased opportunity to spread.

In particular, the key claim that something genocidal was about to unfold was entirely unfounded, according to a lengthy review of the Libya intervention at the London Review of Books, which noted that “in retaking the towns that the uprising had briefly wrested from the government’s control, Gaddafi’s forces had committed no massacres at all; the fighting had been bitter and bloody, but there had been nothing remotely resembling the slaughter at Srebrenica, let alone in Rwanda.” Given that Libya had normalized relations with the West in 2003/2004, renouncing its former international outlaw role, including an active WMD program, it was strikingly counterproductive to turn on Gaddafi like that, if you want to coax other “rogue states” into the community of nations.

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Yes.

Next question.

[roguevalley]

2. she will never rehab her votes and ideas to me. No more f'ing wars for oil.

We came, we saw, he died. LAUGHTER. That nailed it shut for me.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. Of all candidates combined, Hillary is the most hawkish, yes

Now that Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.

Her no fly zones over Syria, for example. I mean, come on.

[CorporatistNation]

25. Poor Judgement Once Again... HillBill Starting to Backoff on The No Fly Zone Idiocy... K & R

She CANNOT MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THE FIRST TIME!!! Which is the MOST Important time to show good judgement.

I would rather NOT put us in a position to shoot down Russian planes as would MOST Lucid people...

Once your ill considered decision is made as POTUS it is tougher to UNdo it than to ...

Have not made the stupid costly decision in the first place.

Her self interest/Narcissism makes her incompetent! That coupled with her propensity to fib and misrepresent do not make her a suitable candidate for POTUS.

Look at her record of FIRST Decisions... She comes out on the wrong side nearly 100% of the time.

This is serious folks. Whereas Bernie has a record of making the proper decision the FIRST time ... MOST of the time.

JUDGEMENT, TRUST, INTEGRITY... Those are the qualities that WE MUST demand and VOTE FOR in THIS PRIMARY...

Which THIS Cycle, by Design of the Powers That Be... THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IS THE GENERAL ELECTION!

Bernie or Hillary... THOSE ARE OUR CHOICES!

[Scootaloo]

4. Of course she is

If you mount a national stage, and talk without any reservations of invading countries, killing their leaders, and installing "friendly" regimes, you're a hawkish neocon.

[SamKnause]

5. Yes

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.

[Scuba]

7. Voting to build a new airplane = bad. Voting to send American men and women to war = good.

Voting for body armor and other stuff to protect the troops we sent to war = bad.












At least this is what Hillary's supporters will be telling us shortly.

[joshcryer]

8. Sanders has consistently voted against a bloated NDAA budget...

...especially after the F-35 started having major cost overruns.

His attitude on F-35 basing is uncontroversial and not support of the F-35 program, per say. It would be monumentally silly to call for rebasing equipment that is already there and providing some mediocre infusion of federal dollars into the state.

[Scuba]

9. It's not my favorite thing about Bernie. He's still light years better than Hillary.

[joshcryer]

10. I put HRC people on ignore over that idiotic basing issue.

Far be it for a Senator to support their constituents. What is he supposed to do, call up some other state and ask around to find a base to send the planes? Removing money from the local economy, the labor, the jobs it requires? Stupid.

I'm supportive of his NDAA votes, though his votes for the NDAA under Bush are a bit controversial I still support them because he had his reasons (several times they put employment benefits as riders).

[senz]

24. Yes, they have so little to use against him

that what little they have is blown out of proportion while they ignore Hillary's consistent (and disastrous) major war vote and regime toppling.

[Katashi_itto]

11. This a trick question?

[BlueMTexpat]

12. No, she is NOT.

And I say this with 30+ years of foreign affairs experience, much of it literally on the ground.

I know neoncons; I have had firsthand experience with neocons - unfortunately. Hillary Clinton is no neocon. Yes, she is more hawkish than I will ever be. But she is NO neocon.

Pushing this spurious meme only acts to your discredit.

[Cal33]

14. You are correct. As a Third-Way Democrat, she is only a half-way Neo-Con.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. This ...

[Ferd Berfel]

22. ...and the other half...?

[lovemydog]

19. Yes, she is more hawkish than me. But she is no neocon.

She served with President Obama as Secretary of State. She's much more into diplomacy and coalition-building than the neoconservatives. I too reject the spurious memes.

[rhett o rick]

29. She has always been very popular with the neocons. They love her for her Iraq vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

[CoffeeCat]

31. Hillary is a died-in-the-wool, dangerous neocon. That's reality.

Robert Kagan is one of the original PNAC/neocons--one of the storied hardliners who published the neocon manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses." RAD laid out their plan; they want control of the following countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

These are the architects of the neocon movement.

