When HRC was SoS one of her foreign policy advisors was famed neocon

[cali]

Robert Kagan. That is simply a fact. Infer from that choice what you will, but it's a fact. I think this is simply another piece of evidence that Hillary, if not a neocon, has some strong neocon philosophical underpinnings.

Robert Kagan (born September 26, 1958 in Athens, Greece) is an American historian, author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator. Kagan is often characterized as a leading neoconservative, but prefers to call himself a "liberal interventionist".[1]

A co-founder of the neocon Project for the New American Century,[2][3][4] he is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5] Kagan has been a foreign policy adviser to U.S. Republican presidential candidates as well as Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, when Clinton was Secretary of State under President Obama. He writes a monthly column on world affairs for the Washington Post, and is a contributing editor at The New Republic.

<snip>

Andrew J. Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[19] A profile in the The Guardian described Kagan as being "uncomfortable" with the 'neocon' title, and stated that "he insists he is 'liberal' and 'progressive' in a distinctly American tradition".[20] In 2008, Kagan wrote an article titled "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776" for World Affairs, describing the main components of American neoconservatism as a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony,[21] the confidence in US military power, and a distrust of international institutions.[22] Kagan describes his foreign-policy views as "deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans".[23]

In 2006, Kagan wrote that Russia and China are the greatest "challenge liberalism faces today": "Nor do Russia and China welcome the liberal West's efforts to promote liberal politics around the globe, least of all in regions of strategic importance to them. ... Unfortunately, al-Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism faces today, or even the greatest."[24]

<snip>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan

[leveymg]

1. Makes sense since HRC is the leading neocon in the Democratic Party.

[KoKo]

17. Appears that way...see Post #14 below..n/t

[leveymg]

35. A number of career foreign policy aparachiks are committed neocons. They serve GOP and Dems alike,

their permanent tenure in these key positions at State, Defense and elsewhere assures that the neocon policy is the permanent Washington policy.

[Zorra]

2. Another big reason for us to do whatever it takes to prevent Clinton from

winning the nomination.

Thanks, cali.

[NorthCarolina]

3. Birds of a feather. eom

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Armstead]

5. I think the Iraq War went rather well

(in case it's necessary)

[LondonReign2]

6. She also referred to meeting with this noted peacenik to get his views

[mopinko]

7. this is one area i cut hillary a lot of slack.

i think she figured out a long time ago that a woman in politics has to be careful not to be seen as weak. i think that is why she voted as she did on the iraq war.
i think that her instincts are very different from her persona on this one.

much as i look forward to the day that a woman in politics isnt judged by a double standard, i dont think that day has arrived yet.

[cali]

8. I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse

What you are suggesting is that she's voted for, advocated for and been instrumental in actions and policies that have been disastous on a human scale, to prove she's tough. That would mean she's putting her political ambitions above the lives of millions and would mean that she's callous and depraved.

[erronis]

10. Totally agree. And that's why we should prefer candidates that have a human side, a conscience.

From some unverified internet source:
A conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

Of course, Bill, Hillary, and most politicians will define the "rightness/wrongness" as per the current state-of-affairs. Today, I'm your friend. Tomorrow, ciao.

Generally I'll trust people with a more feminine outlook than the others. I know about Golda and Angela, but I think that compared to the saber/trumpet aspects of the malish characters, I'd pin my hopes on the XX side.

Between Bernie and Hillary - I'm not going to make a pronouncement about who has more balls/testosterone. In the current DU environment I'd get shunned. However, I like people that don't rattle sabers, who want discussions, and who seek solutions.

[asjr]

13. "I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse"

Cali, someone was simply printing his/her feelings and you immediately try to put words in his/her mouth. You do not like those who have their own words. I have noticed that for a long time. You throw the bait out and look for those who bite. You dare someone to say something you do not like, because then you can read the riot act to them. If it were not for Hillary Clinton I think you would not have anything to say. You can say anything you wish about anyone. Just respect those who do not agree with you.

[cali]

22. I did not put words in her mouth. I addressed why I don't cut HRC the excuse

on this that that poster does. And sorry but I've pistedore on the tpp than anyone. Period. I've posted extensively on drones, Iraq and many other topics. You're lecturing me and you are guilty of the charges you're tossing at me.

