Sen. Bernie Sanders’s landslide victories in Washington State, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday coincided with a long-awaited signal that he may finally be ready to challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the “Commander-in-Chief” question, which has been regarded as one of her key strengths.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard seems to be such a wonderful role model for our youth. The message in the video is spot on and told with a non-patronizing tone. Keep up the good work Rep. Gabbard; I hope to hear much from you in the future.
Very effective ad. Good that Bernie is addressing this issue and making a contrast with Clinton the neocon in these matters. As the article said, he has been ignoring this and it has been a weak spot in the campaign IMO.
Anyone who has
- Vacationed with Henry Kissinger should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Supported the Neocon invasion of Iraq should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Called Iraq a 'Business Opportunity' should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Led Libya's descent into chaos should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Called for a Syria No Fly Zone should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Traded arms sales for Clinton Foundation donations should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Called for increased arms sales to Israel should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
- Enabled the coup in Honduras should immediately be disqualified to be Commander-in-Chief
Robert Parry is the one of the Increasingly rare, totally honest journalists still out there reporting on reality as he sees it. He can do this because he found the value of establishing his own site at Consortium News. So this report, which I really appreciate, is a bit unusual for him in that It is a rare opinion piece for him. It speaks mightily of his concern for our current political disfunction that he would publish his opinion. Thanks to you Robert Parry for your bravery...
Clinton never saw a war she didn't like.
This article is saying what many people are just learning about HRC. This is the baggage she doesn't want Bernie to talk about. "He needs to change his tone?" He needs to say these things in a debate and she's dead in the water.
Sanders never claimed to be a pacifist. Would you really want a pacifist in the White House? His record on these interventions is still much better than Clinton's, which is the point. You could easily make a case that Bernie's support of the bombing in Yugoslavia was justified. We don't need an ideological purist, but a level headed CIC who doesn't use intervention as a tool to feed the military industrial complex.
Please provide links to what you purport as facts? Many of your liners here debunking Bernie were not voted on in Congress even though you call it a vote. He will keep us safe but use a lot better judgement in using our military to entangle ourselves in regime change we should not be in. Bush got us there and Colin Powell told him he would own it meaning we would own it. Bush created the carnage and now we own it. I don't believe he is an interventionist.
It's very common in the commercial world for a big brand to buy out a smaller brand and then give customers the impression that the quality of the original brand still holds.
Finding out, for instance, that one's favorite natural toothpaste or ice cream is now part of a corporate food conglomerate that has ZERO track record when it comes to exhibiting respect for natural ingredients makes one rightfully skeptical about the quality of these products.
What better deception is there than to have persons with pro-war, pro-business (formerly Republican postures) sensibilities branding themselves as Democrats only to TAINT the party, altogether?
Everything mentioned in this article suggests that Hillary never stopped being the corporate attorney for the likes of Wal-mart, that ever glowing Goldwater girl:
"Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which drew up the Iraq War and other “regime change” plans in the 1990s, was among the influential neocons to abandon the Trump-dominated Republican Party and announce support for Hillary Clinton."
Indeed. And then this:
"A month ago in a Washington Post op-ed, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions for Trump’s rise and then asked, “So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out.” Then referring to himself, he added, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton.”]"
The Clintons carry water for the MIC, the big banks, big pharma, big retail (Walmart), big agri. (Monsanto), and every other corporate hegemon.
If the love of money is the root of all evil, and the Clintons' love of money has vastly advanced their career portfolios; then it's not off the mark to link them with the pursuit of evil.
To my way of thinking, the maniacal spreading of wars IS the chief evil... just as the Geneva Conventions relate that WAR OF AGGRESSION (which is what ALL of the M.E. Wars really are) is the SUPREME CRIME against humanity.
The P.N.A.C. and its authors have an evil agenda, and so far, they've engineered it into effect. Falsely-branded Democrats ("liberal hawks") have played a role in this unending horror.
Oh don't forget to tell us to cast a vote for Hillary (or Trump) by voting for the Green Party or not vote at all and pretend that it is sending a message or something.
