DLC's PNAC Document - Hillary Clinton On America's Strategy

[Zorra]

From the Council on Foreign Relations' publication.

BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.
snip---
t a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.
snip---
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people's lives -- whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation's fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/09/dlcs-pnac-document-hillary-clinton-americas-strategy

From SwampRat in 2008: Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 02:26 PM
Original message
Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

Before you vote for Hillary Clinton, please consider the following:

Research Questions:

Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?

Will electing her to be the President of the United States not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also damage the U.S. Government for generations, if not forever, thus transforming it into a permanent police state or empire?

Data:

1. Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

2. Hillary Clinton praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed (see below).

3-5. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

1. Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

2. Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&co...

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

3. Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism&quot , represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

4. Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"
(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

5. Progressive Policy Institute

"Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

________________

Conclusion:

You decide.

Will a vote for a PNAC-PPI-DLC candidate, not only enable the destruction of the Democratic Party, but will it also empower those who will continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Finally, will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5222518

[Scootaloo]

1. K&R

[tularetom]

2. Yeah, she got a lot of splainin to do

Unortunately the only response we'll see here on DU is "Bernie Sanders and all his supporters are members of the KKK, so neener neener neener".

[orpupilofnature57]

54. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!!!!!

How many debates do you think Hillary wants?

[Skwmom]

125. The trade stuff is a bunch of B.S. which explains why unions are against it. n/t

[sabrina 1]

176. That small group is irrelevant. We knew something had gone wrong with our party.

It took a while, thanks to Cheney/Bush to really look at what was going on within our own party. The sudden, it seemed, rightwinglike hatred for the 'left' eg, coming from so-called Democrats.

This is an excellent OP and should be disseminated far and wide to as many Democrats as possible.

We know now for sure we were not imagining things.

Send these people back to their own party. This party belongs to the people.

which have helped to transform our party

'our' party????

Infuriating, and the gall of these people to 'blame the voters' when they finally refused to keep on electing more of their Dinos.

We have a lot of work to do to return our party to the people.

A good start will be the election of Bernie AND even more importantly, as many non-DNC-approved Progressive Dems who are running against the Third Way's candidates.

[Cleita]

3. Those of us who know about this don't understand why any

real Democrat would be behind her.

[SoapBox]

7. Exactly.

[Cleita]

14. In addition, I remember DLC being regarded as Republican Lite back

in the early days of DU even more to the right of Blue Dog Dems. Now they have taken over.

[Scuba]

67. Notice the right-wing and their media pundits never - never - criticize Hillary for this.

[zeemike]

19. I think there are at least two explanations.

One is the cult of personality has a hold on them.
And the other is they will personally gain by her being president...and the later uses the former.

[HFRN]

35. if all you care about, is a celebration party for donkey brand

and NOTHING else, she suits you just fine

[hifiguy]

65. Yep, ignore policy and just root for the laundry, as Seinfeld put it.

[840high]

59. Correct.

[AtomicKitten]

133. She's a neocon on foreign policy.

She and the Republicans need to be kept away from the levers of government or we will be condemned to perpetual war.

[Cleita]

134. Her record as SOS shows that and the fact that she considers

Henry Kissinger a mentor.

[AtomicKitten]

135. Yep. That alone speaks volumes.

[colsohlibgal]

4. People Need To Dig Deeper

My guess is a lot of HRC supporters do not drill down much.

They just like the name or maybe her gender. Or maybe her rising social liberalism.

However considering where we are, in the midst of a robber baron era, we need someone totally committed to an agenda of economic populism.

That is Bernie Sanders.

[winter is coming]

5. Perhaps they work backwards from "I want Hillary" and filter accordingly. n/t

[Maedhros]

20. The Democratic Party has entered a period of "personality cult politics."

We saw this very markedly with President Obama, where policies instituted by Bush were then championed by Obama - yet vast swaths of the Democratic rank-and-file defended these policies (when they had vociferously opposed them during Bush's tenure). For example:



The focus is on the person holding office, and policies are therefore good or bad depending on the person who implements them. Obama, being a Democrat, is therefore by definition "good" and thus his policies are also "good." No other analysis needed (except maybe some shirtless pics to swoon over).

We're in the same position with Hillary. She is by definition "good" to her cult, simply by being Hillary. Thus, her positions and policies are also "good." No other analysis needed.

[jalan48]

21. You nailed it. It's like a popularity contest and Hillary is going to be Student Body President!

[Maedhros]

22. Yup.

?123

[jalan48]

25. HA! So right on. It was a very funny movie as well.

[erronis]

12. Yup - just spent a weekend with one of them

I'm not wedded to Bernie but I like his message. I'll vote for anybody other than the 17+ scums who shouldn't even be allowed to drive a car (or have children.)

The lady that engaged me in earnest discussion was "totally" Hillary. That's OK - I even like some people that are for Rand Paul. I like Hillary and my mother had some words with HRC. I'll vote for Hillary if that's where it ends up.