Ugh.

[zeemike]

23. And when someone expresses their "feelings"

No one else may express their feelings that the feelings are bullshit...because some feelings are more important than others.

People with sensitive "feelings" should not go on the internet...or they should find a safe place where if anyone disagrees with them they can be banned from the group. We have lots of places here like that.

[passiveporcupine]

34. Cali did not attack the poster

Only the excuse given (and she is right on that issue). Nothing wrong with that. That's what we are here for...to discuss and debate the pros and cons of our candidates, and reasons why or why not to support them.

[LeftOfWest]

46. well asjr

cali has been called delusional in these forums and that post stands.

Please post this same post to that poster as well.

The alerts she is getting are ridiculous.

cali posts their own feelings too, others do the same to cali you accuse cali of doing.

[asjr]

48. I see by your number of posts you have

not been here very long. I can't quite make out what you mean in this post, but it's really not necessary. I don't post often though I have been here since 2002. I have loved being on DU because I have learned so much about so many topics. So many of the ones I remember are no longer with us and I miss them. I will see to it I give you no more trouble. I am 83 yrs. old and see no
reason for it.

[LeftOfWest]

98. Post count...okay n/t.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. I will not excuse a neoconservative foriegn

Policy simply to bolster her image as a legitimate tough guy. No. I will not.

If there is a better example of a leader placing personal ambition over national interests I can not think of one.

[hifiguy]

26. Agreed 100%

Thatcher Redux.

[jwirr]

12. That may be true but that is damned scary. What is

she going to do as president to prove she is tough?

First of all it is wrong that a woman should have to be subject to that ideal.

Secondly I would not vote for a man who acted like a militant to prove he was tough because I would be afraid of what he would do next.

And I am thinking that this idea is not a good basis for voting for anyone.

[arcane1]

53. George HW Bush had that "wimp" perception to deal with by killing people.

I'd rather have someone who mistakenly believed the invasion was right, instead of someone that could never be predicted. At least I'd always know where they stood.

[Zorra]

16. "I don't want to be seen as weak, so let's take a chance on killing

a couple hundred thousand innocent people so I can prove I can compete with men."

Sounds like something an insecure high school sophomore would do.

In my worldview, maturity, and real character and strength, is having the integrity to do the right thing, even when doing it appears like it may cause us personal loss.

If Hillary had done the right thing, and told all those war men to fuck off, and that she was voting against Bush's war, she'd be a progressive hero today.

[LondonReign2]

20. I have seen this rationale from Hillary apologists several times now

I don't know, perhaps her fans don't realize that the excuse for her choice to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, to needlessly put our troops in harms way and to in fact distract them from their real mission, to know that her vote would results in tens of thousands of dead civilians, to side with Chimpy McBrushcutter, is because otherwise she risks the potential of possibly being perceived as weak...make Hillary look nothing but vile and repugnant.

Having to make this moral abdication in order to support your candidate, I have no idea how some do it.

[ish of the hammer]

24. persona = politics

you are deluding yourself. She is what she is.
thatcher
meir
ghandi (indera)
what double standard?

[LiberalArkie]

28. A lot of male Democrats did also. Ever since Viet Nam and being called soft.

Soft on defense, soft on crime etc. For some reason they felt the need to over compensate. They are so intent on keeping their jobs that they loose where they came from (I am speaking of most of our congress critters, not all). I think they forget that the people elected those on the left to be on the left. When they start moving to the right to be more "Centrist" they loose their way and the election. And they should loose their election, they are not the same person that was elected to office.

I have great hope in Arkansas that in 2016 we will send some new blood to the capitals. That is if they can get the support os the national party. We had some good people before that could have won, but did not have any support from the national party. Who knows what will happen.

[arcane1]

52. In other words, she voted for the war to advance her career.

People died for that. And it was a weak, cowardly move. Courage and strength demand upholding one's principles, if one has them.

[CoffeeCat]

101. Since when is being a warmonger a sign of strength?

I'm sorry but you are giving Hillary Clinton "slack" when no warmonger deserves slack.

