about Hillary

of a majority of Dems. It's incredibly disappointing and frustrating that more people don't recognize her for what she is - a dishonest, shape-shifting corporatist war hawk.

Idiocracy is right.

To say this was all Clinton's doing is very short-sighted and betrays one's prejudices.

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

In the throes of the Arab Spring, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was facing a furious revolt by Libyans determined to end his quixotic 42-year rule. The dictator's forces were approaching Benghazi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath. France and Britain were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign to halt Colonel Qaddafi's troops, and now the Arab League, too, was calling for action.

Did I say that it is "as simple as Clinton simply deciding one morning she wanted to kill some people, or to bully then"?

What I am pointing out is that even though the war effort was an unmitigated disaster, Clinton calls it "smart power at its best." You don't see any disconnect there?

Did the operation stop Qaddafi's promised blood bath on Arab Spring? Yeah, it did. So in that sense, I'd say it was a success. Far better than a full-on invasion, as Bush, Jr. & the PNAC crowd would have no doubt wanted.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

caused was far larger than anything that Qaddafi was threatening.

The big mistake by Clinton was to think that going to war for the sake of regime change was not likely to result in the death of far more innocent people than allowing Qaddafi to remain in power. Clinton doesn't seem to fully realize the significance of the fact that war has large and certain costs even in the best of cases. For that reason, there is a huge moral presumption against war. Sometimes the benefits of war are certain enough and large enough to overcome that presumption. But the trade off between the certain costs of war and the uncertain benefits of regime change usually (though not always) makes wars aimed at regime change a bad bargain.

and implying that someone did betrays your prejudices.

"smart power at its best" ??

Looks like we got sucked into this thing, when I wiser course would have been to strongly advise against it.

I'm not saying it was the best course of action. I'm not even saying it was 'smart', as Clinton says. I'm saying the conditions should be understood in full context. No military operation is perfect. We did something to stop a promised bloodbath. No one can predict the future but I won't fault anyone for trying something under urgent circumstances like these.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

One of the biggest problems with the mindset in Washington is the notion that we have the right and should intervene to bring about regime change in situations ranging from limited airstrikes in Libya to the full blown invasion of Iraq.

WE were not being attacked and WE need to learn the lesson that WE lack the judgment to understand the internal dynamics of these countries and to predict the consequences of our interventions. The consequences have been horrific for the unfortunate people living there, and blowback from unanticipated and unintended consequences eventually bites us in the ass.

I fully support the concept of an international coalition with UN authorization intervening to relieve a humanitarian disaster or to stop genocide.

Our 2011 intervention in Libya doesn't come close to meeting that standard. Furthermore, the United States has a long history of military interventions which are not legitimate self defense and do not serve the interests of the people in those countries (political rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding).

WE have to change our mindset regarding the use of military force and engineering regime change in foreign countries. This starts with a better understanding of whose interests are really being served and for what reasons.

Hillary Clinton is a continuation of the military/foreign policy mindset which must be changed. And, even within that mindset, she has shown poor judgment.

Maybe they were. But the NYT article is also critical of Clinton in addition to pointing out just how fucked up the place was getting. If everything was milk and honey then why was there a rebellion?

Was Libya prosperous and becoming more so? Yeah. Was there an Arab Spring rebellion? Yeah.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

funded coup and 'intervention' practically on the planet since WW2. Don't you read?

From a 'no fly zone to all out bombing of targets called out by rebels'. NATO's high-precision bombing preceeded 'rebel' incursions.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH27Ak03.html

"It's now common knowledge that British SAS, French intelligence, US Central Intelligence Agency assets, Qatar special forces and mercenaries of all stripes were parachuted as boots on the ground for months, planning and training the "rebels" and in close coordination with that philanthropic prodigy, NATO.

That was never the UN mandate - but who cares? NATO/GCC paid the bills, NATO conducted the bombing and NATO/GCC will "stabilize" the mess, according to a 70-page plan leaked by the British to Rupert Murdoch'sz Times of London."

"Expect local - and global - fireworks as far as grabbing the loot is concerned. Without even considering the (still unexplored) oil and gas wealth, Libya's foreign assets are worth at least $150 billion. Libya's central bank, now about to be privatized, has no less than 143.8 tons of gold. Then there's at least a millennium supply of fresh water, which had started to be harnessed by Gaddafi via the spectacular, multibillion dollar Great Man-Made River (GMR) project."

Middle East
Aug 27, 2011

THE ROVING EYE
R2P is now Right 2 Plunder
By Pepe Escobar

What business was Libya of Clinton's? Or anyone else's? It was a sovereign nation ........ doing well, and trying to improve the lives and independence for all of Africa using it's oil money.

But the powers that be can't have that, can they??

So, all of Bush's coalition of the willing/bought/bribed 'were all in a conspiracy too, huh'? You do realize France, Britain and the Arab League ALL had much to gain by stopping Libya's success and independence, right? You can't be that naive. I know you're not - but you're sure hoping everyone else is. (Just because excusing unnecessary death and destruction for millions makes my stomach sick every time).

Did Western governments finance the Arab Spring, too? I truly don't think Clinton is another Bush, Jr. in terms of wanting to 'conquer the world' and all that. I think she pushed for a course of action that she thought was best.

Obama, if you'll recall, was and is Commander-In-Chief. Unless you think he's part of PNAC, too, then I think you're drawing lines that you want to see.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

all this horror. Did you miss that?

And by 'isolationism', I presume you mean not using the most powerful military on earth to destroy economies and devastate lives to enrich the MIC, weapons industry and multi-national corporations it operates for?

