I just listened to Hillary's speech about how

[upaloopa]

to deal with ISIS.
It was very thorough and comprehensive.
Hillary really knows foreign policy from experience.

[ibegurpard]

1. you forgot to throw in "gravitas"...

[upaloopa]

6. You said it. Hillary has gravitas.

She also knows what to do which makes people comfortable with her leadership.

[Skidmore]

38. Perhaps you should listen to it.

[Dem2]

18. Gravitas:

dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.

I'd have to say that she does.

[ibegurpard]

39. Gravitas is not a word that regular people use

It comes straight from campaign HQ talking points devised by grad school political science majors.

[Dem2]

64. It works for me.

I think when looking for a word to describe the stature or ability of a person to convince other people that we have to do difficult things, that gravitas can be an appropriate word to use.

[MineralMan]

69. Regular people? I hear it all the time from people

who are politically aware and involved. It's a good word, with a very specific meaning. It's very descriptive in a way that would take many other words to replace.

Dictionary definition:
gravitas
noun grav·i·tas \ˈgra-və-ˌtäs, -ˌtas\
: a very serious quality or manner

Etymology:
gravitas (n.) Look up gravitas at Dictionary.com
1924, usually in italics, from Latin gravitas "weight, heaviness;" figuratively, of persons, "dignity, presence, influence" (see gravity). A word wanted when gravity acquired a primarily scientific meaning.

So, what "regular people" are you discussing?

[riversedge]

70. And I agree. And yes, I did listen.

[peacebird]

76. "We came, we saw, he died" she said, laughing......

Gravitas...? No.

[Dem2]

84. ? Pro-Gaddafi? not me.

[peacebird]

86. Nor I - but laughing about the killing of another person is pretty heinous. Regardless.

[Bread and Circus]

33. And Presidential. Reaganesque even. No, Thatcheronic!!!

[Amimnoch]

42. I was thinking more FDR.

[ibegurpard]

47. you guys need to get your stories straight

Your friends are busy tearing down FDR as a someone who cemented racism into public policy.

[Amimnoch]

75. Those who support Hillary are independent thinkers,

We're not much on the Sanders Mob mentality. Perfectly understandable that others in my camp don't see things the same way.

Unlike your side... I'm not only okay with that, I think it's great. Lets more sides and opinions be heard.

[peacebird]

77. Like "For Dear Richfolks"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Is the text avaliable

Her story about the Muslim immigrant butcher who saved his Jewish patrons at a deli attack in Paris was beautiful . She said he was offered French citizenship though he embodied the spirit of citizenship long before.

[upaloopa]

4. Not sure if text is available yet

[SummerSnow]

5. Here is the speech....

http://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. TY

EOM

[Buzz Clik]

3. But did she mention the war on the 1%ers?

That's the only battle front that matters.

[Mika]

8. No mention at all. The entire speech was in support of the 1%.

It was full-throated support for MIC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Is ISIS

No mention at all. The entire speech was in support of the 1% It was full-throated support for MIC.

is ISIS at war with the 1%? It seems most of their attacks are at sites where us plebeians congregate.

[Mika]

12. Supplied by the mic, retaliation by the mic.

It's a win-win for Wall Street mic sectors. Take a look their earnings & stock values.

[tecelote]

78. +1! Exactly.

Hillary's "solution" only creates more terrorists. This causes more outrage and demand for more military involvement.

But, don't worry. It's working just fine for some.

[Bread and Circus]

34. Hmmm... no ISIS attacks around my neck of the woods. Musta missed it.

[oasis]

65. That's why you should thank your lucky stars for the kind of

leadership that has kept you safe. Such is the kind, Madam President will provide for you, in your "neck of the woods" and for the rest of the nation.

These colors don't run.

[Bread and Circus]

66. You mean the George Bush kind who used the same kind of jargon?

P.S. Clinton is not President yet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Sad that you believe that 139 dead French victims of terrorism is the basis for a joke.

Hmmm... no ISIS attacks around my neck of the woods. Musta missed it.

Sad that you believe that 139 dead French victims of terrorism is the basis for a joke.

[Bread and Circus]

71. sad you think terrorism is a bigger threat than poverty and wealth inequality

To human life.

Yeah it is sad DSB that you like many others are buying the the terrorism script again.

You would think we would have collectively learned from what happened during the Bush years.

Yes 139 French people are dead due to sick and brutal digusting human beings but that is not the greatest threat to "us plebs".

Even if you add up all the deaths from foreign and domestic terrorism, including mass shootings and McVeigh style terrorism that have occured in this country ever it is nothing compared to the death toll that poverty and wealth inequality has racked up in a matter of the past year.

Terrorism, as a threat, pales in comparison to what really kills people in this country.

So no, I don't accept your notion that I am somehow callous to death. No I think I understand it and care about it more than you.

And no I am not going to fall for this "be afraid....vote for me so I can protect you act". I dont buy it and smart citizens shouldn't either.

Is terrorism a threat, yes. But the amount of fear and over reaction we spend on it is exactly what terrorists want. It is the whole goal of terrorism.

That doesn't mean we give in to barbarism but it does meam we take a measured approach, strike where and when we need to, and not allow ourselves to let our freedoms and good sense be driven asunder with demagoguery and fear mongering.

You can't beat terrorism because it is an ideology and a method. It is not a for that can sign a surrender docment.

Can we kill ISIS and cut the head of the snake? Yes, for now. But there will be another terrorist group when that one is destructed. Just like when we destroyed al qaeda.

The underlying sentiment, resentment, and will to oppose the West will remain.

It is an intergenerational fight and to be honest Mrs. Weathervane does not have the fortitude and consistency for that kind of fight.

As soon as fighting ISIS doesn't serve her politically she will be off chasing squirrels.

[Buzz Clik]

14. uh huh.

So, what is the best approach to ISIS that doesn't involve the MIC?

[Ed Suspicious]

58. FTD. . . florists for islamists who are not yet so thoroughly disaffected that they are unreachable

[Buzz Clik]

60. That would be the HEC in place of the MIC

The Horticultural Expressmail Complex.

Still part of the 1%ers, but they smell nicer.

[Mika]

63. Remove the MIC from the equation.

But, we know that's not happening anytime soon with full throated support for it from almost all of the candidates.
Hil seems to want to merge silicon valley into/the GWOT - suggesting that we find a way to get them to open up their encryption methodologies to the MIC.
I guess that we're supposed to think that its OK for them to have access to ALL of our privacy, for whatever reason they can come up with as part of a wide ranging trans generational response to anti imperialist terror.
Sounds like a real win/win for the corporate war mongers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I was going to make a wise crack that is what the drones are but that would be untoward.

EOM

[upaloopa]

10. Well that is some real narrow thinking

Economically even people can still be subject to terrorist attacks. Economically even POC can still be subject to racial profiling and murdered by cops.

[Buzz Clik]

15. you missed my sarcasm

However, we got a live one further upthread, railing on and on about MIC.

[riversedge]

27. Hope Sanders think that foreign Terror threats are serious--

[Bread and Circus]

35. Be afraid!!! Very afraid! Terrorism!

[snort]

62. I'm not incontinent,

but my washing machine thinks I am.

[msrizzo]

13. Just wait....

Bernie Sanders will soon tell us how screwing the 1% will stop terrorism dead in its tracks.

[think]

16. SCREWING THE 1%? Having the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes is screwing them?

And making the accusation that Sanders supporters are advocating raising taxes on the wealthy to stop terrorism only reflects on your ability to have a rational discussion of both those issues.

[msrizzo]

17. I was kidding.

I see plenty of snark on this site, but apparently when I do it it warrants an insult from you. Thanks. Duly noted.

[think]

19. You're welcome.

[msrizzo]

20. Thanks and goodbye.

[Darb]

51. Just a note about perception.

I think the "fair share" description is a bad one. It doesn't convince people that pay what they consider a lot of taxes to want to tax anyone any more. Many people think that a lot of people pay no income taxes at all, and that is true in some respects. I in no way subscribe to these opinions, I just know what my some friends and family think. They don't think in terms of percentages, they think in terms dollars. If they make a million a year and pay 200K in tax, well, they think that 200K is a lot of money, and it is.
They don't give a shit about it only being 20%. It is 200K for god's sake.

So, in my opinion, a better phrase might be warranted. Not sure what that could be.

[Ed Suspicious]

59. So sad for the 1%.

"Bernie Sanders will soon tell us how screwing the 1% will stop terrorism dead in its tracks."

[EndElectoral]

21. Sounds like she's ready to enter WW3 with ISIS

[jeff47]

22. It was crap.

First, you seem to have missed her call for regime change in Iraq.

So the task of bringing Sunnis off the sidelines into this new fight will be considerably more difficult. But nonetheless, we need to lay the foundation for a second Sunni awakening. We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to get its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.

The Shia that dominate Iraq's government are not about to arm the factions that want to separate Iraq into three countries. Also, arming the Kurds is going to make Turkey very, very angry.

Second, she throws out the magic reconciliation fairy in Syria

On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS, beyond the Syrian Kurds who are already deep in the fight, is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well.

So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight. And we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units.

The rebel groups in Syria are "preoccupied with fighting Assad"? WTF? The entire reason they exist is to fight Assad.

Also, they are multiple factions because they don't all agree with each other. That's why Assad still has the largest military in Syria.

Also, "our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" has been the primary method that ISIS has armed itself.

Next big problem: She seems to forget Russia is actually in Syria right now:

Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

Uh...there's this other superpower on the planet that's flying planes in Syria. And they are not our "European partner". In fact, they are bombing those "viable Syrian opposition units" Clinton wants to build up. Why on Earth would they respect our "no-fly zone"?

She also seems utterly unaware of the military capabilities of the countries in the region.

Countries like Jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the Arabs and Turks step up in a much bigger way. This is their fight and they need to act like it.

Jordan can't do more, because Jordan lacks precision bombs. They only have "dumb" bombs that are going to blow up large numbers of civilians.

She also doesn't seem to understand Turkey's situation at all:

So far, however, Turkey has been more focused on the Kurds than on countering ISIS. And to be fair, Turkey has a long and painful history with Kurdish terrorist groups. But the threat from ISIS cannot wait. As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

Turkey is attempting to fend off a civil war. Roughly the Eastern 1/3rd of Turkey is Kurdish, and they very much want to join a newly-formed Kurdistan. Which would be created by the US arming Iraqi Kurds.

Her plan is to tell Turkey to just ignore the brewing civil war because we want them to fight ISIS instead. Why on Earth would they agree to the destruction of their country because we want them to?

Next, she seems to not know the religious sects involved:

In September, I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

Uh...Iran doesn't like ISIS. Iran is Shiite. ISIS is Suni. ISIS wants to destroy Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas too. If you actually want to exploit the sectarian conflict in the Middle East to destroy ISIS, you need to let Iran loose on ISIS. Not contain them.

She shifts to the "broader fight" and immediately calls for more spying:

Most urgent is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the war zones of the Middle East. Thousands — thousands of young recruits have flocked to Syria from France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and, yes, even the United States. Their western passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home radicalized and battle hardened. Stemming this tide will require much better coordination and information-sharing among countries every step of the way. We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

The United States and our allies need to know and share the identities of every fighter who has traveled to Syria. We also have to be smart and target interventions that will have the greatest impact. For example, we need a greater focus on shutting down key enablers who arrange transportation, documents and more.

She also gives yet another pass to Wall Street:

They have a resolution that does try to block terrorist financing and other enabling activities, but we have to place more obligations on countries to police their own banks, and the United States, which has quite a record of success in this area, can share more intelligence to help other countries.

Apparently, UBS's "Ooops! Sorry! We won't do it again!" was sufficient.

Hey look! Internet Censorship! That works SO well!

Radicalization and recruitment also is happening online. There’s no doubt we have to do a better job contesting online space, including websites and chat rooms where jihadists communicate with followers. We must deny them virtual territory just as we deny them actual territory.

(snip)

We need more of that, including from the private sector. Social media companies can also do their part by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts, so they’re not used to plan, provoke or celebrate violence.

Also, we can't allow the little people to have encryption:

Another challenge is how to strike the right balance of protecting privacy and security. Encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand, we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit. So we need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy.

This is a speech designed to sound like she knows foreign policy. The actual policy she lays out is crap.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. Thank you. This should be an OP. eom

[jeff47]

29. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251828427

[pinebox]

25. Make this a post please

[jeff47]

30. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251828427

[TM99]

28. Yes, please make this into a separate OP.

It really needs to be shared.

[jeff47]

31. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251828427

[BootinUp]

36. I'd have to go back and look, but I am sure the same things were said about Bosnia

There is no where in her speech where she says this stuff is going to be easy, or quick. Its called a strategy, and she is putting it together not only from her experience, but also with the help of experts she trusts.

[jeff47]

45. Then she needs new experts. Not dealing with Russia already in Syria is a massive omission. (nt)

[BootinUp]

48. I just don't see where you get that charge from

There was definitely discussion both in the speech and after the speech about Russia's goals vs. our desired outcome, diplomatic efforts currently underway that involve Russia and that she supports, how she sees a no-fly zone as a key part of the strategy and as leverage.

Her speech is getting high marks already.

[jeff47]

49. Russia is bombing the rebel groups she wants to arm. Assad isn't.

Assad doesn't have much of a functional air force left. That's why Russia is bombing for him.

She calls for a "no fly zone" to protect the rebels. The threat to the rebels is Russia. Why would they respect our "no fly zone"? And how, exactly, does she intend to enforce that "no fly zone" when Russia ignores it?

As for "high marks", that's not exactly much praise. The media will say it was great if it sounds great. They won't bother looking at the content, because evaluating the content requires effort. Remember, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech got very high marks too.

[BootinUp]

52. Russia is bombing ISIS

I think you need to catch up to current events. But in any event, the US most certainly could build a coalition with NATO members or and Saudi Arabia to enforce a no-fly zone that Russia would respect.

[jeff47]

53. Nope. They're bombing anti-Assad rebels

I think you need to catch up to current events.

I think you need to realize that what Putin says he is doing is less important than where his bombs are actually falling. The vast majority are not falling on ISIS-controlled areas.

But in any event, the US most certainly could build a coalition with NATO members or and Saudi Arabia to enforce a no-fly zone that Russia would respect.

Why would they respect it?

Are you willing to shoot down Russian aircraft? If not, there's no reason for Russia to respect it. And if you are willing to shoot down Russian aircraft, you are fucking insane.

[BootinUp]

54. They would respect it, because

it would have have broad international support.

[jeff47]

55. So does bombing ISIS instead of bombing anti-Assad rebels. Yet Russia is bombing the rebels.

Oooo! A lot of people would be disappointed in Russia! I'm sure they're terrified!

[karynnj]

72. No it wouldn't -- it is not against ISIS, it is against Assad and there is not broad international

support against him. Russia and Iran support him.

[BootinUp]

73. I could understand if people said they do not favor a no-fly zone, too risky.

But if someone says they don't think we could either arrange a deal with Russia to put one up, nor, could we under the auspices of a NATO coalition + SA + Other, put one up and keep Russia out of it, then I just don't understand where that is coming from. We certainly could push Russia around if we need to. Is it without risk? No, but there are plenty of pieces on the chess board that could be played to minimize the risk.

[tazkcmo]

80. lol

Talk about ponies. Putin doesn't give 2 sh*ts about "international support". Any chance he has to dare the US into an armed conflict with Russia is a win for him because he knows we won't do it. Talk about ponies...

[BootinUp]

81. I'm SURE he is laughing about international sanctions /sarcasm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. +1

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. + a GAZILLION! n/t

[daybranch]

74. Great post, hope you can overcome the desire of Hillary fans to avoid critical thinking.

But we will eventually triumph won't we!

[Alfresco]

23. She's got what it takes from day one.

No need for advisers to bring her up-to-date on foreign policy.

[artislife]

44. Got what it takes to do what? She's a hawk.

Not in my name, h, not in my name.

[Alfresco]

50. Be POTUS, of course.

[artislife]

68. a hawkish potus..not good enough. nt

[Alfresco]

85. Good enough for me and the majority of Democrats.

[bahrbearian]

26. Foreign Policy Credentials.. help plan a least 1 war and 1 coop

[Myrina]

32. What else would we expect when practically every word is focus-grouped?

And do we really believe she wrote the speech, in its entirety?

I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in ...

[riversedge]

40. Experience matters when choosing a President.

Experience matters when choosing a President.


Dan Merica ?@danmericaCNN 18m18 minutes ago

Clinton, per aides, had a substantial role in writing this ISIS speech and wasn't finished w/ it until this AM. http://cnn.it/1MWUQtM

[riversedge]

46. De Blasio and Clinton chat after her speech on ISIS. -photo

Dan Merica ?@danmericaCNN 2h2 hours ago

De Blasio and Clinton chat after her speech on ISIS.

[artislife]

43. *BREAKING NEWS* h supporter likes h speech!!

News at 11.

[MisterP]

56. more moderate IS fronts? her experience is all stupid ideas and atrocities that they thought

would be over in 6 months because Dubya's Dummies were out of the picture so an intervention would be clean and even progressive

Honduras, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Ukraine--who'd I forget? they've just gone back to poking the Bear and then wondering why things go to shit

[Todays_Illusion]

57. Sure, more thorough spying and spending and arming and daming. I see her speech as fear mongering

for votes.

[gregcrawford]

61. I dunno...

... but Jeff47 is a LOT more thorough and comprehensive in taking her speech apart. Worth reading even if you don't like what he says.

[Thinkingabout]

79. She is strong and decisive, knows how to move in foreign, she is far ahead of other candidates in

Her knowledge of foreign affairs and it is showing by statements made by other candidates.

[tazkcmo]

82. Same old same old.

Chest thumping with other people's blood. Boots on the ground. Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Assad...

What does she plan to do about Putin? Tell him to cut it out?

[Thinkingabout]

83. I have laid out Hillary's foreign affairs abilities, do you know Sanders foreign affairs experience,

it s time to get this information out to the people, you want people to get to know him, put it out for all to see.

[Kentonio]

88. Can someone explain to me..

Exactly how arming a section of the population of someone elses country against the will of their government, is the action of a democratically minded President? Seriously, we're going to turn around to the government of Iraq and say 'Well if you don't want us to give this section of your population lots of weapons, then tough luck we'll do it anyway!'.

That's really disturbing..