You are equating being pro-war with being strong and masculine.

Those who propagate war are sociopaths and psychopaths. They're not strong.

You do realize that these wars are designed specifically to pillage the Middle East of their resources and to take control of the land there for geopolitical reasons, right? They're slaughtering innocent men, women and children because of GREED, and because war makes a ton of money for the companies who deal in war. And those who sell war have funneled a lot of money into the campaigns of war-friendly politicians.

That's not strength. That's disgusting.

Strength--is a woman or a man who stands up to this diseased bunch of war kooks who are murdering people, bankrupting our nation and lying to "We The People" about their intentions.

If Hillary Clinton, or any other politician (or presidential candidate) can't stand up to these people--then they ARE weak. That is weakness.

[mopinko]

102. i'm not equating those things, but people do.

and we arent talking about ordinary politics. we are talking about a lifetime almost in the center of, yes, a vast rw conspiracy.

and can we please stop acting as tho that one vote was the one thing bush needed to go forward? she knew damn well it was an unimportant vote.
i suspect i would take a different course than that. but that is why i can get elected dog catcher.
not saying it is right, but saying that she took a calculated risk. since she has managed to survive the smear machine this long, i give her credit for out maneuvering them.

[Darb]

11. Uh huh, yeah, got it.

Thanks for the update.

[cali]

15. so you're on board with an aggressively I interventionist foreign policy?

[Darb]

18. No, however, I am against guilt by association, or even by consult.

To me, your opinion is for shit. You are a partisan that is dividing the Democrats and hurting our chances of keeping the presidency via any form of innuendo, guilt by association, rumor, speculation, and outright, utter bullshit.

I condemn your effort and assure you with all my being, you are hurting your cause irreparably.

[cali]

21. it's hardly just association. it's her record

Her actions, votes and record. And it has nothing to do with my supporting Bernie. I opposed Hillary on both policy and character issues years and years before he announced.

It's ludicrous to think that anything written here has an impact.

As for your opinion? You seem to have an unpleasant little imagination. Take your opinion and place it vigorously ...

[Darb]

37. What?

Couldn't find any crybaby shit to alert on?

Stick to the record part and you pretty much got nothing but ponyism. Add in your busllshit innuendo, gossip, and guilt by association, or even guilt by conversation for that matter, or even guilt by being in the same room, and you got a whole partisan campaign to bleat about for another 10 months or so.

What I said about you making DU unbrowsable is true. I like Bernie, but he isn't gonna make the big, bad corporations go away. Too many people work for them. Fucking derrrrrrr.

Heard an old saying, Jesus protect me from your followers. Feeling the same way about Bernie these days.

[bettyellen]

44. careful! you are being baited into getting a hide....

On Thu Sep 10, 2015, 12:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

What?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=583330

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Couldn't find any crybaby shit to alert on?" This is oot. You can argue with another poster without personally attacking them.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 10, 2015, 12:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lame alert. Grow a thicker skin, it's primary season.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post was not as OTT as what they were responding to- a not well veiled suggestion that they shove something up their ass.
Alerter didn't like someone's opinion, but should perhaps wait for something actually hide-worthy.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it alone, because why not? DU has become a rough place to visit these days. The vitriol is terrible.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[George II]

89. "Aggressively interventionist foreign policy"? Where do you get THAT from?

[KoKo]

14. Robert Kagan & his NeoCon Wife Victoria Nuland who served Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and SOS Hillary

The strange appointment of Victoria Nuland as State Department Spokesperson

By Patricia H. Kushlis--Thursday, 19 May 2011

Update: 7/12/2013 - Toria grilled about Benghazi role at Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing today for her next high level position: Assistant Secretary of State for Europe.

Is Hillary asleep at the switch? What is going on here?

Earlier this week, Josh Rogin at FP and Eric Martin at Progressive Realist both flagged the curious appointment of Victoria Nuland as the next State Department Spokesperson to fill P.J. Crowley’s shoes.

Martin questions whether this has foreign policy implications, in particular the replacement of an anti-torture appointee with someone who served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.

