Bernie's foreign policy deficit

[Skidmore]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431

Bernie's foreign policy deficit
'I don't know how I got on Bernie Sanders' list,' says one expert cited by his campaign.
By MICHAEL CROWLEY 01/30/16 07:46 AM EST

Not long after President Barack Obama ordered U.S. airstrikes in Libya in 2011, his national security adviser, Tom Donilon, trekked to Capitol Hill to brief Democratic senators. After a few minutes of discussion about the military operation, Bernie Sanders took the floor.

To talk about the economy.

“Sanders delivered a meandering manifesto about Democratic messaging on the economy,” says a former Senate chief of staff. “It wasn't that his insights were wrong. It just wasn't the time or place. Everyone was thinking, ‘Here goes Bernie!’ ”

Current and former Senate aides call the episode typical of Sanders, who on any given day would rather talk about Wall Street profits than about Middle East conflict.

Now, as Sanders threatens to deal Hillary Clinton a stunning defeat in Monday's Iowa caucuses, Democrats are increasingly worried that their party could nominate a candidate with unmatched passion on economics but thin credentials on foreign policy....more

[beam me up scottie]

1. This is why I trust Bernie over Hillary:

One sold us a Republican war:

And the other tried to stop it:

[Skidmore]

2. There is more to the world

than this one vote. And that is why I don't support Bernie. He does not demonstrate for me, someone who has lived in the Middle East and in a war zone, that he has a thorough understanding of the peoples or the issues. Get back to me when he has learned the difference between Shi'a and Sunni.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Not to the people who died. What did she say about them again, we gave them a "gift"?

This is what Hillary said about what we did to the Iraqi people in 2008:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

http://huffpost.com/us/entry/89729

If you think just living in the region makes you more of a policy expert than Bernie then I'm not surprised you support Hillary.

[Skidmore]

6. And your qualifications to make such

judgements are what? Keyboard brigade points are not allowed.

[beam me up scottie]

8. I never claimed to be more of a foreign policy expert than one of the Democratic candidates.

That was all you.

vimeo.com/51166685

[Skidmore]

9. I don't consider

Sanders to be an expert. I do have real life experience by which to make such a judgment. Darned right I stand by opinion. What he doesn't say or is incapable of saying is clanging discordant.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

[Skidmore]

11. No, I was informed that you had the rooms booked in advance.

I was actually doing ground work to get the next President elected.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Again I never claimed I was smarter than one of our candidates, that was you.

So the PeeWee Herman routine isn't working for you.

[Skidmore]

13. No, I claimed I had real life experience

which informs my assessment of his stands. Typing the same thing over and over again doesn't make you an expert on anything but typing the same inane remark over and over again. And it doesn't make you right. I have an opinion, based on my experiences, and I am entitled to that opinion. Live with it.

[beam me up scottie]

17. You: "Get back to me when he has learned the difference between Shi'a and Sunni."

Sure sounds like you think you know more than he does.

Oh, I forgot you lived in a war zone.

Because I don't want any more unnecessary wars I prefer to listen to someone other than you:

Why Isn't Bernie Sanders's Superior Foreign-Policy Judgment a Decisive Edge?
The Vermont senator seems far less likely to start a war of choice as president, but that doesn’t seem to count for much in the Democratic primary.

The one place where they have real differences and those differences might matter is national security. But for reasons of their own, neither of them really wants to talk much about that. Hillary doesn't want to highlight her relative hawkishness in a Democratic primary and Bernie doesn't really want to highlight what his dovishness would mean in practice.

***

Let’s quickly review the consequences of the Iraq War that Hillary Clinton favored:

The rise of ISIS.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Roughly 4,500 dead American soldiers.

Tens of thousands of Americans wounded.

$6 trillion in costs.

Here’s what Sanders said when he presciently opposed that same war:

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?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.

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.
This isn’t hard. Sanders has much better foreign-policy judgment than Hillary Clinton. You could hardly make up a more stark illustration. They were on different sides of the most consequential and disastrous war since Vietnam. Yet this difference is dismissed as if it amounts to no more than an afterthought in most comparisons.

Perhaps this would make sense if Clinton was no longer a hawk.

But after seeing that her instincts were wrong on Iraq and watching the catastrophic consequences, Clinton lobbied President Obama to help orchestrate a regime change in Libya. Predictably, that country is in chaos too. Just this week, we learned that American troops are preparing to launch an offensive against ISIS there. Even so, Clinton shows no sign of being any less hawkish due to her misjudgments.

There is just no evidence that she learned from her mistakes.

Hawkish Democrats should vote for Clinton. Democrats who think she’s better than all the Republicans and that Bernie Sanders is unelectable should vote for her, too.

Another dumb war of choice is much more likely with Clinton in the White House.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-isnt-hillarys-hawkishness-a-dealbreaker/433887/

Deal with that.

[Skidmore]

18. You know how to

cut and paste too.

[beam me up scottie]

31. If you didn't write the op-ed in the op then you know how to cut and paste too.

[Sancho]

20. Bernie sounded exactly like Dick Cheney; so what?

[beam me up scottie]

23. "so what?" Are you admitting you supported the Iraq war, that you believed Bush?

[Sancho]

28. No, I'm saying that Bush was to blame...

and Bernie didn't have any special knowledge.

Bush and Cheney (and everyone else) could predict what would happen if there was a full scale invasion and occupation. They predicted it from both sides of the isle.

