Hillary Clinton seems to have found a way to get people from moving beyond her disastrous “dead broke” claims, but not in a way that is likely to please those voters tired of wars and military interventions. Clinton used an interview this week to criticize the “failure” of President Obama’s policies in Syria and to insist that she wanted a more interventionist military approach. President Obama was quoted responding to such criticism by calling it “horseshit.” It seemed a return to the 2008 election where Clinton campaigned on her hawk credentials in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — a mistake for many Democratic and independent voters. Recently, she changed her mind and said that the Iraq War was a mistake despite her refusal to listen to a chorus of critics of the war at the time when it was a popular political move. Despite that change, Clinton is suggesting that she would have armed the Syrian rebels and acted more aggressively to stop the Islamic State.
In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton attacked Obama’s decision not to quickly and strongly support the Syrian rebels and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.” She seemed to brush over the fact that that the same course that led us into repeated costly military campaigns or that many of the rebels at the time were found to be committing atrocities like the regime. Then there is the fact that many of our weapons have already ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in places like Iraq — as we saw in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.
The statements were a replay of Clinton’s much maligned campaign against Obama in 2008 that she was the one who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” As someone who supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, many insisted that they did not want any more such calls.
The change in strategy and message may not be coincidental. A major poll this month by NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” The interview was widely viewed as designed to separate Clinton from the declining fortunes of both Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Putting aside the timing, Clinton has repeatedly shown herself to be closer to George W. Bush than Obama on military interventions. She used the interview to reaffirm her absolute support for Israel and her credentials in committing U.S. military resources in foreign conflicts.
Nevertheless, while criticizing Clinton on the attack against Obama and interventionist drumbeat, liberal writers like Joan Walsh at Salon.com are still cited in the article below as still expecting to support Clinton for the next president. It is part of a continuing rift on the left of our political spectrum. It is not clear what are the dominant values of the Democratic Party going into this election. Civil liberties and war issues used to be a rallying point for liberals. However, those issues have been seriously undermined by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaigns in 2008 and 2014. Clearly, some agree with Clinton’s hawkish views and others are drawn to the chance of electing a female, even one with opposing views. However, there remains a remarkably fluidity in the defining values for the party going into the election beyond the dominant blue state/red state rhetoric that the Republicans are simply worse. That narrative is clearly not working but seems to be the only theme upon which the party is advancing consistently. There is the immigration issue but that has proven extremely risky and does not appear to have paid off politically. Indeed, some black leaders and voters have publicly opposed the effort by Democratic members to push for legalizing the status of millions of undocumented individuals. We are, as the Chinese curse says, living in interesting times.
Source: Politico
Jill
A sociopath is not going to appear evil at all times. They aren’t even going to be evil at all times.
…
===============================
Even more so for a psychopath:
“Therefore, both psychopaths and sociopaths are capable of committing heinous crimes; however, the psychopath would commit crimes against family members or “friends” (as well as strangers) and feel little to no remorse.
…
The last main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is in the presentation. The psychopath is callous, yet charming. He or she will con and manipulate others with charisma and intimidation and can effectively mimic feelings to present as “normal” to society. The psychopath is organized in their criminal thinking and behavior, and can maintain good emotional and physical control, displaying little to no emotional or autonomic arousal, even under situations that most would find threatening or horrifying. The psychopath is keenly aware that what he or she is doing is wrong, but does not care.”
(When You Are Governed By Psychopaths – 2).
Dredd, I retrieved your comment at 6:19.
…
that<b<than just WMD stocks:traveling limey: “I was an activist against the Iraqi war in 2003. I knew there was no longer a stockpile of WoMD.”
Even if Clinton and Bush believed that, the only way they were allowed to “know” that in the legal sense as chief enforcers of the Gulf War ceasefire was by Iraq cooperating and accounting for its weapons to the mandated standard with UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. With Saddam, we had to be sure.
Iraq’s obligations under the UNSC resolutions also covered a lot more ground that just WMD stocks: http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html .
traveling limey: “You have to look at the whole picture and understand also that past action in Iraq creates a kind of debt”
Agreed. One reason I supported OIF was to make up for what we had done to the Iraqis with the sanctions. And, a lot of Iraqis died and/or suffered in 1991 because HW Bush had stopped short of finishing the Gulf War and then compounded his 1st error by non-committally encouraging an uprising that led to much Iraqi death and suffering from Saddam.
We owed nation-building to the Iraqis for HW Bush’s mistakes in 1991 and the sanctions thereafter.
Whenever I hear someone protest the pre-war sanctions and the regime change, I wonder if he realizes that short of Saddam complying or freeing a noncompliant Saddam, the choice was either/or – either sanctions (with ‘containment’) or regime change.
Darren Smith,
Secretary Clinton isn’t the first former Obama official to sound the alarm on President Obama’s dysfunction in foreign affairs. I don’t think it’s political maneuvering, or at least just political maneuvering. I think there’s genuine alarm about the damage that the Obama presidency is causing.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/11/Why-Obamas-Foreign-Policy-Process-is-Broken#page1
I was an activist against the Iraqi war in 2003. I knew there was no longer a stockpile of WoMD. I even lost a good rug selling spot in the San Diego area because some bigshot admiral type complained to Arco.
