Hillary Clinton is a neocon

[peacebird]

She has the record and the vision

"For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." —Robert Kagan

"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president." —Dick Cheney

"I've known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever seen." —Henry Kissinger

Nobody Beats This Record

She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013.
She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq.
She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing.
She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers.
She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress.
She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.

[thereismore]

1. No doubt. As it turns out, she actually has a neoconservative record, credentials, and references.

If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

On the republican side, there is Donald. He has said a lot of nasty shit, but he does not have a record. The devil you know?

[peacebird]

4. Bernie Sanders has my vote in the general election

[Betty Karlson]

53. Especially if he secures the nomination - which could still happen.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

179. If it squawks like a war hawk ... she's a war hawk.

[upaloopa]

2. Bernie Sanders is a conscientious objector who wants to be commander in chief.

Now how is that supposed to work?

He gets that 3:00 AM call. "Sorry folks I don't believe in violence."

[tk2kewl]

9. No that's not how it works...

You can conscientiously object to unjust wars and still know when military action is required.

Bernie Sanders, the Foreign-Policy Realist of 2016
Of all the presidential candidates of either party, Bernie is actually the most sober and clear-eyed.
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-the-foreign-policy-realist-of-2016/

but if you'd rather dumb down the conversation, that is you perogative

[upaloopa]

44. Tell us what Bernie's experience is with foreign conflict.

I know "he didn't vote for the Iraq war." I know "he has good judgement in this area."

He has virtually NO! foreign policy experience. He wouldn't know when to act and when to hide under the covers!

[tk2kewl]

47. like I said

Feel free to dumb it down

[EndElectoral]

48. Did you read the op above? Thank God he doesn't have HRC's Foreign Policy experience.

[tk2kewl]

62. the simple fact that he has no personal or financial relationship with Saudi royalty

should be enough to know he is more likely to do what is in the interest of US citizens than is Hillary

[disillusioned73]

159. Bern...

[pangaia]

103. Obama, Bush the less, BIG DOGGIE,,,,,,HILLARY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They all have/had LOTS of experience going to war...

DUH!

[BigBearJohn]

134. what foreign policy experience did Ronald Reagan have before becoming president?

[PaulaFarrell]

141. or Bill Clinton? n/t

[beltanefauve]

150. Or Barack Obama

[PaulaFarrell]

151. exactly n/t

[grasswire]

123. where is that poll from yesterday?

Bernie is the most highly favored of ALL the candidates to be Commander In Chief.

[tk2kewl]

124. Here

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/03/15/poll-who-voters-want-for-the-next-commander-in-chief/

[senz]

146. It's his impeccable judgment.

He can see where our actions will lead. She cannot.

[tk2kewl]

158. Hillary just has different agenda

Good outcome or bad there are always winners to make money and power relationships with

[tk2kewl]

125. This thread also is attempting to have this discussion in a more moderated fashion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511518324

[pnwmom]

171. Please don't "dumb down the conversation." A C.O. can't only object to "unjust wars."

A Conscientious Objector has to swear to and substantiate an objection to ALL wars -- even WW2, for example.

That's why so few people other than the Amish qualified for it.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Back in '92 the Republicans loved to call Bill Clinton a draft dodger, so that row belongs to them.

nt

[EndElectoral]

45. An HRC supporter below says he's approved more for wars than HRC, yet he doesn't believe in violence

You Hillary supporters have got to make up your mind. Which is it?

[redstateblues]

54. A CO will never be Commander in Chief

The Rs would have a field day with that

[EndElectoral]

78. Why? Cheney was a CO (he had better things to do than Vietnam). Trump likewise. Clinton letter below

Those guys bought there way out. Bernie was more honest about it.

Amazing how some HRC supporters here essentially insinuating Sanders was a hawk voting for somalia, afghanistan, kosovo, and then others who say that because he was a CO and against violence in Vietnam he can't be commander in chief.

Perhaps you'd like to read Bill Clinton's own letter about the draft.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).

When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm.

[redstateblues]

99. Neither Cheney or Clinton were COs

[pangaia]

104. True, Cheney was chicken shit coward....

[delrem]

148. So? Do you think having a conscience makes one unfit for dealing with R's?

Is that your reason for wanting to emulate the R's?

What kind of reason is that?

[choie]

178. Bush was a deserter

didn't seem to bother them much.

[Jefferson23]

73. Much better than under the command of a hawk.n/t

[pangaia]

102. upaloopaloopafoolpa....loopa...fool..

[CorporatistNation]

137. Since When Did Hillary OR Anyone From Her Family Have A Draft Card?

Kind of cheep...

[CrispyQ]

165. Maybe we'd finally get a Department of Peace!

I'm all for a defense department, but seriously, how many times in the past 80 years has the US really been threatened?

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html


The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

See the link for a long list of 'interventions' paid for with your tax dollars, to enrich the corporate overlords. This article was written in 1999. How much money have American corporations & politicians made on the wars since? I'm sick of this fucking shit & with HRC it will be more of the same.

