Clinton address to Brookings not neocon

[HassleCat]

Here is a link to the transcript of Hillary Clinton's address to the Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2015/09/09-clinton-iran/20150909_clinton_iran_transcript.pdf

It's not full of chickenhawk stuff. Clinton is trying to adopt a posture that's very supportive of Israel and not offensive to the other countries in the region. There is a lot of talk about what a bad, bad boy Iran has been, and will continue to be, but Clinton doesn't threaten to blow them off the map or anything like that. The overall tone of the speech leans toward a sort of cold war containment strategy, positioning US military assets to protect our interests, etc. But there are no "If they do this, we will bomb them" type threats. It's not a neocon position, more of a cold war approach favored by both parties for so many years.

Cold war foreign policy may resemble neocon foreign policy in basic approach, but the extremes to which the neocons are willing to go really sets them apart. Keep in mind, these are the people who made up evidence to justify invading another country and spending a trillion dollars to kill half a million Iraqis, not to mention 4,000 of our own people. These re the people who hang on every word coming from Dick Cheney. Yes, Clinton's foreign policy might represent something of a throwback, a sort of devolution from what we have under Obama, but it's nothing like what we would get from a neocon like GW Bush, or maybe his brother Jeb.

[Trajan]

1. I've made my judgments of Hillary long ago

Her right wingy statements do not surprise me ... She can't help it - she is centrist at best ...

[bunnies]

2. "I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."

'Nuff said.

[oasis]

4. Do we have to wait until the debates to see where Bernie's stands on the issue?

[bunnies]

5. No. Unlike Hillary, Bernie makes himself clear.

Military intervention would be his LAST resort.

[oasis]

7. Clear? Hmmm I guess that would depend on what he meant

by "last resort".

[bunnies]

9. Its a pretty common phrase.

Im surprised you havent heard it before.

[oasis]

11. Let's forget Bernie for the moment. What does the phrase

mean to you?

[bunnies]

12. Last resort...

as in when all other options are exhausted.

[oasis]

14. Do you think Bernie is the only candidate,

democrat or GOP, who has that policy?

[bunnies]

15. I'd guess not.

But we're talking about Hillary in particular here. One who "wont hesitate" to start another endless war. No thank you.

[oasis]

16. Bernie would never accuse her of that but

at least you've expressed how you feel.

Thanks.

[oasis]

3. Hill's not the "hawk" the some here make her out to be.

She's going to be firm with America's foes, you can bet on it.

[GitRDun]

6. You have to pick one...

You can't be

very supportive of Israel and not offensive to the other countries in the region.

Netanyahu is a bigot..to me it has only been our President who has been even handed enough to show the world who Netanyahu really is...

I won't say yet this is a deal killer for me, but it's a big negative. A lot of the ill will towards the US in the Middle East has its roots in America's blind support of Israel. If a more moderate leader was running Israel, I wouldn't see it as such a high risk proposition.

[tularetom]

8. You can try to polish that turd any way you want to

but that speech was full of code words and dog whistles aimed at appeasing centrist and independent voters in the general election and at keeping that AIPAC money flowing.

"Distrust and verify" my ass. She's dying to bomb Iran to show how macho she is.

[hifiguy]

10. Yep.

Thatcheritis. She would have the country in another boots-on-the-ground shooting war within a year of taking the oath of office.

Nope. Nope.

[Hortensis]

13. Of course not. Neocons despised her for spending so much time as SecState

repairing and redeveloping working relations with other nations, as well as working toward stabilizing troubled nations through encouraging development of sustainable agriculture, clean and adequate water supplies, lowering birth rates through jobs development, improving healthcare and education, and on and on.

For so many neocons and paleos, the very word diplomacy is regarded with contempt, a loser's word that rejects the concept (of God's intention) that Exceptional America should dictate terms for the world, and takes what it wants from it. They were dangerous when they got us mired in the Korean War, the Cold War and its Mutually Assured Destruction, the Vietnam War, and the second Iraq war -- and they're dangerous now.

All of those ground wars failed miserably to achieve their goals at best and were routs at worst, but they don't care. A ground war in Iran, facing ultimately an unending influx of fighters from the planet's 1.5 billion Muslims, might be worse than all those put together, could even lead to WWIII, but they don't care. For them, settling for anything less than Iran's complete capitulation to our might is defeat.

We must not let the GOP win in 2016.

[HassleCat]

17. (sing it with me) Feelings, nothing more than feelings

I know many of us have the hunch that Hillary Clinton wants to start a war with some small nation to prove she's tough. Maybe so. I really don't know. I think she may take a more aggressive stance on some foreign policy issues than Obama has taken. This speech does suggest that, I admit. But she said she supports the agreement, and she did not make any neocon threats or promises. This talk of code words and dog whistles is feelings, personal hunches, etc. I have some of these reservations about Clinton, but there is no solid evidence to suggest my discomfort is anything more than a vague uneasiness about Third Way Democrats.