Why is Hillary the war hawk when Sanders and Obama favor a virtually identical foreign policy?

[realmirage]

I like Hillary, Sanders, and Obama. The point of this post is to show that all three have nearly identical foreign policy stances, and voting records. But only one is getting the label of "war hawk." Why?

Here is one of the main myths about Hillary:

THE MYTH - She voted for the war in Iraq in 2001, but Sanders voted against it, so Hillary is more hawkish because of this and a supporter of regime change that destabilized Iraq and created ISIS.

THE REALITY - Sanders voted for the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" which says “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” That same year Sanders backed a resolution that stated "“Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

So twice he supported regime change in Iraq. Hillary voted for it once in 2001 (which she later admitted was a mistake). How are these two politicians different on Iraq in this instance? Sidenote- we don't know what Obama's stance would have been on these two 1998 policies because he wasn't a Senator until 2005.

Regarding the current war on ISIS, there is very little difference between the proposals put forth by Hillary, Sanders, and Obama. Please feel free to verify this by researching it. You'll find out this is actually true.

So, why is Hillary getting labels thrown at her that aren't being thrown at the others? Why always a separate standard for her?

[elleng]

1. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

Throughout her career she has displayed instincts
on foreign policy that are more aggressive than
those of President Obama — and most Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

[realmirage]

3. In what ways?

You tell me rather than googling an article

[elleng]

5. Read the article or don't,

it's up to you to learn.

For example:

'Gates laid out the case for diverting the George Washington to the Yellow Sea: that the United States should not look as if it was yielding to China. Clinton strongly seconded it. “We’ve got to run it up the gut!” she had said to her aides a few days earlier. (The Vince Lombardi imitation drew giggles from her staff, who, even 18 months into her tenure, still marveled at her pugnacity.)

Obama, though, was not persuaded. The George Washington was already underway; changing its course was not a decision to make on the fly.

“I don’t call audibles with aircraft carriers,” he said — unwittingly one-upping Clinton on her football metaphor.

It wasn’t the last debate in which she would side with Gates. The two quickly discovered that they shared a Midwestern upbringing, a taste for a stiff drink after a long day of work and a deep-seated skepticism about the intentions of America’s foes. Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence analyst who conducted Obama’s initial review on the Afghanistan war, says: “I think one of the surprises for Gates and the military was, here they come in expecting a very left-of-center administration, and they discover that they have a secretary of state who’s a little bit right of them on these issues — a little more eager than they are, to a certain extent. Particularly on Afghanistan, where I think Gates knew more had to be done, knew more troops needed to be sent in, but had a lot of doubts about whether it would work.”

As Hillary Clinton makes another run for president, it can be tempting to view her hard-edged rhetoric about the world less as deeply felt core principle than as calculated political maneuver. But Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.'

And you might note the article was posted here 10 days after you joined us: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016153182

[realmirage]

6. I read it when it was published, and it doesn't say what you think it says

Apart from citing one instance where the only difference between Obama and Hillary in their policy was that Hillary wanted to send a ship further up the sea, there is very, very little difference in their policies.

You're talking about minor differences on a handful of incidents within the larger conflicts that Obama, Sanders, and Hillary all support.

I know that because it's published by the New York Times, and it has a headline that implies hawkishness, you might think it's case closed- she's a hawk. But when you read the article it's heavy on innuendo and lean on specifics, and what it does offer as examples are nitpicking when you step back and consider all 3 support the larger conflicts themselves.

If Vietnam were happening today, and Obama, Hillary, and Sanders all supported it, but on one instance Hillary wanted to take a certain hill and Obama said no, that's not a good case for saying Hillary's a hawk and the others aren't when all 3 are supporting the war.

And in response to your statement, I do like to learn, and I hope you do as well. In this instance, I hope you did.

[elleng]

7. And you think I think it says what?

I attempted to provide information addressing the OP's question.

[realmirage]

10. I am the OP. I asked why she gets accused

of being a hawk when her policies are the same as Obama's and Sanders. The article you linked to doesn't at all help show why Hillary alone should get the label. It only cited a few disagreements over tactics within the larger conflicts that all 3 support.

[Chathamization]

16. If you read it, the article specifically shows instances where she was more hawkish than Obama

She had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000 (Obama went along with that, though he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic). She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it).

February 2009, aides to Obama proposed that the United States make some symbolic concessions to Russia as a gesture of its good will in resetting the relationship. Clinton, the last to speak, brusquely rejected the idea, saying, “I’m not giving up anything for nothing.”

“I think one of the surprises for Gates and the military was, here they come in expecting a very left-of-center administration, and they discover that they have a secretary of state who’s a little bit right of them on these issues — a little more eager than they are, to a certain extent."

elleng quoted yet another situation where this happened.

Most all of the foreign policy positions where she differed from Obama she was more hawkish than he was. In her Atlantic magazine interview, she said she disagreed with Obama on Syria because she would have armed the opposition early on. This was also a major theme of the 2008 primary campaign, where Obama not only criticized her for the Iraq war vote, but they showed sharp differences in their willingness to meet with certain nations without preconditions (Clinton criticizing Obama for his willingness to do so). I think the only position where Obama was more hawkish was his willingness to send forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden (Clinton criticized him for this).