Bin Laden said everyone in America should read William Blum.

on edit: If the US hadn't been beating the hornet's nest all over the planet for the last 80 years, maybe it global relations would not be so volatile.

[Trust Buster]

3. A San Bernadino-type attack would devastate a Sanders nomination.

The political center of this country would look at Sanders in the wake of such an attack and run to the Right side of the room. That's how vulnerable we would be to nominate a dove's dove. Thanks, but I'll stick with Hillary.

[thereismore]

7. Fear is your guide then. OK. You are just confirming a certain stereotype about Hillary voters. nt

[Trust Buster]

11. No, the real world is my guide. Pragmatism beats idealism in the real world every time.

[KeepItReal]

83. ISIL did not exist prior to Hillary's Iraq invasion vote "pragmatism"

[grossproffit]

131. False. The roots of ISIS go back to 2006

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#

[KeepItReal]

132. 2002 still comes before 2006...right? Right?

[TDale313]

10. Yay!! More war and fear mongering!!!

Gotta get the masses cowering under their beds while the war profiteers make bank!

How very fucking inspiring, but like you? No thanks. I'll go with a candidate who opposes stupid wars.

[Trust Buster]

12. Can't win a general election without the support of the political center. That's just a fact.

[TDale313]

17. The political center is no where near as far right

As politicians on both sides of the aisle love to pretend. Dems are so busy chasing that mushy middle that they never even make the case and just accept the Republican frame for everything. Bernie is showing the support of nearly half the party (despite having every lever of power doing everything they can to stop him) because he is. Think you can win without the left? And yes, he does draw Independents and even some Repub. with his populist message without trying to out-republican them- which never.fucking.works. He would win the general. I am sick and tired of letting Repugs pick our nominee for us.

[Trust Buster]

19. The political center is reactionary. A San Bernadino-type attack during the presidential

campaign would render a dove's dove like Sanders very vulnerable. We've seen this throughout history.

[TDale313]

37. This is the kind of thinking that leads to a politician like Trump.

We *can* do better than playing off people's fears and trying to bomb the world into submission.

[Trust Buster]

51. Sorry, Trump shaming is a fail. A dove's dove is vulnerable in any election during a period

of widespread world instability.

[gcomeau]

35. Why not just vote for the GOP then?

I mean if you don't give a shit about whether the Democratic candidate is right or left anyway what's stopping you?

She's a hawk. She opposes Single payer. She mocks the progressive social safety net as "giving away free stuff". She's best buds with Wall st. You're halfway there already.

[Loudestlib]

46. Yeap

It's better if innocent brown people we can't see are dying.

[notadmblnd]

130. The political center is already on the right side of the room.

nt

[CoffeeCat]

152. I'd rather have Sander's measured and good judgment at the helm

than Hillary's extreme neocon beliefs.

Hillary was instrumental in toppling Gadaffi and destabilizing Libya, which is now a failed state in complete chaos. This is exactly what the neocons wanted. Hillary made all of their neocon dreams come true.

Hillary selected Robert Kagan, the FOUNDER of the neocons, to be one of her foreign-policy advisers. They are guiding her actions, including her disgusting actions in Libya.

I don't call that good judgment. I call that vile and disgusting.

When I first came to DU, we were ALL united against George Bush and the neocons. What a thing of beauty it was. NOT ONE Democrat sang the praises of these soulless, disgusting, evil people who cause untold suffering and death--all for profit. They murder because it's good for business.

And here we we are on DU--listening to Democrats justify these horrors.

It's very, very sad. I fail to understand how anyone thinks that this is ok.

[CrispyQ]

168. "They murder because it's good for business."

TRUTH.

[JoePhilly]

5. Wonder why the media doesn't talk about Bernie?

Might be because his supporters don't talk about him either.

Too busy talking about Hillary.

[Shadowflash]

68. It's more likely that

The corporations that own the media companies also own Hillery.

[JoePhilly]

80. Whatever keeps these anti-Hillary threads up above ...

... the pro-Bernie threads ... sure can't be blamed on the media.

[think]

176. Major TV lobbyists are campaiging for Hillary:

Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton

By Lee Fang
Oct. 29 2015, 12:51 p.m.

Over the last two presidential debates, both Democratic and Republican candidates have asserted that the television news media is biased and has done a poor job informing voters of the most pressing issues in the election.

And while their focus is on things like the type of questions asked by debate moderators, they are overlooking much clearer signs of potential conflicts of interest. Fundraising disclosures released this month and in July reveal that lobbyists for media companies are raising big money for establishment presidential candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton.

The giant media companies that shape much of the coverage of the presidential campaign have a vested stake in the outcome. From campaign finance laws that govern how money is spent on advertising to the regulators who oversee consolidation rules, the media industry has a distinct policy agenda, and with it, a political team to influence the result.

The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.

The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group that represents the television station industry, has lobbyists who are fundraising for both Clinton and Republican candidate Marco Rubio...