Rogin doesn’t directly raise potential administration policy shifts but does point out that once upon a time Nuland was Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff when he was Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton Administration and that Talbott had thought very highly of her at the time and still does. In fact, he, according to Rogin, praised her to the hilt in an interview about the pending appointment. So the seemingly amoral Nuland, we’re led to believe, can and will do anyone’s bidding and do it well – in short, a consummate career diplomat.

Why?

But why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration agree to appoint to this politically sensitive position someone who willingly served such a controversial figure in suppporting and implementing the “war on terror” and all the baggage that comes with it? Furthermore, how reliable is a Talbott reference anyway? After all, I understand that he just helped his friend Robert Kagan, Nuland’s neocon husband, get a job at Brookings and Talbott is also a friend of neocon writer Marc Gerecht, the husband of Diane Zeleny who also just latched onto a likely sweetheart deal sort of appointment as Head of External Relations and Congressional Affairs at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Whether Zeleny deserves or is qualified for the position or not.

From what I know about the Department, an FSO doesn’t just get detailed to the staff of a highly charged and ideological Vice President unless that detailee agrees to follow the boss’s dictates. Cheney’s were all too often forceful and odious. Furthermore, does anyone really think that Cheney –with his penchant for super loyalty and secrecy - would have ever accepted Nuland (or anyone else) for the position without some kind of loyalty test?

Surely the State Department under Hillary Clinton could have found equally (or likely even better) qualified career candidates who do not carry Nuland’s political baggage.

Behind the scenes trade off?

Or was this some kind of behind the scenes deal – a trade off for who knows what - that those of us innocents outside the inner circles are not privy?

Continued at.......
http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2011/05/the-strange-appointment-of-victoria-nuland-as-states-spokesperson.html

------------------

No problem– Obama’s State Dep’t spokesperson is married to Romney’s neocon foreign policy adviser

Here is a crazy story no one is talking about that is evidence of the Israel lobby’s role in our politics. Last week, Mitt Romney announced a foreign policy team that includes Robert Kagan, a neocon who pushed for the Iraq war.

But Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, who is a spokesperson for the State Department. Laurie Bennett notes the strangeness of this conjunction:

Victoria Nuland’s role as spokesperson for the State Department, deemed strange by some who remember her tenure as principal deputy national security adviser to then Vice President Dick Cheney, has become stranger yet.

Her husband, Robert Kagan, has joined Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign as a foreign policy adviser.

Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, also advised the McCain campaign in 2008.

Ordinarily this would cause a lot of strain. Nuland would be under pressure. Chris Matthews would be asking what the heck she’s doing in a political job at State when her husband is preparing the opposition.

But in fact, Nuland’s Cheney resume and her marriage to Kagan are actually credentials in the Democratic Party: they demonstrate Obama’s sensitivity to the Israel lobby. And party bosses are happy to have these playing cards now that Obama is under siege from his own party about Israel.

Kagan pushed the Iraq war to George Bush as a battle to help Israel. He and his neocon friends wrote, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors… Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory.”

So Nuland’s presence is like Dennis Ross’s presence in the same building as Middle East adviser–a man the ADL calls an “advocate” for Israel, who was lately chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute in Jerusalem. Or Stuart Levey’s former role in Obama’s Treasury department in the same position he had under George Bush– and Levey is a man whose college dissertation, written under Martin Peretz, was about the importance of preserving the Zionist dream.

More at:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/no-problem-obamas-state-dept-spokesperson-is-married-to-romneys-neocon-foreign-policy-adviser

[summerschild]

25. KoKo, thanks so much for this info.

[arcane1]

54. Clearly you're just an irrational hater who hates Obama's race and Clinton's gender.

I'm just beating the usual suspects to the punch

[Scuba]

99. The vast universe of my ignorance is now a teeny bit smaller. Thanks KoKo.

[summerschild]

19. Once again I bail out of Hillary's boat on the way to the primaries.

And for the same reason - except MORE SO.

I changed my mind about Hillary the first time because I decided she was more hawkish than Obama. I was among that huge group of people with a belly full of Bush and war. Obama hasn't done everything to my liking but he's my best President in my adult 72 years. It kind of took me back when he appointed her secretary of state, but we still managed (in spite of John McCain and other war mongers) to stay out of another whole scale war. I voted for him twice and am proud of those votes.

