As reckless as George W. Bush: Hillary Clinton helped create disorder in Iraq, Libya, Syria

[Brian4Liberty]

As reckless as George W. Bush: Hillary Clinton helped create disorder in Iraq, Libya, Syria — and, scarier, doesn’t seem to understand how
By Patrick L. Smith

As of the voting in various primaries last week and this week, Hillary Rodham Clinton has the surest way to the White House of any candidate who seeks the presidency from either of the major parties. She may not complete the journey, it is true. But even the most ardent Bernie Sanders supporters must now recognize that a lot of brush has been cleared from her path, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may once again be Clinton’s address.
...
As you may surmise, I take the prospect of a Clinton II era to be a grave matter. It is not that she is a pathological variant of the political shape-shifter, to borrow a phrase from Charles Blow’s excellent column on the collapse of American ideals in Monday’s New York Times. It is Clinton’s consistency that should concern us most.

This is a dangerous figure, and I use the word advisedly, not rhetorically. Over eight years as First Lady, eight more as a New York senator and four as secretary of state, Clinton has proven repeatedly abusive of social order and careless of human life. It is time we face these facts and act accordingly. This holds especially for those given to false consciousness or lesser-of-evils arguments as they decide what to do next November 8.

I make special reference to American conduct abroad when I consider the prospect of a Clinton II presidency. Two reasons.

One, President HRC, in the event there is one, is destined to make very little difference in the domestic context. Thoroughly captive to the banks, corporations and special interests that have paved her political road for decades, Clinton will get next to nothing done in any of the countless domestic spheres wherein so much needs to be rectified. She has told us this herself, if subtly.

Some weeks ago, Michelle Alexander published an instantly celebrated piece in The Nation that demolished the reputation Clinton shares with her husband as an advocate for women, the disadvantaged and minority communities in America.
...
Clinton offers yet less prospect of substantive change on the foreign side, and here the need is very arguably more urgent. Much of the world is in chaos.
...
No one can seriously question Hillary Clinton’s influential role in creating the disorder that envelops us. Yet Clinton shows no sign of understanding our condition as it is or her place among its creators. The element of denial in her foreign policy platforms is self-evident.
...
More: https://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/as...ia_and_scarier_doesnt_seem_to_understand_how/

 

[Smitty]

I'm definitely no fan of Obama, but if there's one positive I can point to in his administration, it's that he has somewhat mitigated the advancement of war in the Middle East.

Hillary has long been a subservient tool of the neocons. I'm afraid that Hillary will completely open the floodgates of war in the Middle East and in doing so, will re-ignite the (not so) cold war with Russia and its allies.

Hillary is undoubtedly the most dangerous candidate the USA has running this election cycle.

I don't see Trump as the nation's savior. But I think he's the best chance to keep Hillary from assuming office and I think he would do much to dial back tensions in the Middle East and with Russia.

And that's very, very important at this juncture.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Good point.

 

[openfire]

Hillary has long been a subservient tool of the neocons. I'm afraid that Hillary will completely open the floodgates of war in the Middle East and in doing so, will re-ignite the (not so) cold war with Russia and its allies.

Hillary is undoubtedly the most dangerous candidate the USA has running this election cycle.

I don't see Trump as the nation's savior. But I think he's the best chance to keep Hillary from assuming office and I think he would do much to dial back tensions in the Middle East and with Russia.

And that's very, very important at this juncture.

More important than most realize.

 

[klamath]

Hillary is the noninterventionist compared to trump. Trump would have had US troops on the ground in Libya. Hillary just bombed them.

 

[openfire]

Hillary is the noninterventionist compared to trump. Trump would have had US troops on the ground in Libya. Hillary just bombed them.

One would think the neocons would be delighted to have him, then.

 

[klamath]

One would think the neocons would be delighted to have him, then.

Some of them are. Proves nothing. Trump at the time made a solid statement that we should have troops in Libya and we should take their oil in the payment for doing it.

 

[openfire]

Some of them are. Proves nothing. Trump at the time made a solid statement that we should have troops in Libya and we should take their oil in the payment for doing it.

"Taking their oil" is not the neocon agenda. They simply need the oil priced in US dollars, and they have puppet regimes in place and/or agreements backed by threat of force or sanctions to ensure that. Gaddafi was setting up oil sales in an African gold Dinar, hence he was taken out. Saddam, same story (Euros). But it goes far beyond that...

Carefully examine what Trump is saying, and you will conclude - as have the neocons and global elites - that Trump is not down with the agenda.

 

[klamath]

"Taking their oil" is not the neocon agenda. They simply need the oil priced in US dollars, and they have puppet regimes in place and/or agreements backed by threat of force or sanctions to ensure that. Gaddafi was setting up oil sales in an African gold Dinar, hence he was taken out. Saddam, same story (Euros). But it goes far beyond that...