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/media-fundraisers-presidential/

[senz]

147. Same reason they destroyed Howard Dean

after he said he'd break up the media monopoly.

As for Bernie's supporters, we talk a lot about him but we also feel it's important to warn people about Hill.

[DemocracyDirect]

6. The Powers That Be always play both sides.

So no matter who wins, they win.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Definition of a neocon: A new way of conning people?

[PeaceNikki]

13. .

[BeanMusical]

154. ...

[Trajan]

14. So, we might say that the Clinton supporters here on DU

Are on the same side as Kagan, Cheney and Kissinger ..

That has got to feel really really good inside ...

[peacebird]

16. Yes.

[HooptieWagon]

76. That's pretty evident.

Some Democrats no longer have Reagan to vote for, so they're looking for the second-coming.

[Gregorian]

15. So let the Clinton dems start their new party, not us.

We're the core of the party. They're the ones who sold the party.

Clinton paid people to support her run. DWS, and endorsements.

I know this isn't on topic, but I don't see why the core of the party principles should feel the need to abandon the true Democrat name.

[Trust Buster]

23. As the 2.5 million vote advantage for Hillary during these primaries attests,

we represent the MAJORITY in the Democratic Party. Food for thought.

[djean111]

39. Yes, it is. It is becoming more and more clear that the Democratic Party has moved to the

right, and I won't move with it.

[Trust Buster]

52. Fine, stand your ground. Just don't tell the majority to start their own Party.

[djean111]

64. I didn't. I am starting the process of waving good-bye. Third Way wins!!!!!!!!

My dad was a volunteer and did a lot of work for our local Democratic Ward, in Pennsylvania, and took my brother and sister and I to see JFK give a campaign speech in Chester, PA. In a parking lot. It was jammed with people!
He would not recognize his beloved party today. It sure does not seem to stand for the same things.

And this steady drip of "but the politician has to move to the right to get elected " - you know what that results in? The politician operating, happily, from the right, after being elected. So it is like telling me I have to make my own shit sandwich, and then I have to eat it, because I made it, didn't I? Didn't I know it was shit when I made it?

[Trust Buster]

70. We still need the political center to win this election. If we lose the center this fall and lose

the election, a 6-3 Right leaning Supreme Court will make your Third Way preoccupation look like mere child's play. That the reality of the current situation.

[CrispyQ]

167. Fine. Don't blame the left when the dems lose.

They can't blame us when they lose & tell us to shut up when they win & expect us to keep voting for them. As soon as the dem nominee is selected, if it's HRC, I'll change my affiliation back to Green.

[EndElectoral]

41. The majority isn't always right. From allowing slavery to the voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush

[Gregorian]

42. Party is based on principles. Not popularity.

[Trust Buster]

56. Telling the majority to start their own Party will not fly. It's the minority that has to choose.

[HooptieWagon]

77. Or they can go back to being Republicans.

[pnwmom]

173. Yeah, right. All these Bernie-style independents who brag about never voting

for a Dem before are suddenly the core of the party.

[bigwillq]

20. Duh

[H2O Man]

21. Recommended.

That she is, by definition.

[jcgoldie]

22. Must be why she's so popular with republicans

Oh wait... that's right we are supposed to vote for Sanders because republicans will show up in record numbers to vote against Hillary. Hmm... now I'm confused.

[JEB]

31. Pukes don't think that much.

They just do what Fox says. They would be shocked to know how many policy positions of Hillary's line up with their party.

[gcomeau]

40. Republicans don't give a shit about policy positions.

They only care who Fox news and Rush Limbaugh tells them to hate.



Too bad this election a massive chunk of the Democratic party has decided not to give a shit about policy either.

[JEB]

24. If we nominate Hillary say hello to President Trump.

Young people will have nobody to support and Independents dislike Hillary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. If Kissinger, Cheney, and Kagan admire her "foreign policy experience" one has to ask why?

Funny how the Left thinks she's dangerous and inept and the Right thinks she's effective and competent.

[Trust Buster]

60. Sanders has no practical experience in foreign affairs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Hillary does, Kissinger did, and so did Cheney. And, remember, McNamara?

All that experience...all those lost wars.

[Trust Buster]

66. What a simplistic response. Hillary is respected for her foreign affairs experience.

Experience is important. Bernie supporters distill complex issues down to such simplistic analysis. If only dealing with threats around the globe were as easy as you depict. But it's not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Yes. See how well she dealt with the "threats".

How easy it is to recall the glorious victories in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and countless other places she brought peace to.

Not to mention her saving us from the invasion fleets of Mighty Honduras.

[Trust Buster]

75. President Obama is the Commander in Chief and not some puppet.

I support his foreign policy thus far. He has resisted the call for American boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. What approach would you have liked for the President to take in Iraq and Afghanistan after he assumed office ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. I get it. She's "experieced" because she was "just following orders".

