CNN: Hillary Clinton is going to give a major Foreign Policy speech in San Diego

[applegrove]

that slams Trump. Finally. He'll be called out as incompetent.

[grasswire]

1. Hail Mary.

Her internal polling must be horrible.

[Renew Deal]

6. Hillary attacks Trump. Bernie attacks Hillary.

[aikoaiko]

16. Where is this Bernie attack you speak of?

[Renew Deal]

19. Start with your signature

[aikoaiko]

20. Would you prefer that HRC be considered not the lesser of two evils?

[Renew Deal]

25. I'm glad I answered your question.

[aikoaiko]

28. Yes, you told me what you thought was an attack, but it wasn't an attack on HRC.

I know, anything not supportive of the queen is an attack. She'll still take every vote that is a vote for a lesser of two evils. Her campaign has become, "I'm not Trump"

[Renew Deal]

29. Be honest. It was stated by Sanders about Hillary.

[aikoaiko]

41. Its about HRC and Trump specifically, and a lamentable state of affairs generally.

Bernie was talking about how many people feel this way about presidential elections every four years, and he wanted to offer something different.

And let's be clear that its a metaphor.

Bernie has already said HRC is a far better choice than Trump so keep that in mind too.

[TimPlo]

24. Hmm

Renew Deal : "Bernie attacks Hillary."
aikoaiko : "Where is this Bernie attack you speak of?
Renew Deal : " Start with your signature"

OMG aikoaiko is Bernie!!! Or is it that many HRC drones can't separate the supporters from the candidate.

[bettyellen]

8. It's a pivot to the general.....

That Sanders might not look to good in comparison is a two-fer.

[bunnies]

90. Would you please put a fucking warning on your animal torture video?!

What the fuck?!

[Press Virginia]

2. Does she have any examples of successful policies she was instrumental in forming

or assisting?
I mean beyond Iraq and Libya

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Pump Trump, nice !

[Press Virginia]

7. If someone is going to give a speech on national security and foreign policy

it shouldn't be anyone with a basement server full of classified documents, the Iraq War and Libya on their resume.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Please see Post 4.

Thank you in advance.

[Ned_Devine]

12. Maybe she'll just reread her AIPAC speech

[Press Virginia]

18. Maybe if she can find the transcript

[Ned_Devine]

22. Where is that confounded transcript?

[madokie]

84. tRump has that

We all know that or anyone with a couple working brain cells should anyway

[LanternWaste]

85. It's rational and critical thinking precisely like yours

It's rational and critical thinking precisely like yours which has placed your candidate firmly in the number two spot.

Rational thinking most worthy, most relevant and most indicative of the number two spot it assuredly deserves and has earned.

[Ned_Devine]

86. Because fear mongering and saber rattling is worthy of the top spot?

Maybe I'm missing something you're trying to say.

[amborin]

3. LOL

[applegrove]

5. As opposed to Bernie?

[GRhodes]

10. Are we still all pretending

that she hasn't made disastrous foreign policy decisions, or do we wait to do that starting in 15 days? Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Honduras, Haiti, etc. Or, will she say, "My bad, but at least I know more than the guy that was getting roasted by the Situation on Comedy Central and taking part in WWE wrestling matches a few years ago." Will she name drop the war criminal Kissinger again?

Yes, our democracy is a freaking joke, but it sure makes our comedians better than those in other countries.

[Press Virginia]

11. Self awareness isn't a big thing with some people

Trump is a clown but she doesn't have much credibility in this area.

[GRhodes]

13. No she doesn't

and the fact that people want to pretend she does either shows they know nothing about her record, or don't give a damn and don't share my values. Usually the latter. Oh well, it is what it is.

[grasswire]

17. and I was surprised that she brought up Trump corruption...

....because she is WIDE OPEN to attack herself. She opened the door now, and he can hit back with all manner of hits.

He's holding back, though. He wants to run against her, badly. The mountains of opposition research are rich with attack material.

[TimPlo]

26. I always get this feeling

That two are just pulling a big ass scam. I mean Bill Clinton was one who said he should run. And no one has said it was not true. Trump said this way way back during first debate.