Carefully examine what Trump is saying, and you will conclude - as have the neocons and global elites - that Trump is not down with the agenda.

"Taking their oil" is trumps agenda. Troops in Libya is trumps agenda. Bombing the shit out of them is trumps agenda.

 

[openfire]

"Taking their oil" is trumps agenda. Troops in Libya is trumps agenda. Bombing the $#@! out of them is trumps agenda.

If you say so.

 

[klamath]

If you say so.

Trump said so. I could post the full on video Trump recorded in 2011 saying exactly that, but you would just go back to saying he is a non interventionist and that he has changed even though if he had been president in 2011 US troops would have been on the ground in Libya.

 

[openfire]

Trump said so. I could post the full on video Trump recorded in 2011 saying exactly that, but you would just go back to saying he is a non interventionist and that he has changed even though if he had been president in 2011 US troops would have been on the ground in Libya.

Yes, in 2011 he said that. You said "Troops in Libya is trumps agenda." I highly doubt that is currently his agenda, since the situation he was referring to is no longer the case.

 

[klamath]

Yes, in 2011 he said that. You said "Troops in Libya is trumps agenda." I highly doubt that is currently his agenda, since the situation he was referring to is no longer the case.

If the price of oil goes up trump will send troops in a flash, and fip you the bird for objecting.

 

[openfire]

If the price of oil goes up trump will send troops in a flash, and fip you the bird for objecting.

Utter nonsense.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

On a related note, if current SWC has endorsed her for 2016 in an ad, why in the world would his administration prosecute her for alleged war crimes, benghazi, email servers or anything else?

 

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Some of them are. Proves nothing. Trump at the time made a solid statement that we should have troops in Libya and we should take their oil in the payment for doing it.

Name just one neocon who supports Trump.

 

[klamath]

Name just one neocon who supports Trump.

How about Rudy? How about Christie? However in your twisting to support trumpy, they aren't neocons now...

 

[AZJoe]

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street Shill, Threat to World Peace

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street Shill, Threat to World Peace
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2016/03/hillary-clinton-wall-street-shill.html

"As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade. She orchestrated Obama’s premeditated wars on Libya and Syria, raping and destroying both countries, supported Bush’s naked aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq, still raging.

At a 2014 Long Beach, CA campaign fundraiser, she outrageously compared Putin allowing Crimeans to return to Russia in accordance with international law to “what Hitler did back in the 30s,” preceding WW II. She accused him of wanting control regained over former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries. No evidence suggests either intention. She’s more likely to confront Russia militarily than any of the other loathsome presidential aspirants, possibly risking WW III to serve her agenda. ...

A Clinton presidency is the worst of all deplorable options. WW III may follow."
​

Hillary Clinton Is A Psychopath And A War Criminal
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44354.htm

Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal, [who said] “we came, we saw, he died,” mimicking Julius Ceasar and laughing hysterically after Colonel Kaddafi, my former client, was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. She’s a certified psychopath and war criminal.
​

Why I Believe A Hillary Clinton Presidency May Cause World War III
https://www.slantnews.com/story/2016-03-11-why-a-clinton-presidency-could-trigger-world-war-iii

In 2002 Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war, a vote, she now says was a mistake, sort of ... Clinton’s regrets over the Iraq war didn’t stop her from supporting the bombing and arming of opposition groups in Libya, ... Despite the abysmal failure of the Libyan intervention, Secretary Clinton pushed for American intervention in the Syrian crisis as well. A plan that was made increasingly worse by the arming of Libyan opposition forces ... Clinton’s hawkish meddling is not restricted to the Middle East, as her support for the military coup in Honduras can attest. ...

But as a leak in the U.S. State Department revealed there were plans to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, and that these plans were formulated by the Israeli government. The purpose of this destabilization, according to Mint Press, was to weaken Iran and Hezbollah, while also allowing Israel greater access to the disputed Golan Heights where oil has been discovered. Destabilizing the Syrian government was also planned by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, plans which went back to 2012. Doing so would help to secure a natural gas pipeline that would challenge Russian gas giant, Gazprom’s dominance over the European energy market. ...
​

[FONT=proxima_novaregular]
[/FONT]Will Hillary Clinton Lead Us Into Another War in the Middle East?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliza...llary-clinton-lead-another-war_b_9378252.html

Libya was not the first time she endorsed a U.S. military operation in the Middle East without thinking ahead: Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. ... Clinton is long on triumphalism (“we came, we saw, he died” she is reported to have said upon viewing a video of Qaddafi’s brutal death), but short on thinking ... Hillary Clinton’s decision-making is in line with the flawed foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, repeating the disastrous policies of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz: bomb, invade, overthrow - and then think later, if ever. ... This helps explain why arch neo-conservatives like Robert Kagan have endorsed Clinton. As Kagan put it in a recent piece in The Washington Post, “for this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.” ... ​

 

[CPUd]