RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Scott writes: "Again, sounding like Republican critics, Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy has been overly cautious. 'Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle,' she noted."

Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy has been overly cautious. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy has been overly cautious. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)


ALSO SEE: John Kerry: No US Combat Troops to Go to Iraq

Hillary Clinton Joins Republicans in Call for War

By David Clark Scott, The Christian Science Monitor

12 August 14

 

Republicans – and Hillary Clinton – slammed President Obama's policies in Syria and Iraq on Sunday. A look at the criticisms and proposed alternatives.

resident Obama's latest moves in Iraq – a combination of air strikes and air drops of humanitarian aid – were roundly criticized by Republicans Sunday.

And, Hillary Clinton sounded remarkably like a Republican this week, distancing herself from the current administration.

Rep. Peter King (R) of New York argued for deeper US military engagement in Iraq, saying that ISIS was more powerful than Al Qaeda and "a direct threat" to US security.

“We can’t wait for Maliki or the Iraqi parliament to fight ISIS. Every day that goes by ISIS builds up this caliphate, King said on "Meet the Press" Sunday. "They are more powerful now than Al Qaeda was on 9/11. [Sen.] Dick Durbin [(D) of Illinois] says we’re not going to do this, not going to do that. I want to hear what he says when they attack us in the United States. I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again.”

King continued: "So, for the president to say we’re doing airstrikes, not doing anything else, we’re not going to use American combat troops, we’re not going to do this, not going to do that. What kind of leadership is that?"

King's solution for the situation in Iraq?

We start off with massive air attacks. I think doing it from aircraft carriers is limiting them. We should use bases in the area so we could have much more sustained air attacks.

We should be aggressively arming the Kurds. The president says that once there's a unity government in Iraq we will then fight alongside and work with the Iraqi Army. Start doing that now. Why wait? Why wait months and months before the Iraqi government is back in place? Every day that goes by, ISIS builds up in strength.

As if reading from the same script, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, told "Fox News Sunday," that the ISIS is well-funded, getting stronger and a "direct threat to our homeland." Graham

"The director of national security, the FBI director, the director of homeland security has said that the ISIS presence in Syria where hundreds of Americans and thousands of European fighters have gone, represents a direct threat to the United States, and now, their enclave in Iraq.

Senator Graham, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommends:

"To change that threat, we have to have a sustained air campaign in Syria and Iraq. We need to go on offense. There is no force within the Mideast that can neutralize or contain or destroy ISIS without at least American air power."

Mr. Graham also observed that Obama should have gotten "engaged in Syria three years ago," as he was advised by his national security team.

That comment about Syria sounds very similar to one made this week by Hillary Clinton, Obama's former Secretary of State and possible 2016 presidential candidate.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Mrs. Clinton told The Atlantic.

Again, sounding like Republican critics, Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy has been overly cautious. “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle," she noted.

She also expressed concern about the potential threat of the Islamic State.

"One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States,” she said. “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat.”

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Ben Cardin (D) of Maryland also expressed concern about the threat posed by ISIS, but supported Obama's plan of limited US military engagement with ISIS in Iraq. He said the US should not get drawn into an Iraqi civil war.

"I don't think we can take out ISIS from a military point of view from the U.S. of our air strikes. That's not going to solve the problem," said Senator Cardin, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The fundamental problem is whether the Iraqis believe that they have a representative government so that Sunnis feel comfortable with the government in Baghdad. I think that's going to be the key to cutting off the type of permanent support that ISIS could otherwise have," he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+117 # burner 2014-08-12 10:07
She disgusts me. Whatever will get her more votes at the moment. Instead of dialog it is always war war war and war. Why doesn't she send her daughter to or son-in-law to fight in the wars and then maybe she will think twice about what she says.
 
 
+50 # lorenbliss 2014-08-12 12:16
The most telling fact about Hillary is she began her political life as a "Goldwater Girl" – the 1960s version of an Ayn Rand fascist.

Moreover, Hillary made that self-defining choice at a time when the issues – race, domestic poverty, Vietnam, the Cold War – were unequivocally clear. If you backed the Civil Rights Movement, supported the War on Poverty and believed in making every possible effort toward world peace, you voted for President Lyndon Johnson. But if you opposed the Civil Rights Movement, despised the poor as "lazy," wanted to privatize all government services and advocated nuke-em-till-th ey-glow imperialism, you voted for Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Since then, while carefully disguising herself as a feminist, Hillary has clandestinely joined the effort by Christian fanatics to impose the savage misogyny of biblical-law theocracy on the United States. (See Jeff Sharlet, “The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” [Harper: 2008], pages 272-277.)

In other words, beneath her cloak of Big Lies, Hillary is still that Goldwater Girl – still Hillary the Heartless, still burning with desire the United States be the Fourth Reich at home and abroad.
 
 
+17 # LGNTexas 2014-08-12 14:44
At the 1960 Republican National Convention in Chicago I was a floor worker for Barry Goldwater. However, we all can change. We were young Eisenhower Republicans mostly and supported Ike when he integrated Little Rock schools. I marched with my YAF college buddies in a demonstration against George Wallace running against LBJ in the 1964 Indiana Primary (Wallace got 1/3 of the Democratic vote). While marching, I got too close to Wallace and was manhandled a bit by big Alabama state trooper body guards. Remember, it was the Republicans led by leaders Dirksen and Halleck who were able to get LBJ's civil rights and voting rights acts passed. As a result many racist Democrats, at the bidding of Nixon and the "Southern Strategists", were welcomed into the "Party of Lincoln". I voted for 3rd. party Eugene McCarthy in 1968 as he was most anti-War candidate. By 1972 I changed my registration to the Democratic Party resulting in becoming a "black sheep" to many in my family and even fraternity brothers whose GOP party loyalty trumped "brothers forever". So don't judge young people too harshly who usually just follow in their family's political footprints. Ideologues have ruined both parties. Pragmatists are the ones who most often WIN and get the needed jobs done.
 
 
+20 # lorenbliss 2014-08-12 16:18
Please do not put words in my mouth and/or try to distort my viewpoint.

My avoidance of party labels is deliberate; I am of course aware there were Goldwater and Wallace Democrats and am equally aware of the Javits/Rockefel ler/Dirksen Republicans.

I am also aware of the familial origins of political beliefs. But that is no excuse for Hillary, as she has carried her original inclinations toward fascism into her present-day adulthood, where they are now bearing obvious fruit.

As to ideologues and ideology, the Republican Party has always had, since its earliest days, a Big Business core -- and because the ultimate forms of capitalism are fascism and Nazism, it is only logical today's Republican Party would march ever closer to unabashedly raising a fascist banner.

Conversely, it is the very lack of ideology that has has combined with Ayn Rand greed to destroy the Democratic Party.

Hence what we the working peoples of the United States most desperately need is a party of our own – a party with the ideology and ideological discipline necessary both for internal solidarity and external defense against the otherwise inevitable fascist victory, whether at home or abroad.
 
 
+11 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-12 23:48
Green Party.
 
 
0 # WestWinds 2014-08-21 13:35
We have it already: The Green Party. The Green Party has the best platform of all of the parties for liberal minded folks. And if you don't want the two candidates currently running, then more Liberals should move into the Green Party, fill out its ranks and run other candidates.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2014-08-13 18:29
Her membership in "The Family" is only one of the horrible things about her. I would never vote for her.
 
 
-2 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-14 13:16
Quoting karenvista:
Her membership in "The Family" is only one of the horrible things about her. I would never vote for her.

Well, you've obviously made up your mind. Personally, I would wait and see who she will be up against if she wins the primary.
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2014-08-21 13:38
Quoting Cassandra2012:
Quoting karenvista:
Her membership in "The Family" is only one of the horrible things about her. I would never vote for her.

Well, you've obviously made up your mind. Personally, I would wait and see who she will be up against if she wins the primary.


If HRC wins the primary, I'm voting Green. I'd rather die and be burned on a pyre than be responsible in any way for putting her into office and at the head of this country. It's her and her crony pals who have destroyed this country and I want an END TO IT!
 
 
+6 # ritawalpoleague 2014-08-12 12:32
Wanna have some fun, rewriting my VOTER'S LAMENT, written, with All Right Reserved, in January, 2006? Let's substitute Hillary Clinton for 'George and Dickie' (Sung to the tune of "It's Howdy Doody Time" and "Tah Rah Rah Boom De Aye"):

Now it's Hillary Clinton's time,
So it's Hillary Clinton's dime.
Patriot's warfare is o.k.,
'Cause she knows how to make it pay.

Neocons, they call the shots
While Americans get the trots.
Clearly paying through the nose,
While the deficit grows and grows.