[applegrove]

31. She is not responsible for states that have failed. Those countries were given a chance.

Haiti has been in trouble for a long time. Ask Haitians about that. Ukraine has not been in the news. Maybe a stalemate when you have an aggressor like Russia is good news. George W. Bush is responsible for Iraq. What about the state of peace in Asia, Southern africa and south America? Does she get credit for Myanmar? Iran?(who the US is currently working with in fallugia for once). The world is a very complicated place. Nowhere more complicated than the middle east which one could blame the British or Woodrow Wilson., but really it is radical jihadism right now at war with the nation states of the whole world, more so now than ever. So why not blame Hillary for everything in the middle east and northern Africa. As if she has control over ISIS (well actually they didn't exist when she was sos).

[GRhodes]

36. Just stop

What are you talking about? First off, she gets zero credit for Iran. She argued against anything like that when she ran in 2008, said it was naive to do exactly what Obama did, argued within the administration that it wouldn't work and aligned with Netanyahu in calling for sanctions AFTER the deal was signed and she had left the administration. This isn't a secret.

"What about the state of peace in Asia, Southern africa and south America?"

I don't know what you're talking about or why she would get credit for it any damn way. She has supported disastrous policies in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and has supported outright fascists (neo-Nazis, no other way of putting it) in Ukraine, and she supported an outright coup there too. Research the Right Sector and Victor Pinchuk. What she and her husband have done in Haiti is corruption on a grand scale, she once again intervened in the country's elections and was involved in coup plotting against Préval. Let's also not forget that Bill Clinton went so far as to apologize to Haitian farmers for what his trade policies did to them.

Just be honest about who you support and deal with it, deal with who she is and what her record is.

[applegrove]

42. So she takes the blame for 5 failed states and gets no credit for the successes.

I get it.

[GRhodes]

49. You didn't make a supporting argument

and you need to, given that what I am saying is common knowledge. Her instrumental role in the disasters that are Syria and Libya, not to mention Iraq and Honduras, is beyond question. I also gave you lots of stuff you can respond to. If you can spot an incorrect statement, I'll admit it. You can't though.

If you want to substantiate anything, feel free.

At some point, you all have to step outside your bubble.

[applegrove]

53. You are one parroting GOP bubble talking points. I'm telling you

the middle east is a mixture of ethnic groups, religious sects and inequality. ISIS has turned Libya and Iraq into he'll holes and it was not on Hillary's watch. Benghazi was an isolated incident. Hillary is simply not responsible for the isis. George Bush's de bathification of iraq is. And to only choose those countries puts you in the bubble, not me. How are India and Pakistan getting along? Better than ever. But no. You will not respond to my points.

[GRhodes]

59. GOP?!

Do any of you in the bubble folks realize that there are leftists, and they also critique people like Clinton? I take it that Noam Chomsky is a GOP plant? Seems like he's said a thing or two about the Clintons. Howard Zinn, Vijay Prashad?

"Hillary is simply not responsible for the jihadism."

Who the hell said she was responsible for jihadism? What in the world are you reading? Her hawkish boneheaded mistakes led to death, destruction, and a power vacuum, which laid the groundwork for the spread of groups like ISIS, and there is no debating this. The US carpet bombed Cambodia in the 1970s, which led to people like Pol Pot taking over. Without the US's bombing, it wouldn't have happened. Crazy thing, when you bomb the hell out of a place, kill massive amounts of people, children, you radicalize people, and peace loving democratic forces don't gain support or withstand the slaughter.

"How are India and Pakistan getting along?"

What in the world does Hillary Clinton have to do with Pakistan?

Done with this silliness. Think what you want.

[karynnj]

87. She does deserve credit on Myanmar along with many others who supported democracy

I think there is an American mythology that the US has far more control of international conditions than we do. In addition, diplomacy has few victories that are either quickly achieved or so definitive that they can be celebrated immediately. That does make major diplomatic successes very sweet, even when their long term value will depend on future work.

However, Clinton and Obama did reengage with the world and greatly improved relationships that had been harmed in the Bush years. While it is true that part of this happened the second Obama was elected, there was a lot of work done by the Obama administration in repairing trust with many countries.