My real favorite in this race is Bernie, but I worried he could pull it off because of lacking minority support - if I had to, I was prepared to vote for Hillary. But not after her Iran speech. It showed who she really is and I cannot vote for a neocon. I have been watching and reading, trying to figure out where Hillary stood since I just learned a few months ago that Victoria Nuland Kagan was on her staff at the State Department. Not only that, Nuland has also been promoted to Secretary of State for European affairs.

Does everyone know who Victoria Nuland is? I have had to dig to find out.

This is MRS. PNAC. She is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder of Project for the New American Century, which group helped hustle us into the Iraq war. (Remember their famous line, "To get the support we would need would require an event like another Pearl Harbor". Well, somebody worked that out for them, didn't they?)

Nuland is currently handling all things Ukraine for the State Department and doing all she can to keep our relationship with Russia f'd up. There's any number of articles worth your time to get a sense of who Hillary is (and has been) hanging with - just GOOGLE Nuland's name.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

Exclusive: Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.
Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.
This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

[KoKo]

100. ...!

[wyldwolf]

27. During Obama's first term...

When his SOC was HRC, one of her foreign policy advisors was a "famed neocon." if the OP voted for Obama, the OP contributed to this.

[LeftOfWest]

47. HAHAHA! Love it!

you go Corruption Inc

post of the day!

[dorkzilla]

31. Hahahahahahahahaha

Did you do that with a straight face? Admit it, you were giggling when you typed this out, weren’t you?

You big kidder, you!!!!

You *almost* had me...

[wyldwolf]

32. tongue halfway in cheek for sure

But at some point, this 'guilt by association' game 'progressives' play gets tiring.

[George II]

29. And the piling on continues....

Yes, it IS a "fact" that Kagan worked in the State Department when Clinton was Secretary of State. But it is NOT "a simple fact" that he was one of her "foreign policy advisors" - HE WAS NOT! You word that as though he was in her inner circle.

When a new administration takes over the entire government of hundreds of thousands of employees are NOT purged and replaced.

Did Clinton hire him or was he already an employee of the State Department? Do you know? Do you know what his position is within the State Department?

By the way Andrew J. Bacevich has had a problem with the Clintons for decades, he probably got passed over for a job he wanted.

[wyldwolf]

33. uh oh.

[passiveporcupine]

38. According to wiki

Kagan also serves on the State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[16] and John Kerry

So, I can't find it on google. Do you know who hired him, and when? This wiki entry makes it look like he was hired at the same time as the appointment of Hillary to SOS...or around then.

[George II]

39. He wasn't hired at the same time as the appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State.

Not you, but one would think that prior to posting yet another Clinton hit piece that the poster (again, not you) would do a little research and post the REAL facts, not self-proclaimed limited "FACTS".

Unfortunately that doesn't happen at DU, just throw out the feces and hope some sticks.

[passiveporcupine]

40. I tried to research it (google) and I couldn't find who and when he was hired

Do you know? If so, please post it with a link.

[George II]

41. I think the responsibility to check his background belongs to the OP. She's the one who threw out..

.....that subject line and the narrative that followed. Unfortunately it is WAY off base.

[passiveporcupine]

43. If she has better access than I do, then yes, she could do that

But, since you challenged it and did not offer proof, and I'm asking for this information that you "seem" to know but are not coughing up...then I have to be a bit suspicious of your information. You could fix that.

[George II]

50. Sorry, I haven't presented his resume here as being what it is in the OP.....

.....the poster did.

If there are doubts about his background, and there are, she should be in a position to clarify his background. She's the one who brought this up in the first place, not I.

The fact is that Kagan was NOT hired by Clinton, and he was NOT "one of her foreign policy advisors". Those are blatant distortions of his position with the State Department. But it's presented here in yet another in a string of unsubstatiated posts attempting to discredit Hillary Clinton and try to align her with neocon foreign policy.

To use a word that poster has used numerous times on this forum, it's "despicable" to present him as has been done in the OP.

Note too that the OP hasn't either been able or not wanted to explain anything about Robert Kagan other than the smear tactic of connecting him (implying that Clinton HIRED him!) to Hillary Clinton. That explains quite a bit.

