Interesting "first post."



The only people I know who want to "carpet bomb Iran" are Republicans.

Maybe you should do some homework on the F-35's best friend in the Senate. You know they don't dust crops with those things. And drones--especially those PREDATORS that fire weaponry, and are made by Lockheed Martin--have the same special friend in the Senate, too....

Just because you say those things (and where you got them, who knows) doesn't make them true.

Sanders doesn't realize that Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other. That's how off the mark he is.

Keep whistling, if that floats your boat.

Clearly you won that one.

He won the door prize.

I guess when your first posts involve telling everyone "how it's done" it's kind of a clue!!

LOL! Whoever took him to the exit, good job!

to execute the duties of the presidency. One can certainly articulate a more restrained foreign policy, but it is essential to do so from a position of knowledge about nations and key actors in the region. Any decision has to first be based on information and understanding. I find it astounding that he disseminated a list of advisers that are not in fact his advisers at all. Not only did he deliberately mislead the public, but he has shown himself to be uninterested in the subject matter. A president doesn't have the option to decide what he can pay attention to. International incidents and crises are thrust among them.

Many of Sanders comments in the debates have revealed a shaky knowledge base of the Middle East in particular. First he announced that Muslims needed to "put skin in the game," conflating nations from around the region, as though, for example, Turkey and Jordan were the same in their responses to ISIS. After having that pointed out, he has then proceeded to declare the King of Jordan "a hero" repeatedly. The man is a despot, but he does commit troops to fighting ISIS.

Then he announced the US Policy should consist of insisting Iran and Saudi Arabia work together to do away with ISIS. He missed the crucial point that those two nations share more enmity than common interests. One is Sunni, the other Shia, and they see the other as existential threats. Major gaffe.

He makes comments in debates that show not only lack of awareness of the history of the region but the current state of international negotiations. The US, some key Arab nations, and the Russians were in the process of coming to an agreement on how to tackle ISIS. He insisted the concern about Assad must be kept separate, with no understanding that doing so takes out the support of non-ISIS Syrian rebel groups. It's their country. They should damn well have a say in how military actions proceed. This should not simply be about two great powers with Arabs as pawns caught in the Middle.

His non-interventionist impulse is one I can appreciate. But without an active knowledge of foreign relations or even the interest to develop it, he would put the country at risk. Wars bumbled into by inattention or lack of understanding are every bit, if not more deadly, than those actively pursued.

Clinton's goal is to avoid military intervention, to seek diplomatic options to diffuse situations, and to work with other nations in developing coalition responses. Building coalitions and finding diplomatic solutions requires knowledge of key actors, knowledge Sanders unfortunately lacks.


Bernie was right to vote against the Iraq War. That is very much to his credit. Being president, however, involves far more than casting a vote. It means responding to world events each and every day as they arise. He hasn't seemed to have figured that out, which is in itself disconcerting.

I oppose Clinton's vote for the Iraq War, and I actively and repeatedly protested that war. Her vote was why I never considered supporting her in 2008. But I don't believe we would have entered that war if she had been president. That is not to absolve her of responsibility for casting that vote, but a vote is not the same as planning and executing the war, or feeding congress doctored intelligence to incur support. She has since worked on a variety of diplomatic initiatives, including the nuclear treaty with Iran. She helped lay the groundwork for that agreement. She didn't advocate for bombing Iran, and she had to defuse Israeli anger over the situation.

Lastly, the public deserves better than to be fed lists of non-existent advisers. It is simply not honest. In fact, I've never before heard of a presidential candidate doing anything like that. Even those with the weakest foreign policy background get advisers to teach them along the way. The fact Sanders hasn't even assembled a foreign policy team shows he is not taking seriously a central duty of the office that he seeks to be elected to.

It was passing anyway by a huge margin and the vote was for solidarity as we headed into confrontation with Hussain.

Sid

He is a long serving member of the Congressional Branch of government and he is an individual that has a deep interest about what we are doing in this world. That interest is based on a kind of concern and empathy totally lacking in the type of "advisors" you speak of so glowingly. Bernie's human first worldview leads him to recognize the obvious fallacies that are part and parcel of the foreign policy approach that is geared to place the interests of banks and international corporations over that of either the people populating our ally nations or our own populace.

Just What The Hell do you think a warmongering military machine's representatives is going to teach him that he can't learn in his capacity as a US Senator?

Compare:

the fury I experienced watching that travesty unfold burned it into my mind. That anger is still there and as hot as it ever was.

