In seeking to put Sen. Bernie Sanders on the defensive over his foreign policy positions, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is embracing a neoconservative stance on the Middle East and gambling that her more hawkish approach will win over Democratic voters.
"Clinton still believes she can win the nomination".
There is only one reason HRC can make this statement, even though it looks like Bernie is beating her in Iowa and N.H.
She knows the fix is in!
This is an excellent article. Full of history and back story for the run up to todays election. Great work.
We simply cannot let Hillary get the office. This is where Bernie Sanders comes in. His positions are reasoned and much more in line with where the country wants to go.
By the way, COMMON DREAMS, where is the story of the march all across this country for Bernie. It's understandable for the media but why aren't you carrying it. It was certainly big enough!!!
I'd love to hear from people who really want Clinton to be President. Not 'it's her time,' Or 'she has so much experience.' You rarely hear, 'I want Hillary to be President because of her vision and ideas.'
We certainly don't need pragmatic.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
We have to hope Bernie opposes the neo-con endless war that Hillary wants. I think he does, but what is said during the campaign has a way of rapidly changing once elected or those politicians who feel this way have a distressing habit of dying prematurely.
Though I support Bernie Sanders, I would be surprised if he chooses to take on the MIC before the election. No other lobby has as much support from corporate America as this particular group. Bernie Sanders has done his best to avoid discussion of foreign policy because if he chooses to have a democratically influenced foreign policy, the 1% will be out for blood. I would guess that his strategy is to begin by removing money from politics which would automatically affect the MIC. But he can buy time by giving the impression that it will be 'hands off' when it comes to bombing the hell out of innocent people around the globe. He can do NOTHING to prevent this unless he can first, get elected and second, he must somehow remove lobbies from their inappropriate amount of influence they wield in D.C. This may be democracy's greatest challenge in the 21st century and I'm not sure if it is possible in my lifetime. But to shy away from this challenge will have dire consequences for not only the electorate, but for humanity as well.
We have never heard anything to my knowledge from either candidate about their views on China's claims in the South China Sea. Would they recommend building up the US Navy because of this or not? I think both candidates support Obama's policy in the Middle East with some differences. I think for voters it is difficult to determine these differences and assess which candidate make more sense. I think both assume the US will be engaged in fighting in the Middle East for many years to come as there appears to be no resolution between this battle between the Sunnis and Shiites manifested it appears as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran with involvement of the US and Russia.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I have often seen H. Clinton called a "Wall Street whore."
But this statement is deeply, deeply unfair to prostitutes.
Who do we negotiate with? For that matter, what "war" are you talking about.
For the sake of our Servicemen and Servicewomen at arms, I'm the first person standing in line to yell, "Bring them home!"
This entire "war on terror" and " "homeland" security" concept are nothing more than a farce. Congress is the only institution in the USA that can declare war. Trouble is, there was and still is, no country to declare war on.
Yes, there are terrorists in the world. But they do not constitute a country that Congress can declare war on, or that the Administration can negotiate with. Instead of dealing with the root cause of "terrorism" the U.S. under your auspices and mine has embarked upon a campaign of terror directed against large areas of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The result of our actions has one major effect: It drives people to desperation in an effort to cope with their anger and grief. Those busily engaged in accumulating wealth in this country continue to get richer, and they revel in the new generations of :"terrorists" our actions are raising up. It takes the eyes of the sheeple in this nation off their dwindling quality of life and keeps them looking under their beds in fear of "terrorists" coming to get them if it weren't for the drone strikes that roll on and on and our tireless electronic surveillance heroes so dedicated to keeping us safe.
Allowing the main stream media and talking heads to control the way we see and think about the world only perpetuates the status quo.
You and Tom Johnson are acting as a tag team using innuendos as well as outright fraudulent assertions to belittle Mr. Sanders. It's disgusting and unwarranted. I have a FAR greater track record as a prophetic voice and I wouldn't be so bold as to presume what Mr. Sanders would do.
Having seen the electric response of crowd after crowd in unexpected places, he may realize that he cannot support Clinton.
It's decent and apt to mock Mrs. Clinton's policies, but using a term like whore is misogynistic and sexist. And I think it's disgusting in an era where there is SO much violence directed at women and girls.
Parry's article clearly nails down the neocon roots of Clinton's bellicose foreign policy. If she's elected she'll be as bad, if not worse, than the Republican candidates.
Meanwhile, more-progressive-than-thou fanatics continue to ignore Clinton and attack Sanders for his foreign policy.
Bernie Sanders and his devoted cadre of largely well-meaning Berners = naïveté on steroids
No, you consistently attempt to make votes on budget bills appear as damning Sanders foreign policy positions.
Hint: If budget bills only passed when people voted because they agreed with every item, budget bills would never pass.
I think Bernie is being wise to avoid taking any stance, other than the only one he has proclaimed so far: for us to be as non-interventionist as possible and work on having the countries of the Middle East unite to fight extremism and terrorism. A week there is like a month, and a month like a year anywhere else. New terrorist or nationalist groups constantly arise to fight others, or combine with another group to fight a third. Any US intervention almost always makes things worse and, in addition, has unexpected, often lethal, consequences. So it is really likely to be a no-win for him if he does commit to a position. Let Hillary do that and take the risk of things blowing up in her face.
That would hurt if it came from someone who has displayed any intelligence. Maybe.
Your "either/or" vision is very limited. It does not have to be one or the other.
Nice try attempting to fool those who aren't familiar with your posting history.