What was not predicted was the President's choices between a no-fly zone or sanctions (like Bill Clinton did) or sending in an army. GOP Presidents have been starting wars since WWII (some would say even before that). Democratic Presidents have been trying to avoid unnecessary wars for the same 60+ years.

So what??

If Bernie runs on a peacenik, isolation platform - he will lose the GE by a landslide.

[beam me up scottie]

29. So if they could all predict what would happen why did Hillary support the war?

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

I understand why Bush, Cheney and the other Republicans wanted it but why did she?

If Bernie runs on a peacenik, isolation platform - he will lose the GE by a landslide.

You know just because you keep repeating the same false statement that doesn't mean it's true.

[Sancho]

102. You are the one who wants to look at history...

and when Democrats were faced with international challenges (like Carter and Iran; there are many examples) - they LOST the next election if they were perceived to be "weak".

The US will not elect a President perceived to be "weak", even if most Democrats universally would get out of all wars and cut the MIC down to size. Obama has done everything he can to bring the troops home and he's still caught up in a war.

Hillary (and all the other Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution) were not voting to start a 10 year war. They were voting to enforce a UN resolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution).

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[5][6]

Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[7] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Even the repubs have now backed away from what Bush did...so to answer your question with a question: Why has Bernie consistently voted to fund the MIC? Doesn't he KNOW that if you build weapons, someone is going to use them? I can predict that after living through wars since the middle of the 20th century. Why does Bernie support the war machine?

[beam me up scottie]

105. Please list those votes and also everything that was included in the bills.

Then explain why you disagree with the bills and those who voted for them.

The lame "he voted to fund the mic" talking point won't work on me. None of his votes were to solely fund something he's opposed for decades.

Your continued attempts to excuse Hillary's support of a Republican war is noted but irrelevant.

[Sancho]

113. There are so many...but here's a well-known example of Bernie supporting the MIC...

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

In reality, Sanders' support for the basing of the F-35s was critical to the project's eventual success. Sanders had nothing to say about the burden that the basing would place on working-class Vermont families, and he didn't want to hear from constituents who said otherwise.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/
http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/09/vermont-says-no-to-the-f35
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypocrisy-alert-bernie-sanders-wanting.html
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
https://thewordsmithcollection.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-supports-the-right-wing-war-lobby/
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Homeland_Security.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-in-vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum/5452106

And Bernie's own website:

The F-35 Lightning II is a single-engine, single-seat, stealth fighter plane produced by Lockheed Martin, which advertises the aircraft as advanced and affordable, and crucial to maintaining air superiority as U.S. fleets get smaller and older.
...
The idea that Bernie supports the F-35 program stems from his positive reception to part of the F-35 fleet being stationed in Vermont.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/

Yup, he quotes Lockheed Martin's propaganda about the F-35 ("advanced and affordable, and crucial to maintaining air superiority &quot on his own website. As you just posted, "suppose we'd spent all of that war money on *helping* hurting people."

[beam me up scottie]

118. So you can't name them?

Just as I said, a talking point and nothing else.

[Sancho]

130. Sure...do you want all Sanders votes on MIC?

Do you want to debate every word since 1972...we can do that if you want.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/47/military-personnel#.Vq42vMe2ac8

The bottom line is that Sanders has supported the MIC - and particularly when it helped Vermont. He specifically said that he may as well support the F35 in Vermont instead of putting it in some other state.

Bernie rants about banking, but he goes along with funding the military. If Bernie really wants some extra money for health care or education, then he needs to spend 30 years ranting about spending all that $ on planes, tanks, and ships.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Reread my post, name every vote, what else was included and why you disagree.

That talking point that Bernie "consistently votes to fund the mic" is useless without facts to back it up.

Were all of those votes you keep vaguely referring to soley to fund the mic or not? If not, what else was included?

[Sancho]

135. You're asking for something that I've answered (in one example)...

It would take a year to go through hundreds of votes - even though I gave the link to all Bernie's MIC votes.

I gave you a dozen editorials, reports, and investigation into ONE of his well-known votes that was wrong in the eyes of many of the Vermonters he represented - and also wrong in the eyes of many liberal, anti-war Democrats. That one example was the F35 support.

If you won't accept that one example, why produce a thousand similar discussions over all the other bills? One "vote" was enough for you to accuse Hillary of something that she really didn't do - which is prosecute a war in Iraq.

In the example I provided there were all sorts of groups: green party, socialist party, liberals, and progressives of all sorts who opposed Bernie on the F35 placement in Vermont. Most don't want the US spend a single cent o the F35. That one example makes the point. Another documented case was Bernie's support and courting of Lockheed-Martin.

You may not like the source (who is a local Burlington, VT pundit), but here's the story of L-M:

http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html

How Lockheed and Sandia Came to Vermont

On October 2, 2009 Senator Bernie Sanders made one of his classic fiery speeches on the floor of the US Senate. This time Vermont's independent socialist was taking on Lockheed Martin and other top military contractors for what he called “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.”
Among other crimes, Sanders mentioned how Lockheed had defrauded the government by fraudulently inflating the cost of several Air Force contracts, lied about the costs when negotiating contracts for the repairs on US warships, and submitted false invoices for payment on a multi-billion dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program.
A month later, however, he was in a different mood when he hosted a delegation from Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is managed for the Department of Energy by Sandia Inc., a wholly-owned Lockheed subsidiary. At Sanders’ invitation, the Sandia delegation was in Vermont to talk partnership and scout locations for a satellite lab. He had been working on the idea since 2008 when he visited Sandia headquarters in New Mexico.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
———snip---------
Sanders added that “working with Sandia and their wide areas of knowledge – some of the best scientists in the country – we hope to take a state that is already a leader in some of these areas even further.” Lockheed’s past offenses didn't come up.