Finally, by the way, Kagan is not generally known as a "leading neoconservative".

[passiveporcupine]

55. I'm sorry, but

If there are doubts about his background, and there are, she should be in a position to clarify his background. She's the one who brought this up in the first place, not I.

You challenged her statement, so until you can legitimize your position, her statement stands. This info is available from wiki, and I have not been able to find anything else to contradict it. you PM'd me to say he has worked for SOS since Reagan's time, but there is no info in wiki to confirm that his employement has been consistent from Reagan's time to now, so I still see nothing to contradict what Cali has posted.

You still have not proven that he was not hired by Clinton, or hired by Obama at the same time Clinton was delegated as SOS.

Basically, you have nothing to stand on, until you prove otherwise.

Finally, by the way, Kagan is not generally known as a "leading neoconservative".

Are you serious?

A co-founder of the neocon Project for the New American Century

This is right there on wiki. I'm afraid you have exposed yourself as not very knowledgeable, and unable to prove your own assertions.

[beam me up scottie]

60. And kudos to you too, passiveporcupine.

This is right there on wiki. I'm afraid you have exposed yourself as not very knowledgeable, and unable to prove your own assertions.

Way to go, cali got a bullshit hide and can't defend herself from this kind of tactic.

Bravo!

[passiveporcupine]

65. She got a hide for the OP

That is seriously fucked up.

[beam me up scottie]

66. No, for a post in another thread.

3 alerts in one thread and they finally got lucky, it was a bullshit hide.

[passiveporcupine]

72. I missed that

But now I am curious about all the complaints that Sanders supporters are alert stalking Hillary supporters. Seems it pretty much going on on both sides.

[beam me up scottie]

76. It is being done by both sides.

And by people who don't support either candidate but have issues with certain posters.

My posts are constantly alerted on (one today was left 7-0) yet I only have one hide.

Now I'm no saint but if I was that bloody awful I'd surely have more than one, right?

cali was stalked more than I and her alerters got 5 juries to side with them.

[passiveporcupine]

78. I don't understand why this is allowed

I'm so sick of alert wars. It seems those who are always alerting (especially against certain posters) should be penalized.

[beam me up scottie]

79. There's no easy solution.

Skinner addressed this recently in ATA and said that there hasn't been an increase lately.

I just have to watch my back and try to warn others to edit before they get a hide.

[passiveporcupine]

81. Be careful

you are one of my favorite posters here. I sure don't want to see you gone!

[beam me up scottie]

82. Aw, right back atcha, pp!

[arcane1]

83. No kidding, I have three now, and just survived another jury verdict

Though my three hides were somewhat deserved

[beam me up scottie]

84. I own up to mine too, lol!

Only two in my entire history on DU, the first one was for calling out a homophobe and it was TOTALLY worth it.

I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

[Vattel]

94. I have two recent hides, both ridiculous.

In one I was being obviously sarcastic but didn't use a sarcasm thingy. In the other, I called the author of a posted article an idiot, and someone claimed I had called the DUer who posted the article an idiot.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Did the alerter lie about your posts?

That happens often and it's cowardly and despicable - I've seen it happen mostly in contentious sub-forums where jurors might not know the players and believe the alerter.

As a jury member I always try to do some research to see if I can get a read on sarcasm and/or just who is being called names.

If there is a question it's better to give the alertee the benefit of the doubt instead of censoring, imo.


I guess we'll just have to keep covering our asses or risk a hide.

Pathetic.

[Vattel]

96. I am being more careful now.

When I see a post smearing Bernie and I am like and then someone puts words in my mouth and calls me a racist and I am like or and then someone confuses criticizing Hillary with hating her and I really want to say something nasty but I don't want a hide I just and .

[George II]

97. "until you can legitimize your position, her statement stands"

Obviously the OP should be put to the same standard, don't you think?

But she has conveniently vanished after dropping her stink bomb.

[arcane1]

61. Clinton did hire him, for a 2-year term in 2011

Post 56

[George II]

91. Post 56, post 56, post 56.

He was ALREADY working for the State Department since the mid-1980s.

