Clinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency

[portlander23]

Clinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency
Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post

Hillary Clinton’s recent foreign policy speech was an attack on Donald Trump but was also a reminder that Clinton is a deeply flawed and worrisome candidate. Her record as Secretary of State was one of the worst in modern US history; her policies have enmeshed America in new Middle East wars, rising terrorism, and even a new Cold War with Russia. Of the three leading candidates, only Bernie Sanders has the sound judgment to avoid further war and to cooperate with the rest of the world.

Clinton is intoxicated with American power. She has favored one war of choice after the next: bombing Belgrade (1999); invading Iraq (2003); toppling Qaddafi (2011); funding Jihadists in Syria (2011 till now). The result has been one bloodbath after another, with open wounds until today fostering ISIS, terrorism, and mass refugee flows.

In her speech, Clinton engaged in her own Trump-like grandiose fear mongering: “If America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum - and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety - and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.”

This kind of arrogance - that America and America alone must run the world - has led straight to overstretch: perpetual wars that cannot be won, and unending and escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and others that make the world more dangerous. It doesn’t seem to dawn on Clinton that in today’s world, we need cooperation, not endless bravado.

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, not only offers a vastly better economic program than Clinton, but also a foreign policy based on wisdom, decency, and especially restraint. As a result, the American people trust Sanders rather than Clinton. She wins the closed primaries while he wins the open ones, that is, primaries that include the independent voters who will decide the November elections.

[Jitter65]

1. HA! nt

[Octafish]

32. Columbia Professor of the University: ''Hillary is the candidate of the war machine.''

Words of wisdom:

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine

by Jeffrey D. Sachs
Common Dreams, Feb. 5, 2016

There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman's collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.

Yet Hillary's connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

SNIP...

Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."

CONTINUED w/links...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/05/hillary-candidate-war-machine

Wars without end. Amen.

[CorporatistNation]

43. Hillary Clearly Is A FERVENT PROPONENT OF AMERICAN "EXCEPTIONALISM!" Very Republicanesque?

Hillary is a "tool" of the Oligarchy... and cannot be relied upon to represent the average American in any way, manner, shape or form...

And she has a great aversion to ... TELLING THE GD TRUTH!

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

[noiretextatique]

52. and she still has the support of democrats

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

which begs the question: what propaganda campaign has been more successful? the 30+ year rw conspiracy or the 30+ year DLC/3rd way/New Democrat conspiracy?

[EndElectoral]

55. Not this Democrat.

[Get.Real.Now]

64. Obviously a victory sign and not a peace sign?

We are in trouble unless Bernie somehow pulls of a win.

[SidDithers]

2. Get 'em in while you still can...nt

Sid

[George II]

21. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....

[Ghost Dog]

31. You would have Professor Sachs censored at DU as from what date, Sid?

... And on what grounds?

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He has twice been named among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time Magazine “the world’s best known economist.” A recent survey by The Economist Magazine ranked Professor Sachs as among the world’s three most influential living economists of the past decade.

Professor Sachs serves as the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He is co-founder and Chief Strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, and is director of the Millennium Villages Project. Sachs is also one of the Secretary-General’s MDG Advocates, and a Commissioner of the ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Development. He has authored three New York Times bestsellers in the past seven years: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011). ). His most recent book is To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace (2013).

Professor Sachs is widely considered to be one of the world’s leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty. His work on ending poverty, promoting economic growth, fighting hunger and disease, and promoting sustainable environmental practices, has taken him to more than 125 countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s population. For more than a quarter century he has advised dozens of heads of state and governments on economic strategy, in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Sachs is the recipient of many awards and honors, including membership in the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Society of Fellows, and the Fellows of the World Econometric Society. He has received more than 20 honorary degrees, and many awards and honors around the world. Professor Sachs is also a frequent contributor to major publications such as the Financial Times of London, the International Herald Tribune, Scientific American, and Time magazine.

Prior to joining Columbia, Sachs spent over twenty years at Harvard University, most recently as Director of the Center for International Development and the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade. A native of Detroit, Michigan, Sachs received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/author/jeffrey-sachs

Edit: Nb. Sid, in my experience, never replies nor debates...

[Matt_R]

60. Sid is Canadian and does not vote in our elections. n/t

[disillusioned73]

67. lol..

that iz.. Hillarious

[Matt_R]

68. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I read that on DU years before Clinton started running. So correct me if I'm wrong.

[SamKnause]

3. Our country needs drastic change.

We are being dragged back to the 1950's.

Pragmatism and moving to the right is the wrong path for this country.

We need to gain all we have lost and move forward rapidly.