Yes, we can look up and debate back to 1972 - and Bernie has voted to fund and support the MIC at times that lots of liberals and progressives disagreed with him.

[beam me up scottie]

136. Repeating your talking point over and over again doesn't make it true.

It's not magic.

Since you can't prove your claim we're done here.

[restorefreedom]

49. saaaaaanort! nt

[rpannier]

68. Changed my mind about being in this discussion

[Skidmore]

95. That's too bad

because I found your response one I wanted to read in depth when I was able to return to my computer. I wish you had stayed.

[Vattel]

14. That was a vile thing to say and it displays utterly clulessness about the nature of the invasion.

Clinton's history of bad judgment concerning issues of war and peace coupled with Sanders' record of superior judgment is a powerful reason to vote for Sanders.

[beam me up scottie]

21. It proves she learned nothing from her mistake.

She's a hawk and anyone who trusts her either doesn't realize that or doesn't care, imo.

[Vattel]

34. Yes, it is sad that so many don't seem to realize how hawkish she is.

Even more sad is the attempt by some to paint Sanders as a hawk too. They can't seem to distinguish voting for the ILA, which in its own text specifically said that it did not authorize military force, from voting for the IWR, which did authorize military force, and supporting the invasion using all the Bush talking points.

Even more silly is the suggestion that Sanders is "tool of the MIC" or "owned by Lockheed" simply because he wants to build some of the next generation of jet fighters in Vermont. They don't seem to realize that those fighters will inevitably be built somewhere, and so Sanders is just trying to help his state. They attack Sanders for not trying to scrap the new fighters, not realizing that it would be idiotic to scrap them now that they are almost ready to go into production and billions of dollars have already been invested in them. Clinton certainly does not want to do that, and for good reason.

[beam me up scottie]

35. They can't get their memes straight, one day he's a hawk the next he's a "peacenik".

They don't seem to realize that the votes they cite as Bernie wanting to "fund" wars included far more than just funds to supply our troops.

They don't seem to realize that Bernie would be happy to scrap most of the MIC and isn't in their pocket.

Actually I think they do realize those things, they just project her faults onto him because they can't defend her hawkishness.

[Sancho]

15. Bernie has been against every war since he applied as a CO in the days of Vietnam...

and some like me remember Korea (50,000 Americans died), Vietnam (68,000 Americans died), and half a dozen smaller conflicts before Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes they blow up into larger wars and sometimes they don't.

If you're against all wars, then you "look like a prophet" when a crazy GOP President abuses his office. Of course, if you get your way and a President does NOT send in the troops then you'll be criticized for putting the US at risk and letting the bad guys get away with taking over the world (Kennedy/LBJ, Carter, Clinton) which leads to the GOP winning the elections (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). Plenty of repubs have won the White House by claiming the Democrats are "weak"; and you can hear them making that argument in Iowa this weekend!!

That's why Bernie can sit around with no real foreign policy experience or plan or knowledge and appear to be "right" sometimes. It's simple - I can predict the stock market will go up - and if I make the loud claim every year - sooner or later I look like I can tell the future.

All the Iraq War critics are hypocrites if they weren't in the streets protesting against Bush - and even today they should be waving signs and stopping traffic. Simply blaming the votes of a few hundred in Congress to give authority to the President after a terrorist attack did not change the final responsibility from Bush/Cheney who actually created the Iraq mess.

Hillary's role is exaggerated, and the real blame is GW Bush. GWB was Commander of the armed forces.

Meanwhile, Bernie is a lightweight on foreign policy and that's one reason he would be an awful President. He makes mistakes during debates, has little experience, and no one in his camp who has a clue. Bernie would be easy pickings for Putin.

[beam me up scottie]

19. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan so your premise is false.

Hillary's role is exaggerated, and the real blame is GW Bush. GWB was Commander of the armed forces.

Hillary voted for it, she promoted it and she endorsed the invasion:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

In March 2003 she fully endorsed the invasion:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.

This is all a matter of record.

[Sancho]

24. Again, the premise is not false....

It's easy to stand back lose elections every few years.

It's also easy to be "right" half the time, and "wrong" half the time by simply claiming to be an isolationist.

Doesn't change the logic. If Bernie runs in 2016 as a peacenik president; he will lose the election!!! That is the "matter of record"!!!

Real foreign policy is a matter of experience and knowledge.

Again, where are the pictures of all the anti-war folks protesting at the UN on DU? Where are they today? If you were around in the 60s and 70s then you were there if you put a stop to Vietnam. You were there in the 1968 Chicago convention!! You may also remember what happened in that election!

I see lots of hypocrites wanting to use this issue in a primary as an easy anti-Hillary meme - and one driven by the GOP who would love to go after a weak, socialist that they could easily defeat! Bernie won't be the nominee, but if he was the GOP would win in a landslide.

