2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's deep foreign policy experience
is a major reason to not vote for her. We've had ample opportunity to see how poor her judgment is- from the IWR to Honduras to Libya to Syria. She has repeated what is essentially the same error, over and over. And now she's for a no-fly zone in Syria. She reaches for the same failed policies and holds the same failed philosophies that have been disastrous.
Touting her foreign policy experience as a major accomplishment and reason to vote for her is nuts. She reaches for the hammer of military intervention with great ease.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Perhaps we should just change the 22nd Amendment and get him back in there.
It matters not how much experience someone has, if they are going to make decisions that are contrary to what is needed or wanted.
Bernie Sanders has enough experience and furthermore enough leadership ability to do the job.
But most importantly, he represents my point of view most adequately, and that is why I am 150% behind him and working for him as hard as I can.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)My only disagreement is with the 150 percentage. As a percentage, 100 is the best you can do. I am proudly behind Bernie 100% - there is no wiggle room. There is not even enough room to hide an silent fart.
And it has nothing to do with the way he looks, his accent, his age, or any other superficial judgement you can make about another human being. It's his ideas. It's the things that get under his skin as well as mine and yours. It's a normal reaction to what is happening. Who else is talking about these issues and has been for almost 50 years?
I'm feeling the Bern so badly, I'm about to call 9-1-1 !!!
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I feel so much better now!
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)for some time now. Her poor judgement stems fundamentally from the overwhelming influence on her judgement by her narcissism. Bernie pretty much always takes all info into account and then makes an objective decision based on what is best for America and our people. HUGE Contrast. Makes absolutely no sense to vote for Hillary when evaluating the two objectively based on past history and performance. In other words... "Talk is Cheap!"
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)instinct or even a philosophy. I think she just has the people she likes to listen to (Blumenthal, neocons) and they fill her head with crappy ideas. I don't really know why she was SoS, except that Obama wanted her in the tent pissing out. She wasn't exactly a leading light or deep thinker on foreign policy in the Senate.
cali
(114,904 posts)And the influence Blumenthal has on her is equally unfathomable and disturbing
Divernan
(15,480 posts)As documented in both hers and Bill's memoirs. She found the safest route was to comply with his directions, not figure things out for herself. Enter subsequent father figures - dominating, opinionated men - her youth minister/Blumenthal/Kissinger/etc., and she feels comfortable and safe ceding intellectual control to them.
Her main accomplishment as SOS: "I visited more countries than any other SOS." Duh! Well that's because Obama wanted her the hell out of Washington and out of the way of those actually making key foreign policy decisions. And she shut up and went along with that so she could tout the fact that she had physically set foot in any given country as bizarre proof that brief physical presence (with suitable photo ops) somehow gave her invaluable insights re said country. As the Republicans have pointed out and will continue to point out, Clintons actions as secretary of state were motivated by politics, and fits with a line that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina likes to use against Clinton. Flying and traveling is an activity; its not an accomplishment, Fiorina frequently says.
Among those tens of thousands of personal server emails released is one from Clinton press aide, Phillipe Reines urging her to "run up the score on total countries", i.e, visit more countries for the sake of saying she'd visited them. The subject line for the e-mail is: 100 and counting . . .; Reines included a list of 94 countries that Clinton hadnt yet visited for her to choose from, as he put it. Some of the countries had asterisks by them. Asterisks appear next to countries you visited prior to becoming SecState, but not since so they would count, Reines wrote.
The e-mail was sent to Clintons private account, and also to her top political aides including chief of staff Cheryl Mills, deputy chiefs of staff Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, and scheduler Lona Valmoro.
Clinton replied to the e-mail by asking one of her staff members to print it out for her her standard response to messages she deemed important.
Hillary Clintons staff urged her to visit more countries
In the months after the e-mail was sent, Clinton visited at least seven of the countries on the list, according to a Globe review of her travel schedule.
She became the first US secretary of state in 57 years to visit Laos, part of a July 2012 trip the State Department touted as a groundbreaking visit. On that trip she also visited Mongolia by stopping in the city of Ulaanbaatar briefly to talk about deepening economic relations, according to a State Department briefing.