You mention South America, but relations there were pretty cold at the end of Obama's first term. After Obama initially was with the OAS calling Honduras a coup, it is pretty clear that HRC favored the right wing factions that deposed the President. Relationships have improved in the second term, with the opening of China (which Clinton favored). I had hoped that we would be able to do more there, but this is not an area where we are good.

As to Hillary and Obama's first term, there was the emphasis on a pivot to Asia. A large part of that is TPP, which for political reasons HRC is running away from now. TPP is the centerpiece of that pivot. The foreign policy establishment was almost entirely behind this shift - seeing it as balancing China. Ironically, Obama's biggest legacy from Asia will likely be the US/China climate pact that actually came about through John Kerry working with Chinese climate negotiators he had worked with in Bali and long before. Where the pivot to Asia was to a real degree working to constrain China; the climate pact had as its basis finding common ground and working together - as they continued to be at odds on almost everything else. The other huge legacy will be TPP if passed. In addition to Myamar, you can count many countries in southeast Asia, including Vietnam as where the US relationship greatly improved.

George Mitchell, joined by Dennis Ross, concentrated on the Middle East - and were thwarted by both the Palestinians and Israelis, just as everyone, American, regional, and European, has been.Until both sides see that the downsides of the status quo are worse than taking less than they want, no one can moderate and get a real agreement. Clinton did help in getting Israel to agree to the ceasefire proposed by Morsi of Egypt to end a spurt of fighting in Gaza. Part of this was that the US increased aid for the Iron Dome.

Biden was the one given Iraq and Holbrooke took the lead on Afghanistan/Pakistan, aided by Senator Kerry when Holbrooke's relations with those intemperate leaders became sour. In the rest of the Middle east and near east, Clinton's contributions are - at the least - controversial. She was very hawkish in Libya and, where most Obama people, spoke of "stopping a genocide" it was clear that she probably always knew the effort would morph to regime change. the problem with getting the policy you wanted, is that the results for it are known - and Libya is a mess. On Syria, HRC is actually joined by neo cons (and even Trump) calling for a "no fly" zone and all suggesting the problem was Obama not giving more weapons to the "moderate" rebels.

Speaking of the Syrian rebels, some of them eventually allied with AL Nusra and ISIS. To say that ISIS did not exist is to ignore who they are. Many of them were part of Saddam Hussein's military and police force. When Iraq was invaded and Hussien fell, the provisional government barred anyone with Baathist connections from police and military. Many of these people were from Sunni tribes that saddle the Iraq/Syrian border. Many fled to Syria, others stayed in Iraq and some of those were the Sunni side of the civil war that happened in 2006/2007 until the "Sunni awakening" where some Sunni leaders, remunerated by the US and concerned with their people's future, worked to stop the fighting in exchange for promises of inclusion in the government. After the US left and Maliki concentrated more and more power to the majority Shiites, they broke away. Many saw ISIS as the way to get power.

So, clearly Bush deserves the blame for ISIS because he started this whole mess. Republicans argue that he was able to stabilize Iraq and quiet the civil war. Both sides use the Bush generated timeline to get out to their own advantage. With Republicans saying that there was never the intent to completely leave. (In fact, Obama would have preferred to leave some forces, but would not do so without a SOFA, which Biden could not get.) Hillary has taken the position that we should have left forces, but does not address the SOFA issue.

As someone noted:

Afghanistan, where the US and the coalition went in in a full blown invasion and stayed for now around 15 years - is a mess.
Iraq, where the US went in in a full blown invasion, then left after an occupation of about 6 or 7 years - is a mess
Libya - where we and the coalition, used air power to advantage forces against Gaddafi - is a mess
Syria - where the CIA etc encouraged rebels and provided limited military aid - is a mess

It is entirely possible that the US and west can not "fix" any of these countries through the military (overt or covert) means. It also may be that the US/West really has less ability to remake the world into countries with values more like ours. I can remember many promising articles about the Arab spring - including some from leaders who cheered those protesting because they had the epiphany that supporting awful authoritarian leaders, because those leaders supported our agenda had led to the people hating us - as well as the hated leaders. It was a time where realpolitik was questioned. However, in many places the government that replaced the dictator or a lack of any coherent government has been arguably worse.

