Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel

[candelista]

Source: Yahoo

Ahead of a possible presidential run, Hillary Clinton appears to be distancing herself from what she called President Barack Obama's foreign policy "failure": the decision not to intervene during the early stages of the Syrian civil war.

In an interview with The Atlantic published on Sunday, the former secretary of state says the "failure" of the United States to those protesting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad led to the rise of al-Qaida-inspired groups like ISIS, the militants currently creating havoc in Syria and Iraq.

“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 — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

The former first lady and U.S. senator said she fears the jihadist groups currently gaining strength in the Middle East will expand their sights on Europe and the United States.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-obama-foreign-policy-isis-gaza-failure-141410915.html

[djean111]

1. She seems to be sidling over in the direction of McCain.

[L0oniX]

10. Birds of a feather.

[newfie11]

32. Agreed nt

[CoffeeCat]

78. She's a neocon. Always has been..,

...and always will be.

The warmongers who spearheaded the Iraq War (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) asked then-President Bill Clinton to go to war with Iraq, in 1996. He rebuffed their efforts.

These neocons had been looking to get a foothold in Iraq for years. Finally, with Cheney and Bush at the helm, they got their war that Clinton would not green light.

And Hillary voted for it. And she knew damn well that these warmongers had been wanting this for years. They begged her husband for it, for Pete's sake.

Sad.

[blkmusclmachine]

47. +1000.

[kelliekat44]

61. Oh yeah, she's running. And it is sad to see the way she is going to run. And she doesn't have to

do it that way. People who are not going to vote for will never be persuaded to change their mind no matter what. If she is after Independents, trumpeting war is not the way to win their votes.

[INdemo]

92. Ok Elizebeth Warren its time for you to annoucne and

put Hillary in her rightful place with the Repukes.
Warren/Sanders vs Hillary/Paul

[xxqqqzme]

112. Independents?

She better be concerned about registered Democrats.

[SoapBox]

70. Also agree.

[JackRiddler]

83. Sidling?

When have they ever differed on a war? Maybe after it's declared and cannot be reversed, if it goes south she says she didn't like it in the first place and he calls for nuking Hanoi already.

[candelista]

2. From the same article: Hillary on Israel

Commenting on another Middle East conflict — the war in Gaza between Hamas and Israel — Clinton strongly defended Israel.

“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” Clinton said. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”

She called the deaths of civilians, including Palestinian children, are "dreadful," but "ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas."

[totodeinhere]

20. Of course she in AIPAC's pocket.

But then we already know that. But in her defense few politicians in Washington are not beholden to AIPAC.

[lululu]

44. yet another reason

there will be iceskating in hell before I vote for her.

[PFunk]

62. (sigh) have to agree.

Flame me it you want but I see a repug president in 2016 if the dems are stupid enough to have her as their candidate. Lets hope that's not the case.

[DeSwiss]

118. Well, there you have it.....

...she's blameless on all fronts.

It was everybody else's fault.

Got it.

- I wonder if she can walk on water yet?

[bravenak]

3. I knew this about her.

That's all.

[Politicalboi]

4. At least Obama doesn't lie about sniper fire

I still hold her to that stupid lie. Now she denies smoking weed. I hate liars. I hope we can get someone else besides Hillary for 2016. And now this.

[Faux pas]

5. Yep sticking with the right.

I.will.NEVER.vote.for.her.

[groundloop]

14. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, it would be foolhardy to do otherwise

IF she manages to get the nomination (I personally don't think she will), sitting out the election is just throwing votes to the republican nominee who will undoubtedly be even worse than even Hillary. We frankly need to grow up and get over our expectations of perfection in candidates, elections are to choose the one candidate who is closest to our views.

[Maedhros]

35. You have an odd idea of "perfection."

I'm not holding back my vote from Hillary because she's not "perfect." I holding it back because she's working against the best interests of ordinary Americans.

[DeSwiss]

40. Bullshit n/t

[INdemo]

93. What if she is the Republican nominee

would you still vote for her? Hillary is a Republican lite and always has been

[Maedhros]

34. A vote for Hillary IS a vote for the Right. [n/t]

[TwilightGardener]

6. Hillary's achievements on foreign policy, in chronological order:

[candelista]

7. You forgot Benghazi. :)

[Scootaloo]

8. Pffft!

[Beacool]

25. RW talking points?

Besides, presidents set policy and SOS enact it.