Her next trip to Africa included stops in Benin, South Sudan, and Senegal, three additional countries listed by her aide. Then in September 2012, she hit two more.
She visited Brunei, and Clinton became the first US secretary of state to set foot in Timor-Leste, where she emphasized US support for the young democracy, according to a State Department briefing.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/11/30/clinton-staff-urged-her-visit-more-countries-secretary-state/zKuFUSEHQRj9QbYEa1r8hL/story.html
From 2009-2013, Mr. Reines served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he has worked for since 2002. In that role, Mr. Reines traveled to more than 110 countries with Secretary Clinton as part of her senior team, responsible for crafting and executing the strategic media goals of the Secretary of State.
http://bgsdc.com/team/philippe-i-reines/
As per my post #32, downthread:
I think she had very little interaction" with the president, says veteran State Department employee. "A lot of this was, you know, she would go to meetings of the NSC (national security council) when she was in town and called, but it was a very distant relationship."
The NSC sidelined Clinton at every turnas it did other cabinet secretaries from Gates to his successors at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. "They would send (the defense secretary) to someplace like Botswana while they crafted North Korea policy at the White House," one former Defense Department official says.
"Obama brought her into the administration, put her in a bubble, and ignored her," says a former high-ranking diplomat. "It turned out to be a brilliant political maneuver by Obama, making it impossible for her to challenge him, unless she left the administration, and not giving her an excuse that she could resign in protest. So she was stuck."
Once she realized she would never really be a major player in Obamaland, Hillary Clinton did what she always did: adjusted her course. "She kept her head down on large issues," says a former Obama administration official. "She did a nice job of tamping down any tension between her and the White House." And she focused on her own future. With Clinton taking to the skies and traveling the world, her post at the State Department became a platform for the United States and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.businessinsider.com/no-room-for-hillary-in-obamas-inner-circle-2014-12
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)
she is seriously frightening in this department.
She seems to feel a need to be as hawkish as possible even if the results are disaster.
What success can we point to in the Middle East, or elsewhere, other than so many people being killed?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)There is quite a substantial profit enjoyed by her benefactors.
George II
(67,782 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)We dont really know what he will do or not do. He seldom discusses any specifics... I assume because he doesn't know any.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Thnx
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)If foreign policy is about making judgement directed decisions while understanding what the long term consequences might be then Bernie is as solid as they come. I hope you take the time to check those videos out when you have an opportunity.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)There's no splitting hairs on this issue.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)It demonstrates that he has good foresight on these issues. I would trust him to make important foreign policy decisions over Hillary or any of the Republicans.
artislife
(9,497 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Which one would you rather fly with? The one who's yet to earn his wings? Or the other; whose flights almost always end in disaster but always seems to walk away from and explain away the obvious smoking holes their aircraft make in the ground?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)I also would fly with John McCain. Lots of experience flying AND crashing.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is more accurate..
Hillary is a seasoned pilot with thousands of hours in the air and has had to fly in some very dangerous and risky situations which didn't always end flawlessly. Bernie on the other hand is a rookie and seems to be afraid of flying.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You've got part of it right though... the part about flying in some very dangerous and risky situations; Bosnia! Snipers!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)She sure didn't have trouble taking part of the credit for it, huh? "WE"?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The mess that followed doesn't mean we shouldn't have participated in removing Qaddafi. Furthermore its still not clear how Libya will ultimately turn out. Sometimes it takes a period of ugly violence to bring a nation to a better place.. eg the US Civil War.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The "mess" that followed resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people who might be drawing breath today. You say it's "not clear how Libya will turn out" as if Libya isn't a failed state. Failed. State. That's how it turned out!
The things you Hillary supporters will defend slays me, I swear to fucking God.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The problems are huge but there is still hope for a future there. It will take some time but I suspect they will find a way forward eventually.
cali
(114,904 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Who fund and export murderous religious fanatacism worldwide.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)I don't know how that turned out - whether the grandchildren were killed or not - I remember it was reported but with questions about validity - probably because way back - 80's? - Gaddafi had claimed we killed one of his children or grandchildren and it turned out the child was not his .... some other child, so who cared?