What is clear is that diplomacy now is far more complex than it ever was. It is, in some senses, being rewritten in real time. That might be the strongest reason why someone like Trump who sees everything as black or white - or "as a deal" or something that can be won by a cult figure - rather than painstaking diplomacy where people on various sides work very hard to find diplomatic solutions that will make neither side happy, but allow hostilities to cease and where the powers and regional countries push the affected country to work for an inclusive government.

I think that HRC understands the limits of the US internationally. We are the world's most powerful country. However, if you look at the two biggest foreign policy issues, the nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Accord -- the US was so incredibly important because we were both needed and had been the laggard among western nations in joining in. The Paris accord was completely designed to allow the US to join without it being a treaty, because any treaty would be DOA the minute it hit the Senate. On Iran, the basic deal the European nations wanted was not far from what Kerry in the first debate with Bush spoke of joining in 2004.

[BootinUp]

44. How many decisions does a Secretary of State make with regard

to foreign policy? Seems you have found someone to blame and you are sticking to it. As far as whether our foreign policy has been successful or not, I would suggest the world feels safer then it did during the Bush years, still plenty to do. Kind of hard to turn things around on a dime after Dubya got done. No, I think a rational assessment would have to acknowledge that there are some intractable problems that will take time to work through.

[GRhodes]

50. She pushed for policies that were disastrous

No on is claiming those disasters are all her fault either. We I am claiming is that her decision making is horrible. She's also very hawkish.

"I would suggest the world feels safer then it did during the Bush years"

I would suggest you're out to lunch. There is no ISIS without the disastrous decisions she supported and she was often one of the main proponents of.

If you want to point out what I said that wasn't factually correct, feel free.

[BootinUp]

52. So you are another one pushing the meme

that she supported the invasion of Iraq.

[GRhodes]

61. My god

I cannot deal with you people any longer. Last comment from me, I am responding to you out of frustrating and anger more than anything. She not only supported the damn invasion (everyone at the time knew what it meant to give him the power to use force), she said a couple years after the war, after it was obvious there were no WMDs, that her biggest regret was Bush's post war planning. She didn't regret the damn war or the invasion in the first few years after the war, and she had plenty of chances to say so, and she didn't regret the carnage it caused, she regretted his post war planning.

[BootinUp]

62. Some actual facts on the matter for anyone interested. Obviously

The poster I am replying to, is not interested in a real discussion of the facts. Votes on the IWR must be viewed in the context of the time. Also, there were other D Senators who votes the same as Clinton, but for some reason, they are forgiven for the vote while she is not. Think about it.

A good write up disputing above post with facts:

http://www.hillaryhq.com/2015/05/hillary-clinton-never-supported.html

Clintons speech on the IWR vote approx 20 minutes long. Instead of reading or watching things out of context, spend 20 minutes to listen to what she said:

[JonLeibowitz]

63. ...

CLINTON: I’ll tell you, up until this point, I believe that what we did in the Congress helped to move the Security Council to a 15-0 vote, and the reintroduction of the inspectors. That’s what I thought we needed to do first, so I don’t think up until this point. Now the real issue is what does the administration do with the inspectors, and are they going to take whatever happens in the slightest bit that is possibly confrontational or...
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLINTON: ... provocative as an excuse...
MATTHEWS: But what’s to stop...
CLINTON: ... for military action.
MATTHEWS: ... the president now? You gave him a blank check. I read the resolution, the provision is clear. He can do anything he wants under the provision you agreed to, to protect the United States security vis-a-vis Iraq. It’s an absolute blank check. You can give speeches now. He can go to war and you can’t stop him because of what you signed.
CLINTON: Well, but Chris...
MATTHEWS: Doesn’t that put you in a dangerous position...
CLINTON: Well...
MATTHEWS: ... as an opponent of the war?
CLINTON: You know I have to tell you, from my perspective and having spent, you know, eight years on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we have one president and one...
MATTHEWS: Yes, but you were elected to...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... be at the other end...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Wait a minute.
MATTHEWS: ... of Pennsylvania Avenue.
CLINTON: No.
MATTHEWS: You were elected to represent the people of...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... New York State...
CLINTON: That’s right...
MATTHEWS: ... not the White House...
CLINTON: No...
MATTHEWS: ... because it’s an institution you’re familiar with.
CLINTON: But I think I have a very...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I think I have a very particular perspective, which leads me to believe that supporting the president at that time was in America’s national interest.
Now I have no way of determining how they will use that authority and when I spoke on the floor before casting that vote, I said this is not a vote for preemption. This is not a vote for going to war and skipping putting together an alliance and getting the United Nations behind us, which I think would be grave errors.
Now so far, as you well know, because you have been an outspoken and very eloquent critic of the administration’s policy here, so far Secretary Powell has been able to move the administration despite the hawks within it and those who came into office looking to remove Saddam Hussein...