[karynnj]

73. It is true that the President has the final say, but being in the cabinet is a powerful place to be

From Hillary's own accounts:

- She pushed Obama to do more in the surge on Afghanistan
- She also has long been on record for having wanted to do more to arm the Syrian rebels - as this account says. She has not said in detail EXACTLY what more she would have wanted to do. There were reasons not to give the Syrian rebels the stronger weapons they demanded - including anti-air craft weapons. The reasons they were asking for them was because of the horrendous bombing the Syrian government was doing. The reason Obama was against this request (that McCain explicitly wanted) was that it was hard to know who ends up with the weapons there - smaller arms have found their way to ISIS. All I know is that if the US would have gone that route, Obama could now be in Putin's role (with the downed airliner).

It is actually easier to make the case that ISIS developed in response to the war in Syria. One question that should be asked was what the US role actually was in 2011 and 2012 - if HRC runs. It is known that she and Petraeous wanted to do more than Obama. There is a real question whether more would have been worse.

I am not angry that HRC is speaking against the Obama policies. That is only fair - she needs to be on record with what her policy would have been. That is what she should (and will be) judged on. As far as I am concerned, all I will attack is either what I see as a bad policy OR if she suddenly says things completely at odds with her known positions or if she claims more credit for things than seems the truth.

[freshwest]

88. And she is neither! Why does media even ask if not to promote a war?

[candelista]

9. What I get out of this story is....

...that the US didn't give enough support to the Syrian opposition to Assad, which Hillary admits included "Islamists." Well, as we know, the "Islamists" included ISIS, the very jihadist group that is causing the recent problems in Iraq.

So we should have given more support to the people that we are now bombing, because then we wouldn't have to bomb them?

Is this...(choose one)

a) good reasoning

b) pretty good reasoning for Hillary

c) bad reasoning

d) insanity

[DonCoquixote]

11. This is to play to the Israelis

and by that, I include a lot of American Donor$ who act like Bibi Netanyahu is their president. Hre's a new flash Hillary, many of those people you wanted to arm hooked up with Isis later on. Gee, armign a bunch of religious freaks, what could go wrong, oh yeah, that is how Al-Qaida started back when we wanted them to kill Russians, and Saddam Hussein started when we wanted him to kill Iranians.

[Divernan]

31. I agree - this is her major play for $$$ from American Israeli-sympathizers.

Speaking as someone who: is just a couple of years older than HRC; who has NOT had the major health problems she has had; who is in better physical condition, at least as far as health being a function of maintaining healthy weight; and who worked the last ten years before retirement in the heart of the political process at a state legislature and therefore has observed in person the 24/7 stress for top elected officials - this is what I think is a very real possibility.

HRC, along with her husband and daughter, are commanding very top dollars both for their speaking gigs, as well as soliciting hefty contributions to their gold-plated family corporation - oh, I mean non-profit "charity" - only as long as the world perceives HRC as having a shot at occupying the oval office. Those top dollar Quids will come to a screeching halt without the prospect of Quos from a US President.

So IF she pragmatically admits to herself that her age, health history and overall poor physical condition (as well as her cherished husband's very poor physical condition) mean that another 4 year stint in the White House could be more than either or both of them could handle, what would she do? Would she announce it immediately following her fall/concussion/blood clot? That would be the right thing if she cared about the Democratic party having time to come up with a strong candidate. That would be the right thing to do if she didn't want to siphon off available political donations from the eventual candidate. Or would she drag out as long as possible announcing she would not run, thereby socking away millions more in the Clinton coffers.

Certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out, both on DU and in the world at large.

Oh, and FYI, politicians who leave office/retire/whatever can hang on to all those campaign contributions/war chests for a variety of uses. Here's an article from 2010 on that topic:

Senators and House Members Can Keep Campaign Funds When They Retire.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316

Between these two sources of money, authorized campaign committee funds and leadership PACs, and considering that there are very minor restrictions, I would say that any retiring lawmaker with even an ounce of common sense can do just about anything they want with the unspent money," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington

[candelista]

49. Interesting post. So you think she doesn't really want to be Prez?

Or that she's deceiving herself about her own physical fitness to be Prez? I'm not clear about which. Can you clarify?

[Divernan]

60. Neither. She MAY know her health will preclude her, & MAY want to rake in as much $$$ as possible

without declaring she is a candidate. As long as HRC is not an official candidate, her income from these speeches and her use of the fees does not have to be declared in the financial disclosure reports that are required of candidates. (And since the Clintons' personal income tax returns are not public knowledge, we have no idea what salaries and benefits they receive from their foundation, but which ultimately originate with these huge "donations".) Please note that I use the qualifier "MAY". I could be totally wrong; she could be bound and determined to run again, and she is simply delaying declaring her candidacy so she can hide the identities of the individuals and corporate/business interests who have paid her off with millions and millions of dollars, in the expectation of substantial consideration from her in the Oval Office.