What is surely indisputable is that our bombs have killed and are killing a lot of children around the world. And it sure seems that war-hawking is hardly congruent with the so-lauded "advocacy" for women and children that HRC is touted for. Just like cluster-bombs - when it's a choice between children's lives and looking "tough on terror" or whatever the day's catchword is then too bad for the kids. Bombs away!
It is also indisputable that if any other country went around bombing wherever it pleased and assassinating people it didn't like our "leaders" including Obama and HRC would be the first to call them criminals and terrorists.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)and encouraged others to take?
Her job is to advise the president. She did and was a hawkish mess. Now the region is destabilized and we're playing catch up.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Your countries are either with her or agin her. All your third world countries are belonging to Clinton Foundation to "assist" with projects aimed at benefitting the Clinton Foundation's corporate "donors".
Ya know, like road development, water and power lines, clearing out those pesky dirt farmers to provide infrastructure and space for corporate projects, PLUS di minimis education & health projects to provide dirt cheap but healthy enough labor for those factories.
sorechasm
(631 posts)We have no idea what kind of a Pilot / President they will be, given the responsibilities of 'Leader of the Free World'. The biggest tell: honesty, sincerity, integrity, responsibility, grace under pressure, respect among colleagues, etc. Who else scores as high as Bernie here?
Nice metaphor. Thanks cherokeeprogressive!
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Me: the guy who has not been throwing bombs.
George II
(67,782 posts)....climate change.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Why in the hell did we spend all that money sending Barack Obama to France then?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)At other times, believe it or not, Sanders has said that the growth of ISIS can be traced back to climate change!!!
He's a one-trick pony totally in over his head.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)""One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of Syria and the rise of ISIS was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis."
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)but I keep trying also
thanks for the good work
Akamai
(1,779 posts)concern? Well, the CIA sure does, as do military planners.
Climate change appears responsible for the deep droughts in Syria (that impoverished so many families there), the deep, deep drought in Iran, etc.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But you keep believing that meme.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)the current ramifications and are making projections in order to form a plan and policy to deal with the massive upheaval of millions who will be displaced.
Climate change is soon to be the biggest driver of foreign policy worldwide; people are already working to shape policy which will deal with the inevitable consequences.
earthside
(6,960 posts)The Repuglican charge against Barack Obama in 2008: "We dont really know what he will do or not do. He seldom discusses any specifics... I assume because he doesn't know any."
Frankly, I think Pres. Obama has done just fine.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Not even close.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Bernie is old, wiser, more experienced than Obama.
eridani
(51,907 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Touting her experience will backfire in the long run.
Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)do we shoot their jets down and risk WWIII or ignore it and lose credibility with our allies?
Thanks for the thread, cali.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I'm just waiting for her to propose privatizing the VA hospitals.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Orating to an empty chamber is a far cry from actually conducting foreign policy. As to whether she'll continue to support hard line approaches when the buck stops with her remains to be seen. I tend to think she won't. No idea what kind of quagmires Bernie would get into.
cali
(114,904 posts)Do you support a no-fly zone in Syria? Do you support military intervention for regime change?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)First words out of his mouth at the 2nd debate:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-iowa/
No thanks.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Th e obvious truth is that Hillary and Bernie will surround themselves with trusted advisors. I trust Bernie's judgement to pick his advisor well. Infinitely more than I trust Hillary's.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That's a problem.
demwing
(16,916 posts)why the hell would you see Hillary as the better candidate?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Hillary at least will be able get into the weeds and foresee consequences of lousy decisions as she's had to defend a few she was party to, namely Libya and Egypt. Soft power was a neocon innovation rolled out under Bush II and inherited by PBO. On the face of it looked squeaky clean, but the reality turned out to be less disastrous than full-on intervention but seriously harmful nonetheless. So having taken heat for intervention and intervention light, my strong suspicion is that she'll avoid regime change. Bernie by contrast is a babe in the woods and has a lot of catching up to do. His statements on ISIS are frankly scary.
demwing
(16,916 posts)That's not just illogical (Hillary has committed serious Foreign Policy blunders, therefore she is less likely to commit additional serious Foreign Policy blunders?? WTF?), it's unmitigated bullshit.