What I couldn't understand is how a HRC supporter could be so utterly dismissive of any competition. It wasn't even a discussion - just "Hillary is the nominee/candidate/president." Anyone wanting to talk about O'Malley, Sanders, and others was traitorous. No real discussion on platforms, voting records, personal backgrounds - just "this is what s/he said" and "I believe!"

It is one of those things that makes politics and personal decisions so unpleasant. Don't let your wishes for a female/black/gay/native/muslim/etc president get in the way of honest discussions about who is best qualified.

[Maedhros]

24. The problem is this:

By voting for Hillary, we are voting for everything in the OP.

I don't want that.

[JDPriestly]

39. You are right. Unfortunately.

[WillyT]

6. K & R !!!

[Luminous Animal]

8. Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

[madokie]

9. Hillary Clinton will never be the President of these United States of America

you can mark that down as fact. It ain't going to happen. She is not one of us, us being the 99%. Never was and never will be. Simple as that.

[Cleita]

26. I agree. Too many Democrats I know have an

attitude of being lukewarm towards her to saying they will not vote for her no matter what.

[still_one]

27. Perhaps, but at this point in time the polls seem to disagree with that statement

[NYCButterfinger]

40. If Hillary Clinton is never president, then history

will view her as the woman who could have made history, but imploded both times - both in 2008 and 2016. She may have probably ran for president in 2004 against George Bush.

[John Poet]

152. I wanted her to run that year...

I felt we needed a 'heavyweight' candidate to be sure of taking out George W. Bush in 2004, and she was the one who could do it.

But Hillary 'played it safe' that year, and waited for the seat to open in 2008.
By then, I had lost interest.



On the OP, I never realized that the DLC was so closely linked with neocon policies and goals...
Disgusting.

[senz]

98. It's dangerous to be so certain. This is not a "done deal."

We have to work to elect someone good for America. We cannot relax about this. History is full of very bad leaders.

[Le Taz Hot]

123. I agree with you.

She gets Wall Street (which doesn't really care which corporate shill, D or R, is in the White House, as long as they're controllable) and the Yellow Dog Democrats and that's it. NOBODY will cross over for her and I doubt she will get many Sanders supporters, especially the younger ones. They're just not going to settle for her. Meanwhile the Right Wing Crazies will FLOCK to the polling booth to vote against her. She's a sure loser in the General. And you know, don't you, that it will all be the fault of the Progressives.

[madokie]

132. Thats how it will be spun no doubt

when in truth Hillary shouldn't have run to begin with, imo. If she can't read the hand writing on the wall and as bold as it is I wonder about her. Hillary is more interested in being President than doing what is right for the country.
At this point in time we need Change and a whole shitpot full of it. We can't take much more of the way things are now thats for sure.

[madokie]

175. Yup,

I'm being told daily here that its people like me that is the cause when the truth is Hillary would not be a president of us the people. She's big money and big money is not us poor slobs who have to scrape by, pay attention to every detail to survive kind.
I'm too old to give a damn what people think of me anymore. I do what I do based on life lived, experiences experienced and roads traveled.

Bernie will be our next President and I'd bet money on that if I was a betting man. Many of the ones who are going to be voting for him don't or won't listen to the ads that all that money Hillary/her superpacs have that they will run with. It won't matter what they say about Bernie people are going to turn out in droves for him.

[restorefreedom]

172. plain,simple, and right on. nt

[dreamnightwind]

10. + trillions

This is the heart of it, right here in this OP. Amazing how many people on this site seem to not care about such things. I think a lot more people in the general electorate would very much care about it, if they knew.

Getting the word out on who is behind what is our challenge. The MSM and the two billion dollars backing Hillary's campaign will do everything in their power to prevent people learning the true nature of what forcces are behind both the GOP and the corporate side of the Democratic Party. It's up to us to counter that to the best of our abilities.

Thanks for this OP! Never give up, it will be a long and seemingly hopeless task, but seeds are sown by trying.

[senz]

99. + 1

[cantbeserious]

155. + 1,000,000

eom

[KoKo]

11. Well...there we have it. Hillary Clinton: "There are Those Who Would" -- "Those Who Say"

Hillary on Foreign Policy and the TPP:

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities.These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

[arcane1]

55. Funny how we're the only country who needs a global military presence just for "opening new markets"

Meanwhile, China is flooding our market with their cheap crap, and they somehow managed to never need to send troops anywhere near us in order to accomplish that.

Funny how that works.

[KoKo]

62. Good Point...

Have wondered that myself.

[hifiguy]

64. It's not about selling products, which is what the Chinese focus on.

It's about seizing the entire financial systems of other countries at metaphorical gunpoint (and actual gunpoint if that fails) and applying the Shock Doctrine so the banksters can further enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

"Greece for the World" is their motto. World conquest without firing a shot. Leaves all the real estate inact and a nice population of future slave laborers under their thumbs.