As for his approach when he took office, I would have liked him to admit we lost the idiot wars that Bush (with the help of the collaborators in congress) started and got the hell out of middle east.

[Trust Buster]

82. So you think that, after the Bush Administration de-stabilized Iraq, President Obama

should have walked away from Iraq and allow ISIS to murder tens of thousands of Iraquis, set up their caliphate so that they could organize attacks on America and American interests ? Is that your position ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. We murdered 10s of thousands of Iraqis.

Have ISIS and Al Queda stopped organizing attacks because of Obama's and Hillary's (oh, I forgot she was just following orders) foreign policy?

[Trust Buster]

89. You avoided my question. I'll try again.

After the U.S. government, under the auspices of Bush, turned Iraq into an unstable hell hole, do you believe that that same U.S. government should have walked away from their handiwork and left tens of thousands of innocent people to be slaughtered ? Yes or no ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Not walked. Ran.

Just like we did in Vietnam when we lost that war that we started.

What we did manage to do after Saddam was to throw even more kerosene on the fire and call it help. Just as we did in Libya and Syria.

You seem to be under the delusion that our "strong" foreign policy is beneficial to the countries and people we "help" by bombing them, assassinating their leaders and meddling with their governments.

It's common delusion for those that think that Might Makes Right.

[Trust Buster]

95. A silly response. We created the mess. President Obama was correct in limiting the

humanitarian disaster that followed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Opinions differ.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy of liberty or democracy?” Mohandas K. Gandhi

Limiting the Humanitarian disaster? By drone, bombing, assassinations?

How's that working in Libya or Syria or Afghanistan?

[John Poet]

108. Respected by Neocons for her foreign policy "experience".

Not by me. I'd rather have a CO as commander in chief
than a $%#@&+ neocon warmonger like Hillary Clinton.

[PaulaFarrell]

142. remind me what experience Obama had? n/t

[CrispyQ]

169. Winner!

[Gregorian]

94. All of which pales in comparison to Sander's stellar judgment.

She was a crap SOS. And we're possibly going to see just how much, if she is indicted.

[jfern]

156. Yes, he doesn't have as much experience turning the middle east into a shithole

[Onlooker]

26. Then vote for Trump

Obviously, you have no respect for the vast majority of people of color and gays who are supporting Hillary. Obviously, you think you know better. Yet in your other thread you use as your source a right wing columnist to attack the Clinton Foundation. Obviously, you are one of those people who are simply getting your information off of anti-Hillary sites. Can I suggest that you start listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck to get additional data. Did you send a donation to the Trump campaign yet?

[Matt_in_STL]

32. If you support someone other than Hillary you have no respect for blacks or gays?

Well that's quite a stretch there. I hope you didn't pull anything making it.

[Onlooker]

50. Well, the implication is that Hillary supporters embrace militarism ...

... which I think is quite an insult to their intelligence. It's an insult to my intelligence as a gay man. I support Bernie, but like Hillary, and I know enough about her to know that her foreign policies views are far more liberal than they are conservative. Some manufactured list isn't going to fool anyone. I could argue that Bernie is a militarist for his support of the stealth bomber, gun rights, and the Minutemen, but it wouldn't make it true. It would just be an insult.

[Matt_in_STL]

55. Based on her record, Hillary does push for military intervention more than other options

The not respecting blacks and gays if you don't support her becomes invalid when you realize that the very troops she would send into harm's way are actually overrepresented by blacks as a percentage of the population. I haven't seen the numbers on gays serving in the military so I can't speak to that.

The points made in the op are based on fact - she pushed for those military interventions, she voted in favor of war. Those can't be denied. I do find that tying it to a disrespect of blacks and gays is disingenuous though and, based on the statistics, actually harms blacks more than it would help, when taken in the light of the op.

[Onlooker]

87. That's not true

Her term as SoS was relatively peaceful. I think she kept the peace with Iran and North Korea, managed Putin without being weak, and basically did a good job supporting the Arab Spring without the US taking a big military role. I think with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, she had to manage our commitment to the people we put in power vs. pulling out completely. We created a mess there under Bush, and I think that there's reluctance to completely withdraw and leave the people we put in power as sitting ducks for the religious right over there. On Iraq, she voted wrongly, but it was understandable at a time that 75% of Americans supported going into Iraq and New York was still in shock -- even the New York Times supported going into Iraq. I don't defend her stand on Iraq, but being originally from New York and having family and friends there, I certainly understand that the thinking there was different than in states like VT, which were never under threat. I see Hillary as a good solid mainstream liberal, but not a leftist. Also, if there's one area I disagree with Sanders on, I think he's too libertarian with regard to international affairs. I do believe the US needs to find ways to be engaged when it comes to matters of human rights.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Nice work toning down the rhetoric as Skinner asked!

[lostnfound]

119. Maybe she meant it in a flattering way. Being a neocon is a GOOD thing

I personally am turning my attention away from electing Bernie Sanders and towards the question of which mining / resource extraction and weapons companies I should invest in.