[beam me up scottie]

27. You: "Bernie has been against every war since he applied as a CO in the days of Vietnam"

He voted to stop a genocide in Kosovo and to go after Bin Laden so: False.

Doesn't change the logic. If Bernie runs in 2016 as a peacenik president; he will lose the election!!! That is the "matter of record"!!!

Link to him running as a "peacenik"? I must have missed that, I thought he always said war should be a last resort not that we should never use military force.

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between not being a hawk (ie: war as a last resort) and being a "peacenik" we're pretty much done here.

[polly7]

97. And Libya was a business opportunity (but most of us knew that from the start).

In 2011, when the Arab Spring came to Libya, Clinton was the Obama administration’s most forceful advocate for intervening to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. She even out-hawked Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief first appointed by George W. Bush who was less than enthusiastic about going to war in Libya.

http://otherwords.org/hillary-clinton-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-iraq/

On Monday, a New York Times story demonstrated more specifically why Clinton's interactions with Blumenthal may have been a bad idea. Blumenthal, the Times reports via solid sources, was advising the Secretary of State both before and after former Libyan autocrat Muammar Qaddafi's death while also advising a group of private individuals who hoped to make money by obtaining reconstruction-type contracts in a post-Qaddafi Libya.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy ...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/18/hillary_clinton_sidney_blumenthal_libya_unofficial_adviser_represented_business.html

Iran ....... another (imo, it has NOTHING to do with nuclear capabilities, without sanctions Iran is posed to become a major economic powerhouse - the failing Saudi regime cannot have that).

Back in 2008, for example, she warned that Washington could “totally obliterate“ Iran. During that presidential campaign, she chided Obama as “naïve” and “irresponsible” for wanting to engage the country diplomatically.

http://otherwords.org/hillary-clinton-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-iraq/

Syria:

Clinton favors greater military intervention in Syria’s civil war, too. In her presidential bid, she’s joined hawkish Republican senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham in supporting the creation of a no-fly zone over the country.

That puts her at odds not only with President Barack Obama, but also with her Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders, who warned that it could “get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region.”

http://otherwords.org/hillary-clinton-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-iraq/

Clinton’s unwillingness to let go of the “regime change” requirement regarding a sovereign state, coupled with a moralistic but biased outrage, suggests someone who does not respect international law and could be dangerous as President: hypocritical, prejudiced and self-righteous.

Following are specific points of interest from “Syria: A Wicked Problem”.

Clinton echoes the western narrative about the Syrian conflict

"The crisis began in early 2011, when Syrian citizens, inspired in part by the successful peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt, took to the streets to demonstrate against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al Assad. As in Libya, security forces responded with excessive force and mass detentions which in turn led some Syrians to take up arms to defend themselves and, eventually, to try to topple Assad.” (p 447)

This description is widespread but misleading. In his 2007 article Seymour Hersh exposed the U.S. promotion of Sunni fundamentalists to undermine Syria and Iran. In 2010 Secretary of State Clinton pressed Syrian President Bashar al Assad to comply with Israeli and US calls to stop supporting the Lebanese resistance and break relations with Iran. Was Clinton especially hostile to the Syrian President because he did not comply with her requests/demands and soon after forged an agreement with Iran? She makes no mention of this in her book but it is obviously relevant to the issue of Syria-USA relations.

Regarding the so-called peaceful protesters, in fact, there was a violent element from the start. In Deraa in March 2011 several police were killed. In the original “capital of the revolution”, Homs, a very credible eye-witness reported armed demonstrators initiating the violence.

Clinton confirms the anti-Assad obsession of the Gulf monarchies

Sunni countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, backed the rebels and wanted Assad gone. (p 450)

This presents a baffling inconsistency: If the Syrian uprising was about “freedom and democracy” why was it being heavily promoted by repressive monarchies Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/09/the-wicked-war-on-syria/

I believe her 'not learning anything from Iraq' is a complete misnomer. She's learned what it takes, imo, and very well.

Meanwhile, little children wash up on beaches.

[KingCharlemagne]

101. She meant 'freedom' in the Sartrean sense, where liberation

equals death.

[w4rma]

5. I wasn't aware that Clinton ever lived in a war zone or in the Middle East.

When did this happen?

Or maybe you just think that a kneejerk willingness to start wars and bomb people, before talking with them, is the key to how America should conduct our foreign policy?

The Ruskies weren't pinging Sanders's private email server, because Sanders had the good judgement to not get one in order to hide emails from being archived.

[Skidmore]

7. You need to read for comprehension.

[w4rma]

32. Oh, I completely comprehend your attitude towards the world, Skidmore. (nt)

[Skidmore]

96. I think not.

[elias49]

25. You said 'there is more to the world than this one vote'...

think about what you're saying: Hillary voted for war, but it's just one vote..
Bernie did some jaw-bonig during a discussion about foreign policy, but it's 'just one vote (harangue)

Which is more destructive? A vote for war, or Bernie trying to connect the dots?

[KingCharlemagne]

99. 1 million dead Iraqis (you know, women and children) would beg to disagree - nt

[riversedge]

37. Your old chestnut is boring. You act as though she single -handedly

led Bush to declare war. You have no perspective and therefore you are not credible.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and you refer to it as an "old chestnut"?

A country's infrastructure destroyed, millions displaced, a power vacuum that destabilized the middle east and led to the creation of ISIS. The loss of credibility with our allies who won't trust us in the future...