And the arms boys have their way
While Americans pay and pay.
Better ways to kill and spy,
On Americans as we try...

Another war in Iraq to curtail,
And a war in Syria to derail.
We're surveilled and spied upon,
While her spin goes on and on.

Yes, her terror spin has clout.
For it's what she's all about.
Keeping folks all scared and green,
While she cranks the war machine.

Hill will break the law with ease,
Torture if and when she'll please.
Keep the mainstream press in line,
Muzzle critics, lie just fine.

If in '14 Hill gets the vote,
Then Hill's gonna gloat, gloat, gloat.
'Cause more warfare's comin' our way,
As she gets her pay, pay, pay.
 
 
-12 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-12 15:04
What disgusts me is all this vitriol about Hillary, including some on this site calling her a 'whore', and saying' she was never as bright as Bill' , etc.
What I do NOT see in the article above is where SHE actually says 'let's go to war' the way King and other Repugs apparently do.
The jumping to conclusions, and vilifying of Hillary on "principle" strikes me as hypocritical and somewhat typical of the anti-Hillary (Killary!!! etc. blah blah) crowd.

My own predilections have been for Bernie Sanders who speaks the truth, and seems quite honorable, but I must say, all this blathering about Hillary without any REAL evidence for more than advising caution, and worrying about the predilections and intentions of ISIS (which I confess I too worry about, considering they are supported by the likes of the Saudis who seem to think the only world worth having is the one that begins with Islam, and who are willing to destroy 14, 000 years of human archeology and history in Iraq by trashing the Baghdad museum [again!!!?, not to mention their willingness to force any and all minorities to 'convert or die'! All of this undeserved vitriol is making me again consider her more seriously!

Less blather, and overt misogyny/sexism , more facts!
 
 
+27 # WestWinds 2014-08-12 16:36
#Cassandra2012: Any time someone says that due to (fill in the blank) it only makes them double down on their wrong-headed thinking, I'm thinking they are just trawlers here to upset the apple cart and they never ever entertained any other open-minded thoughts on the subject in the first place.

Go have a look at HRC's voting record. This says it all. She consistently votes with the Right. She is the daughter of two Republicans and is a self-proclaimed supply-sider who is "fiscally conservative."

We all know in the final analysis, it's all about the money. So, anyone calling themselves "fiscally conservative" is telling you straight to your face they support the investment class and not the demand-side workers. How can this woman dare call herself a Democrat and not side with the workers over money??? You mean to tell me she supports jobs going overseas to China and India? You mean, she supports our 22% tariff taxes on all American exports while manufacturers selling into the US only pay a 2% tax tariff? You mean she supports dismantling livable wages for working people in favor of greater profits for the wealthy? You mean she is against unions that negotiate for better wages for workers?

This isn't about misogyny; I'm female.
You call for more facts but the facts are sitting out there as they always have been; you just haven't done the grunt work to find out the truth about this woman and what she really stands for.
 
 
-1 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-14 13:21
[quote name="WestWinds "]#Cassandra201 2: Any time someone says that due to (fill in the blank) it only makes them double down on their wrong-headed thinking, I'm thinking they are just trawlers here to upset the apple cart and they never ever entertained any other open-minded thoughts on the subject in the first place.

Your thinking is what is assumption, wrong-head assumption -- I am neither trawler, troll, nor saying anything I do not actually believe.

There is little or no EVIDENCE that Hilary is overtly supporting war in that article. Calling her whore, traitor, etc. is just male BS that you seem to be just fine with.
I WOULD vote for Sanders over Hilary, but nothing on this site convinces me that any of this blather about her is more than misogyny / sexism, or plain old vitriol.
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2014-08-21 13:47
If you can still think that Hillary is just fine after the amount of information people have put before you, then I have no idea what it would take to convince you. I don't know how you decide what facts are important in choosing a candidate. Hillary is a war hawk; her voting record proves this. Hillary supports the 1%; she has said so herself out in public in front of cameras.

What kind of Democrat you actually are is not clear. In recent years there has been a big effort to blur what it means to be a Democrat, but for me "personally" anyone voting Right of Left is a DINO, especially when it comes to liveable wages for working class people for, as far as I know, the original and true Democratic Party was never designed to support the best interests of the supply side investment classes.
 
 
-12 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:34
Quoting Cassandra2012:
What disgusts me is all this vitriol about Hillary, including some on this site calling her a 'whore', and saying' she was never as bright as Bill' , etc.
What I do NOT see in the article above is where SHE actually says 'let's go to war' the way King and other Repugs apparently do.
The jumping to conclusions, and vilifying of Hillary on "principle" strikes me as hypocritical and somewhat typical of the anti-Hillary (Killary!!! etc. blah blah) crowd.
My own predilections have been for Bernie Sanders who speaks the truth, and seems quite honorable, but I must say, all this blathering about Hillary without any REAL evidence for more than advising caution, and worrying about the predilections and intentions of ISIS (which I confess I too worry about, considering they are supported by the likes of the Saudis who seem to think the only world worth having is the one that begins with Islam, and who are willing to destroy 14, 000 years of human archeology and history in Iraq by trashing the Baghdad museum [again!!!?, not to mention their willingness to force any and all minorities to 'convert or die'! All of this undeserved vitriol is making me again consider her more seriously!
Less blather, and overt misogyny/sexism , more facts!

THANK YOU! WE WOULDN'T HEAR THIS KIND OF NAME CALLING IF HILLARY WERE A MAN.
 
 
+4 # karenvista 2014-08-13 18:44
[quote name="Brooklyn Basics
THANK YOU! WE WOULDN'T HEAR THIS KIND OF NAME CALLING IF HILLARY WERE A MAN.

Well are you accusing us of being "self-hating women?"
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2014-08-12 21:44
Cassandra -- oh, she's definitely as bright as Bill. These are two assholes and traitors who deserve each other. That big while building in Washington they lived in is usually called the Whore House, so I guess both of them are whores. Obama and Bush too. All of these people never saw a billionair's or a mass murderer's dick they did not want to suck.
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2014-08-14 11:18
RMDC--You seem to think that name calling is serious political commentary. It's not. Name calling (particularly the stupidly obscene sort) is the avoidance of serious thinking--or a sign of the total lack of it.
 
 
-1 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-14 13:22
You must be a Tealiban troll...
 
 
-22 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 15:25
Quoting burner:
She disgusts me. Whatever will get her more votes at the moment. Instead of dialog it is always war war war and war. Why doesn't she send her daughter to or son-in-law to fight in the wars and then maybe she will think twice about what she says.

YOUR BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND ATTITUDE IS WHAT ALLOWED 9/11 TO OCCUR. THE VULNERABLE, THE YAZIDIS AND THE MOSUL CHRISTIANS ARE THE CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE.
 
 
+4 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-08-13 17:02
Could you stop yelling please?

(If you don't know how, try pressing the key above the left shift and see if a light goes off)
 
 
+7 # karenvista 2014-08-13 18:48
Quoting Brooklyn Basics:
Quoting burner:
She disgusts me. Whatever will get her more votes at the moment. Instead of dialog it is always war war war and war. Why doesn't she send her daughter to or son-in-law to fight in the wars and then maybe she will think twice about what she says.

YOUR BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND ATTITUDE IS WHAT ALLOWED 9/11 TO OCCUR. THE VULNERABLE, THE YAZIDIS AND THE MOSUL CHRISTIANS ARE THE CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE.



They were all fine until we destroyed Iraq. So whose fault is their current plight?

And Cheney managed 9/11. Otherwise we couldn't have had all the self-inflicted catastrophes that have happened since then.

Osama bin Laden could not have controlled the military stand-down.
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2014-08-14 13:25
Why is no one calling out Bush's pals [remember, the Saudi royal family were the ONLY ones allowed to fly out after 9/11], the Saudis on much of this? Saudis on the planes of 9/11; Saudis funding ISIS Sunnis! , [ and possibly Saudi funding of Hamas' rockets ....?]
 
 
+13 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-08-12 23:41
Gerald Ford" (whether you liked him or not)
"All wars are fought over natural resources." And, his comment won him enemies in the military/indust rial complex.
 
 
+2 # Doubter 2014-08-13 21:08
AND "Don't do stupid stuff" sounds like a much better organizing principle (at least, to me) than "bomb bomb bomb Iraq" as she appears to favor.

"Don't do stupid stuff" sounds a lot better than "lets have more war(s) because "stupid is beautiful" like she advocates.
 
 
+91 # Caliban 2014-08-12 10:08
Wasn't war tried by the last GOP administration? And how did that work out for us (and them)?
 
 
+79 # curmudgeon 2014-08-12 10:23
Well, for one thing, war DID work out well for the rich oligarchy...the y got much richer.