[realmirage]

31. Let's look at those you picked.

About the 40,000 vs 30,000. Just before that they talked about Hillary rejecting the Iraq surge outright. It said she learned from that when the surge proved successful. The article calls her a "cold realist" who asks many questions and learns from past decisions. So to then say she's a hawk and Obama isn't because she thinks in once instance that an extra 10,000 is a strategically better option is ridiculous. We're talking about an overall war that Obama himself is in charge of, not Hillary, that he has continued to wage (because it is smart, btw) years after first being elected when he promised to end all these wars. You are quibbling over one instance of disagreement in a war that OBAMA is waging. Yet Hillary gets the hawk label.

Your 2nd quote actually makes Hillary look incredibly smart. She is saying that if Russia wants something, they should be willing to give something in exchange. That is operating from a place of strength. I think we have learned from the whole debacle in Ukraine that Hillary was absolutely right not to come off weak and not to trust Putin.

The last quote of yours doesn't give any specifics to support the innuendo, unless those specifics are the minor differences within the larger conflicts you cited earlier. And again, those differences are incredibly minor when you consider that Obama, Sanders, and Hillary all agree, with only slight differences, on the overall foreign policy in the Middle East today and for the last 8 years.

So again I ask, why does Hillary alone get the label? THINK ABOUT IT

[Chathamization]

37. Eh, again, you should probably read the article and pay attention to it

So to then say she's a hawk and Obama isn't because she thinks in once instance that an extra 10,000 is a strategically better option is ridiculous.

No, in one example she both wanted more troops than Obama and was opposed to stipulating an early date for them to leave ("he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic&quot . Which, yes, would make her more hawkish than Obama.

Yes, Obama was waging the war and not Clinton - he's the Commander-in-chief. To say that Clinton therefore can not be more hawkish than him is as ludicrous as saying that Lindsey Graham can't be more hawkish than Obama, because hey, Lindsey Graham only supports more war, but Obama actually wages them. That would be a pretty nutso argument to make, no?

You also seemed to have ignored the other two examples in the first quote:

- "She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country)."

- "And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it)."

You might think the second quote is a wiser decision or not, but it's certainly a more hawkish and less dovish one (or to use your words, "operating from a place of strength&quot .

elleng listed the example of the carrier deployment, and I also mentioned the differences between Clinton and Obama during the '08 election and her talking about how she disagreed with him in The Atlantic. You now have several examples where Clinton has been more hawkish than Obama with regards to foreign policy. This is the answer to your question. She is considered to be more of a hawk than Obama because in several situations she has held a more hawkish view than he has.

[JRLeft]

42. No fly zone in Syria, which puts us at odds with Russia. She still wants to arm Syrian rebels

and most have been proven to be jihadists.

[realmirage]

43. Read the thread before interjecting. I already explained the no-fly

She said she'd only be for it if Russia agreed.

Your Syria comment doesn't really make sense.

[JRLeft]

45. How about the fact she's never met a war she wasn't in favor of.

Just in October she wanted ground troops in Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/hillary-clinton-isis-strategy-ground-troops-airstrikes-no-fly-zone-syria

[realmirage]

46. Unless you understand what's going on in Syria I'm not getting into

a discussion on this topic with you. And that article is shit. Find an unbiased source to find out what her actual strategy is without all the bullshit attacks on her. Obama and Sanders favor virtually the same strategy as Hillary. But you wouldn't know that by reading articles written by Hillary haters.

Watch this if you want to understand what is going on there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/

[JRLeft]

47. LMFAO! I'm voting for Hillary let's pretend she doesn't have her issues that a lot people

who are voting for her disagree with.

[democrattotheend]

2. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was meaningless

It did not authorize military action to remove Saddam Hussein.

[realmirage]

4. How was it meaningless? And why support it if so?

[MaggieD]

8. Because Hillary is a woman

Or something.

[Beausoir]

9. Because she is a woman.

Doh.

[thesquanderer]

11. Have you been paying attention?

Iraq War Resolution.

Syria no fly zone.

Pushing for intervention in Libya when Obama was teetering.

Numerous saber-rattling speeches, more aggressive than what you'd hear from Obama or Sanders. (On Iran and the Palestinians, for example.)

In a situation with no clear path, she'd rather be "caught trying" rather than not doing anything. (see for example http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/american-foreign-policy-get-caught-trying/479376/ )

[realmirage]

20. You didn't read the entire OP did you.

Iraq war resolution - read my entire OP for the answer to this. She doesn't differ much from Sanders on this.

No fly zone - she always said she'd only enforce it if Russia was on board. The no-fly attack on hillary is a favorite for those who haven't read the details.

Libya - Obama actually ordered the intervention, he wasn't forced by anybody. He gave the order, so he owns the Libya situation, not Hillary. And Sanders mostly supported regime change as well as explained by politifact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/

The "saber-rattling" you refer to is the usual overly general, unsupported Hillary attack so no need to respond there...