If you can't beat them, might as well make some money off of them.

[synergie]

144. Oh goodness, don't you know, rules don't apply to Bernie or his campaign!

It's all about the lies and the right wing smears, they're even embracing the NRA position on guns now.

[HooptieWagon]

28. She looked to Kissinger as a friend and mentor.

The original neo-con.

[BeanMusical]

155. And look who she's buddy with:

I'm sure that his advices are priceless.

[JaneyVee]

29. Meanwhile, Bernie voted for more wars and war funding than any candidate running on both sides.

Whoops!

[EndElectoral]

34. So you're equating approving funding for troops to survive, the same as initiating conflicts?

[JaneyVee]

38. He also voted yes on HR Res 64, yes on Somalia, yes on Kosovo,

Yes on Afghanistan, yes on numerous sanctions, yes on Libya, etc etc etc. Not just war funding. War.

[EndElectoral]

57. So you would have voted no on Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. His vote on Libya was not for war.

From politifact

"Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors.

At the time, Sanders told the media he wanted Gaddafi out of power, but it might not be worth it if it required sustained U.S. military involvement."

Tell the truth about Libya. Somalia was in response to Mogadishu, Kososvo was Bill Clinton's successful war due to war atrocities, and Afghansitan was in response to 911.

Iraq had invaded no foreign power when HRC voted for Bush to initiate a war.

Tell the truth. None of these actions was associated with neocon philosophies.

[senz]

143. Thanks

I appreciate your knowledge and thoroughness.

[BeanMusical]

157. +1

[EndElectoral]

30. Truthout Verdict in - Neocon. The Link provided below is an eye opener.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hillary-clinton-on-israel-palestine

What We Can Expect From Hillary Clinton on Israel/Palestine
By Stephen Zunes, Truthout | News Analysis

Supporters of the international legal framework - which has, with mixed success, governed international affairs since the end of World War II - have long expressed concerns over the prospect of former senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton becoming president. Her support for the US invasion of Iraq (a flagrant violation of the UN Charter), as well as her hostility toward the International Criminal Court, her support for international recognition of Morocco's illegal annexation of occupied Western Sahara, and her attacks against the United Nations and a number of its key agencies raise concerns that her election would bring a return to the Bush administration's neoconservative rejection of longstanding international legal principles.

read more at above site. Truly, an eye opener.

[JEB]

43. Well worth a thoughtful read. Thanks for the link. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. In other news: the sun rose in the east this morning.

Great list!

[Octafish]

36. Victoria Nuland and her PNAC crew channel freaking Dick Cheney.

It's a wonder President Obama and Sec. Kerry ever get anything done for peace.

Neocons and Liberals Together, Again

The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security...

Tom Barry, last updated: February 02, 2005

The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter's signatories call for increasing the size of America's global fighting machine.

SNIP...

Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons

The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.

Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone-those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors-must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."

Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings' foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.

CONTINUED...

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Neocons_and_Liberals_Together_Again

That's from Rightweb. They're full of facts, for those who take the time to read and learn. One name to pay attention to is Victoria Nuland, our woman in Ukraine, who is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan. Robert Kagan's brother is Frederick Kagan. Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan.

Brilliant people, big ideas, etc. The thing is, that's a lot of PNAC and the PNAC approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to democracy, peace and justice.

After Kiev, it's on to Moscow. They really need the money. And PNAC members don't care who dies in stealing it.

[MohRokTah]

49. .

[RiverLover]

67. Tragically, while you sit safely posting endless obnoxious emoticons, the people of Libya are not

able to laugh.

Largely thanks to neo-con Hillary Clinton's state dept in cohoots with France to steel their gold & wreck their water system, ISIS has taken over the now unstable country with a power vacuum.

But hey, as long as Sidney Blumenthal wanted it to happen, & Kissinger, at least we know some very rich people got even richer with Qaddafi's brutal murder. Who cares about Libyan citizens anyways...

[Octafish]

72. Wait until the Social Security gets piratized.

Kissinger, Nixon and the Chicago Boys "work" overthrowing the democratic government in Chile inspired a young President Bill Clinton:

President Clinton and the Chilean Model.

By José Piñera

Midnight at the House of Good and Evil

"It is 12:30 at night, and Bill Clinton asks me and Dottie: 'What do you know about the Chilean social-security system?'” recounted Richard Lamm, the three-term former governor of Colorado. It was March 1995, and Lamm and his wife were staying that weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.

I read about this surprising midnight conversation in an article by Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, May 13, 1996), as I was waiting at Dulles International Airport for a flight to Europe. The article also said that early the next morning, before he left to go jogging, President Bill Clinton arranged for a special report about the Chilean reform produced by his staff to be slipped under Lamm's door.

That news piqued my interest, so as soon as I came back to the United States, I went to visit Richard Lamm. I wanted to know the exact circumstances in which the president of the world’s superpower engages a fellow former governor in a Saturday night exchange about the system I had implemented 15 years earlier.