Don't forget...our 'defense' industry leads the exports...

The Military-Indust rial Complex which has morphed to M-I-Security Complex, apparently RULES...as they say

Lots of M-I-S information
 
 
-52 # riverhouse 2014-08-12 11:20
Cynical posts like this are not helpful. They add nothing to the conversation but defeat.
 
 
+3 # LGNTexas 2014-08-12 11:54
The reason I did not support Hillary in 2008 but then the alternative in the GOP is most often much worse. At least I trust Clinton to make better judicial appointments.
 
 
+22 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2014-08-12 15:30
Curmudgeon wasn't being cynical. He was calling a spade a spade.
 
 
+1 # Doubter 2014-08-13 21:12
Truth hurts. (can't be helped)
 
 
+49 # A P 2014-08-12 10:19
Yup, "war" to reset the economy (such as it is) in Iraq so US-yes-man Abadi "must" tear up the southern-Iraq oilfield development/exp ort contracts with the Chinese. Contracts which currently send 30% of exports to China, and under which all future expansion in that area would also go to China increasing the share to 80%.

The Kurds are "correctly" working with US/UK oil corps, so are being "defended" and "should be armed" by the US.

The US Congress sending their own kids/grandkids to die in their wars? That was exposed in Bowling For Columbine. Not a one.

Never lose sight of the fact this is all about the oil/pipelines or other "strategic" resources. Ukraine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and "stan" you can name and a few you can't.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2014-08-14 11:31
A P is correct about the Chinese and the Iraqi oil contracts. It is well-known that Iraq and China have had a long trading and diplomatic relationship--l ong pre-dating the 1st Gulf War. But I am curious about the current oil contracts A P describes.

For instance, are they old or new ones? Were they made with US authorization-- since we had troops there)? I would be grateful for any factual data on the Chinese-Iraq oil relationship?
 
 
+53 # SkyKing 2014-08-12 10:27
The corollary to "Don't do stupid stuff" is "Do smart stuff," which is what the Obama administration IS doing and which IS an "organizing principle." Any further involvement in an ongoing Iraqi civil war would be stupid.
 
 
+29 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:09
Obomber is doing "very stupid stuff" in Ukraine & against Putin. Supporting a coup involving neo-Nazis to overthrow an elected president of Ukraine is only topped by confronting nuclear-armed Russia.
 
 
+72 # politicfix 2014-08-12 10:30
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.

- John F. Kennedy

We have no one with the intellectual strength of a JFK to figure this out without resorting to war and destruction.
It's time these people shed the cowboy mentality that was inflicted on the country by GW Bush. That is not the mentality of a President. A President has to be clever and thoughtful of how his decision effect the whole country. You can be tough without acting like a bully with knee jerk reactions when you have innocent people involved. Those who can only think of war deficient in what it takes to be a great leader.
 
 
+35 # Johnny 2014-08-12 12:22
The oligarchy would never let a candidate with the intellectual strength of JFK on the ballot, and if he did slip by, he would meet the fate of JFK.
 
 
-3 # LeeBlack 2014-08-12 12:23
We ‘supported’ Democratic movements in Libya and Egypt and the result was anything by democratic. It was strong dictators that kept people from various sects from killing each other. Until there is an acceptance of a government that supports all the people there is little that the U.S. can do.

The preference would be that the U.S. be involved in a U.N. action in the cases of genocide as we are seeing in Iraq now.

When we are involved we are resented and blamed, if we are not involved we are resented and blamed. There is no way to ‘do the right thing’.
 
 
+17 # lfeuille 2014-08-12 15:30
Quoting LeeBlack:
We ‘supported’ Democratic movements in Libya and Egypt and the result was anything by democratic. It was strong dictators that kept people from various sects from killing each other. Until there is an acceptance of a government that supports all the people there is little that the U.S. can do.

The preference would be that the U.S. be involved in a U.N. action in the cases of genocide as we are seeing in Iraq now.

When we are involved we are resented and blamed, if we are not involved we are resented and blamed. There is no way to ‘do the right thing’.

Which is why we should be neutral, except for humanitarian aid. They only way to solve the problem in the long run is to make ISIS less attractive to the disaffected (with reason) Sunni population. Bombing will not do that. In fact it will probably do the opposite.
 
 
-25 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:38
Quoting lfeuille:
Quoting LeeBlack:
We ‘supported’ Democratic movements in Libya and Egypt and the result was anything by democratic. It was strong dictators that kept people from various sects from killing each other. Until there is an acceptance of a government that supports all the people there is little that the U.S. can do.

The preference would be that the U.S. be involved in a U.N. action in the cases of genocide as we are seeing in Iraq now.

When we are involved we are resented and blamed, if we are not involved we are resented and blamed. There is no way to ‘do the right thing’.

Which is why we should be neutral, except for humanitarian aid. They only way to solve the problem in the long run is to make ISIS less attractive to the disaffected (with reason) Sunni population. Bombing will not do that. In fact it will probably do the opposite.

YEAH, LET'S BE NEUTRAL. WHEN THEY RUN OUT OF CHRISTIANS AND YAZIIDIS TO KILL IN IRAQ, THEY CAN LAUNCH SOME MORE 9/11 ATTACKS HERE.
 
 
-10 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:36
Quoting LeeBlack:
We ‘supported’ Democratic movements in Libya and Egypt and the result was anything by democratic. It was strong dictators that kept people from various sects from killing each other. Until there is an acceptance of a government that supports all the people there is little that the U.S. can do.

The preference would be that the U.S. be involved in a U.N. action in the cases of genocide as we are seeing in Iraq now.

When we are involved we are resented and blamed, if we are not involved we are resented and blamed. There is no way to ‘do the right thing’.

YOU ARE 100% CORRECT.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2014-08-13 18:53
[quote name="politicfi x"]Unconditiona l war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.

- John F. Kennedy

We have no one with the intellectual strength of a JFK /quote]

We have no one with the courage to stand up for what is best for the country.
 
 
+70 # Texas Aggie 2014-08-12 10:47
Is there no one besides Clinton to run for president?

“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,"

It is a heck of a lot better organizing principle than the one we've been operating under since St. Ronald of Alzheimer's invasion of Central America. Support the plutocrats is an awful organizing principle for anything be it war, trade policy, or anything else.
 
 
+35 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:12
If you must vote in 2016, vote Green Party. The Wall Street/Corporat e/Imperialist Duopoly Party is toxic to life on earth.
 
 
+20 # LGNTexas 2014-08-12 11:58
I learned back in 1968 that my vote for a third party candidate was actually a vote for Nixon. There were so many Naderites smugly posting after 2000 that they could live with their conscience, sleep good at night. Yes, thanks to the Naderites we got Bush/Cheney, 9/11 and all of the abuses of GOP control including throwing the Supreme Court over to the reich-wing.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2014-08-12 15:35
Third parties just do not do well in this country. It takes something as cataclysmic as the Civil War for one to take hold and even then it replaced an existing party instead of offering a third choice. TR did get elected as the Bull Moose candidate, but the party did not survive very long.
 
 
+12 # Salus Populi 2014-08-12 15:56
Quoting lfeuille:
TR did get elected as the Bull Moose candidate, but the party did not survive very long.


Actually, TR didn't get elected on the Bull Moose ticket: He got more votes than Taft, who was the Republican candidate, but lost to Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat.

Wilson, a racist stooge of Col. House and the UK monarchy, became one of the worst presidents ever, reviled and hated by tens of millions for his lies and fascist policies, resulting in the darkest dark horse of all time, Harding, who was only nominated by the Republicans on the 46th ballot, winning the most lopsided victory in history up to that time over a decent Democrat in the 1920 election, simply because the Dems were identified with the execrable and miserable sociopath in the White House.

Of course, this has meant that the historians, establishmentar ians to a man, have anointed Wilson -- after all his contemporaries were safely and silently dead -- as one of our "greatest" presidents, just below Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
 
 
+4 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:04
If we ALL voted Green Party, it would replace the Republican Party. I know of no one who is not a politician who will admit to being a Republican, even those who ARE Republican. If progressives voted Green en masse, The Democratic party would become the refuge of "conservatives" and "moderates" as is fitting for their slow slide to the right of Ghengis Khan. The DNC does not represent us, does not care about us, nor will they give us a seat at their table. I support the Congressional Progressive caucus, but if we abandoned the DP, many of them would go Green too. Let's stop defeating ourselves with all this "third parties can't win" nonsense. The GP CAN win if we ALL vote Green.

I do not want this warmongering heifer to become our first woman president. There is a reason she and her hubby are such great friends with George Bush.
 