Here's Bernie's words on ISIS, Syris, and Iraq. Other can read, and decide for themselves whether Sanders is a neocon(!), and whether his statements on ISIS are "frankly scary." As for me, I've spent enough time on your foolish post. I'm done.
Invasion of Iraq led to ISIS; Hillary voted to invade
SANDERS: I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now. I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States.
Form Muslim-led coalition to defeat ISIS
SANDERS: What the president is trying to do is to thread a very difficult needle. He's trying to defeat ISIS. He's trying to get rid of this horrendous dictator, Assad. But at the same time, he doesn't want our troops stuck on the ground. And I agree with that. But I am maybe a little bit more conservative on this than he is. I worry that once we get sucked into this, once some of our troops get killed and once maybe a plane gets shot down, that we send more in and more in. But I will say this. ISIS must be defeated primarily by the Muslim nations in that region. America can't do it all. And we need an international coalition. Russia should be part of it--U.K., France, the entire world--supporting Muslim troops on the ground, fighting for the soul of Islam and defeating this terrible ISIS organization.
Diplomacy and coalition-building before unilateral action
SANDERS: I didn't say in all circumstances. But I think that there's a lesson to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, then what a great military power like the United States is about is trying to use diplomacy before war and working with other countries rather than doing it alone. At the end of the day, a military coalition is what will succeed, not the US doing it alone.
Syria is a quagmire within a quagmire; don't get involved
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I will do everything that I can to make sure that the U.S. does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
Support force only when we are threatened & have coalition
Stop ISIS, but only with an international & Arab coalition
A Global Threat That Must Be Stopped: ISIS is an incredibly dangerous, powerful, and barbaric organization. For the sake of people in the Middle East and all over the world, they must be stopped.
We Must Learn From the War In Iraq: In terms of lives lost, injured soldiers, monetary costs, and lasting effects in the region, the Iraq War was a disaster. We need to learn from it so we don't make the same mistakes twice.
A Coalition is Required: The United States cannot and should not lead the effort to defeat ISIS on its own. There are enough capable military powers in the region, and the coalition should be led by Middle Eastern allies.
Get Saudis & regional powers involved with fighting ISIS
SANDERS: ISIS is a brutal, awful, dangerous army and they have got to be defeated. But this is not just an American problem. This is an international crisis. This is a regional crisis. And I think the people of America are getting sick and tired of the world and the region, Saudi Arabia and the other countries saying "hey, we don't have to do anything about it. The American taxpayer, the American soldiers will do all the work for us." Most people don't know is that Saudi Arabia is the 4th largest defense spender in the world, more than the U.K., more than France. They have an army which is probably seven times larger than ISIS. They have a major air force.
Q: Sure. But they have shown no sign at all that they want to go in and neither have the Jordanians.
SANDERS: The question that we have got to ask is why are the nations in the region not more actively involved? Why don't they see this as a crisis situation?
Arm the Peshmerga against ISIS, as international effort
SANDERS: No. It has to be an international effort.
Q: Would you support arming the Peshmerga, the Kurdish forces?
SANDERS: Yes. I think we should arm them--even that's a difficult issue to make sure that the people that we arm today don't turn against us tomorrow. But I think providing arms for those people who we can trust and providing air support is in fact something we should be doing.
Q: Would it be confined to the Peshmerga? I know that you voted against arming and training Syrian rebels. So is there a difference to you between the Peshmerga and the Syrian rebels?
