Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Presumptive Nominee Clinton is a Warhawk; and why Sanders needs to keep fighting.

metamars's picture

[I was forced to waste my time editing and commenting on the post below, including the headline. metamars, you have already been warned to not bring right-wing tropes in your critiques of Clinton. This is your last warning.]

Hillary Clinton left her job as Secretary of State on Feb. 1, 2013. Seymour Hersh has reported that a ratline from Libya in Syria was set up in early 2012. The Obama White House has never admitted any role in such a ratline, and the DNI spokesman said "The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false." [TRUE]

I presume, however, that the White House is lying by omission, and the DNI spokesman lied by commission. I further presume that Hillary Clinton, as SoS while these crimes were being perpetrated, and more hawkish than Obama, fully approved of the creation of such a ratline. [POSSIBLY, BUT HER NAME WAS MENTION JUST ONCE IN THE VERY LONG AND DETAILED REPORTING OF SEYMOUR HERSH]

A large part of the weapons destined for so-called "moderate" jihadists, fighting the Assad regime, nevertheless ended up in ISIS hands. [TRUE]

I presume that Hillary "We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha ha!" Clinton was glad that ISIS got arms via the ratline she approved of (and perhaps helped convince Obama of supporting). [WILD SPECULATION] I presume that clinton didn't care about innocents getting brutally murdered, raped, taken as slaves, etc. [FUCKING INSANE SPECULATION] I presume she lost no sleep, at all, over ISIS' crimes against humanity. [FUCKING INSANE SPECULATION]

In a relatively recent debate between Sanders and Clinton (perhaps the last one), Clinton still spoke approvingly of a an illegal no-fly zone over Syria, imposed by the US. She neither addressed the self-evident question of what happens if this provokes military hostilities with the Russians, and the moderator was too ridiculous not to ask this most obvious of questions, either. (Which a 10 year old child could have figured out was VERY important to ask.) [TRUE]

I presume that either Clinton is a dangerous nut-job, or lying through her teeth. [OK]

I presume that anybody evil enough to support a group like ISIS might well be evil/crazy enough to provoke war with the Russians. [FUCKING WILD SPECULATION BASED ON UNPROVEN PREMISE THAT WAS ALSO FUCKING WILD SPECULATION]

I also presume that when Russian Americans, at least one of whom (the Saker) has detailed knowledge of Russian society, military capabilities, and politics, warn us that the Russians' patience with American militarism, support of terrorism, projection of military power right up to her borders, and destabilization has extreme (read: nuclear retaliation) limits, that they know what they're talking about, and that their warnings should be taken seriously. [FAIR ENOUGH]

====================================================================

It's too bad that Sanders wasn't willing to be more presumptive in going after Clinton. It's not a stretch that Clinton was a disaster as SoS, and did, indeed, support terrorism as a means towards an end. [NOT A STRETCH? WELL, MAYBE JUST A LITTLE STRETCH] While the fault for the premature calling of Clinton as presumptive nominee is being placed at the feet of the media (and not the DNC), I did a quick check of pro-Dem website, and didn't see any condemnation by the DNC.

So, the DNC is (apparently) OK with "being presumptive", if it means the end of Sanders' candidacy, but Sanders lacked the killer instinct to take out Clinton, utilizing a similar 'cognitive rules of engagement'. [MEH]

As I blogged earlier, [IN YOUR FUCKING ROGER STONE, ROGER AILES, FOX NEWS CHANNELING, RATFUCK APPROVING POST] though, IMO it was more up to Sanders' followers to raise their game. Sanders is an old guy, people of that age are generally less adaptable, and also Sanders has relationships with Democrats, personal as well as political, that make being aggressive enough to break through to victory more difficult. [AGEISM, AT IT'S FINEST]

At the end of the day, I think a lot of Sanders' youthful followers may have suffered from sort of the opposite dynamic. They are so young and enthusiastic, they thought they could play and win in a rigged game by following Sanders' lead, and not venturing outside the bounds that Sanders, himself, felt obligated to respect.

Perhaps if activists, over the last 20 years, had been educating youths about the extent of corruption in both mainstream political parties, as well as the "deep state" culture of murder and mayhem that 'respectable' politicians, like Sanders, won't talk about, things might have been different.