 
+21 # WestWinds 2014-08-12 16:53
Quoting LGNTexas:
I learned back in 1968 that my vote for a third party candidate was actually a vote for Nixon. There were so many Naderites smugly posting after 2000 that they could live with their conscience, sleep good at night. Yes, thanks to the Naderites we got Bush/Cheney, 9/11 and all of the abuses of GOP control including throwing the Supreme Court over to the reich-wing.


--- This is a false argument. We got Bush because his brother, Jeb Bush then Gov. of FL, lied to the world and had his cousin, John Prescott Ellis who was working as a consultant for Fox News (and a member of Skull and Bones,) call the FL election for Dubya at 2:16a.m.

This, together with then Sec.of State, Katherine Harris, who hid over 2000 ballots in her office closet for two years after that, is what precipitated the loss.

This blaming Nader is a Right-wing red herring they trot out to keep everyone terrified of anything other than the duopoly that the big box industrialists have managed to purchase at our expense.

If you go back into history, you will see that the founding fathers WANTED a broad range of voices in the government and that meant third party candidates. So, I'm calling a pants-on-fire on this.
 
 
+8 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:06
Exactly! Thanks.
 
 
-6 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-12 23:54
Bullshit.
 
 
+8 # Anarchist 23 2014-08-13 20:32
The Bushies had so much control over the voting process that the Nader vote really did not make that much of a difference...ju st think of all those retired Jewish folks who found to their dismay that the voting machines punched out the chads of their vote to Buchannan1 and don't for get how the Repub political operatives came to the courthouse to stop the recount...Nader cost the Dems some votes...but he was not to blame for Bush nor were his supporters. given the current climate, I doubt we will have anyone we can whole-heartedly vote for...ever again.
 
 
+17 # jimallyn 2014-08-12 14:18
Quoting REDPILLED:
If you must vote in 2016, vote Green Party.


Or Socialist.
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2014-08-12 17:03
Quoting jimallyn:
Quoting REDPILLED:
If you must vote in 2016, vote Green Party.


Or Socialist.

Or Bernie Sanders (same thing)
 
 
+15 # Caliban 2014-08-12 11:29
"No one besides Clinton?" Let's not forget that before the current president emerged from local Chicago politics, Hillary was the supposed anointed one for 2008. So, can it happen again?
 
 
+13 # ritawalpoleague 2014-08-12 13:27
True, ugly story. At the Colorado Springs area Dem. County Assembly in '08, an NSA agent, under orders from the then head of the Dem. county party, kept massive numbers of elected delegates/alter nates out in the bitter cold, needlessly, for hours. I rushed in with an elderly delegate whose lips were turning blue. NSA agent knew me from the ACLU, whose board he headed and I was then on, and allowed me to do an emergency entrance with about to freeze, elderly delegate.

I immediately saw no need whatsoever to keep dels./alts. out in the bitter cold, while supporters of Hillary Clinton sat very comfortably inside, with signs/pictures of Hillary already hanging.

And then, following most (but not all) of nearly freezing dels/alts finally being allowed to enter, the assembly voted into place a very progressive, anti-war panel to send up to Denver. Within a few days, the party head quashed said elected panel.

My point - our best bet is to get an Independent Sen. from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, to run. Even with his recent vote to send $ to Israel for bombing prevention domes, with his consistently voting against wars and for all people and Mother Earth serving bills, I've come to call him...

SANDERS PANDERS NOT, TO THE 1%
 
 
+41 # Edwina 2014-08-12 10:47
I guess none of these pols can admit that their foreign policy is a colossal failure. And why shouldn't a President be "cautious" about committing the nation to war? To my mind, Obama hasn't been nearly cautious enough. The drone program alone has won us more enemies, and cost us more tax-dollars than can be justified by any measure of reason.
 
 
+38 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:15
Their foreign policy is NOT a failure to their Plundering Class masters. War profiteers and fossil fuel profiteers are making out like the deranged, sociopathic bandits they are. Eastern Europe seems (to them) ripe for the picking (Russia included), and Central Asia and Africa are in play for resources and profits. What's a few million corpses when so much money can be made?
 
 
+22 # indian weaver 2014-08-12 11:55
A few million corpses along with the destruction of the American middle class, and plundering the American economy, and imploding the stability of what was a decent nation, and creation of the perfect storm for the oncoming civil / revolutionary wars? Yes, perfect, fund the MIC with $Billions and to hell with We The People. We don't count as much as the next oil well in Iraq / Ukraine / worldwide. Forget it. This government cares nothing for domestic survival of We The People. We're doomed with this government. All of us, and the planet.
 
 
+2 # Erich_von_Dalkenshield 2014-08-14 22:50
Yes, "Redpilled" is right on. It does not matter to them if they "win the war" or not. Conglomko Worldwide, Inc. makes billions of dollars win or lose. They win both ways; the important thing is to have conflict, trouble, disasters, war, and police states. (sell more weapons to police states! Yeah!)
 
 
+44 # Texas Aggie 2014-08-12 10:53
"Kings solution for the situation in Iraq?

We start off with massive air attacks. "

On what do we aim these attacks, pray tell? Are you so clueless that you think that the ISIS is camped in tents outside the city where we can bomb them? Are you willing to take out whole neighborhoods the way that happened in Gaza? Did you forget that the single factor that energized the "terrorists" in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan is our indiscriminate killings of people's family members?
 
 
+29 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:16
Drop Killary, King, Graham & McCain on the ISIS terrorists to scare them.
 
 
+36 # Jim Rocket 2014-08-12 10:55
Is it possible these days to get elected to the Presidency without promising to kill a lot of people? I think ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is a pretty good organizing principle. It does seem to be the opposite of the Republican party's organizing principle.
 
 
+19 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:27
U.S. Prezdint must be tough! Ugh! Must be "manly", even if has vagina! Ugh! Voters too dumb to understand anything else! Ugh! Media too simple to show anything else! Ugh! Kill all who not friendly to God-chosen U.S.! Ugh!

I know the Founders and Framers were pro-slavery, anti-democracy white, wealthy males, but I think even they would be appalled at the current level of politics and politicians now in the U.S. EVERY member of Congress, Obomber & Biden, and all the higher ranks at the Pentagon should be forced to read Jonathan Schell's "The Fate of the Earth" and watch the documentary "Hiroshima Nagasaki August 1945". Any of them not truly affected should be removed from office as sociopaths dangerous to humanity.
 
 
+7 # indian weaver 2014-08-12 11:57
They should be removed from office no matter what, period.
 
 
+42 # lourdmar 2014-08-12 10:57
How fortunate for us to see her take off the Democratic mask before it's too late! I was warming up to Hillary as our first woman president but she just shot herself in the foot.
 
 
+27 # hydroweb 2014-08-12 11:10
King's solution for Iraq reminds me of recent solution for Gaza! Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result...
 
 
+9 # Jackpine 2014-08-12 13:01
But Hillary & Co. were perfectly satisfied with the results of the LAST Iraqi incursion. Lots of lucre for the likes of KBR, Blackwater/Xe, the oil companies, munitions manufacturers, Wall Street, & the banks. A smash hit like that deserves a sequel, & Hillary promises to deliver.
 
 
+47 # MsAnnaNOLA 2014-08-12 11:12
Actually war was why I voted for Obama over Hillary. Back then she seemed more inclined to be for war than Obama. It is a real shame because I wanted a woman president but this means I am not going to be able to vote for her. We can't afford more war, nor can the world. Americans need to stop this madness. We need to end our black box voting so we have a prayer of kicking the bums out.
 
 
+11 # Jackpine 2014-08-12 13:02
All we have to do is draft Liz Warren, & w'll both have a woman to vote for.
 
 
+8 # Citizen Mike 2014-08-12 11:15
OK, this shows that she is no good.

I will not vote for her even as "the lesser evil" and if the choice is between Hillary and some Republican. They are all villains of the same stripe, so I will not vote at all.

I would vote as a protest for a third-party progressive. Except Ralph Nader. Because when we did have a clear choice between good and evil he jumped in and arrogantly fritzed the good, putting his own ego ahead of the public interest.
 
 
-12 # indian weaver 2014-08-12 11:59
I agree with Hillary dooming her future as of now, and not voting. Never again will I vote. I advocate no one vote. That is the loudest We The People could ever speak - a deafening silence. Now that would get somebody's attention - the silence of the lambs. Silence is often more deafening more than noise, especially the silence of not one person voting. Scary to say the least.
 
