2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDoes anyone proudly stand with hillary endorsing kissinger?
A lot of proud standing for someone proud to stand with kissinger.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)You must mean killinger.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)That this hasn't gotten more scrutiny. I saw Charlie Pierce mention it briefly but there hasn't been much else in the press. To me, if you're going to invoke Kissinger, you need to be asked about Kissinger's world view and his deeds.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Our country's expressed outrage at despots and dictators world-wide rings hollow while Kissinger remains a free man.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)was a part of the scheme in 1968 that stalled the Paris peace talks so Nixon could use the Vuetnam war to his advantage.
This stunt cost more American Lives and both Nixon and Kissinger should have been punished for this along with many other War Crimes
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)They can't defend any of her policies/positions/wrongheaded statements, so you have to wonder WHY? they support someone so indefensible?
At this point, it has to be a vote against Bernie...he's the wrong gender, he's Jewish, he's too Progressive, he's a Democratic Socialist, he's not a millionaire, etc...
She's much too flawed a candidate to want as president.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)featuring that debate moment. My one complaint about Bernie: not sharp enough elbows. He is too much a gentleman.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)We can run damn near anything including a happy meal and win by comparing issues with the gop
Damn near anything as long as it isnt her
She kills turnout on our side
she maximizes gop turnout
indies despise her
she has zero crossover appeal
Its mystifying
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Unfortunately, we cannot share her endorsement of Kissinger with the 58,000 lives needlessly taken for the Vietnam "conflict" that left so many homeless vets under the bridge.
Who's willing to share this news with the homeless vets, since all the dead ones are unreachable...
Endorse your dead soldiers here, you guys!
COME ON!!!! WHO'S FIRST???
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)There is no answer for it
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)roar! Run Away!!!!
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Hillary voted for the Iraq war and he voted against it-that is not a foreign policy plan.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Is it he voted against the Iraq war? He was out of his league in the debate. He looked flustered when talking about it. Trying to change the subject-like you are right now.
jillan
(39,451 posts)about Bill Clinton.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)is like none other and she knows her stuff. This woman is experienced and ready on day one. Hillary does not need on the job training, as Sanders would. I am amazed at the wealth of her knowledge on every topic. Sanders is not even curious about foreign policy. He is a one-note yelling candidate. The only person that is better on foreign policy than Hillary is Bill Clinton.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)A few things that I would expect from a Sanders administration on foreign policy (you can certainly check his site as well):
Two major items that are similar to Clinton:
efforts to negotiate a global pact to reduce climate change
meaningful immigration reform
Two major items that are different from Clinton:
trade pacts that are more pro-worker and pro-environment and that do not give NGOs (World Bank, etc.) too much power
a stronger effort to avoid military intervention abroad, including an effort to reduce the military budget
I would disagree with the perception of Secretary Clinton as being necessarily more effective in foreign policy, given the cataclysmic Iraqi war vote, saber rattling related to Iran, and financial support from the defense industry. I would also say something similar about former President Clinton - I disagreed with NAFTA, I disagreed with the no-fly zone in Iraq, and I think that in retrospect, the most-favored nation status with China had some unintended consequences. I think that a lot of the relationships that both Clintons work on abroad leads to favorable treatment for the financial sector and global movement of capital, which has had negative consequences, including the crash of 2007. I also think that both Clintons (like the Bushes have done) leverage international relationships for personal gain.
I do think that Pres. Obama has been successful in certain respects with establishing stronger relationships with the developing world and pulling back a bit from armed conflict (the Iran agreement and the drawdown from Iraq are two examples). Secretary Clinton was a part of this work and deserves credit for it. However, I read occasionally in news sources that she preferred to be more interventionist in Syria and was more hawkish on Iran. I don't agree with these positions.
So - that's my piece. Always happy to discuss issues, and I'd be happy to be informed about something I'm missing about the foreign policy record and/or the foreign policy goals of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Here's the requirements to be President and the CONSTITUTION doesn't require FOREIGN POLICY experience, that argument is moot:
Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States
Unless Democrats now think the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is "just a goddamn piece of paper" like HILLARY'S friend G.W. Bush does.
Bernie has been in Congress for 25 freakin' years. He's more qualified than BILL CLINTON AND RONALD REAGAN were. Being Governors for 2-3 terms is no more qualifying than 25 YEARS in Congress. And that goes for HRH'S stint as SOS...
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)then why it doesn't show in the Democratic debates. The media are always bring of the FACT that foreign policy is not his thing. And his policy on the domestic front is to raise middle-class people taxes-what a winning general election slogan. <<sarcasm>>
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Exactly.. That is what the media is saying. As a Bernie supporter and as a self-proclaimed isolationist, I could care less what the media thinks about his foreign policy. That is why you surround yourself with capable advisors.
And find me the last President that was A+ on every facet of policy (Domestic, Foreign, Economic, Trade, etc.)
Keep throwing stones from the glass house though when your candidate has an atrocious foreign policy record.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)but not Sanders foreign policy team. In a Sanders Administration who would that consist of?
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)since I am not privy to that information. But I admire your imagination.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)And neither does he. That's the point.
Please then list me the people who will comprise the Clinton administration since you are privy to such info.
I do not dare to speculate because there are likely several people who are openly supporting Sec. Clinton that would more than likely comprise his team. Thus it's difficult to just guess. Sorry.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Hillary has been endorsed by several individuals in Congress unlike Sanders. That is why it is hard to envision his foreign policy team as well as his domestic policy team.
I get it now. You want me to list, but you don't have to. Lots of people endorsed Clinton and Edwards last time around. Obama put an administration together. Have a good day though.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)god-fearing Kristian.
Bernie has proven that he has better judgement and the guts to sand by it.
I'm with Bernie.
PS: Reviewed the entire thread. Didn't see much Proud standing......
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Touting Herny Kissinger as a buddy in this arena is relevant just like the IWR vote is relevant- it is indicative of judgment, perspective, and mindset.
Are you aware of the very real damage Henry Kissinger has done over the years? Leaving aside, for instance, the grievances the people of, say, Chile have with the man- it is indisputable that he sabotaged the '68 Paris Peace Accords to help Richard Nixon get elected that November. "Treason" is really not too strong a word, for the actions therein. But either way, the objective end result was prolonging the Vietnam war until 1973, when the exact same arrangements were settled in Paris, only with something like 30,000 more Americans dead and maybe a million more Vietnamese.
So like I said. Judgment, perspective and mindset.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)You like throwing the judgement card out there because that what Sanders throws out there in the debates. Hillary's judgement is fine. And I know this because in the debates Hillary's foreign policy experience is at the optimum level above Sanders and her Republican counterparts. No one has any idea if Sanders have good judgement about foreign policy,because he does not have one.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You're damn right it's relevant. Optimum Shmoptimum.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Go away, Hillary. Far, far away.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Note: celeb photo ops aren't endorsements.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)and his travels relevant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1111531
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)Should be tried as a war criminal and sent to jail for the rest of his life. So to answer your question, No.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)and very telling.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)"Don't you know that war criminals can be very helpful as advisors, you dirty hippies!"