2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton's Libya
{snip}
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
The fact that neither candidate opposing Clinton in the primaries had a word to say about any of this -- that they were comprehensively uninformed about the NATO action in Libya and its aftermath -- points to an enduring weakness in the disposition and political temper of almost all Democratic politicians of any note. They don't consider foreign policy to be their business. They arrive at the subject late, short of facts and slogans compared to the Republicans, and lacking in any critical sharpness. The result: they defend vaguer, slower, thinner versions of policies urged by Republicans. Until they recognize that foreign policy sets the limits of domestic policy, they will never compete with the exigent reasons a party for war can manufacture with the greatest of ease. A halfway intelligent US policy toward the Middle East and Israel won't be possible until this larger political imbalance is corrected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clintons-libya_b_8590130.html
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It's difficult enough to read this kind of distortion, me-too approach to Libya on a Democratic website; but to do with ZERO attribution other than the link at the end is inexecusable.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)reply. I will consider your friendly advice next time I post an article.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Are you sure you want to associated with that crap?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)The author is from Yale just like HRC......
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... is that the author graduated from the same school as HRC? And GW Bush. And GHW Bush.
Wow.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)same with articles they post. I learned the technique right here at DU, never seen you complain to them. It must be the content of this article that points out HRC is not too keen on foreign policy decisions as she and some supporters claims.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)For the third time now (and I mentioned the content twice before): If you are going to import comments that very well could be coming from Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or the House Select Committee on Benghazi, DUers who read this need to know if YOU are composing this drivel or if it is being imported from elsewhere.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Posted: 11/18/2015 8:12 am EST
David Bromwich--Professor of Literature, Yale University
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clintons-libya_b_8590130.html
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)But, about the content.... yeesh.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)because there's embedded click bait junk next to Bromwich's name when you try to post. You have to cut and paste each part separately.
Not everyone knows how to do that. Just guessing that's what happened.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If an opening post delivers three paragraphs that are very harsh to a prominent figure, part of the conversation will be knowing if the ideas being conveyed belong to the author of the OP or someone else. If it's someone else (as in this case), that can be made instantly clear in a number of ways; some mechanisms of quoting material are built into the software with blockquote and excerpt features. These features exist because showing attribution is important.
We aren't talking about some strange obsession with "punctuation" but properly guiding the flow of the discussion. If the author of this OP had simply used any of about 5 mechanisms of showing attribution (6 if you include the very lame <snip> he added after edit), then this subthread doesn't exist.
Wouldn't you rather discuss salient points rather than chase this nonsense?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I won't bother to attempt to debate this issue with someone who blindly despises everything about HRC.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)verified over and over again by credible sources. There is a whole lot more that could be added, re the aftermath for the people we were supposedly there to 'save'.
If I thought someone was wrong, I would state why and point out to them why saying '100% accurate' isn't accurate.
Otoh, if I had nothing to offer though, all I would say is 'i'm not going to bother'.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)maybe we can discuss it, you might have some information that is different? But Libya NEVER should have happened, just like Iraq which like Iraq, many people, mostly Democrats here, opposed. And like Iraq, everything those who opposed it predicted, has become even WORSE than they predicted.
But again, what in the article do you disagree with?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It an exercise in semantics in which the author parses her words.