Just what exactly is "the new war", Senator Clinton?

[kpete]

Just what exactly is "the new war", Senator Clinton?
by clammyc
Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 07:03:53 AM PDT

Note: This will probably piss off the ardent Hillary supporters, and it should. However, it should because of the hard right turn on neoconservative foreign policy issues and the threat of more vague war as well as the cover she is providing for the continuation of a failed and deadly policy by this administration. Let’s hope that there is some objectivity here as opposed to the "knee jerk freeper like sexist" strawman name calling that I have endured in the past for criticism of her words and policies.


I have thought Senator Clinton has done a pretty good job in the Senate. I say this as a New Yorker who saw some of the things she has done over the past six years for the state. I have also long thought that she would not make a good leader as far as President of the United States. There are a number of reasons why, some personal, some policy, some perception and some because of who she associates with. That is not to detract from her being a very capable Senator, but in this time in history, I feel we need a strong leader that "gets it", especially with respect to this country’s priorities and our foreign policy role around the world.


Comments like this one that she made the other day about "things working in Iraq but only years too late in changing our tactics" and "we can’t be fighting the last war, we have to be preparing to fight the new war" are two of the most recent and most egregious examples of why Senator Clinton doesn’t "get it" on so many levels and is increasingly showing why she is not nearly the best candidate to lead this country through the next few, very difficult and trying years.


So, Senator – what exactly did you mean by "the new war"? I think We the People have a right to know just what war you have in store for this nation if you are to be trusted as our leader? Does the "new war" call for meddling and sticking your nose into another country’s political process and call for the removal of that leader, as you have recently (and so wrongfully done) about al-Maliki? If you are so interested in removing a country’s leader – especially one that has repeatedly failed to do right by that country, why not start right here in the US? Or is that not "politically feasible" for you?

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/26/1029/00865

[dipsydoodle]

1. "Preparing to fight the new war",

an appropriate motto for Hillary Clinton's New Republican Party - Original Flavour Guaranteed.

[crikkett]

2. I won't vote for a person who says 'war' so casually

unless it is always prefaced by some form of the word 'end'

Everybody's getting tired of all this killing and it's hurting the economy. There's no good reason for any of the wars we're waging. (double-duh, but it bears repeating).

[earthlover]

32. I prefer Bill's "casual flings" to Hillary's "casual war"...

We already had a "casual war" in Iraq, which Hillary supported by the way.

War. Is. Hell.

[kurth]

3. That's a secret between her and her neocon friends

[mod mom]

11. DLC-PNAC (neocon) direct ties:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

Populism is a political doctrine or philosophy that purports to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite. In their 2007 volume Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as "an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice".

Recent scholarship has discussed populism as a rhetorical style; as such, the term "populist" may be applied to proponents of widely varying political philosophies. Leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, while some populists claim to be neither "left wing," "centrist" nor "right wing."<1><2><3><4><5><6><7><8>

Leaders of populist movements have variously tried to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, fight for the "poor people of the country", and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes espouses, especially among the right wing varieties, nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism.<1> Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority of the people. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers or simply "the poor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

[Windy]

17. Frankly, this information has sealed it for me

anyone who would rely upon a member of PNAC should be run out of washington!

[Raven]

4. I would love to see a good woman in the WH but, sadly, not HC.

As far as I can tell, she has never denounced this war, she has merely criticized Bush's conduct of it. I agree with you that her comments about preparing to fight the new war were frightening. As a nation, we need to be talking about a "new peace"...that would be novel!

[rurallib]

5. I have a friend who has fought on the forefront of women's issues

for 40 years. She announced for Obama the other day.
After a local appearance by Hillary, my friend called me up and screamed in the phone "I have fought 40 years to have a woman have a legitimate chance to be president. And THIS is what I get???"

[Hepburn]

7. Yep.....

....this libber who came to age in the 1960s and fought like hell for equal rights for women feels the same way about HRC. She disgusts me.