 
+20 # Jim Rocket 2014-08-12 14:05
i really don't think not voting is a good idea. Lots of people had that attitude in 1968 and that was a big win for Richard Nixon. The other side will see it as a great victory and not care a whit about the silence because they are devoid of conscience anyway. And a thoughtful, principled non-vote is indistinguishab le from the utterly apathetic non-vote.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2014-08-12 15:49
Quoting Jim Rocket:
i really don't think not voting is a good idea. Lots of people had that attitude in 1968 and that was a big win for Richard Nixon. The other side will see it as a great victory and not care a whit about the silence because they are devoid of conscience anyway. And a thoughtful, principled non-vote is indistinguishable from the utterly apathetic non-vote.


I agree. I will not work for Hillary or give her money, but if it comes to a choice between her and any Republican I can think of, I'll vote for her in the hope that she'll do less damage to the court. With lifetime appointments at stake, it really does matter.
 
 
0 # Doubter 2014-08-13 21:30
So what's the use of voting for the SLIGHTLY lesser of two (or more) evils?
 
 
+4 # Caliban 2014-08-12 15:45
"A deafening silence", indian weaver? Does this mean that in addition to staying home on election day, you are also going to stop posting on RSN?
 
 
+7 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:11
Vote Green. It's so much better than not voting at all.
 
 
+24 # Pikewich 2014-08-12 11:17
That Hilary would be jumping on the GOP hawk bandwagon should come as no surprise to readers here. I do not remember a time in the past where a democrat or republican attacked a president in their own party so brutally, but maybe I just don't remember it.

But this line from some of the idiots who have bought their way into congress is chilling:
"...Dick Durbin [(D) of Illinois] says we’re not going to do this, not going to do that. I want to hear what he says when they attack us in the United States. I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again.”"

When ISIL attacks the US?

Maybe reading between the lines they are saying "gaining control of OUR oil under their sand"

I am terrified to imagine how many people may actually buy into that utterly stupid and diabolically twisted statement.
 
 
+14 # dsepeczi 2014-08-12 11:55
Quoting Pikewich:
That Hilary would be jumping on the GOP hawk bandwagon should come as no surprise to readers here. I do not remember a time in the past where a democrat or republican attacked a president in their own party so brutally, but maybe I just don't remember it.

But this line from some of the idiots who have bought their way into congress is chilling:
"...Dick Durbin [(D) of Illinois] says we’re not going to do this, not going to do that. I want to hear what he says when they attack us in the United States. I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again.”"

When ISIL attacks the US?

Maybe reading between the lines they are saying "gaining control of OUR oil under their sand"

I am terrified to imagine how many people may actually buy into that utterly stupid and diabolically twisted statement.


I agree. The statements made by King, Graham and Hillary are the most dangerous and ill-informed statements any world leaders can possibly make. ISIL is a threat to the United States ? Really ? They couldn't even take Chicago's gangs on the south side without getting slaughtered. Hillary really takes the cake with her Syria comments. If she wanted us to prop up a government in Syria and considers it a failure that we didn't, perhaps we should have just helped Assad crush the rebels or, better yet, maybe we shouldn't have funded and trained rebel groups, including ISIL, to stir up that civil war to begin with.
 
 
+3 # karenvista 2014-08-13 20:40
Quoting Pikewich:
But this line from some of the idiots who have bought their way into congress is chilling:
"...Dick Durbin [(D) of Illinois] says we’re not going to do this, not going to do that. I want to hear what he says when they attack us in the United States. I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again.”"


Not only that, this is the first I've heard of "hundreds of constituents" in Illinois being attacked on 9/11.

How did I miss that?

Do you think we have some "War Fever" going on here?
 
 
+23 # riverhouse 2014-08-12 11:25
It is clear that what Clinton needs is to face some stiff true Democratic opposition in the primaries from the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to put her back in the mindset of Democrats. She is basically at heart a Republican and I am not interested in voting a Democratic ticket and getting a Republican president with a (D) after her name.
 
 
+8 # Helen Marshall 2014-08-12 17:52
Unfortunately Warren and Sanders are right there with her in kneeling to Israel, neither voted against the two Senate resolutions applauding the Israeli assault, and neither has ever taken any position that would disturb the Israeli government.
 
 
+2 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:15
Quoting riverhouse:
It is clear that what Clinton needs is to face some stiff true Democratic opposition in the primaries from the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to put her back in the mindset of Democrats. She is basically at heart a Republican and I am not interested in voting a Democratic ticket and getting a Republican president with a (D) after her name.


That is exactly what we got with the first Clinton president. A Republican with a D after his name. He did as much damage to this nation as Ronald the Raygun.
 
 
+7 # Charles3000 2014-08-12 11:30
When threats came in Libya Obama evacuated the folks for safety. In Ibril, there in Iraq, he is doing airstrikes to protect them. The difference? The folks in Iraq are working for oil companies looking for new wells to dig. Not the same as Libya...
 
 
+16 # REDPILLED 2014-08-12 11:32
The first African-America n U.S. President is a Wall Street/Fossil Fool/Warmongeri ng neocon neoliberal. Why should the first Female U.S. President depart from the script? Only such violent socioptahs are allowed to be the nominees of the two branches of the One Party of Empire owned by the Plundering Class.
 
 
+10 # James Marcus 2014-08-12 11:41
'Disgusting'... is Too Good ...for this Military - Industrial Establishment WHORE
...even though you may not publish it...she deserves the label
 
 
-4 # Johnny 2014-08-12 12:44
So does Obomber.
 
 
-1 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:18
Quoting James Marcus:
'Disgusting'... is Too Good ...for this Military - Industrial Establishment WHORE
...even though you may not publish it...she deserves the label


I like heifer better, even though it is an insult to cows. Whores do an honest days work, after all.
 
 
+5 # C.H.Winslow 2014-08-12 11:42
The world now has a quasi-global economy and will soon have a quasi-global society. But it also has a massive gap between moderns and traditionals, between haves and have-nots (to simplify). It does not have a political system that can manage the conflicts that continually arise which, in turn, are exacerbated by aggrandizing politicians and businessmen.

Were between 13 and 15 modern, reasonably democratic, countries to begin to put together an International Rapid Deployment Force as a police power, led by Nato countries, we could act early and swiftly as emergencies require. But the U.S. alone cannot play this role, even with ad hoc coalitions, because its public does not want its men, women, and taxpayers to bear the military and economic burden. When serious academics and professionals go to Britain and the UK to talk about such an international capability, they nix it immediately. They do not trust our domestic politics, our double standard when it comes to Israel, our looking the other way at Gulf state policies, our tea party, gun lobby, and clerical fools. My heart tells me to intervene and rescue; my brain tells me to do so carefully. The American military would have to lead an IRDF, but AIPAC et.al, would force us to pick and choose. That would not work. Unfortunately, we will need to depend on vigilantism and ad hoc coalitions for now. I do weep for those who propitiate Malik Ta'us, those people who live on the Jebel Sinjar.
 
 
+6 # C.H.Winslow 2014-08-12 11:44
I should have said, when we go to Germany and the UK. . .
 
 
+15 # MindDoc 2014-08-12 11:45
I try to be even-handed and give "benefit of the doubt", but issues of War and Peace are now both profound and "in our face", whether we go to (undeclared?) war, provoke wars, or find ways to make them avoidable, with viable outcomes for the human people.

That said, aside from the hawkishness and pro-plutocracy leanings of Clinton -- and despite agreeing that a woman with both integrity and wisdom is overdue as President -- I simply cannot give a pass on extreme hypocrisy. Here is a woman, smart and tough indeed, just barely off her throne as Secretary of State, complaining about the direction of the ship of State. Under her own watch? Showing loyalty to whom? These are questions I don't think she can answer.

Two constant messages I'm seeing: Hillary is "inevitable" (anyone care to try explaining why!) and... Hillary is revealing herself to be much more atuned to the "Bomb, bomb Iran" droning [sic] of McCain, than to the "hope and change" goal of the Administration which (oh yeah) she was part of for a long while.

I know: no clear options, no good options, the world is a crazy place, and half of it would love to take out Israel and/or the U.S. IMHO, "limited" or full-tilt bombing will be widely perceived as "war on Islam" and is sure to evoke retribution like we've not seen ever before. World 'Holy War'. Caution may be wise.

Einstein: "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth -- rocks!"
 
 
+14 # James Marcus 2014-08-12 11:48
I've got it!....
SEND CHELSEA for a 'Tour of Duty' in AFGHANISTAN/IRA Q
 
 
+12 # BKnowswhitt 2014-08-12 11:52
The sticky mess created by Bush Cheney's Iraq. What to do. I agree we don't turn a blind eye to it. We need a fresh mind to deal with it next someone who is intelligently cautious. Hillary is not nearly any way nearly bright like Bill. This will split the Dem Party like the Repukes have now and a Repuke will then win next time around if she's on the 'platform' .... same old shit comin' down ..
 