So, if my boss decides to put together a policy group and he chooses members that ALREADY work for my company, they're first "hired" at that time?

[arcane1]

92. And she selected him to work on her Foreign Affairs Policy Board

You know, foreign policy advice? The point of the OP?

At this point, you're just throwing a temper tantrum.

[George II]

93. Maybe now it's time for YOU to go read "Post 56" - have a great evening.

[arcane1]

57. See post 56. This poster's claim is pure made-up bullshit.

Surprising, I'm sure.

[George II]

64. No it isn't. Do you know when Kagan started working for the State Department? It wasn't during...

.....Clinton's time as Secretary of State.

Do you, or anyone bashing Clinton have any understanding of how the State Department or the executive branch of the government functions?

My guess is no on both counts.

[arcane1]

67. December, 2011. Unless you have a link to refute my link direct from the State Department.

See post #56.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. The Obama administration was not his first stint at State, the first was under Reagan and George

Schultz staring in 1984. So, there's that.

[arcane1]

75. Somehow I don't think that fact will bolster their argument

[George II]

85. Like I asked rhetorically earlier, I'll say it outright now - you don't know how.....

...the State Department or the Executive branch operates.

Just because a new administration takes over they don't purge the entire State Department or, for that matter, ANY department of the federal government. There are tens of thousands of employess at all levels that remain in their jobs.

Don't you remember the scandal when Bush fired a whole bunch of his DAs that were hired under other Presidents? People on BOTH sides were appalled, it was unprecedented.

This is an pointless discussion.

Sad that people will use ANY ploy to drag down a candidate to prop up their own.

So yeah, you can as much as you want, you won't be -ing come springtime.

PS - I see that since this discussion originally started, the OP is MIA - as usual. She takes her unsubstantiated way off-track cheap shots at Hiiiary Clinton then runs for the hills.

[arcane1]

86. I DO know, and I've led you to the post several times proving it. Here it is again to ignore:

Inaugural Meeting of Secretary Clinton's Foreign Affairs Policy Board


Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 5, 2011

On Monday, December 19th, Secretary Clinton will host the first meeting of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. The Board is composed of 25 members who will meet at the Department of State periodically to discuss issues of high priority for the Secretary and the Department. It will focus on broad strategic questions and provide the Secretary and other senior Department officials with insights, perspectives, and ideas. Secretary Clinton will meet with the Board several times during the duration of her tenure.

Secretary Clinton selected a distinguished, diverse, and bipartisan membership with a wide range of expertise and background, including past government service, academia, politics, development, and business. Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution and a former Deputy Secretary of State, will serve as the Board’s Chair. He will work closely with the Secretary and her Policy Planning Director, Jake Sullivan, to coordinate the Board and its meetings.

The Board’s members are listed below. Each will serve a two-year term.


Liaquat Ahamed

Ann Fudge

Helene Gayle

Nina Hachigian

Stephen Hadley

Jane Harman

Carla Hills

Alberto Ibargüen

Robert Kagan

Rachel Kleinfeld

Jim Kolbe

Stephen Krasner

Ellen Laipson

Mack McLarty

Mike Mullen

Vali Nasr

John Negroponte

Jacqueline Novogratz

Tom Pickering

John Podesta

Anne-Marie Slaughter

James Steinberg

Strobe Talbott

Laura Tyson

Rich Verma

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178274.htm


Seems like he was hired by none other than Clinton herself

[George II]

88. Simply NOT true - Kagan has been working for the State Department for more than 30 years! He....

....wasn't "hired" by Clinton whatsoever.

Clearly you don't understand anything about the Foreign Affairs Policy Board or its membership.

[arcane1]

90. Please point out exactly what is incorrect in the State.gov article.

If there is false information in there, it's coming from the State Department.

[beam me up scottie]

87. "This is an pointless discussion."

It is now since you've been owned.