[arcane1]

70. ^^^BINGO!

And said much better than I could've done

[passiveporcupine]

86. You hit the nail on the head

[blackspade]

107. Mic drop.

[rhett o rick]

74. Our relationship with China is unique. They treat us like a colony. We provide them the raw

materials, they produce the products and then sell them back to us. That's exactly how imperial powers treated their colonies. We provide another function as the world police. We do it so China doesn't have to. We are their "Black Water".

[oasis]

76. The U.S. Armed Forces are serving as mercenaries for China?

Interesting.

[rhett o rick]

81. That's what you are adding to the conversation? I hope your emoticon

isn't intended to be rude.

[oasis]

84. nope, no rudeness intended. I was waiting for an expanded

explanation on a statement which may irk more than a few service folk.

I'm ex-U.S. Navy. I will plainly say , WE were nobodies mercenaries then and never will be. Unless you consider "Black Water" to be anything other than mercenaries, there should be no problem on explaining why you feel you can so easily equate them with the military in which I proudly served.

Now, who's rude?

[hueymahl]

89. The analogy to mercenaries is a valid comparison

Individually, I would wager virtually 100% of soldiers view their service as for love of country, duty or just a way to get ahead. Not as mercenaries. And certainly not mercenaries for foreign powers. But it is hard to argue that the politicians setting policies, deciding who to go to war against, who to protect, where to allow american blood to be spilled . . . are doing anything but treating our armed forces as mercenaries designed to protect entrenched business interests, friendly foreign powers. There has not been a legitimate state-backed military threat against the United States since the dissolution of the USSR. (For the purposes of this statement, "state-backed military threat excludes terrorism, which by definition is not a state-backed military threat).

The size of our military today is absurd. And yes, it is being used like a mercenary force. Lots of flag waiving and chest thumping to fire up the troops and the masses by our leaders. BTW, this is not intended to be an attack on the bravery and honor of those serving in our military. The venom is aimed squarely at our politicians.

[msanthrope]

154. Rather interested to read the reply. nt

[Ken Burch]

79. And who the hell is trying to close off the sea lanes?

There's no evidence that even Putin is trying to do that.

[Zorra]

82. Dar. He's a clever bugger, that one.

[Juicy_Bellows]

13. Kick! nt.

[George II]

15. What's the point of posting 3-4 year old "stuff" (cleaned up for mixed audiences!) now?

[Roland99]

17. Quite obvious, isn't it? a leopard doesn't change its spots

unless it's for politically expedient reasons.

[azurnoir]

23. +1

[HFRN]

37. leopards may not change their spots, but cheetos sometimes change their flavor nt

[Roland99]

114. only going from baked to fried

can't tell which state applies here.

[zeemike]

29. This post needs a theme song...

[ibegurpard]

31. Oh has she evolved?

[George II]

48. Better to evolve (why is that in quotes??) than to still be living in the '60s.

[jeff47]

60. Because the 60s was 3 years ago. (nt)

[Kelvin Mace]

101. We are living in the 60s

we are involved in a quagmire what that cannot be won, and in fact was lost the moment we started it. A war perpetuated by hawkish Democrats.

[HFRN]

36. on issues of *substance*, 3-4 years old is nothing

by that standard, one could argue that we should give W Bush another try, if there weren't a 2 term limit

after all, nobody can think of anything he's done wrong in the last 3-4 years

[ibegurpard]

68. 3 to 4 years

Is nothing PERIOD. I'd have thought that post was sarcasm if I didn't know who posted it.

[JDPriestly]

45. Do you think Hillary has "evolved" on foreign policy like she has on so many other issues?

How can anyone back a candidate who "evolves" as easily and as often and to such a self-interested extent as Hillary has?

Changing your mind on a couple of issues? Fine.

But Hillary is like a chameleon, changing her colors to suit the mood of the electorate. Who is she really anyway?

And then her refusal to say where she stands on issues like the TPP and as you read above, she favored it very much not long ago. She was bragging about it. At a time when America's balance of payments problem is severe, and we have utterly no policy to do anything about it, at a time when our industrial base has been decimated and our incomes are not really keeping up with our personal costs, we really do not need the TPP.

The point in posting 3-4 year old stuff is that we are trying to find out who Hillary really is and what she really stands for, assuming that her entire political personality is not just a product roll-out -- flavor of the month:

Hillary, you'll love her; she is just what you want her to be; just don't try to find out who she really is or what she really stands for.

If you think we Bernie fans are giving Hillary a tough time, just wait until the Republicans get a hold of her. She is going to have to state where she stands on issues like the XL pipeline, like the TPP and national security. And when she does, she will not only have to answer the questions of the Republicans, but the questions of the real Progressives in her own party.

Hillary is not going to be able to run on the froth that she is now running on.