[BootinUp]

64. What's your point?

[JonLeibowitz]

65. If a dweeb like Matthews can realize it was authorization for unilateral action, you won't convince

me she didn't know exactly what she was voting for. After-the-fact rationalizations and excuses put aside.

[BootinUp]

66. This is NOT complicated.

Bush/Cheney used political opinion ginned up to a total state of fear to get the Dems to back him on IWR while telling Dems AND the country he had no intention of invading unless the inspections weren't cooperated with. Clintons and the other Dems who voted for it have since admitted that believing Bush was a mistake.

At the time, the pukes used the Dems vote as cover for their misguided war, and Matthews was playing along with that. Doesn't make that right. Any time you take the puke view over the so many in the Dem Party you have to stop and think, truly. There was a lot of political pressure on that vote. Dems that voted for it, were doing what their constituents wanted. In the final analysis, it WAS the Presidents decision to invade and he did not wait for the inspectors to finish the job as he promised.

[jack_krass]

69. Its sad to see people twist themselves in knots trying to prop up a hopelessly flawed cadidate

Like HRC.

She was part of the PNAC gang pushing the war, or stupid enough to be bakboozled bu them. In think the former, seeing what she did in Libya, and how she talks about Iran.(who she will attack as POTUS wirh catastrophoc consequence)

[BootinUp]

70. I left the part out about how the far left wants to use the false narrative

we see all the time here to grab power.

[seabeyond]

72. It is sad to see the purposeful destruction of a Democrat ignoring the gray in an issue and seeing

only black and white for their own personal agenda.

[jack_krass]

92. For me, it *is* a black and white issue. To continue blowing

up middle eastern countries, walking away, leaving the strongest bullies (isis, alql-q, whatever) to pick up the pieces, then blowing them up too is unforgivable. The colateral damage is incalculable. These policies will haunt us for hundreds of years.

There is no gray. I refuse to support a candidate who not only enables and perpetrates these policies (IIraq, Libya, soon, God forbid Iran), but even laughs and jokes about them and the chaos and murder they cause. Let's not forget who PNACs founder has endorsed

http://m.

[seabeyond]

93. You are arguing a decade and half ago, today. I get you do not get it.

[seabeyond]

71. And didn't they do it the end of Oct 2002 right before Nov election?

[BootinUp]

74. Yep. nt

[seabeyond]

81. Like 87% of the nation was for it, supporting Bush, walking into election and loss of seats

a consideration. And I get that a vote should not have to do with ones seat, but, we knew we needed the Democrats in our congress to do what they could with Bush. Some though, were able to make a statement vote because they faced no repercussions. It was a move the Bushco clearly made in front of the nation, and there was not a lot a lot of people could do, without the foresight of what was to come.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Which one will say they won't bomb someone.

[Press Virginia]

15. HRC won't say she'll nuke anyone soooo

she's got that going for her

[Joob]

23. Maybe we can hear more about this "No-Fly Zone in Syria."

[BootinUp]

40. I doubt it. nt

[Purveyor]

43. And if Russia violated it, would she order the shoot down of those Russian jets? I so want to

hear her answer on this.

[Scootaloo]

27. Well, that ought to be interesting n/t

[imagine2015]

30. Oh? Is she the "peace" candidate?

[winter is coming]

37. In San Diego? I doubt it. n/t

[grossproffit]

32. Awesome!

[JRLeft]

33. Clinton is just as incompetent in national security.

[BootinUp]

39. You seem to be in the minority with that opinion. nt

[GRhodes]

51. Among...

the head in the sand crowd? The people on TV, whose ideas are always golden? I want to sit at the cool kids table too!

