It is what she may very well wreak upon the rest of us, using that intelligence and capability, that makes it impossible for me to support her.

I think Zelaya was being generous in saying she is weak in the face of pressure. I think she simply has right wing neocon beliefs. I think her affiliation with Henry Kissinger says a lot about her attitude toward the sovereignty of other countries, particularly those who refuse to give away their natural resources to big corporations for pennies on the dollar deposited into a Swiss bank account.

thinks she knows best what is good for the rest of us. Many of her positions prove her wrong. Iraq, Welfare Reform, DOMA, Three Strikes, the Sanctity of Marriage, Fracking, the TPP.

Since I have no idea who she really is, I can't say whether she made those decisions based on politics or not. But if she really believed them to be the correct positions to take, then I know thousands of non-politicians who are far more intelligent.

when you toss around words like "obliterate Iran" are you really going to be effective in a job that requires diplomacy? Even when I don't like Obama's policies I can still appreciate an adult who doesn't go around disrespecting other cultures or creating hostility.

VS what American saw all day Thursday.

Over the last 70 years, Democrats have been foreign policy hawks. To deny that is to deny a fundamental fact of the the history of the Democratic party.

Hillary got her foreign policy tendencies from the Democratic party - Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK,

them. That is my opinion, and you cannot tell me it is wrong, unless you can see into the future.

... a good assumption is you've become the OP's surrogate.

It would gain you a lot more respect than what you posted.

I don't want or need your respect.

You've just lost all credibility on that front.

that Clinton's standing up to Gowdy contradicted what was said in the quote. Clinton has participated in many foreign policy disasters, and sometimes its good to hear the opinions of the victims of those disasters.

"she is very weak in the face of pressures from groups that hold power in the United States, the most extremist right-wing sectors of the U.S. government, known as the hawks of Washington."

Hillary got her foreign policy standards from the Democratic party - Wilson, FDR, JFL - hardly the most extremist right-wing sectors of the U.S. government.

Obviously not shared with the Democratic party.

I'm not that down with the bipartisan warmongering consensus. Of which Hillary is a sterling example.

She pushed Obama to intervene in Libya and Syria. This helped set herself up for more Republican circuses, but that is really beside the point. She contributed to the problems in the Middle East because she listens to neocon advisors like Robert Kagan.

Notably one of the most extreme right-wingers of the time.

And neither is/was Kissinger. I mean, I know 'progressives' have trouble with history, but come on.

You're really grasping to make a relevant reply.

But be careful, it may make the wrong person look bad.

Again these are your words:

Hillary got her foreign policy credentials, like most Democrats did, from Democrats. Democrats, either from the past or now, are not the right wing extremists in the US government.

Liberal bashing? No - 'Progressive' critique.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Puritopian

So please just come right straight out and deny she took advice from Kissinger, who by your own admittance is not a Democrat, and I will concede to you as the winner of the internets for a day.

And please explain this quote:

that maybe tomorrow she will deny it? Don't blame you, I don't believe much if anything of what she says either. A person's got to keep their options open when supporting Hillary.

It's almost comical.

You say Hillary got her "foreign policy standards" from Democrats and I gave you an example, a link, and a quote from Hillary to the contrary and you just deny what almost everyone that is paying attention already knows.

I think we're done with this as you just divert and deny reality, hard to have a conversation that way. If you were good at the diversion and denial I could still have fun with you but sadly you aren't.

Have a nice evening, we're done.

So you were simply being shown how that was not correct.

It's one thing to disagree with who you support, it's another to try to twist your own words around just to not have to admit you were wrong.

Hillary got her foreign policy credentials, like most Democrats did, from Democrats. Democrats, either from the past or now, are not the right wing extremists in the US government.

do not expect supporters of the 1%er to agree with any thing you say...

Believing that doesn't make you a hawk. Clinton's problem is that she is too easily convinced that force is the right option.

Backing the rightist coup in Honduras, not a sterling moment for Hillary.

Kind of like championing that Libyan fiasco.

Maybe you don't want to do that.

not the self-determining interests of others in a small central American country.

Guess I missed that. Someone yelled "incoming" and I was ducking and running for cover.

We get enough resentment trying to force our ways on others. And "help" them. We do not go to war with Saudi Arabia over how they treat women. That's up to the women there to fight. We fight for our rights in our country.

Just not all.

Start your own thread.

Your blue H threw me for a bit.

Possibly O'Malley.

He might even be better on foreign policy than Bernie.

http://jewishinsider.com/4543/omalley-both-sides-share-responsibility-for-violence-in-israel/

then I could be at peace about the candidate to vote for in November 2016. I would have an easier primary knowing it was about nuance and not a large schism of policy.

Lessig stands the best chance of destroying the root evil in politics -- the funding of elections and the buying of so many elected officials -- because he will make equality of opportunity (read, fair funding of elections, as well as control of gerrymandering) his top priority.

See https://lessig2016.us

with Iran, her debacle in Syria...just to name a few.

Not anyone who should be close to the codes.

There is military investment at Soto Cano plus new bases at Catarasca and Guanaja. Puerto Castillo has been refurbished and possibly a base the southern Honduran department of Choluteca, the only department in Honduras with coastline on the Pacific,

Do you want more of the same? Or do you want Bernie Sanders?

entitled to his opinion...if he really actually believes his own translated maybe accurately and in full context words.