She has some good policy proposals, but she is not answering serious questions that we Bernie supporters are asking.

Bernie, on the other hand, is open and clear on his stands on the issues. Nothing wishy-washy, nothing hidden, no huge epiphanies just in time to please the voters.

That's why we support Bernie, not Hillary.

Hillary is playing games with all of us, you, me and the rest of the voters. Who knows what she would do once in office? She is not very transparent on a lot of important issues like national security objectives.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War resolution without demanding more evidence and facts. For me, that is a big red STOP sign. STOP, LOOK and LISTEN. Hillary could be dangerous for the health and safety of America. How could anyone in Congress vote for a war based on such bogus information when the UN weapons investigation team was asking for time to finish their work? And how could Congress have allowed Bush to go into Iraq when the weapons inspectors reported just days or weeks earlier (prior to deployment; read the April 2004 issue of Vanity Fair) that Saddam had no WMDs.

Hillary's foreign policy, her war policy, has been disastrous for our country. And she is just one of many, many Democrats who failed our country and voted for war in Iraq. And now look at how ISIS has grown out of that war.

And I have serious questions about the role that the Hillary and Kerry State Departments have played in helping to arm the rebels in Syria and the terrible repercussions we are now seeing play out because of what I suspect was not a well thought through scheme to aid rebels about which we knew very little.

My suspicions about Syria and ISIS are just suspicions. There is little information about just how and from where ISIS gets its weapons. But there are only so many possibilities, and that makes me suspicious of the US role and the roles of some of the US allies like Saudi Arabia.

So yes, we do need to look at Hillary's past. After all, she reminds us repeatedly as she campaigns, that she is the one with the EXPERIENCE.

Thus, since she brags about her EXPERIENCE, it is perfectly correct for us to examine that experience very carefully.

[arcane1]

57. It's totally UNFAIR to compare her to a chameleon. Chameleon don't change their accent

[arcane1]

56. I'm sure most voters used Obama's first term to judge whether to give him a 2nd term.

And i'm sure if he had come out and said "pay no attention to that "old stuff" from my first term" he would've (rightfully) looked like an idiot.

[whatchamacallit]

128. Heck, why even post what she said a month ago

or a week ago? She's evolving ya know. Matter of fact, maybe we should only examine her positions of the last 10 minutes.

[Michigan-Arizona]

16. K&R n/t

[stillwaiting]

18. K&R; This is serious stuff. Hillary has revealed herself time and time again.

We must do much better.

[hifiguy]

28. Kissinger must be SO PROUD of his

Most diligent student.

[CharlotteVale]

30. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

32. Yawn

[Android3.14]

95. Time to wake up

[Kelvin Mace]

102. They won't,

they are not going to hear anything reality-based until the knife slips between their ribs.

[-none]

104. That is all you have, "Yawn"?

Nothing to say in Hillery's defense, or about the OP, one way or another?

[hifiguy]

117. Facts are stubborn things,

and they make no difference at all to the fanboys and fangirls. They root for laundry, as Seinfeld said. Policy means nothing to them.

[HFRN]

33. Her splendid credentials: Neoliberal & Neocon

just splendid

[HFRN]

34. Supporter of trade bills, H-1b visas and outsourcing

what's not to like?

[zentrum]

38. This is a keeper article.

Hillary has always struck me as one of those political women who has to prove they can be as war-like and aggressive as any man and to hell with the effects of that aggressive. Thanks for supplying the history of that.

[hifiguy]

49. The Thatcher Effect.

I'd bet 85-15 that there would be another war within 18 months if she somehow becomes POTUS.

And so many here seem not to give a single shit. Sigh.

[zentrum]

66. That's my big worry too. n/t

[Purveyor]

41. I'm bookmarking this puppy. Thanks for posting, indeed.

K&R

[FlatBaroque]

42. Never. Never. Ever.

Not with a gun to my head.

[hifiguy]

50. I also. NEVER.

[Armstead]

43. OKAY I clicked the links and this is not there

Went to the discussion board linked to, then cliced link to FM website there. Page is not there. Nor did it find anything in search of FP site.

I'm not certain this doesn't exist. Perhaps it's been scrubbed. But it ought to be verified, because it's truly awful if true.

(I'm on your side in this. Just trying to avoid any egg on the face.)

[Purveyor]

53. Found the Hillary article here:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

[Zorra]

58. Thanks for saving me more work, Purveyor!

[Aerows]

61. I found it via a text search:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

[udbcrzy2]

46. K&R and bookmarking - Excellent post n/t

[Enthusiast]

47. Kicked and recommended! The American people have been abused enough.

[hifiguy]

51. "They sure as shit haven't!!!

Now watch this drive."

- The 1%, the Turd Way and their owned enablers/puppets

[Enthusiast]

63. +1

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Enjoy that fuzzy Feeling .