[BootinUp]

55. World leaders, diplomats, POTUS, etc. nt

[jillan]

34. Oh goody! What country does she want to Libyaize next?

[applegrove]

35. Tunisia has a new Muslim president who decided peace was more

important than sharia law for the land. Does that mean Hillary gets credit for Tunisia?

[Chezboo]

48. Iran.

You know, to protect Israel. It's in those damn emails.

[BootinUp]

38. Let him have it Hillary nt

[Purveyor]

45. This right here, "foreign policy", is what scares the hell out of me re:Hillary. nt

[geek tragedy]

46. Bernie supporters at DU don't need to provide their feedback, everyone knows how they will

react to the speech before she gives it.

They will reject it in its entirety, say she is worse than Trump on foreign policy, and use the words "warmonger" and "Kissinger."

[Waiting For Everyman]

47. What could go wrong?

Proceed, Madame Secretary.

[jfern]

54. For supporting a no fly zone where Russian troops are flying?

For supporting regime change against Assad while he's fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda? For supporting deporting Honduran refugee children back to the deaths because they were treated poorly there?

Oh wait, those are all Hillary. Pot, meet kettle.

[applegrove]

56. Isis did not exist when Hillary was sos. Bush's de bathification set the stage

for that.

[jfern]

58. That's her position from the last year

As for Iraq, Hillary repeated every Bush administration lie when she voted for it, and against a diplomatic solution. Also, she publically opposed the surge while privately supporting it. So if anything, she's even more of a hawk than she lets on.

[jillan]

67. Don't forget about Haiti after the devastating earthquake.

It was a great money making opportunity for her cronies.




The world will hate us once again.

[AzDar]

57. Gonna discuss how many Foreign Governments hacked State Secrets via Hillary's Homegrown Horror?

[bjo59]

60. Wonder if she'll be honest about upcoming regime-change plans? Not likely, I guess.

[jillan]

68. Will Kissinger be standing beside her?

[pinebox]

73. Evetything Hillary could possibly say about Trump she has skeletons with

Literally.

She is going to call Trump "incompetent"? This is coming from someone who can't even secure her email and jeopardized the security of the country? God I hope Bernie is nominated.

[Fawke Em]

75. Is she going to out-neocon herself again?

Like she did at AIPAC? You know, where she basically ignored Palestinians and seemed to not consider them people.

I wasn't a fan of hers before that speech, but it was that speech (and her criminal investigation) that have made me detest her.

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. "I plan to start wars and make big bucks for my paymasters."

There's your tl;dr version...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Do you think that's a wee bit of a caricature?

I suspect her foreign /defense policy will mirror that of her husband: liberal realism, which is to be distinguished from neoconservativism or utopian pacifism.

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. A colossal oversimplification, to be sure.

But Clinton's record on these matters isn't confidence-inspiring to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Let me assure you... Her foreign/defense policy will be like her husband.

If she would have been elected in 08 she would have likely made Richard Holbrooke her SOS. He would have been a solid pick.

[bvf]

83. Nice. Says it all.

Anything more will be pure bullshit.

(To be shortly delivered by the truckload.)

[MoonRiver]

77. Can't wait to hear our future Commander in Chief!

[Jitter65]

79. She needs to do less slamming and much more about her FP vision and plans. nt

[DefenseLawyer]

88. Will she sing that old standby "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

Nah, I'm guessing they'll hold off on that until after California.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. Which country is "a business opportunity" now Hillary?

It's nice of her to give them a heads-up to get a head start on refugee-ing.

[jzodda]

91. Here is my problem with the UNFAIR coverage

and I would say this if it were HRC or Bernie....They give a good policy speech and hit Trump on all his constant position changes and 3rd grade foreign policy.

Trump then goes on TV with the insults. She's a loser, a crook and what not.

Then the media just wants to talk about what Trump says and drowns out what our side talked about

[applegrove]

94. I agree. Hillary gave an interview with CNN the other day. Then Trump goes out and

insults the press in the same newscycle and we don't hear about Hillary again that night.