These $$$ can be in the form of speaking fees or book income to her as an individual, or donations to the Clinton Foundation. Please note that if she is paid $$$ for speaking engagements and then "donates" it back to the Foundation (although she has provided no documentation to back up this claim), which pays the Clintons' salaries and for 5 star accommodations (hotel/private jet/first class airfare/5 star restaurants, etc. whenever and wherever they travel, as long as it involves Clinton foundation activities - which the 3 Clintons totally control, she gets a very substantial personal income tax deduction.

What I am saying is that if she has decided not to run, basically because of her age, energy level, poor health, her husband's fragile health or some combination thereof - it is in her financial interest to delay revealing this decision as long as possible, to prolong charging the exorbitantly high fees she is receiving for speaking, as well as to encourage wealthy individuals and business interests to make large donations to the Clinton foundations, all in anticipation of quid pro quos should she become president.

The only reason I have seen reported that she gives for not announcing her candidacy is that whether she runs depends upon her health. Does anyone have any other explanation she has given? The "health" reason has reinforced my belief that she may be lining up her ducks for NOT running. I can just hear her: "As I said all along, my health would be the determining factor." And meanwhile, one expects that her super PAC is raising money, as well. I gave a link in my other response detailing that candidates keep their PAC money should they not run. Bottom line: the Clintons have shown themselves to be all about increasing their personal wealth, and the wealth of the family foundation they completely control. They are both brilliant, and they've hung around with the One Percenters long enough to understand that with money comes power, and if you have enough money, you don't have to "lower yourself" and make yourself available to public scrutiny by being a politician. You can buy and control all the politicians you need. We don't see Bill Gates running for the Senate, do we?

Whether she runs or not, here is an interesting article about the lack of transparency about the millions and millions she and Bill have raked in and continue to rake in. It is from the Nonprofit Quarterly, July 11, 2014.

The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees

Written by Rick Cohen
Created on Friday, 11 July 2014 14:16

(snippets)

Because the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity, however, it is not required to reveal the names of its donors and the amount they are giving the Clinton Foundation. For Hillary Clinton to fulfill her pledge of transparency, the foundation would have to take a step that it is typically not required to do. In light of the political backdrop of the Clinton Foundation, this additional voluntary transparency is very important. [/b]Disclosure of donations to charities and foundations controlled by powerful political figures should be done as a matter of course, whether they are the Clintons’ speaking fees or the six- and seven-figure contributions of corporate and other donors who might have expectations of something in the future.

One issue may be the ultimate sources of the payments for the Clinton speaking fees, who might be anticipating a good word, a positive reaction, or a business-world endorsement from the most powerful political couple in the nation. But there is another issue: These donations to Hillary Clinton’s income that are then transferred to her family foundation are not simply private contributions. In many cases, and particularly the most recent, these mammoth speaking fees are not from individual (or corporate) charitable donors, but from universities. Hillary Clinton defended the dynamic:

“I have been very excited to speak to many universities during the last year and a half, and all of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and lifesaving work,” Clinton told ABC. “So it goes from a Foundation at a university to another foundation.”

In other words, through her speeches, Hillary Clinton is in a way “repurposing” the donations others are making—or taxpayers are making—to these colleges and universities. The universities, like UNLV, take pains to suggest that, according to Michael Wixom, a member of the Nevada Board of Regents, “no student funds, no tuition funds, no state dollars are being used in any way to pay her fee,” but that only works in cases like UNLV’s where the venue is a fundraiser at which moneyed interests pay big sums, partially tax-deductible, for the honor of hearing Clinton’s speech. In other instances, the universities point to privately funded endowments or trusts that pay for Clinton and perhaps other speakers as well—or in many cases, they don’t even reveal how much they are paying or where the money for the speaking fees comes from.

Nonetheless, the optics aren’t good. Money is largely fungible. Students and their parents are hard-pressed by tuition increases—a four-year increase of 17 percent in the Nevada higher education system, a 6.5 percent increase announced this year for the University of Connecticut, the imposition of “student success fees” at many University of California system campuses as substitutes for formal tuition increases—making the Clintons’ speaking fees look problematic. Universities have squirmed under Congressional scrutiny but largely left unchanged such policies as amazingly high salaries for university presidents (41 of whom had compensation packages of more than $1 million as of 2011) and very low spending rates despite huge growth in their endowments in many cases, an issue constantly raised by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, pressing universities, much like foundations, to spend more from their endowments.

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation may be doing extraordinarily wonderful things for communities around the world, but additional transparency is needed, especially now that Hillary Clinton is just about guaranteed the Democratic nod for the presidency; her speaking fees from nonprofit and public universities raise questions about what the universities (or some of their well-healed donors) might want from the Clintons.