The needs and the wants of the 99% must take precedent over the

needs and the wants of the 1%.

[Trust Buster]

4. Her foreign policy speech was excellent. She pointed out what a loose cannon Trump would be.

Sanders was a conscientious objector and ,therefore, disqualified from being Commander in Chief IMO.

[merrily]

5. Sanders was not a conscientious objector. He applied, never got it. Ali went to jail for objecting.

God forbid people take a morally-driven stand against a war?

[Trust Buster]

7. They are free to take that stand. I didn't question that. But, that disqualifies them from being the

Comnander in Chief IMO. Military action is necessary at times. A conscientious objector cannot be responsible for such decisions by definition.

[merrily]

9. I'd rather a CIC who took a moral stand against a war than one who advocated for an immoral war.

And, again, Sanders never got conscientious objector status. Was never a draft dodger, either.

[Trust Buster]

11. Sometimes war is unavoidable as was the case after 911. No place for a conscientious objector

to be Commander in Chief in such circumstances. Sanders' intent was to be a protest candidate. He is not Commander in Chief material.

[merrily]

13. Bull puckies. The Iraq war, like the Vietnam War, was eminently avoidable.

Commander in Chief material is the one who makes better decisions about wars of choice.

[Trust Buster]

20. The direct result of 911 was the war in Afghanistan. A sloppy dodge on your part. That is an

example where a conscientious objector would have no business being the Commander in Chief IMO.

[merrily]

24. Sanders had no moral objection to the Afghanistan War. He voted for it. So, I have no clue

what your point is. And again, he was never a conscientious objector, only an aboveboard applicant for that status because of moral objection to that particular war (Vietnam).

My personal opinion is that the Afghanistan War was also eminently avoidable but that has nothing to do with Sanders. Again, he voted for it.

[Trust Buster]

25. He was a conscientious objector and, therefore, unfit to be Commander in Chief.

[Arazi]

39. Lol, say it over and over. Still isn't true and makes you look like a bot

[merrily]

46. Both parts of your statement are false and you know that very well at least as to the first

part. Yet, you continue to post it. What does that make you fit for?

[bvar22]

59. A Hillary supporter.

That is about all.

[Lord Magus]

33. By definition a conscientious objector opposes ALL war, not just a specific one.

Sometimes war is unfortunately necessary, and as such a pacifist is almost as unsuitable as a warmonger for the job of commander-in-chief.

[merrily]

34. Bernie has said it was the Vietnam War, not all wars.

He said it many times, including during a Democratic Presidential debate. I think it was the first one, but I cannot swear to that. I know of no rational reason to doubt his word, inasmuch as he has voted for other wars.

I don't know how US law defined the term "conscientious objector" during the Vietnam Era, do you? In any event, he was never granted the status and he never either dodged the draft or deserted. He simply did not get either a decision or a draft notice. M

[Lord Magus]

35. In that case, he's very lucky to have not been drafted.

Because he didn't qualify under the law for conscientious objector status. I'm quite certain that it's never been granted on the grounds of believing a specific war is immoral.

[merrily]

37. Again, do you know what the statuory definition was during the Vietnam era?

In any event, that was many decades ago and he clearly does not object to all wars now, so I am not sure what actual point you are trying to make?

I don't think Hillary supporters can keep posting about Bernie's war votes, then claim, very falsely, that he is today a conscientious objector under today's definition. Nor can they claim Hillary can "evolve" on issue after issue, but Bernie is stuck with every position he held in the 1960s. Well, obviously they can, because they constantly do, but it is not honest.

[WhiteTara]

41. Of course he objected to the Vietnam war...he was

being drafted!

[merrily]

45. Um, no. He was not being drafted. He was never drafted. And most people agree that the

Vietnam War was very different morally from,say, World War II.

Sanders did not dodge the draft or desert, as many did, including former Presidents, nor did he move to Canada, as did so many. He simply applied for something he had every right to apply for and took his chances at being drafted while he waited for a decision. And, again, that was many decades ago, about the same time as Hillary was President of College Republicans at her college.

There's no need or justification for anyone to lie about what actually happened, neither the defenders of Sanders, nor the detractors of Sanders.

You might try actually reading the post to which you are purporting to reply before you simply repeat the same untrue statement that the post to which you are supposedly replying already addressed.

[WhiteTara]

50. He had a draft number and when his CO appeals were finally

rejected, he had reached the age of 26 and was too old. He has voted for other wars and other people's children to go fight them.

[merrily]

66. I don't know if he had a draft number or not and neither do you. You don't know if he appealed,

either. All we know is that he applied and he did not get drafted or get a decision. And, I believe, but am not certain, that deferments or appeals would have extended the time of his eligibility beyond the minimum cut off age, anyway.