Speaking of taking "unsubstantiated way off-track cheap shots" and running for the hills isn't that what you did here?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251478784

[arcane1]

56. State.gov: "Secretary Clinton selected a distinguished, diverse, and bipartisan membership..."

Inaugural Meeting of Secretary Clinton's Foreign Affairs Policy Board


Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 5, 2011

On Monday, December 19th, Secretary Clinton will host the first meeting of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. The Board is composed of 25 members who will meet at the Department of State periodically to discuss issues of high priority for the Secretary and the Department. It will focus on broad strategic questions and provide the Secretary and other senior Department officials with insights, perspectives, and ideas. Secretary Clinton will meet with the Board several times during the duration of her tenure.

Secretary Clinton selected a distinguished, diverse, and bipartisan membership with a wide range of expertise and background, including past government service, academia, politics, development, and business. Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution and a former Deputy Secretary of State, will serve as the Board’s Chair. He will work closely with the Secretary and her Policy Planning Director, Jake Sullivan, to coordinate the Board and its meetings.

The Board’s members are listed below. Each will serve a two-year term.


Liaquat Ahamed

Ann Fudge

Helene Gayle

Nina Hachigian

Stephen Hadley

Jane Harman

Carla Hills

Alberto Ibargüen

Robert Kagan

Rachel Kleinfeld

Jim Kolbe

Stephen Krasner

Ellen Laipson

Mack McLarty

Mike Mullen

Vali Nasr

John Negroponte

Jacqueline Novogratz

Tom Pickering

John Podesta

Anne-Marie Slaughter

James Steinberg

Strobe Talbott

Laura Tyson

Rich Verma

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178274.htm


Seems like he was hired by none other than Clinton herself

[beam me up scottie]

59. WELL DONE!!!

Outstanding work, arcane1, cali is vindicated.

Her detractors may have silenced her temporarily but they are still getting served by other Bernie supporters.

[arcane1]

62. Thanks, they make it too easy sometimes.

That was a bullshit hide, too.

[beam me up scottie]

63. It was, and then they came after me.

Got them a 24 hour time out from alerting for their trouble.

3 alerts on cali in one thread - she's not being alert stalked at all...

[arcane1]

68. And my post goes ignored while other posts get replies telling me I'm ignorant.

Funny how that works

[beam me up scottie]

69. You don't know what you're talk...SQUIRRELL!!!

[passiveporcupine]

73. Oh my!

Thank you for that research. I'm sure some posters here will be very sorry to see this.

[AtomicKitten]

107. Many neocons on that list.

Stephen Hadley, Jane Harman, Robert Kagan, and John Negroponte. Probably others I'm not familiar with.

k&r your research!

[SouthernProgressive]

49. it's we report, you decide.

They do it the same way. Tell a small portion of the story purposufely omitting things while throwing a little tidbit in as a distraction. Almost like the deception of a magic trick.

[George II]

51. It's truly sad that here, on DEMOCRATIC Underground, that this tactic is used.

[arcane1]

58. What's being omitted in this case?

[passiveporcupine]

74. If you follow the whole thread, you will see

that the proof is in favor of Cali. Sorry about that.

[Agony]

71. the shit does keep piling up...

[trumad]

36. Yawn

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. Wake up. There's a warmonger advising a leading presidential candidate.

[arcane1]

80. Who happened to be John McCain's adviser in 2008.

"Robert Kagan is an adviser to Senator John McCain and his idea that the United States should continue to take a strong, and possibly a confrontational, role in world affairs accords with McCain's own views."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7370992.stm

[Zorra]

103. Maybe some Democrats believe that having neocons in high level positions

in government is a good thing.


Of course, no Bernie supporters would be among that group of Democrats.

[arcane1]

104. I'm not too crazy about it, personally. Old Iran/Contra people aren't welcome either.

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. The difference between neocon and neolib?

Now that same sex marriage is legal.

Is, spelling.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. She evolved from Kissinger to Kagan.

[JoePhilly]

105. Why didn't we invaded something then?

I mean, if this PNAC guy was so influential, why didn't we invade something?

Let's remember, lots of folks on DU were SURE, absolutely SURE we were going to never leave Iraq, never leave Afghanistan, definitely going to invade Egypt, Libya, Syria ... and even Iran.

Maybe you remember some of those folks on DU. I do.

If this guy was so influential, shouldn't some of those predictions have come true?

[demmiblue]

106. I guess it isn't only Clinton supporters who have questionable hides. n/t