 
-12 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 15:27
Quoting BKnowswhitt:
The sticky mess created by Bush Cheney's Iraq. What to do. I agree we don't turn a blind eye to it. We need a fresh mind to deal with it next someone who is intelligently cautious. Hillary is not nearly any way nearly bright like Bill. This will split the Dem Party like the Repukes have now and a Repuke will then win next time around if she's on the 'platform' .... same old shit comin' down ..

Hillary is a lot brighter than you or I!
 
 
+15 # Salus Populi 2014-08-12 16:21
Bright is highly overrated, especially when combined with ignorance and arrogance.

It was "The Best and the Brightest" who thought it would be a really keen idea to support colonialism and neocolonialism in Southeast Asia. Their "brightness" turned the "American Century" propounded by Henry Luce in the early forties into "the American decade," as the U.S. economy had gone through the wringer by 1971, resulting in the abandonment of Bretton Woods and the gold standard, and the ascent of the Trilateralists and the Neo-cons and Neo-libs.

Hillary may or may not be as bright as Rhodes Scholar Bill -- whose intelligence didn't keep him from getting bjs in the White House, and whose "triangulation" and reliance on the DLC drained all the remaining progressivism out of the Democratic Party, turning it into a "Republican Lite" outfit just as the Repubs went off the deep end with Gingrich, leaving progressives and even liberals [let alone working people and the poor and minorities] with no candidate at all to represent them, and thus accelerating the race to the abyss of fascism by our kindly rulers and masters. But she is certainly, as noted upthread, a "Goldwater girl" in Democratic clothing, and that alone should disqualify her from office forever.
 
 
+10 # Rosemarie Jackowski 2014-08-12 11:52
Unless WE expose the truth about Hillary, she will win the election. She has strong support from the D Party. Vermont Ds worship her.

Our strategy has to be never again vote D/R.

Vote Green, Socialist, Independent - anything but D/R.
 
 
+3 # Uppity Woman 2014-08-13 00:24
Quoting Rosemarie Jackowski:
Unless WE expose the truth about Hillary, she will win the election. She has strong support from the D Party. Vermont Ds worship her.

Our strategy has to be never again vote D/R.

Vote Green, Socialist, Independent - anything but D/R.


I agree, but we need a strategy to avoid splitting our vote. I say vote Green until the Repubs achive the oblivion they desperately deserve, then vote Green, Socialist or whoever until the Dems suffer the same fate.
 
 
+15 # walt 2014-08-12 11:55
Hillary and all those cited here are well in the clutches of the neocon lobby whose goal is permanent war in the Middle East.

She and they are well funded and controlled and if she is ever elected, we will see no end to wars there.
 
 
+1 # karenvista 2014-08-13 20:53
Quoting walt:
Hillary and all those cited here are well in the clutches of the neocon lobby whose goal is permanent war in the Middle East.

She and they are well funded and controlled and if she is ever elected, we will see no end to wars there.


Anybody want to guess what country wins when we continue our "permanent war in the Middle East."
 
 
0 # Roland 2014-08-12 12:45
I assume everyone here has heard about the crucifixions and genocide that ISIS is bringing to Iraq, Syria and maybe soon to Lebanon, Jordon and Turkey. I also assume everyone has heard the threats made to the US.

Am I to assume from all these posts that no one here sees ISIS as a threat? If not why?
 
 
+10 # Salus Populi 2014-08-12 16:33
A threat to whom? Israel? It is the fourth strongest military power in the world. The U.S.? That's simply risible. To "our oil" under "their sand"? Perhaps, but that is no excuse for waging yet another aggressive war, for which we hanged the top leadership of Germany and Japan after WWII, archly proclaiming at the time that we were certainly not simply carrying out "victors' justice," but were binding ourselves to the same standards we set for the defeated Axis powers.

There is one major power that is highly threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a Wahabbist outfit that considers Shi'a Islam to be worthy of painful death.

That would be Iran, which way back in 2003 offered to settle all outstanding differences with the U.S., and was rebuffed and the Swiss envoy who brought the offer insulted and demeaned for doing so.

That was under the Cheney Torture and Death Squad regime. The neo-cons, including Killary, are still eager to nuke Tehran and prevent Iran from exercising its lawful right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes, and they still run our government with Obomber as figurehead.

But if one really was interested in throwing a major roadblock up in front of the would-be Caliphate, the obvious strategy is to make up with Iran, give it lots of weaponry and support as well as billions of dollars in aid, and let it deal with the brigands and terrorists in ISIL.
 
 
-7 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:49
Quoting Salus Populi:

There is one major power that is highly threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a Wahabbist outfit that considers Shi'a Islam to be worthy of painful death. That would be Iran, which way back in 2003 offered to settle all outstanding differences with the U.S., and was rebuffed and the Swiss envoy who brought the offer insulted and demeaned for doing so.
.

BTW, IRAN WAS SUPPLING THE SUNNI TERRORISTS WITH THE IEDS THAT BLEW UP OUR SOLDIERS IN IRAQ.
 
 
+6 # Salus Populi 2014-08-13 18:53
Ummm, no. Shi'as and Sunnis are bitter enemies, and Iran was not so stupid and suicidal as to provide its most bitter enemies, the Sunni fundamentalists in Iraq, with any kind of weaponry. Another of the many lies [I believe the number of them was totaled up at over 900 a few years ago] of the war criminals in the White House.

If anyone was likely to supply the AQ in Iraq with serious weapons, it would have been their paymasters in Riyadh and Ad Dawhah, both of which are counted as "moderate" allies of the U.S. in the prevaricators' lexicon.

But in any event, as you certainly should be aware if you have even a kindergartner's knowledge of the Iraq slaughter, the "I" in "IED" stands for *IMPROVISED*." Locally put together. You know, like the supposed pressure cooker bombs that blew up at the Boston Marathon. Probably made up from materials that were stolen from the state-owned arsenals that were left unprotected by the U.S. expeditionary force when it invaded Iraq.

Regardless of the source, easily made and quite primitive, and the recipes readily available in such common resources as the Anarchist Cookbook of the seventies.
 
 
+12 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 16:35
ISIS is evil. So are the government of the U.S. and the government of Israel (which, latter, supplies a major motive of the war-mongering of Hillary & other neocons).

ISIS threatens U.S. hegemony & the economic interests of U.S. "elites" & their major corporations. ISIS and its threat are the makings of U.S. hegemonic actions of the 1950s through the present.

ISIS does not threaten the generality of the U.S. population: ISIS has not even a thousandth of the weaponry & other war materiel, the financial resources, the numbers, or the skill needed to render such threat. No evidence suggests ISIS could begin to acquire more than enough to terrorize parts of Syria and Iraq (and, perhaps, parts of Lebanon).

The U.S. created the conditions that birthed & gave life to ISIS. Now Hillary & other neocons want to plunge the U.S. into creating new bad conditions that would heighten the bravado & power of ISIS & perhaps spawn an even worse terrorist horde.

Does ISIS threaten the interests of the northern Levant & the "Fertile Crescent"? That question's answer is the business of the peoples of those regions. If they answer the affirmative, THEY must devise fitting remedy, or ask the UN to intercede.
 
 
-11 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:42
Quoting Roland:
I assume everyone here has heard about the crucifixions and genocide that ISIS is bringing to Iraq, Syria and maybe soon to Lebanon, Jordon and Turkey. I also assume everyone has heard the threats made to the US.

Am I to assume from all these posts that no one here sees ISIS as a threat? If not why?

THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE. THEY ARE TOO BUSY PONTIFICATING TO ABSORB REALITY.
 
 
+12 # Rara Avis 2014-08-12 13:14
Candidly, my strong affiliation with the Democratic Party in the far-left fringe of that party, places my obligations to the party in conflict with my own principles where this candidate is concerned. Secretary Clinton is going down absolutely the wrong road here. My own basic humanity and religious belief have me looking for another candidate. Perhaps she will tack back to a more rational response. I'm not holding my breath, nor am I naïve. Future events might force the nation to act more boldly in the Middle East. Her point about the dangers of ISIL are well founded. But so automatically wanting war as some sort of default setting is not my cup of tea. This is very worrisome and trumps electing a Democrat in 2016 (unless someone more progressive puts their hat in).
 
 
+12 # tingletlc 2014-08-12 14:02
[ “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle," (Hillary) noted.]

Pretty good Washington soundbite, if not as economical as Obama's "We tortured some folks." But wrong.

If the U.S. has a foundational organizing principle, it must be the Constitutional separation of powers, whose very purpose was to prevent the government from doing stupid stuff. Endemic stupidity in all three branches in recent years has overwhelmed its efficacy, but the idea was sound.
 