Lamn and I shared a coffee on the terrace of his house in Denver. He not only was the most genial host to this curious Chilean, but he also proved to be deeply motivated by the issues surrounding aging and the future of America. So we had an engaging conversation. At the conclusion, I ventured to ask him for a copy of the report that Clinton had given him. He agreed to give it to me on the condition that I do not make it public while Clinton was president. He also gave me a copy of the handwritten note on White House stationery, dated 3-21-95, which accompanied the report slipped under his door. It read:

Dick,
Sorry I missed you this morning.
It was great to have you and Dottie here.
Here's the stuff on Chile I mentioned.
Best,
Bill.

Three months before that Clinton-Lamm conversation about the Chilean system, I had a long lunch in Santiago with journalist Joe Klein of Newsweek magazine. A few weeks afterwards, he wrote a compelling article entitled,[font color="green"] "If Chile can do it...couldn´t North America privatize its social-security system?" [/font color]He concluded by stating that "the Chilean system is perhaps the first significant social-policy idea to emanate from the Southern Hemisphere." (Newsweek, December 12, 1994).

I have reasons to think that probably this piece got Clinton’s attention and, given his passion for policy issues, he became a quasi expert on Chile’s Social Security reform. Clinton was familiar with Klein, as the journalist covered the 1992 presidential race and went on anonymously to write the bestseller Primary Colors, a thinly-veiled account of Clinton’s campaign.

“The mother of all reforms”

While studying for a Masters and a Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University, I became enamored with America’s unique experiment in liberty and limited government. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the first volume of Democracy in America hoping that many of the salutary aspects of American society might be exported to his native France. I dreamed with exporting them to my native Chile.

So, upon finishing my Ph.D. in 1974 and while fully enjoying my position as a Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and a professor at Boston University, I took on the most difficult decision in my life: to go back to help my country rebuild its destroyed economy and democracy along the lines of the principles and institutions created in America by the Founding Fathers. Soon after I became Secretary of Labor and Social Security, and in 1980 I was able to create a fully funded system of personal retirement accounts. Historian Niall Ferguson has stated that this reform was “the most profound challenge to the welfare state in a generation. Thatcher and Reagan came later. The backlash against welfare started in Chile.”

But while de Tocqueville’s 1835 treatment contained largely effusive praise of American government, the second volume of Democracy in America, published five years later, strikes a more cautionary tone. He warned that “the American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” In fact at some point during the 20th century, the culture of self reliance and individual responsibility that had made America a great and free nation was diluted by the creation of [font color="green"] “an Entitlement State,”[/font color] reminiscent of the increasingly failed European welfare state. What America needed was a return to basics, to the founding tenets of limited government and personal responsibility.

[font color="green"]In a way, the principles America helped export so successfully to Chile through a group of free market economists needed to be reaffirmed through an emblematic reform. I felt that the Chilean solution to the impending Social Security crisis could be applied in the USA.[/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.josepinera.org/articles/articles_clinton_chilean_model.htm

It is to laugh.

[RiverLover]

85. Yep. And Bill was planning on cutting & privatizing SS, but Monica saved us.

October 1997 – The Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and the Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, reached a secret agreement to reform Social Security. The agreement required both the President and the Speaker to forge a centrist coalition by persuading moderate members of Congress from their respective parties to compromise.[45]
January 1998 – Progress on the reform agreement reached on October 28, 1997, between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich was derailed by the Lewinsky scandal approximately a week before Clinton was to announce the initiative in his State of the Union address

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States


I truly believe the million$ given directly to the Clintons for their speeches on nothing was a down payment on the gamble Hillary could win & would finally net them the mother lode with privatized SS.

Its the main reason I don't want her near the WH.

[MohRokTah]

74. You crack me up!!!!

[RiverLover]

86. And you make me even prouder I'm not a Clinton supporter.

[MohRokTah]

88. And you just keep CRACKING ME UP!!!!!

[juxtaposed]

106. HRC's inaction has killed hundreds of indigenous activists in central and south america, Laugh away

[Impedimentus]

58. And this is the short list.

She is a proven neocon and a friend of the Kissingers.

[KansDem]

59. But Lloyd Blankfein likes her...

...and that makes it okay.

[jalan48]

63. Trillions to be made in the war game. Hillary's a major cheer leader for Team War.

[Herman4747]

65. "She hasn't hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran."

Hell, she actually calls the 78 million Iranians her "enemy"


(Your enemies, Hillary?)

[Purveyor]

71. Absolutely. nt

[FarPoint]

81. I am voting for Hillary...

I'm also going to work local grassroots for Hillary.

