You would assume incorrectly Carlos. I read it.
But that you did not cite the focus of your intent-- and snidely captioned the photo-- left it wide open for any interpretation. Fair game no?
I do see the need to distract from the lack of actual foreign policy chops both with Sen Sanders and his advisers.
And as Sen Sanders is your candidate of choice. I get it.
And these types of ploys might work well at the Yahoo- and Facebook-level.
But here? Really?
You do yourself disservice sir.
And give little service to Sen Sanders.
Yes, if by which you mean that heĀ“s a war criminal whoĀ“s responsible for millions of deaths. I was around for Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile and Argentina, etc., so any ĀØcontroversyĀØ is pretty well settled at this point.
I have read your posts here for some years and do respect your analysis and perspective on the many topics that come up.
Sigh.
It was not my intention to show disrespect for one candidate by pointing out strengths of the other. I did in fact make that statement before bringing up Bernieās resources. Feel free to disagree vigorously. Hopefully we will all join forces once the nomination is made.
Obama was in the senate for how long? 4 years? How much āforeign policy experienceā did he have prior to being president? And Hillary in those slots of the senate and Sec. of State was an abomination to the planet and democracy, not to mention our own lives back here in America, where she continued to wipe out the Middle Class. Big deal. Her foreign policy experience is the best reason NOT to vote for her, or Obama.
Good to see the solid Dem readers ( the REAL Democrats) finally coming around to defend Kissinger.
But take a break. Read a little history. Kissinger is a monster and a murderer, and, sorry, there is no debate about this. Clinton is more than ābeing politeā. I would rather vote for Ted Cruz than Henry Kissinger or one of his acolytes. Thereās still a chance Cruz wonāt kill hundreds of thousand of people without conscience.
This says it all about Hillary Clinton and her version of whatās ok in foreign policy and the Democratic Party. I wonder where she stands on torture?
Well, IĀ“m fairly certain that sheĀ“s against torture, but palling around with, much less taking advice from, a war criminal seems, shall we say, less than an endorsement of oneĀ“s character.
I think that we can agree that war defeats us all. Peace is only available to those who know how to arrange it. Arranging for peace isnāt an aspiration, itās an art and science that is developed over time with practice and execution. Not everyone has the skills.
Iād leave that seed of doubt on the torture question on the table for now. This woman, running as a Democrat, doesnāt have the sense to not praise Henry Kissinger in print? Mind boggling. Competence, indeed.
She insists that sheĀ“s a progressive, all the while sheĀ“s proud of her connection to Kissinger and Goldman Sachs. That certainly does boggle the mind.
[quote=ākleah51, post:31, topic:32458ā]
Iād leave that seed of doubt on the torture question on the table for now.
[/quote]Well, she is for the death penaltyā¦
" I wonder where she stands on torture?" coupled with āThis is reason enough not to vote for her.ā and worst of all, expressing preference to vote for Cruz over Clinton.
It is precisely this sort of failure to do any critical thinking or checking of facts by the Berniebots which is simply reprehensible. You would throw away womenās rights, civil rights, environmental protections, health care, separation of church and state, and let the Supreme Court become a fully right-wing political arm.
A clue for you:
"ā¦the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the worldā¦
Dear DSWX - What Iām doing is not giving a shred of support, indeed I will work to take votes from, this woman who is engaged in a mutual admiration dance with a man who was responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths while breaking international law. Your little torture fig leaf is bullshit. Next time youāre at the Viet Nam War Memorial, meditate on Dr. Strangelove sabotaging Johnsonās effort to get peace talks going in 68 so that Nixon could get in the White House. Thatās who she admires. Your gal pal has picked this madman to play footsie with in a very public way. I could care less about what you say we wonāt get for Christmas if Hillary loses. Right is right, and Clinton isnāt capable of recognizing that. Not in this case.
You know, there was a day when the general consensus among Democrats was that Henry Kissinger should go to The Hague. But apparently, now the old war criminal is rehabilitated enough so that perceived snark is a worse crime than having a D candidate who ĀØrelies on his counselĀØ.
Because oneās preferred Democratic Candidate is enthusiastically supported is not call to lose the only chance we have of stopping the Republican Party from gaining the Presidency.
Jimmy Johnson used to say that you coach different players differently. Some you can yell at. Some you canāt.
In this Bernie/Hillary business, we are all going to have to coalesce around the nominee (wellā¦we really donāt HAVE toā¦we can let the 30-mile-wide asteroid hit). But anywayā¦I wonder who will come around to pulling the lever which says āDā in November with enough āno hard feelingsā to enable that decision.
Itās a fair question. He has said little about who he would seek advice from on foreign policy matters.
On strictly military matters, Iām not so concerned, as any President will have their choice of top generals to make their close advisers, and what matters there (at least to me) is that the Commander in Chief has the right overall vision, and has good judgement. But on broader foreign policy issues, I do think he needs to share more of his thinking, and more about who else he would look to for advice.
I get that he doesnāt want to be knocked off his main messages, but at some point youāre either a serious contender, or you arenāt. If youāre a serious contender, you have to go through the usual steps of naming a foreign policy team, boning up on some of the major issues, etc. Given his opponentās strength on raw experience, this is more important than ever. No, heās not going to convince anyone heās as experienced as Hillary in foreign affairs ā she wins that point no matter what ā but he does have to convince people heās knowledgeable enough on foreign policy so that they feel comfortable looking at other factors in making their decision.
Well, I do think that you might consider voting for her should she be the D nominee, as distasteful as that might be, as the alternative would be a (much more) terrible thing for our country.
The problem for me isnāt that Hillary doesnāt have serious experience that has been, and would be, valuable in the White House. Nor is the problem that Bernie couldnāt gather and consult with plenty of experienced people, because he could.
In Hillaryās case, the problem is that when confronted with serious issues of foreign policy, she has sometimes made exactly the wrong choice (see Iraq and debatably Libya and in matters of economic policy, it is clear her advisors will come from the world of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and Citibank.
That is not in itself bad, but it could be, and it has been very bad in the past.
In Bernieās case, he has been so focused on matters of inequality and systemic reform, that he has not been front and center on foreign policy. But he is right on those issues that are important to him, and he was very right on Iraq, regardless of advisors.
Iām voting for whomever gets the nomination, but to focus on this issue of experience can work against Hillary just as easily as it could work for her. Oh, and Kissinger is a death-dealing monster who should be tried for war crimes, so thereās that.
If only Hillary could express herself as āIām betterā rather than āHeās shitā. āIām betterā arguments would give us all a preview, and more confidence that Hillary could prevail in the general. Right now it looks like we are so screwed if Hillary gets the nomination ā if the competition is within 9 points of her she loses her mind.