Not to mention the dead and maimed American soldiers.

I realize you can't defend her support of the war but that's no reason to minimise the human toll it took - and is still taking. It was our country's worst foreign policy mistake.

Someone has a problem with perspective and it's not me.

[John Poet]

4. Bernie's "foreign policy deficit": He had no unsecure email server,

nor did he vote to start a war based on lies.

Hillary's "foreign policy credentials"? See above.

[cali]

16. He has far more experience than Obama had and

he's repeatedly demonstrated good judgment. Hillary Clinton has not. From Iraq to Honduras to Libya to Syria, she has demonstrated how appalling her judgment is.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Yep, mistake after mistake after mistake.

That's the kind of experience we don't need.

[BainsBane]

119. Read what the article says about his

Foreign policy advisers. They make an explicit comparison with Obama.

[EdwardBernays]

26. Her experience

Is exactly why so many don't want her elected.

Her:

- deep ties to weapons manufacturers
- willingness to sell weapons to oppressive regimes (especially ones that donated to the Clinton Foundation)
- overly hawkish attitudes
- choice of campaign chairman - someone that owns one of the countries biggest lobbying firms, which represents groups which are trying to manipulate US foreign policy eg weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia
- and her proven willingness to ignore policies - put into place to protect America - for her convenience...


... well, this is NOT the sort of experience we need.

[beam me up scottie]

45. That would explain her hawkishness wouldn't it?

And this is what her supporters call "experience"?

[EdwardBernays]

51. Indeed

It also explains exactly why judgement is so incredibly important.

[thesquanderer]

134. It's not an ideal choice...

...someone with little background in foreign policy, versus someone whose foreign policy judgment (in many people's opinion) has proven to be bad (not just in regards to Iraq, but Syria and Libya as well).

As others have pointed out, most recent Presidents did not come to office with foreign policy experience... they were able to get elected anyway.

A President Sanders would have a foreign policy team, as every president has. We can hope that will yield a better foreign policy than Hillary's... but it could hardly be worse.

Meanwhile, if Sanders were the Dem nominee, as mentioned elsewhere, there is no potential Republican candidate with any more foreign policy experience than he has, so he will not be at a disadvantage there.

[EdwardBernays]

138. Absolutely.

And I'd rather not have a president whose advice is coming from lobbyists that represent foreign governments.

[ucrdem]

30. Bernie Sanders, 2nd Democratic debate, Nov. 14, 2016:

Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.

http://time.com/4113434/transcript-read-the-full-text-of-the-second-democratic-debate/

And that was it on the question of how to respond to the Paris attacks of a few days earlier and it was off to his OWS stump speech. This accords with my perception that he hasn't been doing his FP homework which is further confirmed by the Politico article in the OP.

[Skidmore]

33. My reaction as well.nt

[riversedge]

36. I remember that--it was jarrring how Sanders just did a 180 shift and talked economics on

a foreign policy question.

[ucrdem]

39. The contrast with Hillary's answer is striking,

not just because she bothered to answer the question but because she doesn't use terms like "barbarous" and "rid the planet" which suggest simplistic and frankly dangerous views of entire populations:

CLINTON: Well, John, I think that we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated.

There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal,not just military force, which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more open and cooperative way — that we can bring people together.

But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said– which I agree with– is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs, so that we can be supportive.

[NurseJackie]

43. Perhaps this helps to explain why his foreign policy speech was cancelled.

The contrasts are striking, and perhaps his campaign advisors didn't want to remind voters of that.

[mhatrw]

63. Hillary should know more about the problem. She caused it. nt

[NurseJackie]

40. It could fit on a fortune cookie.

[Live and Learn]

41. Like this: FUCK WAR! nt

[ucrdem]

42. Yep.

It turns out the Paris attack was the day before, so he didn't have a lot of time to prepare a statement, but unfortunately the world doesn't always wait for US Presidents to draft and practice their speeches.

[DCBob]

81. Yep.. one sentence and then on to economics!

[polly7]

106. The opening up of Iraq to terrorism began ISIS, just as doing the same in Libya did for now so many

regions in Africa with Boko Haram.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Thin? Compared to Obama, George W. Buh, Bill Clinton, Reagan, or Carter when they 1st took office?

With the exception of George Herbert Walker Bush, Bernie Sanders has the most foreign policy experience of any American President first entering office in 40 years. And more than any of the Republicans he may run against for added measure.

[ucrdem]

47. Compared to Hillary's, it's thin. Did you happen to catch the second debate?

It wasn't just the first question he dodged but his responses throughout showed a lack of depth and careful thought that Hillary by contrast had no trouble displaying. And she didn't reach for easy militaristic answers either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. I did, yes

No one denies that Hilary clearly has the most FP experience in the field. We can debate "judgement" separately (not ow I'm going to work) but I'l leave that matter in a simple positive place by saying I far prefer Hillary's judgement to anyone the Republican's are running - by a light year.

My point is that this is a red herring, either that or many talking heads are outright hypocrites. America repeatedly elects Presidents with much less foreign policy experience than Bernie Sanders. People rarely express alarm that the sky will fall in because of that. Bernie Sanders has been briefed on, and involved in the debates on, all of the major foreign policy issues of the last two decades, or longer. I wasn't concerned over his response during the debates. I think his judgement is sound and if elected President, he no doubt will install a fine team of advisers eager to serve our nation.