One thing I will give Hillary Clinton is that it seemed clear she was frustrated in her role as Secretary of State with the president on many issues. She had a role to perform as a functionary of the administration and Congress and thereby extension the government of the United States. But I believe she clearly felt the administration was going outside the realm of what she considered to be reason, so I understand her having numerous issues with the President now that she is outside her role and can speak her mind without such constraint.
You have to look at the whole picture and understand also that past action in Iraq creates a kind of debt to assist the victims of this ultra terrorist group called ISIL. America has not been in the business of helping humanity, no matter what its leaders say. With 9/11 and other ploys its been in the business of creating more war & terrorism and for this reason we should not normally be rallying the troops. But right now, if the news and inteligence is correct about what this ultra terrorist extreme Muslim group is doing, there is no choice but to stop them by all means possible without also killing the victims. Bombs & drones alone will kill the inocent too, so it has to be more than that & right now. If that is what the old crow Hilary Clinton is saying, well even she can be right one time in five.
Nothing she does shocks me. She’ll do anything to get her paws on the Presidency.
Sadly, I think our mentally watered down compatriots will elect this creature.
Nick Spinelli: “The Pentagon just announced we are sending some boots on the ground to help do an intense airlift of all the non Muslim people. Good call. I salute this use of US Troops. And, I’m sure the soldiers assigned to this mission will be honored to do it.”
T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War:
US Army FM (field manual) 1:
http://www.army.mil/fm1/chapter1.html
Tlimey
I don ‘t care who they are fighting for. If they are American military forces, they get my respect and my support. I am not some Jane Fonda traitor. I am an American.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Bingo, Eric
Nick Spinelli: “Eric, Incredible mindset isn’t it. Mind boggling.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to. If you’re referring to Annie’s refusal to accept the fact that Saddam was noncompliant and Bush applied the operative enforcement procedure he inherited from Clinton, then yes, the mindset is mind-boggling.
One expects an American would feel relieved and proud of the discovery that the US mission with Iraq was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy; that our diplomats, soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen served in Iraq on a just cause.
Instead, Annie is reacting like she prefers, even needs to believe America was wrong.
That I quoted directly from the Duelfer Report with a sample of Saddam’s violations, and Annie retorted that it’s a lie – there’s just nowhere to go from there. That’s a 2+2=5 response.
I can only hope Annie will read the primary sources for herself instead of trusting people like Charles Lewis to think for her.
Again, I don’t understand why an American would respond negatively to the discovery that her country is right.
Squeaky, the troops are NOT fighting for the American people. They are fighting for the Illuminati AGAINST the American people and all good people of Earth. That’s why they have BOOT CAMP so well intentioned soldiers will not confuse right and wrong for ORDERS! Vets need to get this too. They may have had good intentions but its time to be MEN and own up to their huge mistake!
We do not have a federal government. We have a Mafia Superpower; no, make that a Superpower Mafia. This Mafia never does the right thing for the people of the world. Like any mafia it serves itself & its favored corporations that are really part of it. (will this message move over please!)
“The magazine, Architectural Digest just did the most touching story on how Laura and George decorated their ranch. AWWWW….
Eric, we don’t agree on 9/11 or terrorism but I certainly take your point about how sociopaths act in real life. For citizens choosing people to represent us in positions of power, the folksy anecdotes are feel good but irrelevant. We need to understand how they use power, that is all.
Eric, I had an idiot tell me Russ Feingold didn’t want my vote because I didn’t agree w/ everything he said. I wonder what Russ would say to that person??
Nick
Bush… Watch his swing.
If you’re gonna throw digs at Obama for a golf game, make sure you include Bush’s golfing adventures, too. Otherwise you come off as a deeply partisan person.
Care to comment about Bush’s golfing adventures during a time if war being wrong when he does it…
Eric, Incredible mindset isn’t it. Mind boggling.
Jill: “Both aspects of sociopathic humans are true at the same time–for example, one can be a fine person as a mother and a truly evil person as a “leader”.”
Last night on youtube, I watched a documentary on the 1985 Air India 182 bombing that killed 329 people, with many families and children:
http://youtu.be/yS_4ZNa1ByI
One of the most striking observations is that the bomb-maker, the only conspirator convicted for the bombing, was a friendly Vancouver suburban dad who the RCMP investigator described as very likeable. Even while he was being interrogated after the bombing, the investigator found him likeable. Emotionally unmoved by the pictures of his victims, but still likeable. A sociopath for sure.
Another striking observation of the documentary is that the law enforcement approach to terrorist attacks is “60 minutes to boom”. Because most readily observable terrorist lead-up activity is legal, even open, a criminal-prosecution approach to counter-terrorism is often constrained until the point that terrorists cross the line of imminent attack. At that point, prosecution becomes viable, but it’s a thin margin for prevention.
The Air India 182 attackers were under long, intensive surveillance by the RCMP, yet the attack still went off. But for a lucky quirk timing, a 2nd passenger jet would also have been blown up in the sky. Instead, 2 Japanese baggage handlers were killed with the 2nd bomb.
Despite the long, intensive surveillance, only 1 of the conspirators was convicted, due in large part to the evidence procedure. If the 2nd bomb had gone off in the air, instead of a confined baggage area, the bomb-maker likely would not have been convicted, either. The doc gave some insight into the limitations of the law-enforcement approach to the 9/11 attackers as well as a criminal-prosecution approach to terrorists generally.