[RandySF]

12. And who was Sec. of State for most of those years?

[KoKo]

23. Exactly... n/t

[Beacool]

26. SOS are not presidents, they don't set policy.

[lululu]

45. I think

We came, we saw, he died Hillary set a lot of foreign policy.

[RandySF]

57. Nope, you're right.

But she could also have just declined the job instead of joining the team she's now stabbing in the back.

[frylock]

13. shocking

GOTV!

[oldandhappy]

15. This is a point against her in my play book.

[groundloop]

16. I certainly hope another viable candidate comes along soon.....

I'll throw my support behind Hillary in the general election if she's the nominee, but I'll sure the hell support someone else in the primary. Elizabeth Warren has said in no uncertain terms that she's not running, so I'm not getting my hopes up for that, but there has to be someone else who can win the general election.

[candelista]

21. It's just hard to think of anybody else.

No one is on the horizon. Then again, someone might appear.

[totodeinhere]

22. I really do believe that a major candidate to Clinton's left will emerge.

I don't know who that will be but I gotta believe someone or perhaps even more than one will emerge. It could be someone we're not even thinking of right now.

[blkmusclmachine]

50. Voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" still gets you ... EVIL

[happynewyear]

100. +1,000

n/t

[lululu]

46. Joe Biden

at least he's honest and far more competent in dealing with Congress.

[totodeinhere]

53. Joe has some baggage too such as his vote for the bankruptcy bill. n/t

[karynnj]

74. Hillary voted for the similar 2001 bankruptcy vote

Biden's reason - he represented Delaware - home to many credit card companies. He still should have voted no.

[AngryAmish]

94. I admire how he has managed relations with the country of Africa.

[emsimon33]

81. I feel the same way

although I am not sure that I will phone bank, canvass, give money etc. if she is the nominee. I'll put my efforts into people running for congress, senate, etc.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. When many of us assert that the Clintons are slimy, this is an example of what we mean...

Billary must want Republicans in the presidency.

Many blacks will stay home if Billary, once again, tries to divide the party and/or play the race card. In general, we have our issues with Obama, but we also remember Billary's behavior during the primaries.

[freebrew]

18. At this point...

I believe that Israel has no right to exist.

The nation has abused the good intentions of the creation of the state.
They have abused the good will of the American government.
They have turned Imperialist and are treating Gaza residents like cattle, worse even.

Their own(Gazan?) taxes are paying for rockets being sent there.
Too many civilian casualties. Too many mistaken targets. Thumbing their nose at EVERYONE.

Netanyahu(?) and the Likud party has brought this situation upon themselves.


IMHO.

[leftynyc]

90. No right to exist?

Did you feel that way about Germany after WWII? Japan? And Israel is a country that was defending itself, not trying to take over the world.

[freebrew]

103. apparently, trying to take over more than allotted.

if the maps going around are anywhere near true, the leaders are expanding their empire.
A nation that doesn't care for all it's citizens has no right to exist. the current leadership of Israel is what I was referring to. They have thumbed their nose at the world. The attacks being perpetrated by a minority of Palestinians so Israel will destroy them all civilians be damned. You support that?

nazi germany no longer exists.

Japan?! we were as much to blame for their involvement as they were.

get your history straight.

[leftynyc]

113. Don't try and move the goalposts now

that you've said something you can't back up. Germany committed genocide, medical experiments on babies, tortured and starved millions and I want to know if you think they should no longer exist. Doesn't matter the nazis are gone - that's not what you said. You said Israel should not exist. Either back down or double down.

[freebrew]

117. Again, Nazi Germany no longer exists.

The perpetrators have mostly faced justice, although several had escaped. I would assume they are mostly dead now.

You are defending Israel's actions. Obliterating a settlement(prison) that they created. Israel admits these attacks against them are mostly ineffective, yet they respond with over-whelming force. So, for you, it's ok to kill and maim innocent civilians and children? Or are you among those that believe all of Islam is the enemy regardless of age or involvement?

And yes, as Israel continues its war crimes my belief(as insignificant as it is) they have forfeited their right as a nation. Same goes for any nation acting as such.

They are thumbing their nose at the world. And the US.

[leftynyc]

119. Ah - I see you're doubling down

on the stupid. So Germany hasn't forfeited the right to be a nation but Israel has. Glad we got that cleared up.

And by the way - I haven't defended anything. Just asked you to clarify your position which you did (stupid as it is).

[freebrew]

122. Duh!

Never said I was smart. Just a 99th percenter.

And you did say Israel was defending itself, which seems to me a defending position.

You call yourself Lefty. Probably should correct that. No leftist I know supports killing innocent civilians.

Bye.

