There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Bernie Sanders' foreign policy is 90% the same as Hillary's.
Sanders is promising to use drones, promising to smash ISIS. Those things alone guarantee that The Permanent War will continue full speed ahead.
You want to vote for Sanders, go ahead, be my guest. But don't kid yourself, he's just as much a Pentagon Puppet as the rest.
As always you say this stuff and then you stop. You never say what will happen if we don't vote for Sanders. How come?
"It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster."
The Neocon / Neolib axis is promoting this strategy of failed states and metastasizing disaster, in order to spread it until the world is ripe for their "Global Redesign" to a new form of global governance, based on the "efficiency" of corporate management as opposed to the (intentionally imposed) "inefficiency" of the UN / nation states model.
"There Is No Alternative" (Margaret Thatcher), "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" (Ronald Reagan), NAFTA / WTO / TPP (undermine Unions, export manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, hollow out the US economy), "Regime Change" and "Responsibility to Protect," all part of a Grand Strategy to set the stage for global corporate governance. And the long-term strategy includes creating a "failed state" in the USA.
Hillary Clinton is simply an agent of this agenda.
90%, a bit high don't you think?
Sachs leaves out Hillary's critical abetting of the coup in Honduras that replaced an elected democratic government with state violence against its people and a wave of drug crimes and her role in the get-nothing-done recovery effort after the Haiti earthquake, including meddling in an election that could have continued democratic rule after Preval but, by pushing out the democratic runoff candidate in favor of two Duvalists, gave us a hip-hop Duvalier devotee and unprecedented corruption that has done precious little to rebuild devastated Haiti.
Very strange take on world events from Jeffrey Sachs. In any event, what does this have to do with selecting a Democratic nominee? Bernie Sanders has pretty much the same policy as Hillary Clinton although he is far less experienced and has limited knowledge compared with her. Sachs would more helpful if he could off suggestions on what to do about the conflict between the Sunnis ans Shiites and the tensions between Russia and the West. Also, he could suggest a strategy to deal with conflicting claims in the South China Sea and the North Korea problem,. We need ideas. Not these type of diatribes.
I think what you mean is that Hillary is getting away with this because the media is not calling her on this. The media doesn't call her on her claims. She says "the Wall St. guys are trying hard to stop me". No they aren't but who calls her on it? They sure are trying to stop Bernie though.
If the media called her out on these lies and untruths then the game would be different, however the game is rigged and Hillary knows full well how to play it.
The big boys are trying hard to stop Bernie so Hillary runs around disguising that fact by claiming they are out to get her even though they give her tens of millions of dollars in contributions.
The media is rigging the game big time.
Dear Dr. Sachs,
I have known of your brilliant work because of the 20+ years I volunteered with RESULTS/RESULTSEducationalFund. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this-as always-beautiful, excellent piece.
As I have written elsewhere on CommonDreams, Diana Johnstone's expose "Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton also points out HRC's malevolent meddling in the internal affairs of many countries, like the Black Death, spreading death and destruction.
Another writer on this site has asked if Hillary is perhaps 'insane.' Certainly, in her shrieking protestations of her 'progressive' bona fides, and her 'record,' she seems not to know that someone, somewhere will call her out as the lying miscreant she is. If the corrupt MSM were not dominated by the establishment she shills for, the curtain would long ago have been ripped away.
Dr. Sachs, I would dearly love to see you step forward as an "endorser" of Senator Sanders, who has said repeatedly that he would only go to war AS A LAST RESORT. He, like you, has been laboring in the vineyards of compassion, striving for over three decades to improve our human condition.
Bill and Hillary have also done much to push Russia into an anti-American stance, and she is likely to continue down this dangerous path. The Kosovo War is little remembered here in the US but is still seen in Russia as an act of aggression against Russia's traditional ally, Serbia. Bill Clinton made no effort to include Russia is either negotiations or a peace keeping force at that time, which was seen as a grave insult by many Russians. Even more threatening was Clinton's decision in 1999 to expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
After Germany was reunited in 1990, there had been an understanding that NATO would not offer membership to former Warsaw Pact nations, but Clinton violated this informal pact made by Bush I and Gorbachev. A year later Putin came to power and the chance for a productive US-Russian partnership was lost.
Bush II followed Bill's example of expanding NATO and then Hillary, thru her neocon undersecretary Victoria Nuland, oversaw the rise of an anti-Moscow regime in Ukraine in 2011 and pushed for sanctions. (Her boss Obama asked for more NATO troops and heavy weapons to be stationed in the Baltic states just this week, and the move received almost no mention in U.S. media.
Prior to Qaddafi taking power in Libya, that country was in fact the poorest in the world.
Qaddaffi helped make it the richest in all of Africa and the standard of living climbed significantly to the point where Libya became a country that attracted refugees and migrants en masse due to a high standard of living. Apparently this made Qaddaffi a "madman".
After the USA and Europe and Canada and other NATo Countries "liberated Iraq" it plummeted into a chaos and an absolute hell hole of violence and civil conflict. NATO are now sending in more troops to battle the same people they put into power.