[BlueStateLib]

69. America’s Pacific Century

Its "America’s Pacific Century" speech, not "Project for New America’s Century". Will Marshall did not sign the January 26, 1998, PNAC regime change letter sent to President Bill Clinton as OP was trying to imply, nor was he one of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles'. Will Marshall was on advisory board for "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" founded after 911 in 2002 not PNAC. Will Marshall signed "Statement on Post-War Iraq" below.
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/images/uploads/Statement_on_Post-War_Iraq.pdf

America’s Pacific Century

SOS Clinton: "While stressing that the Obama administration will seek improved ties with China, Clinton used a speech ahead of an Asia-Pacific summit here to dissuade Beijing and others from thinking the United States is ceding its traditional role in the Pacific."

"With the United States facing a multipronged challenge from China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Thursday that the 21st century will be "America's Pacific century" and said the region's problems require U.S. leadership."

"While stressing that the Obama administration will seek improved ties with China, Clinton used a speech ahead of an Asia-Pacific summit here to dissuade Beijing and others from thinking the United States is ceding its traditional role in the Pacific."

"There are challenges facing the Asia-Pacific right now that demand America's leadership, from ensuring freedom of navigation in the South China Sea to countering North Korea's provocations and proliferation activities to promoting balanced and inclusive economic growth," she said."

Clinton's remarks, in a speech at the East-West Center, were part of a campaign by President Barack Obama to "pivot" U.S. foreign policy to focus more intensely on Asia after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in this region,"
Clinton told students and scholars at the East-West Center, a Honolulu think tank.

March 25, 2002, Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/us-apec-usa-clinton-f-idUSTRE7AA2S120111111
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/11/176999.htm
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

[Zorra]

71. False. The OP did not in any way, shape, or form, imply that Will Marshall

signed the January 26, 1998, PNAC regime change letter to Clinton.

"Marshall has a long history of pushing Democratic support for neoconservative-led campaigns,most notably during Iraq war. Marshall signed several statements and open letters issued by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." In 2003, he signed a similar letter organized by the neoconservative Social Democrats/USA urging President Bush to "act alone [on Iraq] if that proves necessary," calling on the president to maintain "substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."[9]

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Marshall_Will

Complete List of PNAC signatories:

http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html

I believe you misunderstood something here. The poster who posted "America's Pacific Century" at the Thom Hartmann Blog was simply pointing out the similarity of the PNAC's Manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" and Hillary Clinton's "America's Pacific Century".

"DLC's PNAC Document - Hillary Clinton On America's Strategy"...think of it as sarcasm.

[blackspade]

109. "March 25, 2002, Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq"

And that makes the invasion OK?
One obviously based on lies if you took the time to dig into it?
Why were 72% for it? M$M and political lies, that's why.

What was the point about Iraq your are trying to make here?

[onehandle]

72. In a few months Hillary will be the Democratic nominee...

...and bullshit like this will be BANNED at DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Enjoy it while it lasts. The 'Not Hillary' Party has an expiration date.

#45

[oasis]

73. You old party pooper you.

It was just gettin good.

[rhett o rick]

75. If that's so, you and others will have a hayday banning people. I guess that's your happiness.

Sadly it appears of more value than lowering the poverty rate, or stop killing our troops, or allowing our children to go to college debt free, keeping our sovereignty, keeping our environment clean, treating our seniors decently, etc.

Yes are so brave to side with the Oligarchy against the 99% that want to stop Wall Street from stealing all our wealth and resources. You may get to gloat and ban, but at what cost?

[nashville_brook]

91. +10000

[-none]

105. Add my approval of the post also.

[restorefreedom]

171. plus a million. nt

[JackInGreen]

77. So you'd embrace

No criticism of policy or perspective and ban stories critical of the possibly then sitting president? Really? I'm sincerely asking, if you don't want debate I think you're probably making an error.

[Zorra]

78. ...

[Ken Burch]

80. What's bullshit about it?

Everything in the OP is true.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Why would we be banned for questioning a candidate's past record on issues?

Will DU devolve into a "love her, or leave it" site?

[raouldukelives]

90. Imagine that. Democrats who care about democracy.

Now imagine you are one.

[senz]

100. That sounds like you just want to get revenge on anyone who doesn't back Hillary.

Can't you see how extreme that is?

More importantly, do you know what you want for this country? For your children, grandchildren, the future? The stakes are high. It's time to think.

[rhett o rick]

108. In the school yard there were always those that chose to stand behind the biggest bully.

They feel safe there. There they are safe to berate others. Sadly it's part of our culture.

[senz]

113. Gee, I always thought that was a Republican trait. nt

[rhett o rick]

116. It would be nice if the only bad politicians were Republicons. But to think such,

is a little naive.

[senz]

119. Indeed.

[rhett o rick]

120. Welcome to DU

[senz]

121. Thanks, rhett o rick.

Still trying to figure the place out. It's different from most forums.