[leftynyc]

123. Perhaps

you let anonymous posters on the internet define you but I'm much more confident in my positions than that. You think Israel should put up with rockets raining down on them - I don't.

[freebrew]

124. Right,

so just wipe out the entire populace.

Civilization, HO!!

[leftynyc]

125. They wiped out the entire

populace? I missed that report.

[LloydS of New London]

19. "a possible presidential run"?

LOL!

[Divernan]

24. HRC trashes Hamas, Obama, the U.N. & anyone anguished over dead women & kids.

It’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war," Clinton said. "Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact U.N. school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict," she added. "So the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”

Clinton was asked about President Obama's recently-coined slogan (“Don’t do stupid s---&quot to describe his administration's foreign-policy doctrine. “Great nations need organizing principles," Clinton replied, "and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

HRC is surely on a rampage. In addition to trashing Obama's foreign policy (now, remind me, WHO was his Secretary of State?), she dismisses the United Nations' protests about bombing civilians in pre-identified shelters because it's "impossible to know what happens" "in the fog of war". Would that be the same bogus "fog of war" wherein she claimed she had to duck and run for cover under sniper fire at a Bosnia airport? The difference being she was never shot at, but hundreds of children were blown to bits in their sleep. You know the Clintons : It depends on what your definiton of "is" is, or in this case your definition of "fog of war".

And she trashes those of us who, because we feel anguish at the coverage of the plight of "women and children and all the rest of that" - well we softies are unable to sort through to get the truth. Interesting turn of phrase "all the rest of that", which is meant to cover the vast destruction of whole blocks of residences, destruction of the infrastructure, bombing of hospitals, and all the other facts documented by news coverage.

But to me her most offensive comment was that there is "no doubt in her mind that Hamas initiated this conflict". Let us consider the opinion of one of the world's leading and most respected and most quoted intellectuals, MIT professor emeritus, Noam Chomsky. And I remind you that he is an American of Askenazi Jewish family heritage. Even HRC would not dare state that this brilliant man lets concern for "women and children and all the rest of that" keep him from sorting through to the truth. Or perhaps she would.

"A Hideous Atrocity": Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza & U.S. Support for the Occupation
download: Video Audio Get CD/DVD More Formats
Noam Chomsky: Israel’s Actions in Palestine are "Much Worse Than Apartheid" in South Africa

Hideous. Sadistic. Vicious. Murderous. That is how Noam Chomsky describes Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza that killed nearly 1,900 people and left almost 10,000 people injured. Chomsky has written extensively about the Israel/Palestine conflict for decades. After Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Chomsky co-authored the book "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians" with Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé. His other books on the Israel/Palestine conflict include "Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood" and "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians." Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years.

(In reply to Amy Goodman's request that he comment on the current Israeli assault on Gaza.)

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a hideous atrocity, sadistic, vicious, murderous, totally without any credible pretext. It’s another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call "mowing the lawn." That means shooting fish in the pond, to make sure that the animals stay quiet in the cage that you’ve constructed for them, after which you go to a period of what’s called "ceasefire," which means that Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, while Israel continues to violate it. Then it’s broken by an Israeli escalation, Hamas reaction. Then you have period of "mowing the lawn." This one is, in many ways, more sadistic and vicious even than the earlier ones.

(Next, co-host, Juan Gonzalez asked Chomsky to comment on the pretext Israel used to launch its attacks, and to comment if Chomsky felt it had ANY validity.)

NOAM CHOMSKY: As high Israeli officials concede, Hamas had observed the previous ceasefire for 19 months. The previous episode of "mowing the lawn" was in November 2012. There was a ceasefire. The ceasefire terms were that Hamas would not fire rockets—what they call rockets—and Israel would move to end the blockade and stop attacking what they call militants in Gaza. Hamas lived up to it. Israel concedes that.

In April of this year, an event took place which horrified the Israeli government: A unity agreement was formed between Gaza and the West Bank, between Hamas and Fatah. Israel has been desperately trying to prevent that for a long time. There’s a background we could talk about, but it’s important. Anyhow, the unity agreement came. Israel was furious. They got even more upset when the U.S. more or less endorsed it, which is a big blow to them. They launched a rampage in the West Bank.

What was used as a pretext was the brutal murder of three settler teenagers. There was a pretense that they were alive, though they knew they were dead. That allowed a huge—and, of course, they blamed it right away on Hamas. They have yet to produce a particle of evidence, and in fact their own highest leading authorities pointed out right away that the killers were probably from a kind of a rogue clan in Hebron, the Qawasmeh clan, which turns out apparently to be true. They’ve been a thorn in the sides of Hamas for years. They don’t follow their orders. But anyway, that gave the opportunity for a rampage in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of people, re-arresting many who had been released, mostly targeted on Hamas. Killings increased. Finally, there was a Hamas response: the so-called rocket attacks. And that gave the opportunity for "mowing the lawn" again.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/7/a_hideous_atrocity_noam_chomsky_on

I urge you all to read the entire interview. Chomsky does not leave the Israeli apologists for the Palestinian holocaust a scintilla of a justification for Israeli's actions.