[DCBob]

48. Candidate Obama had no problem discussing foreign policy in great detail during the 2008 campaign.

Bernie avoids it like the plague.

[Skidmore]

56. People never serm to remember that the President

had a keen interest in international relations, starting with it being his specialty area of study at Columbia long before his political career.

[DCBob]

46. Bernie is a "one trick pony".

He has never been comfortable discussing foreign policy in any kind of details or specifics. I think he simply doesn't know the details or specifics. That will be a serious problem for him and this country and the world should he somehow miraculously win the WH. We need someone ready on day one.. that person is Hillary Clinton.

[mhatrw]

64. Yes, Hillary's long career in military misadverturism makes her uniquely suited for

the role of destabilizer in chief.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[DCBob]

70. Hillary's positions on our military are mainstream Democrat.

Bernie's are more like those of Dennis Kucinich. Are we going to have a "Department of Peace" in a Sander's administration?

[mhatrw]

80. How about just calling it the Department of War like we used to?

That's what it is and that's what Hillary is so great at. Getting into wars that require getting us into more wars. That's been mainstream for both parties forever.

[DCBob]

83. As I said Hillary's position on war and our military reflect mainstream Democratic party platform.

We are discussing the nominee for the Democratic Party... correct?

[zalinda]

50. More stuff being thrown to see if it sticks to the wall

Many Presidents don't have foreign policy experience, it's a learn on the job type of thing. What you may or may not see as a lesser government official changes depending on what office you hold. There is a reason that Presidents have cabinets and advisers, it's because they are not all knowing. Presidents are only as good as their advisers, because things can change over night and what was once a workable solution, may not be anymore. Any planned foreign policy may be detrimental a month later, which is why all this foreign policy 'solutions' are a lot of bunk.

The truth is, Bernie would try to avoid war and Hillary has a tendency to wage war. I hate war.

Z

[NurseJackie]

55. Excuses, excuses.

Go, Hillary!

[restorefreedom]

52. attention everyone, today's meme is..........

foreign policy



damn, i gotta get this stuff into excel....i just can't keep up!

[beam me up scottie]

53. It's a tie, they're also catapulting the gun nut propaganda!

It's a truthiness two-fer!

[restorefreedom]

54. well, it is the weekend, right? we need two!

can't wait for caucuspaloooza....it will be a duzy!

[Skidmore]

57. You need more

green bouncies.

[restorefreedom]

60. thanks! will keep in mind for the next big meme announcement, sure to come

any second now who hooooo

[DCBob]

69. This issue has been well discussed many many times on this board.

Here is one good one..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251754984

[restorefreedom]

84. no links, no substantive argument in that op

sorry, but all i saw were a bunch of unsubtantiated complaints.

thanks for the reply though, dcbob

[DCBob]

88. I was just making the point the issue has been discussed and its nothing new.

[restorefreedom]

100. oh, ok yes it certainly has been discussed at length

namaste!

[mhatrw]

59. Real men talk WAR.

you know

[99Forever]

61. ...

[Broward]

62. Hillary backed one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes

in this nation's history. Case closed.

[ucrdem]

65. Iraq was not her doing. And Bernie as Pres wants to "rid the planet" of a "barbarous" population.

I find Bernie far more alarming than Hillary. We've been down that road and Bernie should know better.

[DCBob]

71. So did John Kerry, Joe Biden and John Edwards...

as well as many other Democratic Senators. Based on what was presented to them by the Bush admin it appeared to be the right thing to do.

[Armstead]

89. No,no,no,no,no

His was not some rapid emergency that required a fast decision. It was a long drawn out national debate in which "what was presented by the Bush administration" was shown to be fallacious and disingenuous. There was a lot of time for thjought and reflection and investigation.

On the day before the vote I called Ted Kennedy's office and asked him not to support it.

"The Senator has already decided not to support that for reasons he has stated publicly."

Also called Kerry.

"The Senator is currently examining the issue and has not made up his mind."


The next day Kerry delivered a rambling speech on why he did not like this decision, but ultimately he had to support Bush on the matter.

That to me clarified the difference between politically cowardly waffling and clear eyed and courageous understanding/principled opposition to Bush and the War Machine,.

[DCBob]

93. Yes, yes, yes... they all did vote for the Iraq war.

I am sure it was difficult decision for all of them. No Democrat trusted the Bush/Cheney admin but if what was told them was completely true then the correct thing to do was to take out Saddam Hussein.

[Armstead]

103. A lot of people knew better

Many who were experts and had inside knowledge

It all boiled down to two questions. 1)Do you trust Bush's motives and his case? 2) Does you gut tell you this was a necessary war that would have positive benefits, or was it an imperialistic overreach with bad consequences? 3)Do I have the political backbine to stand up to Bush/Cheney?

I'd rather trust those who saw through Bus and his lies and saw the potential negative long-term impacts, which have unfortunately occurred -- and who had the courage of convictions, rather than political cowardice and opportunism.

[KingCharlemagne]

111. +Infinity! - nt

[DCBob]

120. I would not have voted for it.

In fact I was out protesting against it the weekend before the war started. However, I can understand how many Democratic politicians were torn especially with the Colin Powell UN speech, whom most Dems trusted.

[Armstead]

123. I listened to Powell and my BS meter went through the roof

and I'm just a dumb civilian in such matters.