[The Straight Story]

90. Jury results

On Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary Clinton is a neocon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513649

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is just meta garbage with no intent to create a useful discussion or dialog, but to create flamebait in order to push the Admins "new rules" to a limit that anything goes. Is this what we want DU to be just a meta forum to create flame bait?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:33 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Was the wrong post alerted by accident? I don't agree with the OP but I don't see any violation, and certainly no meta here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You are alerting on an OP in GD/P, there is NO useful discussion or dialog in this forum.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a list of positions Clinton has taken in the past (or maybe still holds) and some praise from people Dems don't like. As far as I can tell, none of this is untrue and each example should be a legitimate topic for discussion. It's not the OP that is pushing the Admin's new rules, it's the alerter that's trying to use them to get content they don't like hidden.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't really see how this violates the TOS. Was anything posted made up?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Avalux]

92. Yes. I have no compelling reason to vote for her.

She's a liar and what she says while she's campaigning doesn't amount to a hill o' beans. Those who say I need to vote for her because "Boo!! Trump!" need to shut up. Fear doesn't work with me.

[lmbradford]

93. So many

I will not hold my nose and vote for her. I cannot. I have a conscience. Honestly, the crazy you know vs the crazy you dont know are our choices. Ill take the surprise. I wont vote if this is what i get. And no I am not a Dem. I am an Indy. So you can keep your crap to yourself. We Indies are 30 % of the electorate and WHY the people are leaving the party, just like I did. BERNIE OR BUST!!

[Tarc]

96. Other than the Iraq votes, which stem from Bush's deliberate deception and evidence manipulation

She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013.
She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq.
She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing.
She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers.
She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress.
She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.

I agree with these positions, except Iraq. Russia is not a friend, the people of the Ukraine are the victims of his naked aggression, Libya was badly broken under a terrorist-supporting Khadafi, I also support the state of Israel (though not AIPAC), and so on.

Sorry, but, there are actual problems in the world, and sometimes thy require non-peaceful solutions.

[BreakfastClub]

97. LOL Umm, nope, that won't do it either. Bernie isn't going to win. sorry. nt

[felix_numinous]

100. If HRC is so proud of her record

then why masquerade as a liberal progressive? Why not be proud to be a Third Way neo liberal and own up to who you are?

Insults like this just alienate the left instead of including us in the fight against Trump. Why not be proud of who you are and agree to disagree with Social Democrats?

Amazing how powerful the label liberal and progressive is to get elected, but when it comes to policy it's the red arrow to the right, the bait and switch.

This is not an honest campaign, it is based on deception.

[Trajan]

107. Well said ...

Don't hide behind your opponent ... Be loud and proud of who you are!

Apparently, the real person inside had nothing to hang her hat on ... So, she has to adopt the legacy of her opponent, and her ignore her real 'accomplishments'

[dana_b]

109. exactly and this:

"Amazing how powerful the label liberal and progressive is to get elected," is right on target.
She thinks that we aren't paying any attention to what she says versus what she does.
Her actions are not progressive nor liberal. Neoliberalism, yes. I see that with the trade policies that she DID support.

Anyway she can call herself whatever she wants - no matter - but her actions are that of a neocon.

[giftedgirl77]

101. Sanders is a one trick pony that thinks everything can be solved with $$.

Gawd forbid he has to address an issue that involves foreign policy or social justice issues. Oh wait, he's been asked about those subjects he reverted back to money.

[noiretextatique]

164. Clearly you have not read his racial justice plank

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[juxtaposed]

105. She has a lot in common with Milton Friedman dealing with central and south America

as SoS. Lives of indigenous activists are worth less that corporate profits of dams, and resources.
Google it and read.

[peacebird]

110. Pretty damning, & disgusting.

[juxtaposed]

111. So you read about what a fine job hrc has done. Or you find my post disgusting?

[peacebird]

112. Good lord, I am sorry. Was agreeing with you about Hills disgusting actions. I should have been more

Verbal, so sorry for the misunderstanding!

[juxtaposed]

113. no, no misunderstanding just clarification. I thought you meant that..

A human life to some of these candidates means nothing, which I find repulsive.

[peacebird]

114. As do I. Hillary taking a bribe from GWB for her vote on the IWR was heinous as well.

Getting 20billion to help rebuild NY was important BUT her vote caused thousands of american troops deaths, and the deaths and maimings of millions of innocent Iraquis.

[juxtaposed]

117. thanks, I've begun seeing things in a different light the last few years.

[PowerToThePeople]

115. I love this thread!

[peacebird]

116. Thanks!

[Lorien]

118. I don't think that her supporters care, because they are CLEARLY very Pro-war

They are anti-environment (Some scientists have referred to Hillary as potentially a "one woman environment killer" because of her aggressive pro-fracking, pro-oil and tar sands, pro-Monsanto actions and positions), they are anti-worker with their embrace of NAFTA and the TPP, they are pro for-profit prisons and police State, they are fine with domestic spying and torture, and Wall Street corruption is GREAT (they think) for them, likely because many are invested in the stock market and don't understand that that, too, is rigged against them. They think eternal debt slavery for students is part of the rightful order of things, and that a living wage would be "unreasonable". These are the very people that ALL of DU fought against ten years ago. But Hell, slap a "D" on it and branding alone will change their ideology and morality completely!