[blackspade]

110. If that happens, enjoy your gloating

Until then, you'll just have to gut the criticism out.

[Motown_Johnny]

127. The voting does not start for 5 months

so in a few months nothing will have changed. Sorry if the coronation is ruined. I hope you can get your deposit back on that crown.

Unless something changes, she won't even be the front runner by the time the first debate rolls around.

The trend is clear.



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary (updated today)

[LondonReign2]

137. Once again, a Hillary supporter having a fit because people dared post

her actual policy positions.

[still_one]

177. Not much different then Bernie supporters being upset about folks criticizing his Brady Bill vote

"But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

169. Are you saying that we won't be able to question or criticize the candidate?

No matter what she says, does, or plans to do?

[rhett o rick]

174. They've been asking over and over who will support Clinton if nominated. They are keeping a list and

will have a banning party should she get nominated. The Conservative Democrats take the Left's support for their candidate for granted. It failed in 2000, but they had Nader to blame instead of looking in the mirror. They say that defeating the R-Cons is the most important objective, but that's not true. It's clear that more Democrats will support Sen Sanders than Clinton. The real goal of the Conservative Democrats is to elect a conservative, either Clinton or Bush. They will risk losing to Bush to make certain that a progressive doesn't win.

[bbgrunt]

83. thank you! Humongous big K and R!

[Ichingcarpenter]

85. Boy that Swamprat thread is full of goodies

that others contributed even deeper info for those that choose to read. Thanks for the thread and the research

[Zorra]

118. Yeah it is. I plan to copy and paste in case it all gets scrubbed.

[n2doc]

88. I miss Swampy

Always did the best illustrations

[99th_Monkey]

92. But, but .. Hillary now says she wants to 'wait & see" about TPP?

Thank you for exposing her lie, and setting the record straight on what she's
actually DONE to help TPP happen ..

[nashville_brook]

93. k and r

[L0oniX]

94. Cleanup in aisle GD P.

[senz]

96. So according to HRC, it's no longer about defense. It's about corporate well-being.

This sentence stood out for me:

From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home.

No wonder her pockets have been lined so handsomely by giant corporations. No wonder Bill took up with Poppy Bush after leaving office. No wonder Chelsea went to work for a hedge fund after graduating from Stanford and then married a hedge fund manager. These are Hillary's people.

And now we know what she wants to do if she becomes president: make the world safe for CAPITALISM. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, our leaders talked about making the world safe for DEMOCRACY.

Apparently Hillary doesn't understand that this nation was created for THE PEOPLE. Or maybe she just doesn't care.

Sorry, but I think she's the closest thing we have to a Republican in the Democratic Party.

[senz]

97. What happened to PNAC's website?

I tried it here: www.newamericancentury.org and got "Account Suspended." Wanted to direct people to the PNAC document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which gave the rationale (back in 2000) for invading Iraq. The founding members of PNAC were heavily represented in the GWBush administration. The document said that the invasion would need a compelling rationale along the lines of "a new Pearl Harbor."

[Zorra]

103. It's gone. Try this:

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

[senz]

111. Thanks, Zorra. Wonder why they took it down? The Neil Mackay article

woke up a lot of people, myself included. There was similar article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution that explained it even more clearly. Am so glad people saved these important internet documents.

[nationalize the fed]

158. It lives on at the wayback machine

http://web.archive.org

From 2001 to when they let it expire
http://web.archive.org/web/*/newamericancentury.org

Here's the page I like to highlight-proof that bubba's 78 day bombing of Serbia was the first PNAC war

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm



Here's an article published in 1999 that explains it all

Backing up Globalization with Military Might
New World Order Onslaught
by Karen Talbot Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999

The Real Terrorists

Adding to the barrage or propaganda, the U.S. Senate recently labeled Serbia a "terrorist state." (2) What obscene hypocrisy! Yet another case of blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. What could be more "terrorist" than the relentless blitzkrieg with 23,000 "dumb" bombs and "smart" missiles rained upon Yugoslavia for 79 days by U.S.- led NATO forces? Is it not terrorism to casually drop upon civilians, from the sanctuary of thousands of feet in the air, or with terrain-hugging computer-guided missiles, radioactive depleted uranium weapons and outlawed cluster bombs designed to rip human flesh to shreds? Is it not terrorism to deliberately target the entire infrastructure of this small nation including the electrical and water filtration systems critical to the survival of civilians?

Is it not terrorism to ferociously obliterate 200 factories destroy the jobs of millions of workers? What of the constant air assault-"fire from the sky"-against cities, villages, schools, hospitals, senior residences, TV towers and studios, oil refineries, chemical plants, electrical power plants, transmission towers, gas stations, homes, farms, marketplaces, buses, trains, railroad lines, bridges, roads, medieval monasteries, churches, historic monuments- destruction amounting to more than $100 billion dollars? ...snip

...McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas to Flourish

An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

The author of that piece- Karen Talbot- exposed the reason for all the wars in the past 25 years. But few listened. So here we are today- the biggest terrorist nation that ever existed.