 
+11 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 17:57
The Founders did not think with one mind. They did not conceive a single "foundational.. .principle." In most aspects of the "founding," Federalists prevailed. Yet even they waged disputes, like those of Hamilton & Madison.

One may add to Separation of Powers more than a few other "foundational principle" candidates,

One may be "rule of law." In our time, the concept is a joke, especially in the field of our treaties our government violates near-daily & sundry of our "Bill of Rights" provisions made mush by the Patriot Act & other, related federal statutes & by the conduct of our government's "National Security" entities & the Presidency.

Another candidate may be "maintenance of democracy." In our time, our democracy is a sham — too blatantly so to need evidencing.

But Hillary did not address a "foundational principle." Her concept was "organizing principles."

If one accounts the rest of her jargon & political history, one might substitute for "organizing" a term like "herding." That prospect accords much importance to Hillary's conflating "organizing principles" & "Great nations." Considering that juxtaposition, one might reminisce through histories like those of ancient Sparta, ancient Rome, Genghis Kahn's empire, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy.

Hillary would take U.S. foreign policy to a more hideous level of arrogantly intrusive military violence & state terrorism (U.S. state terrorism). Denounce her.
 
 
+3 # tingletlc 2014-08-12 18:59
[But Hillary did not address a "foundational principle." Her concept was "organizing principles."]

Right; it was her term "organizing" that I particularly meant to address with the example of the separation of powers, which is both foundational *and* organizational, as your other candidates are not. The rest of your post is well off my point.

[Hillary would take U.S. foreign policy to a more hideous level of arrogantly intrusive military violence & state terrorism (U.S. state terrorism). Denounce her.]

Glad to, but I'd only be piling on.
 
 
0 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 21:52
Yours: "...it was her term ‛organizing' that I particularly meant to address with the example of the separation of powers, which is both foundational *and* organizational, as your other candidates are not."

Rule of law & maintenance of democracy are "organizing."

The constitution set the "foundational" law. It limits government many ways, other than with Separation of Powers, a concept the constitution expresses nowhere.

The due process clauses design to prevent government's taking property, liberty, or life unless pursuant to due, formal consideration, or for at least rational objective — without which government may do much stupid stuff in treatment of resources, human action, or durations of life-spans.

The constitution conceives that the nation be organized & operate as a representative democracy, because it conceives that such mode avoids stupid stuff, like many effects of autocratic monarchy or dictatorial oligarchic regimes. So, democracy-maint enance pursues organization sought to cut frequency of stupid stuff.

Separation of Powers need not be anti-stupidity- organizational: Separating/prot ecting separation of authority-repos itories does not treat the prospect that a repository will incubate stupid stuff grown solely within the prerogative of the responsible repository & not produced by means that impinge on another repository's prerogative.

Well off your point? You fogged your point with false reference, faulty logic, and wanting analysis.
 
 
0 # tingletlc 2014-08-13 00:02
[Rule of law & maintenance of democracy are "organizing."]

In what sense? Articles I, II and III of the Constitution, in establishing the three branches, amount more or less to an organization chart. Rule of law and the maintenance of democracy are aspirational, but they presuppose nothing about the forms.

The rest of your post confuses the hell out of me, but to the extent that I think I understand it, I discount some of it as not germane to the argument, and I disagree with some of it (in particular, the next-to-last paragraph, which *seems* to reject the existence of checks and balances).
 
 
0 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-13 01:18
PART 1 OF 2

"In what sense"? Quite the "sense" I described concerning each considered case. Try reading better, without imposing your ego's need.

Articles I, II, and III do much more than establish three branches. I suppose that if you edit their terms to fit your wish, they will say, to you, the proposition you desire.

Those Articles do create a government organization. But THAT much does not imply a separation of powers (a concept expressed nowhere in the document, a concept that is an extra-constitut ional DOCTRINE, not a constitution provision). Nor does that much accomplish more than formation of a skeleton.
 
 
0 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-13 01:19
PART 2 OF 2

The three Articles stipulate the limited powers of each of the three branches & stipulate purpose-limits of the stipulated powers' uses. THAT aspect limits also the extent of each branch's capacity, or obligation, of operating in, or affecting, a region of the realm of another branch.

But those Articles do NOT express all of such considerations. E.G, from, AMONG ELSE, (a) the relation of Article III & the other two Articles & (b) the written constitution's existence & (c) aspects of pre-constitutio n common law, Marbury v. Madison "drew" the judiciary's special power of controlling the other two branches.

That (Marbury/judici al-review) matter is NOT a matter simply of a separation of powers. It is a matter of limited judicial supremacy — which contradicts, somewhat, the separation of powers DOCTRINE. And it is a matter of enforcing the rule of law. And, more subtly, it is a matter of democracy-maint enance, since it is a means of ensuring that the elected branches do not act in ways that exceed the prerogative-fun ctions they were elected, democratically, to exercise for the welfare of the electorate.

THOSE are organizational matters AT LEAST much as is the separation of powers DOCTRINE.
 
 
-2 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-13 01:32
Yours: "The rest of your post confuses the hell out of me, but to the extent that I think I understand it, I discount some of it as not germane to the argument, and I disagree with some of it (in particular, the next-to-last paragraph, which *seems* to reject the existence of checks and balances)."

If you are confused in reading my comments, you are not positioned either to interpret whether my points are germane to your (indeterminable ) point or to disagree with any of my propositions (which do NOT include a rejection of the constitution's implied or express "checks & balances," some of the elements, qualities, and contours of which I adumbrated in my last previous comment, the two-part one posted at 2014-08-12 23:18 and 2014-08-12 23:19).
 
 
-1 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 22:10
Yours: "Glad to, but I'd only be piling on."

Your sentence's referents are mysteries.

"Glad to" WHAT?

WHAT would you be piling onto WHAT if you did WHAT(?) [denounced Hillary?]?

Do you mean to imply that because already very many have denounced Hillary, your denouncing her would be redundant?

Do you mean to imply that already YOU have denounced her, so that if you did so per my request, you would repeat an act not appropriately repeated? If you denounced her earlier, what evidences the event? Not you initial comment.

Do you mean something else? If so, what?
 
 
-1 # tingletlc 2014-08-13 00:20
In the context, I don't see any possible referent for "Glad to" other than "Denounce her." The meaning of the idiomatic expression "piling on" should be equally transparent, and you've interpreted it correctly with "redundant".

What's so hard about all of this?
 
 
-2 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-13 00:48
The difficulty is that your language is sloppy, but you think it is clear.

Many folks suffer the same difficulty. They blather & expect others will interpolate & edit their language to produce statements they wish they had made, just as such people interpolate & edit others' language so that they can think it says what they think they want it to speak.

You are responsible for exactly your exact words, but you prefer not to be.
 
 
0 # tingletlc 2014-08-13 13:48
[You are responsible for exactly your exact words, but you prefer not to be.]

Not fair. You're imputing a mental state to me that you can't possibly know. I choose my language carefully and I take full responsibility for all of it.

I intended my original post as return fire of Hillary's cheap shot, with reference to a single, limited feature of the Constitution, a scholar of which I am distinctly not. I'm in no strong position to vet your arguments, but I think it's graceless of you to demean my writing and my intellectual integrity in language that is tendentious, carelessly edited and sometimes barely coherent.

If this has been some sort of contest, you win, because I quit. Content yourself with calling Hillary a whore and me an incompetent; just don't mistake that for argument.
 
 
-4 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-13 20:21
Yours (referring to my text): "sometimes barely coherent."

You suffer incomprehesion — your thought's not cohering rationally with its language-object . That incomprehesion does not imply that your thought's language-object (my text) is not coherent. Perhaps your mind cannot pierce tight prose, especially if the topic is constitutional law.

Yours (referring to my text): "carelessly edited."

My text's diction is perfect (& tends toward the simple). Your diction suffers error & some bloating (e.g., "tendentious"). My text's grammar is perfect. (Yours is flawed.) My text's syntax is logical & succinct. Yours is neither.

Yours [Quoting my proposition that "You are responsible for exactly your exact words, but you prefer not to be."]: "Not fair. You're imputing a mental state to me that you can't possibly know."

Your mental state is irrelevant. Fairness is irrelevant (& not a rational standard, but an opiate of the self-pitying). The matter is an objective reality, not any content of your subjective self-perception . Your language shows (objectively) that you are linguistically irresponsible. With your emotional defenses of your language, you show (objectively) that you prefer (stand fixed to or locked in) your linguistic irresponsibility.

Yours: "If this has been some sort of contest, you win, because I quit."