[Agschmid]

28. .

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. I'm replying not to you Agschmid but in response to JohnTheBuilder or "Name Removed" above.

Why was he nuked? After his rather benign post was alerted on by some over-zealous self appointed pc policeperson, he was cleared by a 5 - 2 margin. The vote was to LEAVE IT ALONE.

His post was simply: "wtf hillary?". I've seen much more reactionary posts than that in this thread alone.

Did this person have a history of trolling before, and this was a last straw kind of thing? Because if not its disturbing to see this kind of draconian sledgehammer approach by MIRT

..........................

Results of jury service:

On Sun Aug 10, 2014, 02:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

wtf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=867211

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

TROLL, please hide so MIRT can nuke.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 10, 2014, 02:58 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: wtf? Its just a reaction to a story. Even used the family friendly acronym
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hiding only so mirt can deliver the pizza
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Come on people. Give the newbie a chance.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alert the alerter
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's your basis for the troll accusation? I see none.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[cpwm17]

56. I agree with you.

I thought the same thing. If that is worthy of a tombstone, then I am in a heap of trouble in this thread.

That post was 100% reasonable considering what Hillary supports.

[ZombieHorde]

106. I used to be on MIRT.

They are very, very trigger happy. It was a weird experience.

[Cha]

114. I said practically the same thing on another thread.. with no problems..

1. WOW.. WTH, Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5371977

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. "that failure left a big vacuum"

Sounds like she need to stop listening to right wing "experts".

[loyalsister]

82. Using the word "failure" is a knife in pres. Obama's back

I truly do not understand what she is doing. I don't understand why she would want to alienate Obama's allies and those further left. It's not the best strategy for a presidential run.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. I know exactly what she's doing but many here will hate to hear it....

She is doing the typical, out of touch DC Villagers shit of interpreting the polls to think Obama is wildly unpopular with over 50% of the public and she's talking to THOSE people. You know, The ones they call "The Middle" which only exist in their fantasy world and who they really believe are the ones who won Bill Clinton two terms.

Here's a scary thought, if she wins after saying this Right Wing SHIT than it will undo ALL of the progress we have made to eliminate the ConservaDems of the DLC. Those bastards are chomping at the bit to declare the entire drift to the Left during Bush and Obama a failure and to sweep in, take over, and act like the adults are back in charge.

[cpwm17]

30. What a poor excuse for a human being

[Zen Democrat]

33. I'll vote for Hillary for the Supreme Court alone. I'd vote for anybody over a Republican.

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. yes we are pretty much like cows in a herd

being directed through the fences up into the voter booth. The other line leads to the Republican slaughter house so we only have one choice.

[GeorgeGist]

38. Sheep ...

not cows.

[leftynyc]

91. Your other option is staying home

with a hissy fit. Unfortunately our system that takes a fortune to run for President allows only two choices. I don't consider myself a sheep for picking the better option.

[GeorgeGist]

37. Retire Hillary.

[albino65]

39. Just another republican in a different guise

She's still pissed she didn't get the nomination based on her Clintoness.

[emsimon33]

80. Yep

[DeSwiss]

41. If Hillary Clinton is ever elected President......

...she would simply finish the destruction of America that Slick Willie started.

[katmondoo]

43. I won't vote for her in the Primary but if she is the nominee

I have no other choice but to vote for her. At this point in time I hope some one else will step up.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. I won't vote for her in the Primary but if she is the nominee

. . . I'll tell you what I finally decided to do after the election.

[d_b]

51. I recently moved from a safe red state to a safe blue one

thankfully, I won't have to vote her ass.

[BlueStater]

52. Good grief. Go away.

We could do so much better than this warmongering old has been it's not even funny.

[americannightmare]

54. She just lost my vote....

I'm beginning to wonder if corporate Dems want to bring down the whole kit and kaboodle.

[RandySF]

55. She makes its hard for to support her in the primary

and she keeps reminding me why I supported Obama in 2008.

[loveandlight]

65. exactly my feelings

I would love to support a woman for president. Of course, I would love it if it were Warren. But even in 2008, I supported Obama over Clinton just because of stuff like this. I love some of what she does and I hate some of what she does. But overall, she makes me nervous. I only hope that things don't get so out of control in the Middle East and around the world that another war-supporting candidate is going to look good to the voters. On both sides. Because voters scare easily, unfortunate but I believe true.