Hillary Clinton selected Robert Kagan to be one of her foreign-policy advisers, when she was SOS. He has praised Clinton's worldviews and has gone on record saying that he, "has no problem with her foreign-policy stances".

Kagan is also one of the signatories signed a letter to then-President Bill Clinton, in 1998. Kagan, Wolfowitz, Rumseld and other neocon kingpins asked her husband for war with Iraq, and he rebuffed their request. But Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war in 2003, knowing full well that those neocons had once shopped the same war to her husband.

Instead of outing these bastards, she served as a cheerleader for the war--making a pretty convincing case on the Senate floor.

Clinton has a pro-war, neocon record of:
--Voting for the war with Iraq
--Banging the drum for war with Iran when Bush tried to gear up for it and persuade the American people to buy in
--Supporting arming the Syrian rebels
--Spearheading the effort to topple Gaddafi in Libya (one of the countries on the neocon wish list). Famously known as "Hillary's War", this was her project. Libya is now a failed state. Her efforts further destabilized the Middle East, which is precisely what the neocons seek.
--Wholeheartedly backing Israel
--Justifying more war by suggesting that we are "promoting democracy" a neocon talking point

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. All you have to do is read their manifesto which they published online (see link below). Compare their warmongering hopes and dreams with Hillary's policies, behaviors and even the people she calls advisers--and it's as plain as day.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[eridani]

32. Then why is Kagan advising her on foreign policy? n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

33. Do you also consider President Barack Obama and

SoS John Kerry to be neocons? Because Kagan is advising them too.

One can listen to advice from someone without becoming what that person is. In fact, it is often advisable to listen to foreign policy advice from many different POVs. The important thing is what one does with the advice.

Frankly, I'd like to see both Kagan and Nuland as far away from US foreign policy as possible. But this "guilt by association" neocon meme about Hillary that you - and too many others here - keep pushing is simply wrong.

[eridani]

36. Kagan is a neocon thug. I'm glad Obama didn't listen to him about Iran and Cuba

Iranians may be Clinton's enemies, but they aren't mine.

[farleftlib]

13. If it walks like a hawk and screeches like a hawk

Yup, it's a neocon hawk. What happened in Libyan was a war crime IMHO. She pushed bad intel for that debacle.

Libya was a prosperous, secular nation that owed no money to IMF or World bank. Libya was about to stop trading its oil on the world markets in dollars and change to dinars. Libya all of the sudden had to go.

[CharlotteVale]

16. To ask that question is to answer it.

[cali]

17. No duh she is.

[99Forever]

18. She is a neoliberal hawk.

Opposite face to the same awful coin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. She's a neoliberal who frequently collaborates with neoconservatives.

It's a very fine line that separates neo-libs and neo-cons.

[reddread]

23. especially when they swap rhetoric

adopt, anyway.

[Ferd Berfel]

21. LOL - IS THIS A TRICK QUESTION ?!

IS the Pope Catholic?
Does a bear crap in the woods?

Who is buried in Grants tomb?

[rhett o rick]

30. US Grant and his wife are entombed in his tomb but not technically buried.

[Ferd Berfel]

34. Geek

[rhett o rick]

35. LOL. Sorry I couldn't help myself. I wear the Geek mantle proudly. I was a geek long before

it was cool except was called a nerd.

[Faux pas]

26. I believe so

she's too buddy buddy with the war mongers.

[MrWendel]

27. Salon...

the site that more than not endorsed Bernie. lol

[CoffeeCat]

28. She's the darling of the neocons

and the neocons are chomping at the bit for a Hillary President, because she wants what they want. Total destruction of the Middle East, via war, so the US can control the region and plunder its resources. They view the men, women and children who live there as objects--collateral damage at best.

Hillary and her neocon friends represent the worst breed of evil on this planet.

Robert Kagan, one of the founders of the neocon movement, said that he approves of Hillary's foreign-policy stances. He's on record as saying that he "had no problem" with Clinton's world view and her foreign policy.

He's one of the worst. Very revealing that while Clinton was SOS she tapped Kagan to be one of her foreign-policy advisers.

It's the stuff that nightmares are made out of--for Democrats who want to avoid electing neocon Hillary Clinton who will keep us in perpetual war in the Middle East. It's bad news when Republicans do this. It's dastardly and such a betrayal when a Democrat is the neocon. We must reject this in spades.

[FlatBaroque]

37. It is among the top 5 reasons why she will never get my vote

under any circumstances.

[Logical]

38. Yes. Nt

[kenfrequed]

39. NeoCon might be a very slight exaggeration

But she certainly does favor military intervention before it is warranted and she isn't afraid of regime change.

I don't think she is as overtly dangerous as any of the republican candidates, but she is about the last Democrat that should be getting the nomination. Both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley are superior.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Yeah.