So many unsupported suppositions...Even Powell was embarrassed by it.

This was both a test of either neo-con agreement and/or a lack of political will to stand up to the Bush Machine and look "weak" on defense before an election

[DCBob]

124. Good for you.. but most Senate Democrats believed it.

I guess you are smarter than all of them.

[Armstead]

125. Please read my revised post

I'm just a dumb civilian...A lot of people didn't buy it

[DCBob]

126. Alot of smart people did.

Why??

[KingCharlemagne]

107. I really had to hold my nose tightly in 2004 to vote for Kerry. His argument was not that

The Iraq War and Occupation were wrong or immoral; his argument was that he would prosecute the Occupation better than Bush.

[Armstead]

108. Little realizing that he'd be prosecuting a much worse situation 10 years later

I like Kerry a lot,. But he screwed the pooch on that one.

[KingCharlemagne]

109. I remember vividly turning to my wife (after I picked my jaw up off the floor) when

Kerry, on the campaign trail in Colorado Springs, blithely told a reporter he still would have voted for the war even if he knew beforehand that there were no WMD in Iraq!."Get ready for 4 more years of Bush," I said. I was frankly surprised 2004 was as close as it was, since Kerry handed the election to Bush right then and there.

[Orrex]

73. Sanders eagerly helped to hand that power to Bush, too. Case closed.

Sanders was happy to vote in lock-step with rest of the House to give Dubya carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted. But that was different because of reasons, and because Sanders is a fiercely moral man or something.

At this late date apologists are welcome to spin it however they like, but the fact remains that it would have been a hell of a lot harder to get us into Iraq if the Congress had done its duty at 23:17 ON 9/14/2001 instead of handing the reins to the idiot in the Whitehouse.


So, yes. Sanders bravely voted against H.J.Res.114 just 13 months later, when it was too late to make much of a difference. Bravo, Mr. Representative. Thanks for locking the barn.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Did you forget that it was Bin Laden who attacked us, not Saddam?

Comparing going into Afghanistan after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to the war in Iraq and blaming Bernie for it, well that's just...

[Orrex]

85. No shit? That's fucking amazing! I've never heard that before!

And if Sanders et al had acted with courage instead of panicking and bowing down to Bush at the very first opportunity, then there's no way we would have been dragged into Iraq under those false pretenses.

Also, Kerry and Biden voted right along with the arch-villain Hillary Clinton, so perhaps you should take it up with them as well.

[beam me up scottie]

86. You heard it here, folks! BERNIE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IRAQ!!!

The things Hillary supporters will come up with to excuse her culpability are just...wow.

[Orrex]

94. You become more disappointing as primary season rolls on

I wouldn't have expected you to succumb to the cult mindset, but here we are.



Note to potential jurors summoned by the famously itchy trigger finger of Sanders' supporters: I along with many others have been accused of far worse than a "cult mindset" simply for failing to "feel" the Independent from Vermont.

[beam me up scottie]

98. The "cult" who's aware of actual facts and isn't supporting a war hawk?

I've got news for you, I've supported Bernie for decades so your personal attack is just another lame attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

Because as we all know Orrex just HAS to be right, no matter who he smears or betrays in the process.

Your candidate supported the war but instead of just admitting she fucked up you make up shit about Bernie and burn a friend.

Pathetic.

[KingCharlemagne]

112. I think this is a valid point. I'm a strong Sanders supporter but he should be asked to

explain and maybe apologize for that vote. Rep. Barbara Lee was the ONLY congressperson to vote correctly on the initial enabling legislation. 1000 years from now, people will still sing Rep. Lee's praises.

[Orrex]

121. Thank you.

I'm not thrilled that Clinton (or anyone else, for that matter) voted for either of them, but I appreciate your willingness to hold Sanders to account for his vote as well.

[KingCharlemagne]

133. I started protesting in the streets against Bush in October 2001, but even I cannot

match Rep. Lee's profile in courage.

I do not therefore gloat that I saw the light before Bernie.

Just out of curiosity, when did you put two and two together?

[Boomer]

66. Bernie's Vice Presidential choice

Even as a fervent Sanders supporters, I agree that he is quite weak on foreign policy. If he wins, the nomination, I'd like to see him fill the VP position with someone for whom foreign policy is a strength. Teamwork is the best way to approach an administration because no single candidate will EVER encompass all the qualities and experience that is needed.

[JudyM]

75. Exactly. Better to have great complementarily of strengths and a solid cabinet.

[Nyan]

82. I agree but when we talk "strength," we have to be careful.

Whoever that is HAS TO BE a dove. It's a rare breed, I know, but it CANNOT be another neocon.
I am so sick of neocons dominating foreign policy area because of their supposed "experience."
Neocons who served under Bush working for Obama, MIC lobbyists getting appointed the Secretary of Defense under Obama... I just can't take it anymore.
I hope Bernie makes the right choice.

[Boomer]

117. Agreed

Yes, by strength I meant experience in foreign policy and affairs. Sanders is weak on that point compared to Clinton, which has nothing to do with what position he takes versus her positions. He just doesn't sound as knowledgeable on this topic as he does domestic/financial policy. Income inequality has always been his primary focus, but as president he'll be hammered by dozens of topics that have nothing to do with income inequality. He absolutely must learn to widen his vision.