[MODemocrat]

31. No one that I know has fought 40 years for women's rights

Being fairly young back then, women were lucky to even get a job, especially one that paid as
much as their male counterparts. I know firsthand it just didn't happen; because my husband was
bedfast, and I had three children to support; all that was available to me was a damned clerical
position paying $1.75 per hour even though I had the skills; so there's no way in the world a woman would even be considered for the presidency back that long ago; after all, a lot of men didn't even like the idea of women voting for president. To Republicans, women are nothing, and they're against
womens' rights.

:evilgrin: :crazy: This is for you Hillary. :hug:

[earthlover]

33. So we should judge Hillary based on her SEX? Isn't that sexist?

[Deja Q]

16. Granted, she has a point about war...

But with lack of ideas for taking care of problems here at home, she can call herself She-Ra, Wonder Woman, ElectraWoman, Jaime Summers, Jane Dixon, Marie Antoinette, or Michael Knight for all I care.

[acmavm]

6. Why would anyone be surprised that Hils is so, um, REPUBLICAN?

What's her biggest 'asset'?

Answer: Her husband. (So many people here and throughout the Democratic party either don't understand or refuse to look at the true nature of Poopy's fourth son Billy.)

Not that her opponent Barrie is any better. But she's just been stupid enough to confirm people's worst fears about her.

Now that I think of it, so has the other guy.

[TwilightGardener]

8. She needs to make it clear that the war is wrong (NOT just conducted wrong), it's going to end

very soon and there won't be another one under her watch unless we are attacked. I don't hear that from her. God spare us.

[youngdem]

9. It's Iran silly. She's an AIPAC, DLC shill, don't you forget.

HRC becomes more and more unpalatable as the nominee every time she opens her DINO mouth.

Disgusting.

With Dems like this, who needs Repukes?

[superkia]

35. No matter what she says her supporters will stick with her

like it were their favorite sports team or something? Does anyone that follows her know what she meant by her comment? Maybe she has explained it in emails or websites where her supporters follow her at? I would really like to hear what she has said about it because I don't know what it meant and I wouldn't want to vote for more Bush style politics if thats what it was.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. "The new war" bothers me on more than one level.

The common wisdom is that the military is always preparing to fight the last war, rather than the next war. Hillary says we should be preparing to fight the "new" war. Does she mean the current war, the so-called war on terror? It's pretty clear we were well prepared to fight Gulf 1 - no matter that in attacking Iraq, we did not follow the Gulf 1 model. So going into Iraq we were prepared to fight the last war.

As for the current war, we are alread in it. There's no preparation, there is just doing it. We are past the point of preparation.

So, why the "new" war, rather than the "next" war? Is she really confused by standard military parlance? Does she not know what she's talking about, or is the yet another war in the offing that we should be preparing for?

She is touted as the tough guy (which I'm still not convinced of), but does she really have any cred on military matters? Will she, in trying to be the tough guy, defer to 'experts' as * deferred to Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Neo-liberals and neo-cons share the concept of American exceptionalism and an American empire. The world does not need an American empire, or a president who wants to lead one.

[mmonk]

12. I seek someone where war is not considered

an instrument of policy. I don't care for the company she keeps either.

[montanacowboy]

13. HRC was born and bred a Repuke

she has NOT changed
Remember that Billy was so goddam arrogant he thought he could get by by having a blow job in the oval office
Please never forget that he and he alone brought down the Democratic Party - he had a choice and he friggin blew it; he knew they were gunning for him and he walked right into it; smart huh?
and he gave us NAFTA and welfare reform and all those super great and wonderful repukian policies and his nose has been up the bunghole of that piece of rotting flesh poppy Bush; the bastard Bush and Clinton families must be stopped or forever more this is your life America; one fuckin triangulation after another; HRC is a piece of work alright and if you cannot see through the Clinton's game you are truly blind

Thank you kpete

[porphyrian]

14. Stop picking on the Senator for her own words and positions!

You'll upset her supporters!

[Laurab]

23. LOL - probably not

they're out looking for petty articles they can post bashing other candidates, I don't think they read about her words and positions....

[Deja Q]

15. The war on poverty? The one on the middle class? For improving this nation?

The war on drugs?