[senz]

161. Thanks, nationalize the fed. I'd forgotten about the wayback machine.

Nowhere to hide, even for PNAC.

[blackspade]

106. Must read, in all it's depressing glory.

[moobu2]

112. Hillary Clinton was writing this in her capacity as Secretary of State

working for President Obama's administration. She mention President Obama almost a dozen times and she said "As Secretary of State" at one point. She was Secretary of State for several years after she wrote this but anyhow, it doesn't necessarily represent her own policy positions.

[senz]

115. Then why did she criticise her President in it?

"there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided."

The whole thing sounds like Hillary. And, interestingly, like a lot of Republican pundits.

[djean111]

130. We are told that she got her foreign policy credentials as SOS - and now she was just

Obama's secretary? That is really spinning. And, I might add, insulting to Clinton.

[Zorra]

122. ^

[onehandle]

143. Bumping your own month old thread.

True desperation.

[Zorra]

147. This enormous elephant in the room makes people uncomfortable, I get it.

And Democratic voters really should be aware of the facts about the candidates before making a decision about who to vote for in the Democratic primary.

I will be kicking this thread periodically throughout the rest primary season.

[John Poet]

153. DO It !

[L0oniX]

160. Swamp Rat pictures collection: www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/swamprat.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

124. Oh, we need to keep this baby kicked!

To use one of my favorite DUer's pharases: HUGE K & R!!!!!!

[Skwmom]

126. Is there a reason no comment on the misleading description of the TPP - Strong worker protections,

environment, etc.

The portion on trade hardly describes the true story.

[Armstead]

136. The really stinky part: "coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains"

That'e the real Pandora's box in that thing

[Skwmom]

142. So they are trying to get around worker safety and environmental standards, etc. But the way it is

written, with all the wonderful flowery prose, could make one think that is the type of "coherence of regulatory system" they were aiming for.

I didn't get to the part you referenced (I only skimmed it) but, again I think to post misleading language without pointing out how misleading it is, really makes me wonder about the purpose of the post.

[Avalux]

129. Thank you for putting this together, I'll read at length later.

A lot of people don't know PNAC, and haven't looked at the associations and dealings. There's a reason why the elite contribute equally to Clinton and Bush. Doesn't matter which one gets elected, imperialism and the gutting of our country will continue.

[karynnj]

131. Hillary came out early to support Obama and Kerry on Iran --- the single biggest change in US policy

Every neo con is out of the woodwork blasting the deal --- including Iran/Contra guys and Dick Cheney. Hillary COULD have said she was undecided or she could even have sided with Schumer - She didn't.

If she is a neo con, why not?

[Zorra]

138. It has often been noted that she says whatever is expedient for her political interests

at any given time. This is one reason why the majority of American voters don't trust her.

What Hillary won’t say about Iraq

As transcripts show, Sen. Clinton's views on the war have slowly changed since 2002, but she still can't say her own vote to authorize force was a mistake.

As for Clinton? Her public statements since October 2002 reflect a slow, relatively steady evolution in her thinking — or at least in her talking points. She has gone from 1) voting for the use-of-force resolution, to 2) questioning the intelligence that formed the basis of that vote, to 3) arguing that the Bush administration distorted the intelligence, to 4) saying she didn’t regret giving Bush authority to use force but did regret the way he used that authority, to 5) saying the resolution never would have come to a vote if Congress knew then what it knows now, to 6) saying that Congress wouldn’t have voted for the resolution if Congress knew then what it knows now, to 7) saying that she wouldn’t have voted for the resolution if she knew then what she knows now.

That’s a lot of small steps, but Clinton remains either unable or unwilling to take the final one: To say not just that she would have voted differently if she knew then what she knows now but that she should have voted differently based on what she knew then. Clinton has said many, many words in her evolution. “Mistake” — at least when it come to describing her own vote — still hasn’t been one of them.

Here’s a look at her journey so far.

http://www.salon.com/2007/02/14/hillary_66/

2015:

Hillary Clinton: 'I Made A Mistake' In Voting For The Iraq War

After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-iraq-war_n_7337822.html

[karynnj]

139. However, Iran is more recent, and long before the way the wind was blowing was obvious.

In fact, due to millions spent against it, it is below 50% approval in the general population and many big donors, icluding at least one long associated with her are dead set against it.

In addition, she had the liberty to take ANY position, unlike on Iraq, where she had to vote yes or no -- when the bill itself was not portrayed when it was voted on as a first step to war. It was designed to be a tough vote. Imagine that it was used as Kerry used the threat of war to get something from Syria that would not otherwise have happened. In fact, until he then ordered us into war in March 2003, that was what he was doing. He did get inspectors in - and they spoke of no WMD. He did get Saddam to destroy his most modern missiles because they went too far. He COULD have then claimed credit for that - set up a strong long term monitoring system and then claimed credit for all of this. One motivation was said to be the sanctions weakening - had he acted as I described, he could also - in a move that the left would have had trouble with - have contrasted his action with the consequenses of those sanction that had been left in affect for a decade.