Bravo, Mr. Sachs. Whenever Hillary blabbers on about her experience, I think of all the things you've mentioned. In other words, what does all this "experience" consist of? And it horrifies me that so many either don't know of these events, can't connect the dots, or are so "sold" on Brand Hillary that they are absolutely INURED to all the carnage and the trails of blood and destruction left behind that rival Sherman's during the Civil War.
Maybe he's tag-teaming with LRX since both have in common, a desire to wipe out any strand of difference between two candidates with VITALLY different stands and stances. No one can put an end to the MIC. This isn't a vampire movie where all it takes is good aim and a silver cross. Sanders is HARDLY the war hawk that Hillary is.
I heard the same debate portions and agree with you that she tried to berate Sanders... as if it's not a logical conclusion that if you take MILLIONS from Wall St. you're going to at minimum owe them favors.
Instead of owning up to her source of campaign funds, she accused Sanders of trying to slime her reputation.
It's a diversionary tactic. I'm sorry that Mr. Sanders didn't push further but as I suggested in a different comment thread, it doesn't LOOK good when a male seems to attack a female. Hillary played that card and it took the focus off of her significant misdeeds.
He probably could write a book if he attempted to list EVERY act of malfeasance, corruption, and contempt for human lives. But you are certainly correct.
What has this to do with selecting a nominee?
Would you hire a babysitter with a criminal record?
People are hired for jobs everyday on the basis of their resumes.
There's also the Biblical "By their fruits, ye shall know them."
Sachs laid out a case for the DISASTERS that Mrs. Clinton has been intimately connected with since she's always touting out her "experience."
One can have experience as a serial killer... and then there's the species of serial killer wearing a military uniform or privileged with a high political office. Not all choose to gain experience directly from acts of carnage.
"We need ideas."
You write tripe on a daily basis trying to shine Brand Hillary like a pair of shoes. This is one of your stupidest comments yet.
"Pay no attention to the EVIDENCE" of this woman's direct actions and stands... and then paint The TRUE RECORD as "very strange take."
YOU are delusional.
Let's deconstruct the "[...] has lost all legitimacy because he's killing his own people" mantra which was so popular during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
To begin with, "he's killing his own people" is a shock phrase. Taken at face value, it suggests that defending the civilian population of the country against a deadly threat present within the boarders is somehow more egregious than killing perceived threats plus collateral damage from the safety of a drone control center. It irresponsibly paints the discussion and should not be part of the political discourse. What is really meant is "he's killing civilians who fall within his blanket of responsibility".
This leads into the next issue, that the statement seemingly implies that killing civilians that fall within one's responsibility implies the loss of legitimacy. If that's true, then the United States has not had a legitimate leader in some time. To begin with, the US does kill an unspecified number of civilians in areas where it has military control. More directly, it is normal for the US to kill US civilians who are perceived to pose a threat, and this has happened on multiple occasions. Less honorably, there are any number of examples of Americans who meet their fate at the hands of police brutality, which is comparable to what foreign leaders are accused of. One may argue about magnitudes and intentions, but one cannot claim in good conscience that the stated standard of killing civilians represents an indisputable standard of loss of legitimacy.
More deeply, one can take the loss of legitimacy to mean that the leader in question has lost so much popular support, that they are no longer capable of maintaining the peace; so popular support is the real metric of legitimacy. It does seem sensible that in a democracy, popular support determines legitimacy. However, there are groups like anti-vaxxers or the flat earth society who, in varying instances can represent the majority of a community, yet in no way should be considered legitimate beliefs. The Clinton record on peaceful relations with foreign nations and the Bush record on Iraq, both of which gained popular support at times, should probably not be considered legitimate. So clearly there is a deeper notion of legitimacy than what is reflected in popular attitudes. Perhaps it is the case that in some nations, maybe such as Libya or Syria, there is an expectation that this deeper legitimacy be recognized, and Clinton's purposeful failure to do so helped aggravate the conflicts. I see two major errors here. One, maybe the US indeed sees the notions of legitimacy in those nations as backwards, but nevertheless, in no way would the US have had any business using its military might to marshal the personal opinions in people in those nations. Two, given the benefits once enjoyed by people in Libya which were not enjoyed by everyone in the US, there is no reason to think that Libyans would have universally agreed with the pervasive and militarily enforced US opinion that Gaddafi had no remaining legitimacy - a similar argument can be constructed for any nation where the US has designs on intervention.
I don't know how sure Sanders is about his own foreign policy. You'd think that if he was more certain about it, he'd have loads of material to use to go after Clinton. On the other hand, maybe he knows it and he's being nice on purpose, as a part of his character. I can't say for sure that he'd be immune to the Washington war machine if he goes into office, but I do like the fact that he's trying to refresh the national dialogue by reintroducing the idea that wars are a last resort.
One of the most puerile posts I have yet read here. Your nonsense is not changing anyones mind.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
What is the North Korea problem?