SANDERS: We have been at war for 12 years. We have spent trillions of dollars. We have 500,000 young men and women who have come up--come home with PTSD and TBI. What I do not want and I fear very much is the US getting sucked into a quagmire and being involved in perpetual warfare year after year after year. That is my fear.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_War_+_Peace.htm
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Her advisers are neocons, they support her for president, they are her allies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
http://www.solidarity-us.org/hillaryclintonneocon
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)it's not the kind of experience I want.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)On October 10, 2002, Sanders voted against the Iraq AUMF, but on the same day, he voted to fund the Defense Department in fiscal year 2003:
https://votesmart.org/bill/3083/12790/27110/use-of-military-force-against-iraq#.VYZ9uba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3122/8511/27110/department-of-defense-appropriations-fiscal-year-2003#.VYZ8NLa1qSo
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)the intelligence report and a vote to fund the defense dept for the year... Which includes more than just the war in Iraq which wasn't in the budget.... and there's nothing hypocritical about it.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)I have to wonder about the critical thinking skills of those who think there is. And of the candidate they support.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I do give her credit for admitting certain votes she made were 'mistakes', but why should we elect someone who keeps getting the important votes wrong, when we could have someone who was correct on so much right from the beginning?
Karma13612
(4,527 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)to continue the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas
then as Sec. of State sold them to the Saudis that are now using them in civilian areas in Yemen
She voted with the republicans and against Democrats
Save the children my ass........... Iraqi vote wrong
Horrendous wrong , wrong wrong .......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128093604
MisterP
(23,730 posts)a lot of it is "now that those creationist dummies are out of Foggy Bottom, *this* time we've learned our lessons, THIS time we'll make up for our support of dictators like Mubarak/Qaddafi/Saddam/"
so the insistence is for multilateral lightweight proxy wars with no boots on the ground; we can handle the militants, after all we have top experts on the ground!
it's the same as their approach to politics--we don't NEED the old politics' donors, the dying roughneck industries and lecherous Mad Men execs and Good Ol' Boy oillionaires: we instead will have smart, PC-friendly rising sectors--IT, Hollywood, Wall Street
and of course Honduras (though Lanny Davis was the key motivator there)
I read or coined the phrase "Clinton bragging about foreign policy experience is like Christie bragging about his transit experience"
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The status quo is undesirable, except for a few priviledged men and women. Fuck them, and fuck the status quo.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Hillary Clintons Honduran Disgrace
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive, March 5, 2010
Hillary Clinton continues with her hawkish ways, making Obamas foreign policy less distinguishable from Bushs every day.
She just met with Honduran President Pepe Lobo, shes notified Congress that the Obama administration is restoring aid to Honduras, and shes urging Latin American nations to recognize the Lobo government in Tegucigalpa.
The democratic opposition in Honduras boycotted lobos election, since hes allied with the forces that overthrew Manuel Zelaya last June.
But for the longest time, Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to call the June takeover a coup, even though her boss, the president of the United States, immediately denounced it as such.
SNIP..
Other countries of the region say that they want to wait a while, she said on her Latin American trip. I dont know what theyre waiting for.
CONTINUED...
http://progressive.org/wx030510.html
Don't know about the rest of DU, but count me as one who's long tired of "money trumps peace" foreign and domestic policies. -- Octafish
George II
(67,782 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)History and has diddly squat to do with the current debate, but pretty typical of a losing argument..LOL
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Yet Kerry spoke out against rushing to war before it started in January 2003. In fact, until mid 2003, he was regularly labeled antiwar by the media.
However, the rest of their records - Kerry, almost alone taking on the Reagan administrations's illegal arming of the Contras - while the Clintons, then of Arkansas essentially backing helping the Contras along with many other Democrats through Kerry and Berman calling the Honduras coup a coup - while HRC assured Republican Senators that the US would not fight it.
Kerry's vote is a blot on an otherwise excellent record of seeking to use diplomacy, not force.
You likely know that Cali did not support Kerry in the 2004 primaries - and that vote was likely one reason. In fall 2002, Kerry was a strong voice to avoid war, but in the end, after getting some changes - that in reality amounted to nothing real given that Bush was dishonest -- he voted for the resolution promising to speak out if Bush did not follow through as he said.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)which was one of the OP's main complaints about Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/john-kerry-no-fly-zone-syria-obama/
karynnj
(59,474 posts)before the Russians were there. In addition to nothing coming from Kerry, the only thing said is that he asked people to look into it.