I do not seek winning. Merely do I not endure pretentious cavils.

One does not win if, only, an opponent quits. Merely does the opponent default.
 
 
0 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 14:20
Hillary Clinton is a whore, a very dangerous, unscrupulous whore. So is Obama (as was Cheney & GW Bush & his daddy & Bill Clinton). So are virtually all Democrats & Republicans. We need to vote those Parties out of existence, or, at least, vote them into impotence.

See my article published at
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/25072-rising-from-a-meek-crevice
AND see the last comment I posted under that article (my comment of 2014-08-04 20:21)
AND see my article that comment references, published at http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/24423-how-not-to-overturn-citizens-united
AND my bottom two comments published under that article (my comments of 2014-07-20 13:36 AND 2014-08-05 13:45)
 
 
+5 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 15:03
Lest your emotions misguide you into misapprehending the meaning I intend for "whore" in this context, know that I do NOT mean "a person who engages in sex for pay."
 
 
+2 # Leonard R. Jaffee 2014-08-12 15:21
Aw pshaw. Y'alls don't like th' truth much.
 
 
+2 # C.H.Winslow 2014-08-12 14:36
Roland, you have asked an appropriate question. Rara Avis seems to acknowledge the point when he/she writes, "Her point about the dangers of ISIL are well founded". Yes, ISIL is a threat and will have to be contained until it dies on the vine. Hot-house grown potentates, whether Nur as-Sim, Nasser, or Netanyahu, inevitably overreach. The new Khalif will surely follow in his ancestor's footsteps.

There are two major points here, re' the Hillary comments. Her complaint that "not doing silly things" is a poor organizing principle for foreign policy is reasonable. What she would do, whether engaging in electoral politics or taking military action, is somewhat problematic. My guess is that she would do approximately what Obama is doing, cautiously ramping up the military costs to ISIL until some debacle occurs that spurs the public, here and abroad, to back a more robust military response. In democratic cultures, it takes emergencies to mobilize public support.

Roland, in defense of those who are skeptical of military escalation in the Middle East, they tend to see it as simply reinforcing the contemporary oil and weapons plutocracy which plays a role in causing the problems in the first place. If Hillary is willing to lay out a foreign policy program and enunciate an appropriate strategic doctrine, one that has progressive and humanitarian dimensions, some of those who complain here might change their minds. The Clintons are smart, but are they just politicians?
 
 
-3 # Roland 2014-08-12 15:36
What makes you think that we can contain ISIS and that it will eventually die on the vine?

A leader sees what must be done and leads the public. Convinces them to follow him. Obama hasn’t done this. He isn’t a leader.

Hillary, on the other hand can not be trusted. This is epitomized by Gates observations of a discussion between Hillary and Obama. The one where Hillary told the President that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the primary.

For people to worry that the manufacturers of weapons may make a profit, while we use those weapons against ISIS, is incredibly misguided.
 
 
+14 # dbrize 2014-08-12 16:16
"We" don't need to contain ISIS. The Turks can do it themselves if necessary.

Likewise our dear "friends" the Saudis could stop aiding, financing and expanding the Wahhabis. Funny how we never hear many policy pronouncements about this. Ever wonder why?
 
 
-6 # Roland 2014-08-13 09:31
The Turks are going to stop them from migrating to another country and from flying over here?
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2014-08-13 15:42
Things your local office of Neoconservative s and MIC/CIA United for World Hegemony won't tell you:

You have a better chance of being struck by lightning or hit by a car than dying at the hands of ISIS.

The longer they muck around in the region the more even those odds become however.

Consider this your bromide for a decent nights sleep.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2014-08-13 16:10
Quoting dbrize:
Things your local office of Neoconservatives and MIC/CIA United for World Hegemony won't tell you:

You have a better chance of being struck by lightning or hit by a car than dying at the hands of ISIS.

The longer they muck around in the region the more even those odds become however.

Consider this your bromide for a decent nights sleep.


In my haste to alleviate any potential sleep deprivation I may have caused you confusion by use of "they" in my third paragraph. A better word would be "we".
 
 
+9 # walthe310 2014-08-12 15:35
ISIS is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Some now contend that ISIS would not exist or be a threat if the US had intervened more forcefully in Syria. ISIS is a Sunni organization of people dissatisfied with their governments. Without Syria, the Sunni population of Iraq were dissatisfied with the al-Maliki government and probably would have formed an organization named ISI, the Islamic State of Iraq. However, Sunnis from Syria have joined with Sunnis from Iraq to form ISIS. With a population of about 27 million to Syria's population of about 18 million, Iraq would be the dominant partner by sheer weight of numbers.

How many remember the short-lived union of Egypt and Syria from 1958 to 1961 under Egypt's president Gamal Abdel Nasser? It was called the United Arab Republic and its goal was to unite all of the Arab nations of the Middle East. Since Nasser was not aligned with East or West and was considered a leftist, the West worried about the threat he might pose to western interests. The union broke down and Syria withdrew. This happened without western military action.

Today, scaremongers on the Right are calling for military action against ISIS for a variety of reasons. If we don't kill them over there, we will be forced to kill them over here. I propose the reverse. If we let them live in peace over there, they will let us live in peace over here. Let's try that strategy for a change. We cannot kill every loud mouth who threatens us and we should not try.
 
 
-8 # Roland 2014-08-12 15:41
Very Neville Chamberlain of you.

After all these people committing genocide. In that aspect they are kind of like the Nazis.
 
 
-11 # Barbara N Shabo RN 2014-08-12 17:57
Quoting Roland:
Very Neville Chamberlain of you.

After all these people committing genocide. In that aspect they are kind of like the Nazis.

AT LAST, A COMMENT BY SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN THAT THINKS!
 
 
+4 # futhark 2014-08-12 18:07
"Hillary Clinton Joins Republicans..."

That's all you need to know before casting your vote in any primary or general election.
 
 
+5 # Jadhu 2014-08-12 18:22
A long time ago, I used to like Hillary. Then, I stopped trusting her. Now, I am sure she disgusts me (what a reptilian politician)! I hope Warren runs. At least that way, we can say that we had a real choice.
 
 
-1 # Jadhu 2014-08-12 18:26
The problem is that given a choice between a Republican platform and a Democratic platform (even with Hillary), it is clear what the lesser evil is (and now I get the concept of "the lesser of two evils" all around). It seems that we are drowning in a world of gray (or is it grey)?
 
 
+13 # fredboy 2014-08-12 18:51
Your headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton joins Republicans."

Just like she did when she voted FOR invading Iraq.

And her husband Bill did when he killed Glass-Stegall and unleashed the banks on us.
 
 
+7 # Archie1954 2014-08-12 21:58
The American people are sick to death of war (pun intended)! This woman is signing her own electoral epitaph with her Constant warmongering. The longer she keeps it up, the less chance she has of winning the Democratic candidacy and the election.
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2014-08-12 22:04
Hillary is just throwing out any kind of crap to see if she can get some traction. She's practicing the triangulation that the Clintons have always used -- a democrat who follows the policies of a republican. I don't see her getting any traction. In another few months she will fade away into the background. Very few people will touch her with a 100 foot pole.
 
 
+1 # Firefox11 2014-08-13 09:34
Quoting indian weaver:
A few million corpses along with the destruction of the American middle class, and plundering the American economy, and imploding the stability of what was a decent nation, and creation of the perfect storm for the oncoming civil / revolutionary wars? Yes, perfect, fund the MIC with $Billions and to hell with We The People. We don't count as much as the next oil well in Iraq / Ukraine / worldwide. Forget it. This government cares nothing for domestic survival of We The People. We're doomed with this government. All of us, and the planet.

Perhaps so, thus, from Band of Brothers, when asked how to survive as a soldier in war, a young recuit was told by a seasoned soldier, you are already dead, accept that, and do what you must.
 
 
+2 # yolo 2014-08-13 18:12
Those advocating for engagement in Syria were for targeting Assad and his forces not ISIS. So if we had engaged in Syria earlier we wouldn't have hurt ISIS but probably help them. So I don't understand the logic of engagement in Syria has anything do with ISIS in Iraq? Unless of course people believe that had the rebels won in Syria they would not have bothered Iraq? Who are these ISIS/rebels, do they really care about anything, or is their sole reason for being just to fight someone?
 
 
0 # Bolduc619 2014-08-14 21:26
Since Pres. Richard Nixon supported BOTH a Guaranteed National Income and Medicare For ALL and Ms. Clinton decidedly not does not, the puts Hillary Clinton to the RIGHT of Nixon!

Therefore the headline more accurately reads: "Hillary Clinton Joins FELLOW Republicans in Call for War"

Have a nice day!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN