Hillary Clinton’s glaring vulnerability: Why Bernie must call out her militant foreign policy

[pinebox]

Hillary has some huge holes in her integrity and her stances, one of the biggest besides gay rights and the minimum wage is this, her hawkish foreign policy stances.

These are snippets and the whole article can be found here http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/hillary_clintons_glaring_vulnerability_why_bernie_sanders_must_call_out_her_militant_foreign_policy/

Hillary Clinton’s glaring vulnerability: Why Bernie Sanders must call out her militant foreign policy. Her saber-rattling Iran speech last week was only the latest sign: Clinton hasn't abandoned her hawkish ways
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/hillary_clintons_glaring_vulnerability_why_bernie_sanders_must_call_out_her_militant_foreign_policy/

".....the contrast between Clinton and Sanders is arguably clearest (and, for Clinton, most problematic) on foreign policy."

This is quite true and between the two candidates, there are stark differences. Iraq and also Defense Authorization bills. Hillary supported these things when she was serving as a senator, Bernie during that time did NOT.

Bernie's record on foreign policy is far superior than Hillary's and this says it all.

Although Clinton has more experience working in international affairs than Sanders does, Sanders does have a record on foreign policy, and it’s far better than Clinton’s. In the last fifteen years or so, Sanders has consistently opposed military interventionism, with the exception Afghanistan after 9/11 – a justifiable conflict if there ever was one. As Vermont’s U.S. representative, he declined to rubber stamp Bush’s war in Iraq — one of the few members of Congress, on either side, to do so. As a senator, he also wisely denounced Obama’s plan to fund and train 5,000 “moderate” (whatever that means) rebels in Syria. And he’s been steadfastly critical of the hawks pining for war with Iran.

Hillary is a hawk and that often is shown in her stances and how she is very pro-interventionist. This is an issue which will only come up and when it does, it's going to hurt her. America is sick of war and sick of being we in conflicts we have no business being in. People see that and get turned off, especially when so many are struggling to feed their kids and make ends meat.

Clinton’s foreign policy record, on the other hand, is undeniably maximalist. On Syria and Libya and Iran, she has staked out interventionist positions, often well to the right of Obama. And, as everyone knows, she bowed to the Washington consensus in 2002, approving the disastrous Iraq War resolution. Clinton will say, as many Republicans have, that she voted for the Iraq War based on the intelligence that was available at the time. But that’s not a compelling justification.

This completely says it all.

Hillary’s militarism ought to arouse concern in Democratic circles. She’s arguably the most self-aware person in American politics; she rarely says or does anything that’s not calculated to minimize blowback (and that’s not necessarily a critique). If this is her position now, while Sanders is pressuring her to move left on multiple fronts, there’s no reason to think she’ll be any different in a general election.

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton is a hawk – liberals and progressives should not be confused about that. To her credit, this is what she’s been for a long time, and she’s not hiding it. The question is, after our recent misadventures in the Middle East, is this what Democrats want?

[Live and Learn]

1. Her militarism certainly concerns me as does her apparent need to prove herself. nt

[Kalidurga]

2. This must be one of those futile Hillary bashing threads I have heard so much about.

All I can say about that is keep up the good work. People like to think that Hillary is a full on liberal. When she isn't so much.

[silenttigersong]

3. I agree

Americans are weary and want peaceful solutions extended ,tired of Politicians with no skin in the game,let alone those who have insider info and profit from war.War has taken a psychological toll on the American citizenry.

[Martin Eden]

4. Hillary lost me when she voted for the IWR

It would have taken a lot on her part to earn my trust and confidence in matters of foreign policy & military intervention, but as far as I can see she is still an unrepentant hawk.

On top of that are her close ties to Wall Street.

Bernie is the much better choice on multiple levels.

[Robbins]

5. Clinton supporters don't care

they would support World War III If she wanted it.

[msongs]

6. bernie could stop voting for military appropriations bills and approving troop extensions. nt

[pinebox]

7. Remember

when Hillary was a senator and voted for the Defense Authorization Act?
Bernie voted no.

Argument over.

[zappaman]

8. ok. n/t

[NCTraveler]

9. Hillary is more hawkish than many of us would like.

Sanders doesn't attack her here because he has a long history of being a hawk himself. Don't think Hillary doesn't have that aspect waiting. Sanders knows she does. Once that conversation is started, it will end. The idea some have around here that Sanders is a dove isn't borne out in reality. If Sanders does anything in this area, he needs to go at the IWR vote. That is the great distinction. Her vote on that makes my skin crawl. That message works, though people have already decided where it ranks, so it's kind of a mute point in campaigning as well.

[pinebox]

10. I disagree

Sanders is anything BUT a hawk. Not sure why you'd say this but this is now twice in as many days that I've heard Hillary supporters say this. Remember, Bernie voted against Iraq but also voted no on the defense authorization act in 2007 when Hillary voted yes on both those things.

Bernie will certainly hit her on this and so will O'Malley. This is a huge chink in the armor of Hillary.