====================================================================

And having said THAT, I think it's very important that Sanders stay in the race, and keep fighting. If Clinton is indicted, or else if disgruntled FBI agents leak damning information because she is not indicted, she may well become nonviable. If Sanders leaves the race, then it will be much easier for the Democratic establishment to pass him over.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

[POSSIBLY, BUT HER NAME WAS MENTION JUST ONCE IN THE VERY LONG AND DETAILED REPORTING OF SEYMOUR HERSH]

The phrase "White House" was mentioned 20 times. "White House", as typically used, was not about a building, but about an institution, which sports Obama as the CEO, and Clinton (at the time) as lead diplomat.

While in a political blog, one expects to get challenged, one doesn't expect not only the
main text of the body, but also the title, to get mangled by an editor.

As for threats of expulsion, that IS expected at websites that fundamentally exist to promote Democrats (like dailykos and democraticunderground). I've also heard that violating some semi-official dogmas (e.g. challenging Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is extremely easy to do from both scientific and political/sociological corruption aspects) adopted by lefties will get you banned at dailykos.

If correntewire is to be run similarly, it should change it's tagline "If you have "no place to go," come here!".

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

There are guidelines, they are pretty fucking clear and pretty fucking understandable.

What you have been specifically warned about is spreading right-wing tropes. Unapologetic-ally linking to your right-wing trope post that was called out as a right-wing trope and only left up because of the ensuing conversation pointing it out as a fucking right-wing trope is just flying a fuck you finger at the blog.

But that is not all you are doing, and here are the three specifics, pulled right from the moderation page that you obviously are too busy to bother to read:

3. Continue to contaminate the discourse by using manufactured legacy party talking points, especially right wing talking points, after repeated warnings.

4. Continue to contaminate the discourse by failing to back up claims with evidence or links -- or refusing to back down on the claim -- after repeated requests.

5. Continue to contaminate the discourse by using "any stick to beat a dog"-style argumentation (see below), after repeated warnings.

I get it, I think we all get it, you hate Hillary Clinton with the passion of a thousand burning galaxies. Great. I don't care for her very much myself. She is a war-hungry neo-con/liberal. The most charitable thing that could be said is that she has bought into the facet of American Exceptionalism that excuses our killing people in service of some kind of "Responsibility to Protect". Whatever the fuck that means.

But what you CAN'T say, without providing some shred of evidence, is that she is happy that ISIS is chopping people's heads off. Or, at least, you can say it, but not here.

Is that clear enough for you?

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

"3. Continue to contaminate the discourse by using manufactured legacy party talking points, especially right wing talking points, after repeated warnings."

I take "manufactured" to mean "untrue". Nothing I wrote was untrue, least of all my presumptions. Furthermore, what you call
"[WILD SPECULATION]" and "[FUCKING INSANE SPECULATION]" in

I presume that Hillary "We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha ha!" Clinton was glad that ISIS got arms via the ratline she approved of (and perhaps helped convince Obama of supporting). [WILD SPECULATION] I presume that clinton didn't care about innocents getting brutally murdered, raped, taken as slaves, etc. [FUCKING INSANE SPECULATION] I presume she lost no sleep, at all, over ISIS' crimes against humanity. [FUCKING INSANE SPECULATION]

is basically me saying that Clinton is sociopathic and ruthless - sociopathic and ruthless enough to behave as I've described - and you saying she's not; or else you saying "wildly unlikely". However, not only is sociopathy and ruthlessness a common viewpoint in lefty blogs that I've participated in (openleft.com and firedoglake.com, which is now shadowproof.com; e.g.), and ascribed to the very highest level of those in charge of American foreign policy, such charges are basically COMPLETELY ABSENT from EITHER legacy party's repetoire of talking points.

We're many months into the presidential campaign season. With the exception of Trump (who will say anything, and has now lost Republicans that he recently flipped in his favor because of it), what Republican has called Clinton ruthless? Sociopathic? a God-mother of Isis? (Political naif Trump HAS made a similar statement. He is the exception that proves the rule.) Do they perhaps store away such "legacy" talking points in a memory hole, perhaps to only dust them off for the general election phase?

Indeed, because right-wing blogs are far more likely to believe in the "might is right" notion, righties are far more likely to line up behind both conventional, openly admitted use of military power; as well as (what I assume and hope is a significantly smaller percentage of them) line up behind the employment of ruthless militias, death squads, and murderous cults (not unlike ISIS, though Islamic death cults appear to be a no-no). They are MORE likely to want us to invade Iran, and less concerned with torture (a form of ruthlessness), and more likely to have called the US sponsored Contras "freedom fighters", even if they did feel compelled to rape a nun or two.

