2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton’s Speech Shows that Only Sanders is Fit for the Presidency
Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post
Hillary Clintons 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 doesnt lead, we leave a vacuum - and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then theyll 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 doesnt seem to dawn on Clinton that in todays 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
(3,089 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)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
(2,546 posts)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
(27,275 posts)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
(4,213 posts)Get.Real.Now
(10 posts)We are in trouble unless Bernie somehow pulls of a win.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
George II
(67,782 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)... And on what grounds?
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-Generals 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: JFKs Quest for Peace (2013).
Professor Sachs is widely considered to be one of the worlds 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 worlds 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
(456 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)that iz.. Hillarious
Matt_R
(456 posts)I read that on DU years before Clinton started running. So correct me if I'm wrong.
SamKnause
(13,087 posts)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
(7,299 posts)Sanders was a conscientious objector and ,therefore, disqualified from being Commander in Chief IMO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)God forbid people take a morally-driven stand against a war?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Comnander in Chief IMO. Military action is necessary at times. A conscientious objector cannot be responsible for such decisions by definition.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, again, Sanders never got conscientious objector status. Was never a draft dodger, either.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)to be Commander in Chief in such circumstances. Sanders' intent was to be a protest candidate. He is not Commander in Chief material.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Commander in Chief material is the one who makes better decisions about wars of choice.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)example where a conscientious objector would have no business being the Commander in Chief IMO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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
(7,299 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)part. Yet, you continue to post it. What does that make you fit for?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)That is about all.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)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
(45,251 posts)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
(1,999 posts)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
(45,251 posts)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
(29,692 posts)being drafted!
merrily
(45,251 posts)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
(29,692 posts)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
(45,251 posts)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. Kuwaita member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nationswas 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
(4,213 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)to republicans. Taking a morally-driven stand against a war is just wrong in their eyes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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
(44,972 posts)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
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
(45,251 posts)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
(44,972 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I think his CO application was rejected.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)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
(45,251 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)of Bernie Sanders, and they can live with the consequences to their reputation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)brooklynite
(94,302 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)and who helped St. Bernard ambush the Pope.
Now, I remember. And, I should listen to this shill why exactly?
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)icecreamfan
(115 posts)Even Obama administration officials call Clinton's Syria "no-fly zone" (US imposed regime change) plan nuts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)BootinUp
(47,053 posts)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
(1,192 posts)Jeffrey Sachs is absolutely right on with everything he said here. Very well written.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... 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
(6,829 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)I know you know, but for those new to the subject:
I know you know, but for children:
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
(14,643 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)In terms of fiscal and foreign policy thanks to the DLC/3rd way/New Democrats.
jamese777
(546 posts)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
(28,117 posts)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
(3,795 posts)It will not get people that do not trust her to begin doing so. Quite the contrary.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Bravado indeed.
The party bosses have made a poor choice backing her.
Enlist now, cannon fodder needed for the empire. Sign your kids up too.