Hillary Clinton's hawkishness could be front-and-center during Saturday's Democratic primary debate, which has shifted its focus in the wake of Friday's attacks in Paris to "issues of terrorism, national security, and foreign relations."
The right has already blamed the Obama administration, and Hillary; she could become Joan of Arc and Fox News will still crucify her.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Her record on the Mideast wars needs to be challenged & the failures need to be addressed.She is a corrupt & failed leader on this issue.
The US led war on terror is akin to the cartoon of an elephant that panics when it sees a mouse stomping & crushing everything around but the mouse.
She is status quo & will only promote failed policy that already exists. She fucked up & should be fired.
Expect the worst from all -- pandering to fear and the defense of empire.
She will maybe sound dovish? But she will act hawkish. She is a Neocon at the core and supports their agenda.
You kidding? Hilary doesn't need any nudging when it comes to war. Ask her Israeli and military industry masters.
I can't Imagine Hillary not stressing that she was hawkish on Syria and that she has been proven right in that attitude. In fact I expect that she will actually say those exact words >>> "I was right on Syria!".
Sure...more war. That is what we need. When do you wake up and understand that it is her vote supporting Bush's illegitimate and truly ill-conceived invasion of Iraq which created this havoc in the region? When will you accept more war equals more war equals more war? What do you want a thousand drome strikes a day...maybe a million....maybe more....because hey, war is the only answer.
Hillary or any other neo-con was not right on Syria or anywhere else in the mideast. She & they are dead wrong !!! With the blood of US soldiers on their hands----this issue cannot go unchallanged! And cannot be trusted with the lives of our US service men & women!
Her record & that of the neo-cons are the same & cannot stand the light of day!!!
Gee thanks for explaining what I said so that I could understand it.
I was NOT saying that Hillary was right ... I was saying (keeping on topic with the article) that SHE will say that she was right. You did read the article right? That was the point of it. I was agreeing with the author and disagreeing with those who think that she will move back in tune with Obama. Hillary will see this as a vindication of her hawkish views for greater intervention.
People need to comment on the topic of the articles and not just vent or rant.
Another genius who can't read and forgets to comment on the article's topic and goes off on a rant. I'm not even going to bother responding to you. read what I wrote to Framer.
You have misinterpreted Wereflea's comment.
I'm afraid that the stage has been set. The CIA or Pentagon or whomever just needs to stage another messy black op in the Homeland of the Reich and there will be martial law, declared or undeclared, and We the People, for the most part terrified, will no doubt embrace the final loss of our liberty and civil rights "for our safety." It worked for the Third Reich, and our "leaders" seem to have learned a lot from their playbook.
* A wiser man than I once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin 1759
Wereflea, people who don't know where you're coming from see your post as affirming Hillary's positions.
Those of us familiar with your posts know that isn't the case.
But I think if I didn't know your position I might have made the same mistake.
Sorry, do we still have some rights they haven't taken yet?
Except the right to bear arms? Apparently that one's sacrosanct.
Of course Hillary will go for more USA "boots on the ground" and after yesterday, French boots too. The Neo-Cons (She is one.) have always played both sides against the middle, profiting no matter who wins. Actually, no one wins in this game except the MIC.
Maybe it will eventually come out that ISIS is a construct of CIA/Mossad financed by the Saudis. That fact will never be revealed in the MSM, though. We'll have to learn about it on our own in alternative media.
I would agree with your comment to be honest but I made the mistake of commenting on the article and staying on topic and assumed that it would be read as such.
So should I say sorry I stayed on topic?
The article talks about whether or not Hillary will talk more hawkish in response to events in Paris and I gave my opinion about it.
People have gotten used to venting and ranting about anything and everything whether it relates to the subject of the article or not.
It will trivialize this forum and effectively end it as a means of communication since those who vent and rant have little to say that each other wants to hear.
When someone rants on about something of concern only to them, regardless of what the topic of the article was, they are literally speaking their mind but virtually talking to themselves. Ten people ranting about other things equals no one saying anything of interest to those who selected that subject (article) to discuss.
Excuse me for confusing people by staying on topic.
Odd this article's title huh? I wonder what Ms. Fulton could have meant by such a confusing choice of words?
Well here's where the rubber hits the road.
Hillary the Hawk will embrace righteous revenge. She'll ignore anything but a military/security state solution.
The question is will Sanders and O'Malley do the same or will they point to the regional instability created by military 'solutions' that made the rise of Al Qaeda/ISIS inevitable?
Will they stress diplomacy or simply howl along with the rest of the pack?
As a Sanders supporter I'm hoping he stresses diplomacy. It isn't the smart thing to do. If he ties the attack to our destabilization of the region it could be political suicide.
But embracing what caused the problem without stressing diplomacy will simply be affirming the actions that created the problem in the first place.
So I'm hoping to hear Sanders speak about diplomacy.
Post Debate Edit: Bernie tied the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and called for a U.S. led coalition including nations in the region. 10 out of 10 for Bernie!!!!
Venting and ranting?
Is there anything else?
Anyway, I think people interpreted your comments as agreement with Hillary.
I know if Hillary told you it was daytime you'd look outside to check.
So cut them some slack.