However, if he did have a number, his number simply was not called in the lottery. That would have had zero to do with appeals. It was also not Sanders' fault that the government took a long time to decide his case. All we know is that he was never drafted. Please don't post things that are not true or make up things to fill in what you don't know in an effort to make Sanders look worse. That would be ugly. Either way, he has had better judgment than Hillary about voting to send other people's children to war.

Speaking of which, double standards suck scissors, too. As I stated in a prior post, it was a long time ago, the time when Hillary was President of College Republicans at one of the then most liberal colleges in the nation and Hillary supporters keep saying she was too young to be accountable for that--and besides, she's "evolved." Well, she's not the only one who can evolve. Moreover, only one person in the group of four below served--and that was World War II and even he did his best to keep his deserter son out of Vietnam. Yet three of them have been President and the fourth thinks she should be and you agree with her.

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[EndElectoral]

58. Where in the Constitution does it say a CO status prohibits one for being President?

[Autumn]

17. Getting a student deferment is so much more aceptable than being a conscientious objector

to republicans. Taking a morally-driven stand against a war is just wrong in their eyes.

[merrily]

19. Some Presidents deserted and/or dodged the draft behind scenes.

Bernie aboveboard applied for a status that U.S. laws offer, but he never received it. So, he was never a conscientious objector or a deserter or a draft dodger, but a legal applicant for a legal status/

[Autumn]

22. Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft, got a deferment and I respected him on that.

Only republicans whine that avoiding wars disqualifies a person from being the Commander in Chief.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/skeletons/draft.shtml

Clinton's Draft Deferrment
Only republicans whine that avoiding war disqualifies a person from being Commander in Chief.

In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve -- however, Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft prior to entering it.

First, Bill Clinton received education deferments while at Georgetown and Oxford (where he helped organize demonstrations against the war). Second, Clinton attempted to avoid the draft for four years by enrolling, but never joining, the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). Clinton had enrolled in the ROTC hoping to avoid military service for four years, but, wanting a future in politics, had a change of heart and entered the draft.

In December 1969, safe from the draft with his high lottery number, Clinton changed his mind about joining the ROTC program and wrote a letter to the director of the ROTC program thanking him "for saving me from the draft" and regretted misleading him by not revealing the extent of his opposition to the war. The letter was leaked by the Pentagon to ABC news early in the 1992 fueled criticism of candidate Clinton's character.

Later in the 1992 campaign, it became known that Clinton's uncle had attempted to get Bill Clinton a Navy Reserve assignment during the Vietnam war. Clinton said he didn't know anything about it to the press on September 3, 1992 but a day later admitted that a former draft board
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/skeletons/draft.shtml

[merrily]

27. In my personal opinion, someone who took a public stand against an immoral war,

as did Ali, is more deserving of respect than someone who deserted, like Bush, or maneuvered behind the scenes to get himself out of harm's way without risking a public stand, either. At that point, one can question the motives--moral conviction or personal safety? That said, I am more than fine with Carter's grant of amnesty.

[Autumn]

28. My opinion also.

[EndElectoral]

57. Ali was for arrested failing to register or be inducted I believe.

I think his CO application was rejected.

[merrily]

65. I don't know and I don't feel like googling. I just hope a man of conviction is resting in peace.

[Scuba]

6. The PNAC Candidate.

[BobbyDrake]

8. I don't think it's possible for the Huffington Post to embarrass itself any further.

The staff writer they sent to the Bernie campaign, Seth Abramson, became a deranged true believer, unable to report critically on the campaign to which he was assigned. Recently, he admitted posting open lies in the hope that those lies would become the "meta-narrative" instead of the truth.

[merrily]

10. God forbid there were a few media stories that did not tear down Sanders. The horror!

[BobbyDrake]

12. You don't have to "tear down Sanders" to report the truth. HP made a choice to lie in support

of Bernie Sanders, and they can live with the consequences to their reputation.

[merrily]

14. Many media outlets online and in RL have discredited themselves on behalf of Hillary.

[CobaltBlue]

26. BobbyDrake—Hillary loves war! The neocons agree with her.

[reformist2]

36. Why don't you attack Jeffrey Sachs directly? He's the author.

[brooklynite]

15. Jeffrey Sachs was the guy who told Bernie it was a good use of $500,000 to go to Rome?

[Surya Gayatri]

16. Jeffrey who? Oh, yeah, that guy who set up the "Roman Holiday"

and who helped St. Bernard ambush the Pope.