I fault the Clintons MORE for not speaking out in Jan - March as it became clear that Bush was preparing to take us to war -- even as the inspections (that had not existed for 4 years) showed there was no reason to do so.

It is fair to say that the IWR vote was wrong. It is unfair - and counterproductive to conflate what was known in October 2002 and what was known in March 2003. I get why Republicans now do that. I think it is the vestige of anger on that vote that leads Democrats to do so.

[Zorra]

140. Millions of progressives knew immediately that Bush was lying.

We were screaming not to vote to give Bush a free pass to go to war. We knew in 2002 what we know now. It is absolutely fair to conflate what was known in October 2002 with what was known in March 2003. And it is absolutely fair to conflate what was known in October 2002 and what we know now.

The House:

Flashback: Rep. Bernie Sanders Opposes Iraq War

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
snip---
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
snip---
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

The House:

The Bloodstained Path

by Dennis Kucinich
November, 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States.

There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

http://www.progressive.org/node/1424

Trust, and vote for, the honest people who are consistent in what they say, do, and believe, and who have wisdom, intelligence, perceptiveness, foresight, and compassion.

[eridani]

151. Yes, we know she "evolved." From attacking Obama from the right on foreign policy

And she'll never re-evolve back the other way when Bibi and Henry ask her to. No way!

[azmom]

141. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

144. Yawn

[Le Taz Hot]

145. Nah, I'm not ready to let this sink.

Kickity.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

146. ~140 replies, and NOT A SINGLE ANSWER to counter the charges in the OP

Yes, there were respondents who were sleepy and yawned (again). There was one revenge minded person who wants to ban everyone. But no one supporting H Clinton has come forward to answer any of the questions/charges outlined in the OP. This is significant; this is telling.

[antigop]

148. but, but, but...she's FEMALE. It's her turn! nt

[Zorra]

149. ^

[eridani]

150. Because endless war and loss of well-paying jobs are GOOD for women

Also foreclosure and letting banksters run wild. Because sexism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

156. She's a neolib.

[olddots]

157. she just wants to be president

In the worst way .....

[L0oniX]

159. It is going to be very hard to clean up aisle GD-P. Please repeat this op often.

[Zorra]

162. HAPPY LABOR DAY!!!

Labor Day 2015: Stand Together and Fight Back
Sen. Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senator from Vermont

Labor Day is a time for honoring the working people of this country. It is also a time to celebrate the accomplishments of the activists and organizers who fought for the 40-hour work week, occupational safety, minimum wage law, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and affordable housing. These working people, and their unions, resisted the oligarchs of their day, fought for a more responsive democracy, and built the middle class.
snip---
In the wealthiest country in the history of the world we CAN accomplish all these goals, but we can't do it without a political revolution. We can't do it unless millions of Americans stand up and fight back to reclaim our country from the hands of a billionaire class whose greed is destroying our nation.

Here's the good news: we faced challenges like these before in our history, and we won. We won when working people across this country came together - in the workplace, in peaceful demonstrations, and at the ballot box - and said "No more." That victory is part of what we celebrate on Labor Day.

By all means, enjoy the holiday weekend. But this Labor Day let's also honor the men and women who have fought for the rights of working people in this country ever since it was founded - by pledging to carry on with the work they've started.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/labor-day-2015-stand-toge_b_8096222.html

[Uncle Joe]

163. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Zorra.

[Zorra]

164. ^

[Zorra]

165. ^

[Purveyor]

166. ...

[sabrina 1]

167. What does she mean by 'leadership'? Do other countries view US as THEIR leaders? Not in any

country I ever visited, in fact such arrogance re the autonomy and sovereignty of other countries, enrages people, not just where we have DESTROYED their nations in the ME eg, but in Europe, where it is news to them that the US is their 'leader'.

Another zenophobic phrase that raises eyebrows AND some anger in other parts of the world, is that the POTUS is the 'Leader of the Free World'!! Who made our president the 'leader of the world'?

This manifesto sounds very scary to me. Very similar to the PNAC.

Can she not see how DEVASTATING the last six decades of WAR have been to so many, many human beings and that only those who profit from this criminal wars would even think that our recent history is anything but a DISASTER.

At least we know where she stands on the TPP which is falling apart right now, thankfully.

Although she could change her mind again, I suppose.

[Zorra]

168. ^

[leftofcool]

170. Thank you. Another thread to trash.

[oasis]

173. A thread with enough cobwebs to decorate Trump Tower on halloween.

[cantbeserious]

178. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Zorra]

179. ^

[Zorra]

180. Reminder kick