2
2
0
What Is Wrong With Hillary Clinton 2?
Slightly apocalyptic but worth a look.
'Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess'
"Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral of war and terror?"
Her fawning followers are lousy citizens.
Walt
Slightly apocalyptic but worth a look.
'Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess'
"Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral of war and terror?"
Her fawning followers are lousy citizens.
Walt
Hillary Clinton and the ISIS Mess
Posted from huffingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
When Hillary gets the nomination and no longer has to fear Bernie on her left, expect Hillary to move right (toward the center) for the general election. Hillary has an extremely flexible view of both morals and principles which is entirely dependent upon what it takes to win an election. After the general election, who can predict what she will do?
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Walter Miller, this is just all the more reason that I could NEVER, in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton. She does not seem to have one truly original idea, and what she does say is so clouded in "double speak" it is like trying to see in a CS chamber.
Her supporters it seems keep forgetting that she was directly responsible for the deaths of Americans overseas. Plus, the possible damage from her unsecured server incident, may yet cause untold damage to our Country and Her people.
Her supporters it seems keep forgetting that she was directly responsible for the deaths of Americans overseas. Plus, the possible damage from her unsecured server incident, may yet cause untold damage to our Country and Her people.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
This shoot down by the Turks of the Russian SU-24 should bring back into focus HRC's call for a no-fly zone. How WTF stupid was that?
And when Sanders and O'Malley called her on it at the 10/13 debate she said she'd do it again.
No way should she be president.
Walt
And when Sanders and O'Malley called her on it at the 10/13 debate she said she'd do it again.
No way should she be president.
Walt
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Also straight from bizarro world -- Obama made sure people back in 2008 knew that she voted to invade Iraq. That should -still- disqualify her for high office, or any office.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
PVT Robert Gresham
Capt Walter Miller - Absolutely.....Her leadership would almost certainly bring us into a situation where Americans (be it Military, or civilians) are going to pay the ultimate price. Also, her refusal to point out that there is such a thing as "Radical Islam" is sheer lunacy. The first step to fixing a problem is to properly identify the problem. To give it another name, and then try to whitewash the atrocities committed by the practitioners of said, "Radical Islam", is to slap every Military member who has fought against it, in the face.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
IMHO no, the power of the Military Industrial Complex reaches into both parties. Sanders is the only politician who is speaking out. But he is being slapped with the label "socialist" by those either not understanding socialism (and that we are a socialist nation) or trying to scare the unknowing.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
He actually calls himself a socialist. We don't have to apply that label to him, he's done it to himself.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Cpl (Join to see) - He'd take money from the defense/war/CIA complex and give it to the people, for their lives, health, children. Who cares what he calls himself?
"Until today, Clinton has not acknowledged the roots of the conflict in the region, including the disastrous role that the U.S. has played, including under her watch as Secretary of State. She has not been a mastermind of it, but has been a loyal backer carried along by the CIA, the broader military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the conventional neocon thinking in DC. That's no doubt good for her national politics. It's hard to run for President as an opponent of the permanent U.S. security state. Being a card-carrying member of the U.S. security establishment is the mainstream media's definition of a "serious" candidate."
Walt
"Until today, Clinton has not acknowledged the roots of the conflict in the region, including the disastrous role that the U.S. has played, including under her watch as Secretary of State. She has not been a mastermind of it, but has been a loyal backer carried along by the CIA, the broader military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the conventional neocon thinking in DC. That's no doubt good for her national politics. It's hard to run for President as an opponent of the permanent U.S. security state. Being a card-carrying member of the U.S. security establishment is the mainstream media's definition of a "serious" candidate."
Walt
(0)
(0)
Sgt Nick Marshall
Cpl. Kirk Sain, you do realize that we are a socialist country, less so than our European compatriots. Socialism is not a black or white issue despite what Fox says. Taxes pay for defense, infrastructure, health benefits for vets, services like 911, police, firemen etc..
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Socialism and republicanism are different forms of government. Since this was written into the US Constitution and there is no amendment modifying this Article, which US Constitution did you take an oath to defend, nick?
Article 4 Section 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."
Article 4 Section 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google