Either way we have Bernie who voted against war in Iraq which you leave out like that was no big deal. Give me a break! That is where all this endless war destabilization crap begins is it not. Where practically everyone voted for it except rather than stand up for what they thought was right (and which turned out to be right later). Good judgement you ignore which seems to be apt since you do not show much yourself.
You help Hillary or Trump but you pretend that you don't!
Since I am well-aware of the good cop/bad cop "dialogs" that set the stage for specific posters to repeat specific information, I HOPE you were not playing that role with "Jmowrey."
Astute posters should ask themselves: How is it that posters would be free during work-day hours and have --at the ready--all sorts of links to the particular articles and sources that support their case. In this case, the CASE against Sanders?
In the past, one poster--"Iowa Blackbird" was quite known for this.
What's interesting is that there always are posters repeating the same protocols. Their material is well-structured and hardly just the result of random postings by random posters.
In a time of uber-surveillance and the MSM 100% saturated with corporate messengers tasked with repeating scripted messages (many of which depart from what's true, substantially); it is hardly my imagination to remind readers that infiltration of message boards is part of the "Full Spectrum Dominance" desired by military and corporate/authoritarian forces.
What more convincing strategy is there (if the purpose is to discredit Sanders) than attacking Sanders from the purported Left?
I am not personally thrilled with the ad since this woman DID participate in the MIC and its foreign "theaters of war." However, drawing wisdom from the Biblical story of the Prodigal Son (or, in this case, daughter)... there is a value in having those inside corrupt systems step away from them. Like Chris Hedges' former reporting on war as an embedded journalist, or John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man," or the fellow who had been employed by a health insurance corporation who spilled the beans on its operations... without these insiders exposing what goes on, citizens would never know.
Same holds true for Chelsea Manning exposing the raw savagery of the MIC's "Democracy Spreading" tactics, Snowden exposing the spy state's apparatus, and others exposing the Torture practices of Deep State off-shore operations, etc.
Those who slam Sanders set the nation up for FAR worse.
Beautiful Siouxrose 1. Thanks...
Thanks for the compliment! Like many, I have passionate feelings about the state of our nation and the ultimate direction of the world: economically, politically, socially, culturally, spiritually... and perhaps most important of all, ecologically!
The politicians propped up to "lead" are all horrors... apart from Sanders. (And yes, Jill Stein has WONDERFUL platforms, but she also has ZERO chance of obtaining High Office.) The world cannot afford more of same!
Damn it, you make too much sense. I will continue to fact fact counterpunch and althe whatever but do realize he will protect our security (not necessarily corporate resource pillaging). We will still need to hold his feet to the fire for no more military expansion which has a huge following and industry that will be fighting him and us with all their powers and creating distractions of fear to lead us against our own best interest.
Thank you for your thoughtful opinions and suggestions.
" Those who slam Sanders set the nation up for far worse."
Excellent statement! Sanders is no saint but compared to the alternatives....he definitely is!
Oh give me a break !
Like people are stupid and you don't see the close race for the nomination? Which do you think is true? Or both?
The fact is that you are only helping Hillary win the nomination or Trump to win the race and think nothing of being unethical about doing so.
The one thing you are not is honest.
You fall for the con. Bernie has yet to win the nomination and turning voters away (BTW where is the comparison between Bernie voting against the war in Iraq to Hillary's vote for it and her current overt war mongering?) from Bernie's camp will only make it easier for Hillary.
It is odd that some will continually fail to mention Hillary's direct role in those interventions? How about where she as Sec of State directed, organized and pushed for some of those interventions. Hillary was the architect of Libya and nearly so in Syria ( her responsibility stems from the spill over from her fiasco in Libya).
You are are being conned by the media with those links btw.
I think I did say that I would continue to fact check as one of links did that it said Bernie did not vote for it but did support the democratic removal by the people. So I guess I need to watch out for the thoughtful cons who say they are not bashing Bernie? I don't know about that but I don't know that commenter, I do read posts all the time.
Your links did not verify your statements in fact one of them contradicted your statement of a vote in Libya,