Have you ever heard the phrase "options on the table". This was something pushed by many people publicly, including HRC and McCain. The article suggests that Kerry wanted it investigated and then discussed - sounds prudent to me. This is a common occurrence where the media tried to push a story - here that Kerry was not in agreement with Obama.
Yet, from comments made - in public - from Kerry's own mouth, he argued that there was no military solution - they needed a political one and he worked extremely hard to get the UN resolution that passed the Security Council. (and no - it was NOT a resolution that HRC worked out in a long day in Geneva in 2011/2012. That resolution was vetoed by both China and Russia. ) In addition, Kerry pushed back several times - before Congress, to the media and in foreign countries, on the idea of the US more aggressively going after Assad. What is happening is that some in the media were attempting to use Kerry - because he has credibility - to suggest he agrees with HRC.
Not to mention, he has argued for at least a year and a half that the priority is fighting ISIS and on that, they were deconflicting with Syria and Iran on attacks on ISIS -- and later Russia.
Not to mention that you ignore the main thing I wrote - to my knowledge, Cali was NOT for Kerry in the primary. She has not said she won't support HRC in the general election ... which is where she supported JK.
PS - Kerry likely avoided a war with the Iran deal, eliminated 600 tons of chemical weapons in Syria, and was a key player in getting the Paris climate change agreement. The two issues that run through his long career are war/Peace and environment. As SoS, even if he resigned tomorrow, he has been a very consequential SoS on both issues. These are things that his long history presaged him having incredible commitment and skill to accomplish.
eridani
(51,907 posts)You might remember that he lost, in part because he was tagged as a flip-flopper. Clinton was till defending the war in 2008, and only recently has said her vote was a "mistake." Lots of ammo for Repukes there.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/24/483380/-Clinton-still-believes-in-the-Iraq-War
"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'
Martin Eden
(12,801 posts)General election is different. I travelled to Ohio to GOTV for Kerry in 2004.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 06:37 PM - Edit history (2)
I think she had very little interaction" with the president, says veteran State Department employee. "A lot of this was, you know, she would go to meetings of the NSC (national security council) when she was in town and called, but it was a very distant relationship."
The NSC sidelined Clinton at every turnas it did other cabinet secretaries from Gates to his successors at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. "They would send (the defense secretary) to someplace like Botswana while they crafted North Korea policy at the White House," one former Defense Department official says.
"Obama brought her into the administration, put her in a bubble, and ignored her," says a former high-ranking diplomat. "It turned out to be a brilliant political maneuver by Obama, making it impossible for her to challenge him, unless she left the administration, and not giving her an excuse that she could resign in protest. So she was stuck."
Once she realized she would never really be a major player in Obamaland, Hillary Clinton did what she always did: adjusted her course. "She kept her head down on large issues," says a former Obama administration official. "She did a nice job of tamping down any tension between her and the White House." And she focused on her own future. With Clinton taking to the skies and traveling the world, her post at the State Department became a platform for the United States and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.businessinsider.com/no-room-for-hillary-in-obamas-inner-circle-2014-12
In this excerpt from Clinton, Inc: The Audacious Rebuilding Of A Political Machine, Daniel Halper, a political writer and online editor at The Weekly Standard, compiles candid interviews with former Clinton administration aides, friends, and enemies to reveal the hardened relationship between Hillary Clinton and President Obama.
cali
(114,904 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I agree with CALI. that it should be an OP..
Please make an OP!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)every problem is a nail.
And when a country spends a trillion dollars a year on a war machine, the machine must be used. Her foreign policy would make many voters willing to vote for her. Most of them Republicans.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)I've asked many times on what this assessment is based, but I have never gotten an answer. Length of service does not expertise or capability make: after all, George Bush was POTUS for longer than Hillary was SOS. But who would want him running the country again? (Jeb, maybe)
-- Mal
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Iran deal and the Paris Climate change agreement alone make that so.