Now, I remember. And, I should listen to this shill why exactly?

[Ghost Dog]

48. See #31. n/t

[icecreamfan]

18. Well said Jeffrey Sachs. nt.

Even Obama administration officials call Clinton's Syria "no-fly zone" (US imposed regime change) plan nuts.

[JoePhilly]

23. Going out of business sale!!! All outrages MUST GO!!!!

[BootinUp]

29. What a bunch of fucking nonsense. When are you going to call out Bernie

for every thing HE has done to support any use of the military or building of the military force.

Clinton's views are mainstream and bi-partisan on foreign policy and that is the best approach to foreign policy. Contrary to the way she is smeared by the far left, WE WOULD NOT have invaded Iraq in 2003 if it was up to her. The fact is she could do nothing to stop it. She attempted to show the country that Democrats were not against forcing Saddam to allow full and unimpeded inspections and that is what the country at that time wanted.

Additionally the far left ignores the very positive aspects of her foreign policy views, like strong support for human rights, strong support for access to the internet for all people, and perhaps most importantly, working with allies and the UN to use sanctions and other tools before considering the use of the military.

Another cold war with Russia? That's preposterous because Russia today is a far far cry from what the Soviet Union and block was. The United States should be careful NOT to let THAT happen again by using carrots and sticks when necessary. The people of the former Soviet satellite countries want to join NATO. They want their freedom of choice and we should support that with diplomacy and smart power. Smart power is not using it when it doesn't make sense.

[Nyan]

30. Cannot rec this enough.

Jeffrey Sachs is absolutely right on with everything he said here. Very well written.

[99Forever]

38. Endless war, corporate sacking of the working class...

... propping up of the corrupt banksters, lying about almost everything, cheating to win, hiding her real agenda from public scutiny.

^^^THIS IS HILLARY CLINTON AND HER VALUES.^^^

[Arazi]

40. Yup, right on

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. But...but...didn't you see all those flags behind her??? K&R

[Octafish]

47. Darkest of History Ahead

14 Points of Fascism

I know you know, but for those new to the subject:

"They have pillaged the world. When the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy; if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire'. They make a desert and call it 'peace'." -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus - a historian of the Roman Empire

I know you know, but for children:

"There is a transnational ruling class, a "Superclass", that agrees on establishing a world government. The middle class is targeted for elimination, because most of the world has no middle class, and to fully integrate and internationalize a middle class, would require industrialization and development in Africa, and certain places in Asia and Latin America. The goal of the Superclass is not to lose their wealth and power to a transnational middle class, but rather to extinguish the notion of a middle class, and transnationalize a lower, uneducated, labor oriented class, through which they will secure ultimate wealth and power.

The global economic crisis serves these ends, as whatever remaining wealth the middle class holds is in the process of being eliminated, and as the crisis progresses, the middle classes of the world will suffer, while a great percentage of lower classes of the world, poverty-stricken even prior to the crisis, will suffer the greatest, most probably leading to a massive reduction in population levels, particularly in the "underdeveloped" or "Third World" states." -- Andrew Gavin Marshall

SOURCE (WARNING: Graphic Images): http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

[Faux pas]

44. K N R-ed

[noiretextatique]

49. Democrat means nothing anymore

In terms of fiscal and foreign policy thanks to the DLC/3rd way/New Democrats.

[jamese777]

51. The Numbers

Primaries popular vote as of June 4th
Hillary Clinton: 13,259,842 (55.4%)
Bernie Sanders: 10,225,032 (42.7%)

Clinton over Sanders: 3,034,811

Hillary Clinton: 1,775 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,502 pledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 522 Superdelegates
Bernie Sanders: 43 Superdelegates

Hillary Clinton: 2,298 total delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,543 total delegates

Hillary Clinton: 28 contests won
Bernie Sanders: 21 contests won

Hillary Clinton needs 85 delegates.
Bernie Sanders needs 840 delegates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

[Duppers]

56. Only proving how easily people can be deceived.

Those superdelegates were pledged before Bernie entered the race.

And just how did Bernie fare in the states that can be won in the general?!

Hillary will not carry that block group of southern states in the general. Mark my word!

[stillwaiting]

53. HRC should not use the words "trust me". Ever.

It will not get people that do not trust her to begin doing so. Quite the contrary.

[Duppers]

54. Recommended and Kicked to the Max!!

Bravado indeed.

The party bosses have made a poor choice backing her.

[JEB]

61. K&R

Enlist now, cannon fodder needed for the empire. Sign your kids up too.

[KoKo]

62. Thank you Jeffrey....'tis TRUE!

's

[AzDar]

63. K & R