Are you starting to see why labeling Hillary a hawk and not the others is ridiculous, and yet another smear on a Clinton?

[thesquanderer]

36. I did read the OP.

IMO you are plain wrong in trying to equate the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" with the IWR, as has been discussed here in the past. It's an old talking point that was false then and is false now. As for the IWR, Hillary voted for it, and a number of people voted against it, yes even people who voted for the ILA. And she didn't just vote for it, watch the speech, she championed it, she wanted to be a persuasive voice for others as well. I'm not knocking Hillary here, I'm just pointing out that, contrary to your OP, these positions are not equivalent.

She is in favor of a no-fly zone for Syria. Of course it can only be done with cooperation of other countries. The point is, she supports it.

Of course she didn't force Obama's hand on Libya. But he was in the middle, and was counting on his advisors to convince him one way or the other. Clinton successfully helped persuade him to her more hawkish perspective, well described in that NYT article.

The saber-rattling is well represented in old threads and on youtube. I don't need to be your researcher. Look for them if you want.

Look, I'm voting for Hillary, but to say she isn't more hawkish than many other Dems is not something I'm buying, and your "evidence" is far from compelling. People who preferred Sanders less hawkish inclination are largely going to vote for Hillary despite her hawkish leanings. I think Hillary people will have more success saying "thanks for supporting us, even though she's a bit more hawkish than you'd like" rather than trying to convince them of some fiction.

[Chathamization]

38. Rightwingers have been trying to equate the two as well. Politifact ruled it "mostly false"

Excerpt:

The meme cites the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton did sign that law, which passed with just 38 dissenters in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law said it "should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

However, the methods of regime change mentioned in the law are U.S. support for home-grown anti-Hussein movements, including humanitarian aid, broadcasting assistance and military goods and training. The recipients of such aid would need to include "a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime" and be "committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime."

That’s a big difference from Bush’s decision to use military force to attack and enter Iraq and topple Hussein by force.

Not really sure why anyone would want to be spreading this kind of disinformation.

[Exilednight]

12. Regime change comes in many forms.

Voting to send troops in versus voting for supporting regime change are two different things.

Many governments in the Middle-East fell during the Arab Spring without a shot being fired, nor the use of US troops, and we supported those regime changes.

Forcefully removing a regime is not necessarily regime change, that's just overthrowing a government and invading a foreign country with no replacement in the wings.

[realmirage]

21. I'm not sure which conflict you are referring to.

[Orsino]

13. Her record ought to be confronted rather than ignored. n/t

[realmirage]

22. Did you read the OP? Obama and Sanders share virtually identical foreign policies.

So if you are going to confront her policies, you are also confronting those of Obama and Sanders.

[Orsino]

41. The OP is stupid spin that fails at painting Sanders as another hawk. n/t

[baldguy]

14. Because anything any Clinton does is automatically evil.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. And if there is any good

whatsoever attributed to her, it only came about because her primary challenger made her do it.

[Eric J in MN]

15. The Iraq Liberation Act authorized funding democratic groups.

The Iraq War Resolution authorized war.

Big difference.

[realmirage]

24. He voted twice in the same year supporting regime change.

Whether it gave immediate authorization or not, the fact he agreed says a lot. Also, his current policy on the middle east conflicts is the same as Obama's and Hillary's. And he has supported many of our wars before Iraq, if you want that list.

There's no "big" difference here, as you say, in the policies of Obama, Sanders, and Hillary.

[LexVegas]

17. Because they are males and held to a different standard. nt

[DawgHouse]

18. Exactly right

[realmirage]

25. Yes, and they don't have the last name Clinton, which blocks some people from absorbing facts.

They see that name and all reason goes out the window. The GOP has done a good job of planting that seed in many people.

[rgbecker]

19. Jesus, I'm otta here.

I can't believe the responses to this thread. Are people living on different planets?

[realmirage]

26. If you'd like to be more specific, and offer facts as rebuttals, please do so.

[Vattel]

23. No wonder Clinton won. Apparently people believed garbage like this.

[realmirage]

27. If you don't have facts to explain why the OP is wrong, your insulting contributions are worthless.

[Tal Vez]

28. I like to think that all of them have learned something in 15 years.

I know that I have.

[realmirage]

29. I think they have.

[liberal N proud]

30. It fits haters rhetoric

Justifies their hate.

[realmirage]

32. Bingo

[uponit7771]

33. Hillary's a woman... different standard for her

[CrowCityDem]

34. Because many supporters don't know Bernie's history, and don't want to.

[RAFisher]

39. Clinton voted for the Iraq War, Sanders didn't. Next question.

And you're information is wrong. There was no 2001 Iraq vote. It was in October 2002. You also conveniently ignored that Sander didn't even vote for the first Persian Gulf War.

It's comical that people on this tread are saying it's a double stander because Clinton is a woman.

[Buzz cook]

40. This is just refighting the primary. nt

nt