The ugly and terrifying truth is this: as Bernie has said repeatedly; our most pressing issue is climate change, and that isn't even on the DLC/ DNC's radar. The science and evidence is clear: if we don't take fairly drastic steps immediately, rising global temperatures will very swiftly (within the next decade or two) lead to massive floods, droughts, global military conflict, a refugee crisis unlike any the world has ever seen, lost coastal communities, stronger storms, global famine, and ultimately ecological collapse which will in turn cause atmospheric collapse (not enough oxygen to sustain life). Ocean flora provides 65% of our oxygen, rain forests the other 35%. We're destroying the latter for cattle feed and pasture and palm oil plantations at a completely unsustainable rate. The former is being destroyed by rising sea temperatures, pollution and biodiversity loss. Our economy won't be much of an issue when there isn't enough oxygen to fill our lungs or those of any other species on the planet.

[99Forever]

120. I would say neoliberal is more accurate.

Opposite side of the same coin.

[EndElectoral]

133. Nah, going to agree with Truthout. Neocon.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hillary-clinton-on-israel-palestine

[lostnfound]

121. It's a strength, right? Awesome vision!!

It's an enviable record. She must have learned a lot from Henry.

What kind of weapons get sold to those midEast states anyway? Some stock purchases might be in order, in the fall.

[MisterP]

122. she does all this because she knows we'll complain, and then vote for her

[PonyUp]

129. Not I. nt

[RBInMaine]

126. More hyperbolic nonsense. Yawn.

[delrem]

149. No. It's a fact that Hillary Clinton is tight with the Kagans. /nt

[jonestonesusa]

163. Clinton's voting record is hyperbolic?

Check the definitions of neoconservative and neoliberal, then look at her votes. Some like what they find, many don't, for abundantly clear reasons.

[PonyUp]

127. 126 replies and I only see 46. You hit a nerve! nt

[TheFarseer]

128. Those are all good things

See primary results for proof.

[Vote2016]

135. I couldn't agree more. Hillary's campaign and platform are calculated to beat George HW Bush. I'm so

so past that bullshit where the Democrat has to act like more of a hawk than the Republican field to escape from Jimmy Carter's shadow.

It's fucking 2016 for fuck sake.

I'm done with the Clinton-Lieberman-AIPAC-neocon wing Demopublican Party.

[me b zola]

136. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Hillarians

[reddread]

138. Be PC- "neoliberal"

as are her supporters.
duh.

[colsohlibgal]

139. Pretty Much So

But the in the tank for Hillary folks can't or won't see this or are fine with it.

If she is the nominee I will strongly consider voting for Jill Stein since the chance is near zero it will matter and Jill way more reflects my nation and world view.

[Lone_Wolf]

140. PNACer's love Hillary

That should be enough of a red flag right there.

[senz]

145. True

She's got red flags all over her.

We do not need this in the presidency.

[ReasonableToo]

153. Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to play a larger role in the Republican Party.

I just read about this in another thread recently. I looked it up....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

"Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat."

Convenient. Trump goes after all the republicans in the primary and paves the way for HRC.

Dots are everywhere. The media won't connect them.

[disillusioned73]

160. K&R

Just from the mere fact that this post still stands 10+ hours later.. goes to show that facts are a b*tch & matter..

[peacebird]

170. ...

True that!

[Vinca]

161. I heard a discussion among pundits about how Hillary has to move to the center right to win.

She's always been there, until this primary, and there's no doubt she'll return there. I don't think it's a ploy to win, though. I think that's who she is.

[treestar]

162. What a laughable statement

the neocons are for a lot more than that. They would laugh at your statement.

[iandhr]

166. Another extremely moronic anti-Hillary post.

This place used to be Bash Obama underground. Now it Bash Obama and Hillary underground.


We should just call this place Punch a Democrat Underground because it seems we spend more time going after Dems then the Republicans.

[amborin]

172. one of the biggest

[John Poet]

174. Robert Kagan and Dick Cheney-- talk about BAD recommendations!

If Bernie had actually compared Hillary to Dick Cheney,
he would have been right.

[AzDar]

175. Ayup. How Could ANYONE Support Her? Non-NeoCon, that is...

[dlwickham]

177. and Bernie is a communist

[anamnua]

180. If she's a neocon

why is she loathed with such a passion by Republicans? Type 'Clinton' into the Free Republic search engine and you will see what I am taking about: 'Alinsky-educated Communist' etc.

[BeanMusical]

181. Kick!

[Arugula Latte]

182. Yes. She's a neo-conwoman and has been an absolutely TERRIBLE Secretary of State.

[mvd]

183. Well there's no doubt that some neo-cons praise her and think..

she will do some of their policies when in office. It scares me. Also scaring me is how hawkish she was as SoS. Hope my fears are unfounded and she still turns out much better.

[2banon]

184. yep. incredible that a list has to be underscored for the uninformed.

apparently it's required and looks like needs to be repeated over and over again,

sad and pathetic.