Her supporters want to dismiss it as water under the bridge but the fallout from that war continues to this day.

Bernie warned them about destabilizing the middle east and he was right, the power vacuum created ISIS.

Now we're supposed to trust her to fix it?

and nothing else matters, and this is the only issue to be taken into account, I take it you objected very loudly to John Kerry being nominated Secretary of State, or for that matter to Hillary being appointed to that post.

I'm not and never will be, deal with it.

What straw man? It would follow you must have been loudly against both of Obama's SOS appointments.

Where have you given anything else in response to Bernie's lack of foreign policy experience vs. Hillary's experience with anything other than this one vote? I have not seen you consider any other factors.

I'm not willing to give her more, sorry. Bernie has more experience than Obama did when he was elected and he doesn't have a string of failed foreign policies like Hillary.

Where is Lyria?

I can supply a list of Presidents that didn't have any advisers before becoming President and did a great job when it came to world crises

Maybe Hillary has so many because she can't grasp world affairs. Did you ever think of that?

But I sure wish I had.

Well said.

Sanders' lack of not only knowledge, but curiosity about foreign policy is one reason I can't support him in the primaries. Lack of knowledge can be corrected, but not having an interest to learn is a much bigger problem.

Syria, Iran, the possibilities are endless. Kissinger was a valued adviser ...... I guess he was good at it.

Why should we trust her?

I have a lot more in my journal but am doing books here (supposed to be, anyway) and was having trouble finding them all.

What website are we on again?

All the horror he was directly responsible for. I don't know why he hasn't been tried at The Hague.

I wonder if we'll see someone defend them next?

I want to believe there's a hell just for people like these.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Resolution demonstrate that he has a better grasp of foreign policy than Hillary. Bernie just has more common sense and better judgment than Hillary.

Hillary may have more advisers on her foreign policy, but what good is that considering her poor judgment. And her poor judgment is due to a lack of a sense of moral principles.

"Hillary may have more advisers on her foreign policy, but what good is that considering her poor judgment."

Hillary wants regime change in Syria. Do we really want to continue these wars and all the killing done in our name?

I'll vote for Peace and save thousands of lives.

With investments in the defense industry. What a joke people here could believe there aren't conflicts of interests when the government has been shown to be bought and paid for over and over again. Fools believe the motives of the .01% are decent.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

So far, she's made a lot of very bad calls. Bernie has not, with the exception, IMO, of the Afghanistan War, for which they both voted.

Anyone who gets their foreign policy advice from a war criminal is unqualified for the job, imo.

Is there evidence that Kissinger, though he may have acted on policies we disagree with, knows absolutely nothing about international diplomacy?

However, there is no evidence he is always wrong. Because Hitchens has said something does not prove it. An exchange of two emails of very general content does not mean Hillary "gets advice" from him.

“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state,” Clinton revealed in the review. “He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.”

His travels now are irrelevant?

when judging a maggot in the grooming competition.

They approved of murder and torture too, Kissinger was even more atrocious if that's possible.

Strange.

Educate yourself:

And our SOS is not responsible for everything that goes wrong in other countries. People not accused of war crimes in any tribunal have a right of defense as well as people actually accused.

How was Kissinger in charge of Argentina or Indonesia that he had the power to "green light" anything? Geez, you blame our SOS for everything in the world that goes wrong. Our SOS cannot "green light" anything in another country.

Geez, no wonder Hillary is to blame for everything that went wrong in Libya, etc.. The SOS apparently has the job to keep the rest of the world at peace without actual political powers in those countries.

None of it gives Bernie any solid experience. Since Bernie will never be President we don't know for sure, but it's a pretty good bet there would be a problem somewhere and that means Bernie's SOS will have failed.

Amazing. Some things have surprised me here, this one shocks me.

Anyone who doesn't understand the huge amount of influence a SOS has exhibits a stunning amount of ignorance about how the US interferes in the affairs of other countries.

How did it go the last time we nominated candidates who voted for the war? Are the Iranians your enemy too?

He is a candidate in a Primary.

A military briefer/advisor would be needed and advisable in a military situation if you were the commander in chief, but why is it important for a candidate?

Oh, wait.... I get it now.

You are so accustomed to a presidential candidate that has to pretend to know things -one that gains her opinions by asking other people like advisors and focus groups... THAT is why you are confused.

Let me set you straight. Some of us don't want someone who pretends to be something they are not and someone who takes on "positions" based on how they may sell.