[QC]

58. Paul Wolfowitz in a pantsuit.

No thanks.

[DeSwiss]

120. Hope she wears newer socks.....

- You know this guy would have gone ''Dutch'' if any woman ever had the misfortune of falling down, hitting her head, and being thusly dazed -- went out on a date with him.....

[fujiyama]

59. Her criticism is incoherent

So, I'm trying to get her reasoning straight - the US should have been involved in Syria early on by somehow finding the good rebels and those same "good guys" would have toppled Assad and magically brought about a democratic Syria...And somehow the Al Qaeda/ISIS affiliated Jihadists wouldn't have been able to take control of the opposition? And all this neglects the fact that Putin had no intention of letting Assad go.

I'm tired of her Kissingerian level of bullshit. I've seen enough of these games. I have no respect for her so called foreign policy credentials. She's worse than Kerry...

Not only that, but every time she opens her mouth about Iraq or Syria I'm reminded she backed the disastrous invasion of Iraq in the first place making the country the magnet for the Jihadists it is today. And I'm supposed to somehow believe that allowing the toppling of another secular leader in the region is a good idea?

Fuck that noise.

[davidpdx]

63. This is why the though of Hillary Clinton as president scares me

I don't think she'd be near as reserved as President Obama has been.

[Enthusiast]

64. Yet some DUers support her candidacy for president.

She isn't fit to hold any office.

[cosmicone]

66. Oh brother ... such red meat for Hillary bashing ...

While I don't agree with Hillary on this, I still support her for POTUS. Coddling up to Israel is step No. 1 (and 2,3,4,5,6,..... 1,286,734) in American politics. Every man running before her has done it and moderated their position after being elected.

Why bash her? She is making the right moves to get elected. The America of electing candidates who tell the truth died some 170 years ago. We live in an America of preferring candidates who say what we want to hear. Not everyone "out there" is as enamored with veritas as esteemed members of DU.

As a supporter of Hillary, I'd like her to use caution though. The sentiment about Israel is not the same as it was 10-30 years ago and it is changing.

[Enthusiast]

67. Sounds like HRC would even be worse than President Obama.

[joshcryer]

68. Bad talking point.

While there was a large upswelling against Assad in a city he had ten times as much support in many other cities. There was no "vacuum" left. While Assad went about it the completely wrong way helping them "defend themselves" would not have achieved any different results.

[Agony]

69. barf

barf bags for 2016

[elzenmahn]

71. Yet another strike against me voting for her in 2016...

...the thought that the only choice we'll have in 2016 is that of two neocons doesn't exactly stoke my voter's enthusiasm, either.

[stranger81]

72. Clearly, what's wrong with this country is we don't fight enough wars.

I mean really, what planet is this lady living on?

[DeSwiss]

121. The one with the Police State trying to take charge.

- Third rock from the sun.....



I guess she was not told McCain/Graham were going around selling ISIS to Qatar and the Saudis!

[yurbud]

75. Already running an excellent campaign for '92

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

76. The right will use this to paint

any Democrat as weak on defense, scare the average voter and kick start with war machine. Hillary wants to be elected but can't win with the 'weakling' tag applied to her. Myself I'd like to see Wes Clark and Bernie Sanders next go round. But then I like rainbows, lollipops and unicorns too............

[SolutionisSolidarity]

77. Madam Thatcher shall make an excellent president.

I for one am ecstatic at the prospect of our very own iron lady. Must we have a primary? That money could be better spent on the coronation ball...

[emsimon33]

79. This is one of the reason I voted for Obama & not Hillary

The Republicans better run a real dud if Hillary is the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

[ReRe]

85. Non-Corporate Democrats MUST...

... take a stand in 2016 by primary-ing this soon-to-be grandmother out of
Presidential possibility so she can spend more time with her family.

[blackspade]

86. WTF?

This is delusional:

The former first lady and U.S. senator said she fears the jihadist groups currently gaining strength in the Middle East will expand their sights on Europe and the United States.

[BeyondGeography]

87. Clearly, the failure to build a coalition between Islamists and secularists in Syria

was a MASSIVE missed opportunity.

The organizing principle here seems to be talking out of your ass.

[AngryOldDem]

89. Serious question:

Just what the fuck do Clinton, McCain, etc., want Obama to do? If he went in with boots on the ground and bombs from the sky, they'd all be giving him shit over THAT. If he did absolutely nothing and deferred to the UN and other world bodies, he's catch shit for THAT.

If she is the nominee, I'll deal; but there are times when I really can't tell the difference anymore, and I'm getting sick of it.