Hillary has flip flopped on some issues more than Bush has; the biggie being "I want to rescue the middle class!" combined with "Unlimited H1Bs!"

I wonder if she's bewildered as to why fewer Americans are taking engineering and science courses.

[CrispyQ]

18. I was horrified to hear the "new war" comment.

I am no longer voting for someone just because there is a (D) after their name.

[bahrbearian]

19. You'll get no answer because that is a "Hypothetical Question"

Its something that they think about and Plan but will give you no answer too.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. I saw the whole speech on C-Span, and I respect her for it.

Since it was a great speech, certain people don't want it honored or discussed, so they choose the Rovian tactic of manufactured controversy and have a faux conniption fit over one out of context line. They even stoop to the extreme of posting thread after thread about their pretend outrage whenever thier topic fades off the DU page.
"If George Bush won't end this war, I will." - HRC

[bvar22]

21. Whatever NEW WAR Hillary is planning...

will need 100,000 MORE men and $Billions MORE money for the Pentagon/Mic.
She has already pledged to EXPAND our WAR MACHINE by this amount.

Following Hillary's lead (as usual), Obama has also pledged to EXPAND the War Machine, only not quite as much as Hillary.
(Obama's new campaign slogan: "I may be a right wing corporatist, but I'm not as bad as Hillary"

Who are the candidates that have promised complete withdrawal from Iraq and a reduction in Pentagon spending?

[Cha]

22. hillary's "new war"...was it

a Freudian Slip? A trial balloon? A done deal? A major faux pas? I read that speech the other day and that's what I zoomed in on.."A NEW WAR"!!??

[creeksneakers2]

24. Who knows what it means?

She probably just meant that a change of tactics should have come sooner. No need to engage in wild speculation about Hillary proposing something terrible. And the stuff about the Neocons and DLC is just the same slimy guilt by association the Hillary haters keep posting.

[Cha]

25. And why shouldn't we engage

in speculation..hillary's done nothing to earn my trust.

And that "hillary haters" meme is bogus. Just because we don't like her policies you and your "hillary haters" crowd don't need to be whining like victims.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Pay no attention to the militarist behind the "D?" She pledged to expand the war machine,

as Einstien so famously said, "You can't similtaniously prepare for war and peace."

[Blue_In_AK]

26. I seriously cringed when she made that comment.

:wtf:

[Neshanic]

27. This is code for the war that will continue when she gets elected, but

it will be under a completely different set of terms. She and our other lovable gang of lug nuts know, but will not admit in public that the war will indeed continue under their administration. Nitwit knows this and expects to hand off a toxic mess that is this thing, and the republicans are now on the offensive, which will culminate on making all Democratic candidates admit in public later in the next year that they indeed will not pull troops out. They know that the Democrats are terrified of being the ones to pull out the roops under a democratic administration, the propoganda gift like that will last till 2100.

Hillary is just giving a term to run and hide behind, "the new war", so she can proffer plans, meetings, get togethers, parties, ski trips and whatever she can think of with allies, and come up with an exit strategy that will be the "New Plan For The New War", but the end result is we will be at war through an entire Democratic administration.

[paulk]

28. Generals, throughout history, have commonly been accused of

"fighting the last war". That's all this is in reference to.


All she's saying is that in any "new war" a different approach will need to be taken than the one taken by the Bush admin., which, by inference, is the wrong approach.

[Rex]

30. Say hello to your first female US president!

Hi Hillary!

[earthlover]

34. So, with a woman president, will the soldiers not die in her wars?

I get so frustrated. I have long wanted a woman president. I...call me naive...thought that a woman president would be less likely to send us to war. With Hillary, well....she is more "male" than her counterparts when it comes to being a power hungry politician who would not think twice about going to war any more than anyone else...probably quicker.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

37. One would think that Maggie Thatcher

Would have disabused people of the idea that women are automatically less warlike than men..

[G_j]

36. What is "the new war"?

She obviously does not think we the rabble are worthy of knowing.
But we do know! It is just the same push to further fatten the Industrial Military Complex that controls this government, and to control foreign oil and resources.

[ruiner4u]

38. the war on porn...n/t