The shallowness masquerading as thoughtfulness on this thread is quite amusing. Bill Clinton and Obama had no big foreign policy experience. This election is about trust. No ones trusts the Clintons or Bushes after getting to know them. Everyone is desperate to keep liars out of high office.

So after posting a lie - that he'd NEVER spoken to them, and trying to hide that lie by linking to an article ABOUT the article - you're back again with the same article, due to others' "confusion".

People aren't confused. They know you made something up. Now they know you're trying to justify pushing the same nonsense around again with the weak justification that we were all confused.

No need to diminish her involvement. The article early contradicts her claims.

But it's not as good politically.

Maybe it's just some of that co-opted Bernie rage I'm been hearing about.

"I'm mad as hell about something that's not true"

- Hillary 2016

Bernie doesn't have Hillary's baggage and hasn't been corrupted by money so they have to make it up as they go along.

More projection from supporters of the most dishonest candidate in the race.

at least she posted it twice to help us not be so confused... lol

She didn't get the desired reaction the first time around and it doesn't look like the second time's going to be the charm either.

Another day, another failed smear.

Sid

Thanks for keeping up with this, BB.

The republicans would destroy Bernie in the general on this one issue alone!

I believe he's merely interested in acquiring the label that he was one of those who "once ran for president and gave strong Democrats a run for their money". It'll help him get re-elected in Vermont so he can keep his good-paying job in the Senate. For the life of me, why isn't he campaigning as a presidential candidate if he really wanted to win the nom? Surely he knows that 55% of the president's job is foreign policy, right?

All he cares about is fiscal policy. That's great as a senator I suppose but it doesn't cut it as the leader of the entire country and especially as commander in chief.

Its freaking ridiculous.

He trudges onward with the same stale speech, campaigning more like a congresscritter than a presidential candidate. It's just sad that his supporters are incapable of accepting this humongous flaw in their preferred candidate.

That's its.

One dimensional.

Even starting to run for POTUS without brushing up on that shows really bad judgment.

Even if your attempted smear were true. So what?

Not warmongery enough for you? Too effen bad.

Don't vote for him. Who gives a.shit?

Good!

Sorry, but his disinterest and poor credentials when it comes to foreign policy disqualifies him as Commander in Chief. His economic and national policy speeches - which make up the bulk of his campaign speeches - makes him the perfect Senator, though, and that's where he should stay.

It's difficult for me to imagine that he's completely disinterested in foreign policy, surely he understands its importance, and the important role that the US and the US president will play. So, true or extreme "isolationism" is probably not likely to be his philosophy.

Still, I can't help but wonder what role he sees for the United States. Is this a priority for him, or not?

Apparently someone on his campaign staff must think that it should be a priority. Why else would his campaign staff create a list of advisors that isn't?

Silence on the issue and avoiding the questions only makes people scrutinize even harder. It won't make it "go away" with yesterday's news cycle.

That sounds like the reasons so many people support Trump.

He's smarter than Hillary without any help.

Oh, wait. Hillary actually IS very, very smart.
She's just to ambitious and bought out...

or hundreds of times, as Secretary of State, the real question is:
How does that politician react, and act in a situation?

Given HRC's reactions and actions regarding the use of force to advance US elite interests, to the detriment of working class interests, the value of her experience is questionable at best.

Dick Cheney was also briefed many times, probably far more than HRC, but who would suggest that this qualifies Cheney for anything other than a place in the dock at the World Court?

little to go on. oh yes-the infamous iraq vote we hear of all the time. The ME is a complicated place--and then we have china and russia and no clue from sanders for voters. That is wrong.

on some occasions, but whose worldview clearly demonstrates that she favors a highly interventionist policy, an interventionist policy that favors US corporate interests,

or do the voters choose a politician who has stated that he will work to lessen the influence of the 1% who control the corporations, and US foreign policy?

What is wrong is that US policy is controlled by the corporatists, and is designed to increase the influence of these same corporatists.

I personally feel that Sanders would better change this dynamic, but if HRC is the eventual nominee I will work for her and hope that Sanders popularity, and the excitement engendered by his politics, influences her to move to the left.

is the LAST resort. Enough said.

Military intervention is always the resort if US strong arming, called diplomacy, does not work.

I'll gladly answer it for you.

I favor Bernie because of his judgement. In truth, I don't think I know better than he does how many militarists should be consulted. What's the magic number? If there's a right answer Hillary hasn't discovered it.

--imm