She pushed for a course of action. Unless she had a precog on her staff, she couldn't predict the future. And anyone else 'predicting' the future from that future is on safe ground.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

And .............. she not only knew of it in advance, pushed for it - she also lied for it - as in furthering the 'rape' meme that even U.S. sources had already debunked. But ........ the 'most admired woman in the world' wouldn't use 'rape' to further the cause for destroying the lives of millions more women and children, would they?

They said there were credible reports of retribution rape. But because Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International couldn't find any evidence, you're saying they were correct and everyone else was wrong.

Sounds to me like you're picking sides based on whoever supports your narrative. All I am saying is that there was chaos in Libya and it ill behooves us to think up a conspiracy without considering that chaos. It doesn't need to be 'fog of war' to sweep any narrative under the rug but to see things objectively, we have to admit that none of us had a ringside seat at what was taking place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

disgusting .......... but I understand it's useful to you, as it was for her.

She was instrumental in getting the US involved when we had NO BUSINESS doing so. It had disaster written all over it. We had the example of Iraq in chaos after Saddam's ouster right there for all to see.

You, like most Hillary supporters, buy the propaganda used to whip support for intervention. You can't even admit how sickening it is for her to trumpet her actions as "smart". That is pathetic and you should be ashamed.

Our intervention probably prevented a bloodbath. Maybe it doomed many more in the process but that's the chance one takes when deciding on intervention.

The Libyan no-fly zone was a U.N.-brokered intervention. The Arab League requested our direct intervention. All of this may have been a total cock-up in the end but to say it was all Clinton and PNAC is to ignore all the other players in this.

I am not trying to exonerate anyone. I have said from the very start that I would prefer Sanders as President.

All I am saying is that things are rarely as simple as a James Bond villain type of plot where amorphous evil-doers are plotting against the world. There is nearly always a larger picture.

The 'retribution rape' issue is one of those. Some respected organizations said it was happening. Other respected organizations said it was not. So why make an assumption one way or the other?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

Thank you for compiling all that.

first began (which is why some of the links no longer work, sorry), plus a few newer links found here recently. There were many here back then who were tried to be run off the site, called the most disgusting names and shut down for posting anything that contradicted the pro-'intervention/horror cheering that was going on day after day after day. So many members whose posts I wish I'd somehow bookmarked - bvar22, sabrina1, mainer and many more who really had great information. It was very, very ugly then - I can't believe it's all being defended again now - blows my mind.

... especially when it comes from a politician with whom they're enamored.

Then, when the deeper story and the underlying facts are presented to them, they dismiss it without being objective or applying critical thought.

Most people still accept a framework crafted by the Washington establishment. There are slightly different versions (just as there are two major political parties) but both serve the Powers That Be.

That's why in post #27 I tried to get across the necessity of changing the mindset (framework) in which these kinds of military interventions are OK in the first place. A big obstacle to overcome is the broad acceptance that we have the right and should intervene when we are not directly threatened and it's not a legitimate humanitarian effort.

Can you even imagine how the ME and NA would be right now without all of these ugly 'interventions', economic sanctions and interference into sovereign nations that have every right to determine their own futures? All for western greed and imperialism - I can't stand that anyone believes this is alright in any way.

We were taught to believe the USA is a force for good on the international scene. Evidence to the contrary is either unknown, compartmentalized, or denied.

On the Left, even among those who were vehemently against GW's 2003 invasion of Iraq, many see our militarism in a different light when conducted by Dems in the White House.

On the Right, those who demonize our government as "the problem" in all things domestic bristle at any criticism of our military actions abroad.

Voters on both sides, with some exceptions, seem incapable of thinking outside the box in which it's normal for us to take military action without a legitimate case of self defense or an official declaration by Congress.

Since they don't even see the box they're in, they don't think to ask who constructed it or why.

Imo though, every person on earth whose gov't is directly or indirectly causing death or suffering in any way has the responsibility to fully educate themselves - for me, there is no excuse not to. Killing those we don't see or read about in most corporate owned media has become far too easy - death, especially mass death and the horrors left behind with these immoral atrocities should not be this easy.

Ultimately, the American people are responsible for what our government does in our name.

Terrible judgement and mistakes become the basis of claiming best experience that any candidate ever running has ever had. When you have lemons you try to make lemonade.

Consider those other claims... to having been turned down by the Marines or disembarking a passenger plane under sniper fire. They are worse.

Claims of being smart in the use of power are marketing which may not be truer than an ad for a new improved detergent, but it's less garish than other self-aggrandizing fictions.

with respect to Libya partly displays a strong and irrational bias in favor of the use of military force. And that is far more dangerous than any tendency towards self-aggrandizing fictions of the sort you mention.

Whether the US goes out with financial "aid" (aka economic hit-men) or with military "aid" the goal is the same: secure opportunity for the oligarchs.

A politiican actually interested in protecting American domestic economy from unfair assymetries would be talking about the importance of balanced trade and the need for tariffs, value-added taxes and such.

No New Dem or old Rep politician is talking about such things. They're talking about pivoting to Asia and the utility of sending Carrier groups into the South China sea to send a message to China about our willingness to kill to protect our sphere of economic interest.

So, yep, I get that.

Do you think there is only one? As with the Iraq debacle, the policy was doubtless beneficial to some group Mrs Clinton finds more important than you or I. Your question really boils down to "How disconnected is Hillary Clinton from my reality," and obviously, the answer to that you know best.

-- Mal

and that would be your reality.

"But they don't see me as part of the problem," she protests, "because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work," she says, letting off another burst of laughter.

would be my guess

!

wrong side of history.

Does she know how much is her monthly mortgage or monthly car payment or monthly power bill?

Does she know how much is water/sewer/garbage bill?

Does she know how much is monthly child care bill?

Does she?