Broward
(1,976 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)But if you've ever been responsible for hiring someone, you get over resume awe quite quickly. I'm much more interested in what she's accomplished than in a list of job titles she's collected.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)by sending my sons off to war. I trust Bernie's judgement on military issues far more than Hillary.
Duval
(4,280 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Response to cali (Original post)
99th_Monkey This message was self-deleted by its author.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to take any kind of firm stance on it to "evolve" from her earlier position that the TPP was the "gold standard of trade treaties" to switch gears and stand against it right before the most recent debate? How is her position of being nebulous and many times for many of these disastrous treaties being so good on foreign policy when these "free trade" policies with other countries have DESTROYED our economy and jobs.
Her nebulous stances on TPP, etc. now is very similar to how Obama also nebulously said that he'd "renegotiate NAFTA and other free trade treaties", which made it sound like he'd take them down, when in fact he prioritized TPP and other free trade treaties getting passed more than any other legislation during his administration to the point of him working with Republicans to get fast track passed. I suspect we'd see the same thing under Clinton, and that is probably going through the minds of many Americans, no matter what party they are in now.
Not to mention she avoids talking about H-1B or other guest worker programs more than just about any candidate in either party this election cycle when her earlier stance on this was firmly on the side of those who want to outsource American jobs to them for cheap labor.
This is good foreign policy?
NO!!!!!!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Hillary's record is very weak. She blunders -- and people get hurt, people die, as a result.
I could not trust her as Commander in Chief.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So did Donald Rumsfeld. Nuff said..
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Among those countries she set foot in to establish a record for greatest number of countries visited by a SOS, was the like of Timor-Leste.
I mean, Timor-Leste, for chrissakes? 1/2 an island in the Indonesian archipelago? Slightly larger than Connecticut? Population - 800,000??? Big whoop!!! Let's all put that on our travel bucket list!
In the Lesser Sunda Islands at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago; note - Timor-Leste includes the eastern half of the island of Timor, the Oecussi (Ambeno) region on the northwest portion of the island of Timor, and the islands of Pulau Atauro and Pulau Jaco. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/tt.html
And she counts that quickie meeting with some official at the Ulaanbaatar airport stopover en route to some other country and bob's your uncle, she's a foreign affairs EXPERT on Mongolia! One hour conversation on "deepening economic relations", i.e., "hey, the Clinton Foundation has corporate "donors" looking for sweatshop cheap labor. Give Bill a call." Does this sound like a great episode for VEEP or what!?!
Note to self - duck into airport in case of sniper fire!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)andrewv1
(168 posts)Disgusting....
And if Bernie is not the Nominee, there will be a Third Party run hopefully with the Democratic Progressive side supporting it.
Trump will do his own thing, so it's possible there might be four candidates which might have a realistic shot @ the White House.
cali
(114,904 posts)andrewv1
(168 posts)& starting to see a Dick Cheney/Henry Kissinger narrative here that's getting pretty bad.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Martin Eden
(12,801 posts)Her foreign policy record is the first among several reasons I won't support Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Karma13612
(4,527 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Heres what Clinton said on the question of Libya:
The United States and our international partners are also proud of our own contributions. When (former Libyan Prime Minster Muammar) Gaddafi threatened Benghazi, we assembled an unprecedented coalition that included NATO and Arab countries, and acted quickly to prevent a massacre. We sought and won local, regional and international support, including the backing of the U.N. and the Arab League. And after deploying our unique military capabilities at the outset, the United States played a key role in a genuinely shared effort as our allies stepped up. As time went on, our coalition grew even stronger.
Well, yes. But then what happened? Did the Department of State step in to stabilize Libya when terrorists began to take over? Did the Department of State work to shore up the Libyan government of which Clinton was so proud? Did the Department of State step in to own the spiraling terrorism problem of which Benghazi was only a part? No!
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article53558165.html#storylink=cpy
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)for the last thirty years through multiple Presidential Administrations.
We must abandon that foreign policy.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)but oh on lets set Libya on fire
What was the purpose of Libya ??
Reading the FOIA state depart email makes on wonder :
https://www.foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWebClearedMeta/31-C1/DOC_0C05779612/C05779612.pdf