Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Consortium News: The War Risk of Hillary Clinton [View all]
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-war-risk-of-hillary-clinton/The War Risk of Hillary Clinton
June 17, 2016
Hawkish State Department officials and Official Washingtons neocons are eager for a Hillary Clinton presidency, counting on a freer hand to use U.S. military force around the world, but that future is not so clear, says Michael Brenner.
By Michael Brenner
Is Hillary Clinton a warmonger? Well, the record demonstrates that she certainly is a hawk someone who believes strongly in the utility of military force and is ready to use it.
There is ample evidence in support of this contention. Her actions as Senator and Secretary of State as well her speeches and campaign statements paint a picture of a would-be President who views the world in terms of an ominous threat environment, who believes that core American interests are being challenged across the globe, who is a firm advocate of intervening on a preventive basis (e.g. Syria, Libya) as well as a preemptive or defensive basis, who is dedicated to keeping putative rivals like China or Russia in a subordinate position.
This complex of attitudes puts a considerable amount of blue water between her and Barack Obama. Indeed, early in her campaign she made a point of criticizing the White House for its overly restrained policies vis a vis Syrias Bashar al-Assad, Russias Vladimir Putin and Chinas Xi Jinping. She only switched tacks when it became evident that she needed to associate herself with the Obama record in the face of the unexpected Sanders insurrection.
The specific criticisms directed at HRC from those who find her too hawkish are well-known. They include her vote in favor of the Iraq war; her cheerleading for the Global War on Terror in all its aspects; her collaboration with the Robert Gates-led faction to push President Obama into a major Afghan escalation; her advocacy of direct military action in Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and in Syria to unseat Assad; her unbending attitude toward containing Iran even after the nuclear accord; and her bellicose language in calling Putin another Hitler after Russias seizure of the Crimea.
more...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
43 replies, 1909 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (35)
ReplyReply to this post
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Monday will be here before you know it ... and then the BS sewer gets cleaned up n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#7
Great debate style! Fact free, no pointing out where there may be errors, exaggerations, nor
Dustlawyer
Jun 2016
#9
And where else do we see one negative article after another about Secretary Clinton, hoping, praying
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#10
I will not let Hillary off of the hook for all of the money she OWES DONORS FOR as it is not in
Dustlawyer
Jun 2016
#19
DU puts the Democratic back in their D ... where we work to elect them, rather than pointlessly
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#39
Thank you for providing an example of the pointlessness I was talking about n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#43
That comment would have more weight it you contributed to DU, instead of mooching "free stuff."
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2016
#18
So my comment would have more "weight" if I contributed money to the site? What an elitist crock.
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#22
Like SBS not being a real Democrat, you're not a real DUer because you don't join as a member.
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2016
#25
Because you're a "real" DUer, you don't see the ads that I do ... and being that they're part of the
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#27
Ah, yes. An Elitist is someone who asks a person to pay to use a site, when they push site action.
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2016
#28
No, an elitist is someone that says you're not a "real memeber" UNLESS you pay n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#29
I drew on that silly "not a Democrat" line you use against SBS. I see you failed to grap that point.
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2016
#30
I can't remember a Democratic Nominee so open about using force for just about everything.
EndElectoral
Jun 2016
#15