Finally! A Democrat in Congress Calls Out Hillary Clinton's Hawkishness
Iraq veteran Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) quits DNC leadership to protest Hillary Clinton's foreign policy failures.
Anthony L. Fisher|Mar. 2, 2016
Hillary Clinton's Super Tuesday thumping her only rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination has revivied the perception of inevitability that she will be the party's nominee. However, one sitting Democratic member of Congress decided to put her career on the line, days before the slew of primaries, to raise awareness of Clinton's career-long track record of supporting failed military interventions and general unrepentant hawkishness.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) resigned her leadership post on the Democratic National Committee this past weekend, saying she had tired of the requirement to maintain "neutral ground" during the primary process, and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Unlike the conscientious objector she supports for president, Gabbard can't be painted as a naive peacenik. She is an Iraq War veteran and still serves as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard. It is her familiarity with the horrors of war, as well as the big government-gobbling waste produced by it, that informed her decision to split from the party leadership.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this past Monday, Gabbard said, "There has not been a clear conversation about the contrast between our two candidates when it comes to questions of war and peace. So this is why I resigned from the DNC."
Speaking with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night, Gabbard added, "Secretary Clinton has a record and positions that will take us into a future that will include more interventionist wars of regime change."...snip
Read More: http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/02/democrat-congress-hillary-clinton-hawk
Official House Page: http://gabbard.house.gov/
= new reply since forum marked as read
There is a Bush/Cheny style of hawk and an Eisenhower style of "hawk". If you don't understand the distinction, I don't know how to educate you except to suggest that additional experience in some areas of life might bring greater wisdom.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Thanks for the thread, nationalize the fed.
Wow.
Thank God that sexism is dead.
The Argentinians blessed her by invading the Falklands. (Or Malvinas depending on whose side you are on.) At that moment, Thatcher was arranging the sale of one of Britain's last 3 Air Craft Carriers, the Hermes.
The Brits thumped the Falklands and the Argentinian Navy and she cancelled the sale shortly after the cessation of hostilities, defense spending then being much more popular on the British isles than it had been a short time previous.
But Thatcher's political career was saved, and in a very real sense that paved the road to perdition for both the UK and the US.
I think it wrong to suggest that Thatcher did the Falklands so that, as a female head of state, she could establish her toughness. She did that because her political career was sinking fast and it would have been political suicide in Britain to have done anything else. But her military victory sated British outage ... and she banked enormous political capital as a result. And, historically, struggling political leaders have often turned military adventure into political capital, just like Thatcher.
No, Thatcher did not do this to establish that she was one tough lady. But it DID establish those credentials ... and that did not go unnoticed. Anywhere. And I doubt the super aware, super alert young Hillary Clinton was one of the very few who did not notice.
Ms. Thatcher was, like Ms. Clinton is today, an advocate of the use of military power to achieve political ends both domestic and international. She just didn't want her budget to pay for it. And Ronald Reagan was delighted to stick us with the bill. That played out in several ways, but the First Gulf War is probably the most dramatic example.
Consider the first Gulf War. Kuwait had been slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields for years, and with Britain's help had been stalling international court proceedings. (Why was Britain helping? Because Kuwait was giving 'em a sweet heart deal on oil.) Saddam Hussein repeatedly warned that if the court case did not proceed, he would have no choice to invade and put a stop to it. Iraq asked our government if we would strongly object. Our government (under the leadership of Poppy Bush) basically responded along the lines of "We'd really rather you wouldn't but we do understand." The situation really was intolerable, and everyone knew it. It was one of the few times Saddam was in the right.
Now, shortly after Iraq invades the press is filled with news of widespread atrocities committed by an undisciplined Iraqi Army.
There are always atrocities in war, and our own soldiers do not have a spotless regard in this regard. But at that time the Iraqi Army was highly trained, experienced, and very well ordered. (Especially their combat engineers, which we regarded as the best in the world. Seriously. Those guys were amazing.) So the scope of atrocity suggested by (principally British) news media was kinda surprising, but I believed it. But years later many of those reports seem to be, uh, exaggerated or falsified. (Propaganda is a tool of war. Former colleagues of mine had shared their doubts with me by the mid 90s ... it is possible, but uncertain, that the Brits manipulated the news and spoofed us all. I can't be certain. So I draw question marks all over that subject.) But in any case, with those stories in the air, President Bush was primed to be spanked by Ms. Thatcher, who had resigned as Prime Minister a short time before (but still held a seat in the House of Commons) and was still most revered by the American right wing.
And Poppy folded. 200,000 or so Iraqi lives and god only knows how much money later ... yeah. The rest is history. We've been becoming increasingly tangled up in Middle Eastern military adventures ever since. But ... US military might was successfully deployed to serve British interests at minimum costs to the British treasury. Maggie wins again.
So what's the point of all this?
Ms. Clinton's campaign and record as Secretary of State show a willingness to engage in regime change and the tactics of destabilization. (Check out what's going on in Honduras right now. And Libya and Syria are SO MUCH BETTER after our actions. Yeah.) Early in the campaign she criticized President Obama for being too hesitant to engage military power. (Now, of course, it is anathema to criticize Obama on ANYTHING. But in her book and before Sanders' rise in the polls, sure. Why not?) In her debates, she has said she is willing to "engage over 1/3 of the planet". (Paraphrasing. She might have said "use military power" or "wage war". But you get the gist. I was too busy weeping to take exact note.)
I don't think this is because she wants to establish she is tough. I think this is because she believes that America must project its power and bring the world under the umbrella of the "Washington Consensus", the current economic order of the West. I think she believes this is the right thing to do.
Me, I think it is arrogant and foolish ... and gives players around the world just too many opportunities for manipulating America into a deployment of military power to fulfill THEIR interests. Just like Maggie Thatcher did. And that exiled Iraqi asshole who pandered to George W. Bush (aka "Shrub"
and convinced him to make the most significant strategic blunder in American military history. And the so-called "moderate rebels" that hobnobbed with John McCain (and later went on to lead ISIL).
I want an orderly retreat from empire. Empire is expensive and corrosive to civil liberties. Empire leads to war. It's hard on women, children, and puppies ... well, on everything. And so, I cannot support Ms. Clinton. But I recognize I may have to hold my nose in order to deny the Presidency to Der Trumpenfuhrer or some other Republican whackjob.
At some point, after the General Election, I am going to have to seriously consider if the Democratic Party really, really represents my values on these matters of war, the environment, social and economic justice, and other important topics.
But let's get through the 2016 Shit Show first. We must not ... can not ... allow Republicans access to the missile codes.
Trav
Bookmarking this thread for your summation
Thank you for this
she and Mazie Hirono represent me in Congress 
a Thank You note...
and although I'm from California, I felt proud. Good going, Tulsi!!
Where their tagline is "Free minds and free markets"
Sid
I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I'm surprised nobody else had spoken up about it.
Sid
Surprise!
Sid
It's just a mess. 