[KingCharlemagne]

114. Bill Richardson maybe? (A three-fer, as Richardson brings foreign policy chops, geographic

And ethnic diversity.) Richardson is sharp as a tack, to boot. And a likable guy on balance, very calming and even laconic.

[daybranch]

67. If you recognize that the oligarchy runs our foreign policy as most of Bernie's

supporters do, you immediately recognize that the best solution to matters of Foreign policy is to remove the influence of the oligarchy which puts our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines i harm's way to protect and enlarge the wealth of the oligarchy. The rich are the problem afflicting the world with their greed. Wake up man or woman as the case may be, it is all connected . Get rid of the cognitive dissonance that allows you to support the neocon positions of the oligarchy and its third way minions.
Go Bernie. He gets it on every level.

[99Forever]

72. Deficit?

Yet Bernie managed to get it right and Hillary stood tall and wrong with Dubya, Darth Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the war pig scumbags.

No sale, but that's a nice war drum you've got there.

[Skidmore]

74. It's the actual title of the article???

Did you notice that?

[99Forever]

77. I don't care where it came from.

It's bullshit, a lie, and fucking cheap attempt at a smear.

Everything we've come to expect from neoliberals and neocons warmongers.

[Nyan]

76. Here's my question.

Why don't they try and illustrate exactly WHAT her foreign policy experience has been all about?
They seem to be trying awfully hard to NOT write about her experience and somebody else's lack thereof (supposedly).

Because frankly, when I heard her talking about "literally hunting the Chinese" during the debate, I cringed a bit. That's not the way a president should talk about another country, much less a rising superpower. And, after all those years of that experience, what she got out of it is that "Iranians are my biggest enemies"?

We shouldn't engage other countries like that. We are not supposed to have that mindset anymore. It's simply not sustainable.
The less trigger-happy, the better. That's the most important quality in commander-in-chief at this point.

[beam me up scottie]

79. She also said the Iranians were her enemies.

That's a little terrifying.

[KingCharlemagne]

116. Hillary was channeling her inner

Viceroy MacArthur!


:

[SidDithers]

87. DU rec...nt

Sid

[mcar]

90. K&R

[DCBob]

91. Bernie is a big risk to the security of this country should he somehow win the WH.

He is simply not ready. His positions on foreign policy are simplistic and uninformed. The world is too complex and dangerous for a foreign policy amateur like Bernie Sanders to be making critical decisions affecting the future of this planet.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

92. foreign policy deficit - CODE for DOES NOT LIKE WAR

Sanders will make his positions clear to all - that change will open more doors than the drums of war

[Lucinda]

104. According to Bernie's website his Foreign Policy experience consists of ONE thing

He was against the Iraq invasion. That's it. His only listed item.


https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-foreign-policy-experience/

[DCBob]

122. He's seems not even interested in foreign policy.

Always changes the topic back to economics. He's simply not presidential material.

[KingCharlemagne]

110. Sanders has as much foreign policy experience as JFK and LBJ. So your

hit piece is an EPIC FAIL and transparent to boot.

EPIC FAIL

[Nanjeanne]

115. And as much as Bill Clinton had and Obama had

And as much as Hill had when she became Secretary of State.

Such silliness.

[DCBob]

128. Why is Bernie so resistant to talk about foreign policy and national security?

He completely ducked the issue of the Paris terrorism incident during one of the debates. Why??

[workinclasszero]

127. Wow! WTG Bernie?

'I don't know how I got on Bernie Sanders' list,' says one expert cited by his campaign.

[Thinkingabout]

129. Bernie has been given many opportunties to answer questions on foreign policy, he dances off

to his financial talking point, does not even come close to answering these questions. A president has to handle a lot of issues and am surprised he is avoiding foreign policy so much.

[napi21]

131. I don't think national security is the big deal with the voters that the pubs play it to be.

REMEMBER who the Presidents for the last 24 years have been--Clinton, Shrub, Obama. The last President with any kind of military or international experience was G.H. Bush--a quarter of a century ago!

A lot of a presidents foreign policy and actions are determined by the people he/she chooses for foreign policy advisors. Think Shrub, Cheney, Rummy and the rest of his WAR WAR WAR Crowd.

The people who support Bernie trust him to appoint people to his cabinet who share HIS values and concentrate on security at home and foreign intervention ONLY when it threatens security in the US.

[ancianita]

137. Thin? With a domestic policy deficit, what would a strong defense defend, anyway -- itself?

The 1%? As we pay tax monies that get shoveled everywhere else but back to us?

The People come first. Domestic policy should be the priority of any campaign.

Republicans have campaigned on the military might chest beating to death, and falling for that will be the death of us -- from individual to nation -- as it saps our domestic body politic.

If we don't rebuild domestically -- we must rebuild domestically -- there will be little worth the DoD's defense, even if it's just for the low-cost real estate of impoverished cities and public lands. Why? Because millions of psychically and economically defeated will probably lose their trust in any 'new overlords.'

Underneath the high visibility politics: the beaten are too hungry, tired, incapacitated to fight or think for themselves.

Rebuilding a people is now more important than keeping ANY MIC intact. They'll get their funding, they'll cut waste, do more with less. Meanwhile, there's plenty PLENTY of good foreign policy help out there for Sanders.

[Odin2005]

139. As opposed to Hillarry who is a disgusting warmonger?

[AtomicKitten]

140. Hillary's good judgment deficit.

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)