Obama's situation in Iraq is just Colin Powell's Pottery Barn prophecy fulfilled. Where is the shit for Bush, Cheney, et. al.? How conveniently everyone forgets.

And I think it doesn't matter how we respond -- jihadist groups will ALWAYS have the U.S. and Europe in their crosshairs.

[MBS]

95. + 100 n/t

[MBS]

96. I was not happy about her comments, especially about the TIMING of her comments

quite apart from the content of her remarks (much of which I disagreed with, especially the parts highlighted in the OP), it seems to be a less than classy approach,as a fellow Democrat who was SoS during the many of the events in question, to criticize Obama's foreign policy while he is the sitting president.. . and especially now, when he is getting such flack from Repubs. Of course, she has a right to voice her opinions, but the timing and public nature of her remarks. . well,it's not my idea of personal or political loyalty, or even empathy for what Obama has to deal with right now.

Personally, as the global storms continue to multiply, I've thought daily how lucky we are to have a president who respects the facts and thinks before he acts, who has tried as much as possible to work in concert with allies rather than take the W. "cowboy" approach, and who has the ability to "connect the dots" when considering the implications of each crisis and each response to each crisis.

I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but, at this point, not with enthusiasm. While I find myself longing for a viable alternative (note: viable), in the absence of such alternative, I don't see any other responsible choice right now.

On the other hand, everything is so volatile right now -- domestic politics, global crises, environmental and economic issues, crankiness of the voters -- that I personally think that lots could happen between now and 2016. Among the many possibilities out there (granted, at this point, low) is that HRC might not even run.

I feel the same about the 2014 election, especially given the fact that, on top of all the volatility, there seems to be no one issue (beyond general dissatisfaction) motivating voters right now. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unlike-previous-midterm-election-years-no-dominant-theme-has-emerged-for-2014/2014/08/09/8775aca6-1f0a-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html).

If Dems keep sending their message, loud and clear, I really think (OK, hope) that we'll do better in 2014 than the Talking Heads predict.

[Cha]

115. So well said, MBS.. Thank you!

"I was not happy about her comments, especially about the TIMING of her comments

quite apart from the content of her remarks (much of which I disagreed with, especially the parts highlighted in the OP), it seems to be a less than classy approach,as a fellow Democrat who was SoS during the many of the events in question, to criticize Obama's foreign policy while he is the sitting president.. . and especially now, when he is getting such flack from Repubs. Of course, she has a right to voice her opinions, but the timing and public nature of her remarks. . well,it's not my idea of personal or political loyalty, or even empathy for what Obama has to deal with right now.

Personally, as the global storms continue to multiply, I've thought daily how lucky we are to have a president who respects the facts and thinks before he acts, who has tried as much as possible to work in concert with allies rather than take the W. "cowboy" approach, and who has the ability to "connect the dots" when considering the implications of each crisis and each response to each crisis."

[Jester Messiah]

97. I will never vote for Hillary in a primary.

I may not vote for her in the general if there's a suitable alternative.

[Marrah_G]

98. If she ends up the nominee things like this will make it hard to vote for her

[Reter]

99. Hillary is gonna be worse then Obama

I've complained from time to time that he had some positions I didn't like. I thought the next president could do better. Not gonna happen.

[procon]

101. Oh good grief, woman!

Did you learn nothing from your last failed venture into presidential campaigning?

I would very much like to support a woman as President, but if HRC is going to repeat her hawkish 2008 neocon stance, she will still NOT get my vote.

Given the reality of today's political financing, I understand why she chooses to play the role of Israel's willing handmaiden. However, if she wants the majority of her voting base to elect her, then she must find a way to distance herself from yet another round of military adventurism in the ME.

[Orsino]

102. Clinton thinks she needs to talk tough, just because she is a woman.

But this is just talking mean and stupid.

[amandabeech]

105. She needs to talk smart.

How many votes does she really pick up by talking tough?

Those votes will go for whichever idiot the Rs put up.

[Kelvin Mace]

104. Hope she can win the election without the "hippie" vote

because she seems to be telling the hard left to fuck off.

[ZombieHorde]

107. Damn, she is blood thirsty.

But a lot of voters are blood thirsty and easily frightened, so that rhetoric may work in her favor.

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. she is echoing the liberal media's talking heads

[kiranon]

109. Because Supreme Court choices make all the difference

in the world for the average citizen and beyond, I cannot vote for a Republican for President. If it is Hillary, so be it.

[DeSwiss]

116. Here ya go.....

- Now you're all set......


''The Defeated''

[geretogo]

110. Hillery is owned by the Israelis like all our politicians .

[Liberal_from_va34]

111. Wow, I'm really losing my respect for her

It seems that she's shifted more and more to the right over the past few years. How disappointing.