Not a good trait in a leader. Yuuuge reason I'm voting for Bernie.

than her yes vote on the IWR. Everyone in the world knew this would be the "go ahead" for an invasion of Iraq and, at minimum, the deaths of a few thousand Iraqis and maybe a few dozen Americans. They'd die for others' greed and need for power. She knew this even better than we and she also knew she'd be pilloried by the insane MSM that was absolutely salivating at the prospect of juicy war to cover. Her ambition was more important than the lives of a bunch of Iraqis 10,000 miles away. After all, to paraphrase Joseph Stalin, the murder of one person with a name, a face, and a story is a tragedy and a scandal. A few thousand nameless, faceless foreigners far away? Just a quickly forgotten statistic.

When the going gets tough, Hillary Clinton does NOT have our backs.

Democrats with her Senate speech. Her speech was important to the Republicons because it was from a leading Democrat. And since, the best she can do is say it was a mistake.

Do you really think he's the glad handing salesman/everybody's my friend type that most of these politicians are. Believe it or not, but there really are some people in this world motivated by a desire to make right things they see are wrong. Bernie's one of these people and right now the Presidency would give him the best opportunity to address the issues he cares about. It's a means to an end. Other than that I don't think he has any burning to be President. He doesn't have that kind of ego.

Hillary, however, does have that kind of ego. She is a consummate politician who's been working toward the Presidency as her goal for a very long time. She wants to be President for the same reason an athlete wants to win a championship. She just wants to win more than anything else and she will say, and as I mentioned above, she will do anything to win. Prior to that IWR vote I was a huge Hillary fan. What she did is unforgivable because she will never ask for forgiveness. The sin is too heinous to admit. A "no" vote in protest of the certain killing of innocent people might have jeopardized her political ambitions. She calculated it was in her best interest to stay silent, to go along to get along. That kind of self-serving despicable cowardice is a pretty fucking poor example of leadership in my mind. That's not the kind of shit Bernie Sanders would do, and he didn't.

Thank you, Vattel.

The coup would not have happened without her approval.

The Buck stops in her lap.

Hillary supporters can argue ad-nauseam about semantics, but Hillary Green-Lighted Zelaya. End of augment as far as I'm concerned.

Hillary was working for the US. I don't see how this necessarily proves what he says is true. It could be totally colored by his biases. The US SOS puts the US first, not Honduras.

No surprise that there is a money trail leading to her friend to explain her inexplicably undemocratic behavior.

pouring over our border as a result of the violent instability caused by the coup.

Immigrant America: Murder and Migration in Honduras

Hillary explains why the child refugees should be sent back to a certain death. She loves and cares for women and children so much. (Note: she attempts to blame the increased violence and instability caused by the coup, on the drug cartel instead.)

https://vimeo.com/143562074

On the other hand, Bill Clinton restored Aristide to power so I have a little hope that there is some preference for democratic elections over military coups

It seems pretty clear from what you posted that his bias would be against the State Department's decisions.

when he trusted and tapped Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State.

Obama believing that Hillary having been First Lady for eight years and a Senator for eight had useful knowledge about the world at large, (the power players) which he lacked.

President Obama trusted Hillary in this role but Hillary didn't return the favor, privatizing her role as the nation's top diplomat by creating her own server out from under the Executive Branch's direct supervision.

I believe President Obama's gut instinct was against State Department decisions but ultimately Hillary won out.

The true question you raise should be, what was our national interests?

Was it to destabilize a democratically elected government in our own backyard?

To go against overwhelming world opinion in recognizing that this was indeed a military coup?

To create horrific conditions in an already impoverished nation which compelled vast numbers of refugees to flee which in turn sent many of them including women and children across our border in an attempt to escape the increased violence, rapes, poverty and corruption which the military coup fostered?

going against our interests in such a country?

And again, why wouldn't Zelaya be biased?

these institutions didn't want the minimum wage raised nor have the Honduran Constitution put to a referendum which in turn could threaten the far right wing's stranglehold on the Honduran Government.

Not. It's up to that country to pick its government. Why is it our job to maintain their changes of government?

It isn't our job to maintain a nation's legal change in government but it certainly isn't our job to give aid and comfort to an illegal change.

Furthermore Hillary's words and actions are public record, whether the source as in this case citing them is objective or not.

But some are more equal than others.

Thanks for the thread, Vattel.

Usually based on what will advance her ambitions. See IWR vote for reference.

That's exactly why I support Bernie Sanders.

plus tons of other facts regarding HRC, people will still not believe what is being told about her and defend her regardless of her record. Facts and more facts about her war hawkishness, her ties with wall st, her lies, etc., and people will still vote for her.

It's mind numbing what people will do in the face of facts.

I applaud your courageous -- and totally unexpected! -- stance.

You cannot trust someone who speaks out both sides of her mouth.

she really can't play "the Black candidate" after what the Facussés did to the Garífuna, "the LGBT candidate" after the camarilla she backed unleashed a violence worse than Iran's, "the Latino candidate" approved the ignition of a whole country into the planet's murder capital, "the women's candidate" backed a regime where the police have separate rape *units*