I don't want to take more time for this, but my take on things is that you can't take criticisms of Clinton as anything more severe than what you're likely to hear from, say, a Bernie Sanders (who has "questioned Clintons' judgement" regarding Libya), especially if you THINK that SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, a right-winger (especially a right winger that you detest) has said something similar.

When the Russians came to the Assad's rescue, they not only attacked oil tankers caravans of ISIS stolen oil going to Turkey, they published reconnaissance photos of these tankers. See Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq border - General Staff

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK EITHER OBAMA OR CLINTON WERE UNAWARE OF THESE ACTIVITIES?

If Clinton, and Obama, gave a rat's ass about the victims of ISIS, they would have bombed these tankers (or advocated for same, in the case of Clinton) - at least those on the Syrian side of the border - to smithereens, and not waited for the Russians to take care of business.

Now, Clinton was gone before these photos were released, but I haven't heard her condemn Obama for not giving the order for their destruction.

And I PRESUME, that's because she would have not done so, either. And I still PRESUME - whether you like it, or not - that she has lost no sleep on the matter, either.

But what you CAN'T say, without providing some shred of evidence, is that she is happy that ISIS is chopping people's heads off. Or, at least, you can say it, but not here.

In point of fact, I didn't say that (though I find her laughter re Qaddafi disturbing - beyond "doesn't care". Read what I actually wrote, again.

And for the record, I don't hate Clinton, though I certainly wouldn't want to shake her hand.... She is a sorry excuse for a human being, and is doing the country a disservice by even running for office. Mostly, I'm saddened by her, and also saddened that anybody would support her with anything even approaching enthusiasm.

I have alerted Lambert to diary. If he sides with you, then he can ban me, himself, and relieve you of the trouble.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Right? Because that is about the only kitchen sink you didn't throw.

Regarding "wasting my fucking time". It was YOUR POST quoting right-wing talking-point manufacturer Roger Fucking rat-fucking Stone (which again, you refuse to walk back) that caused Lambert to change the admin rules so that everybody's comments go into moderation before being published!

So, report away, my friend. Nobody else with admin privileges wants to have to spend their time doing that.

Like chezmadame, I've been here a very long time. Very. Long. Seen them come and seen them go. It's good to get new blood, neither I nor anybody else wants this to be an echo chamber, tribal group grope. But we have learned through experience that what separates us is that we actually try to be honest in our argument. Because there are so many fucking places that are dishonest. If you want that, go there.

Again, posting here is a privilege, not a right. Learn how to back up what you say with actual facts. Realize that not everyone here believes exactly what you do. They don't need to listen to your unsupported, hyperbolic bullshit.

I will say this: it is very fucking interesting to me that you are advocating more bombing, but it has to be YOUR kind of bombing. Right? So, the right kind of war-making sociopath is ok, but the kind Clinton is, is not ok?

Interesting. It's certainly a new take, I grant you that.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on
will say this: it is very fucking interesting to me that you are advocating more bombing, but it has to be YOUR kind of bombing.

If you want to call bombing ISIS "my kind of bombing", then you are correct. A really weird take on things, but correct.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Hmmm.

So blowing up Qaddafi (who was a proven terrorist at one point) and whatever "collateral damage"? Bad.
Blowing up ISIS (proven terrorists) and whatever "collateral damage"? Good.

We obviously need a spreadsheet to figure out who is ok to bomb and who is not ok to bomb. Because if you blow up the wrong terrorist, you are a blood-thirsty murderer with the blood of innocent children on your hands, but you blow up the right kind of blood-thirsty murderer, you are a hero.

Maybe you should be president, then you can decide who lives or dies for yourself.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

My reasons are basically the same as the military gave Obama. Despite his defects, Qaddafi was suppressing Islamist terrorists in Libya, more or less successfully, and also helping control migration into Europe, including sleeper terrorists embedded with the migrants.

Qaddafi also was good for the Libyan people, in general. He had big dreams of making Libya self sufficient in water and agriculture - dreams destroyed by NATO bombs.

The reference pegs Qaddafi's approval by Libyans, after NATO started bombing, at 85%.

I doubt you'd find many Libyans who are grateful to NATO, et. al., for deposing Gaddafi. If you can find any, other than Islamist fanatics, I'm pretty sure their numbers won't approach 85%.

From Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about !, more info about the life under the guy that you imagine taking out is morally equivalent to taking out ISIS:

• There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globall

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

What does that have to do with your hair-splitting regarding when, and when not, it is ok for America to bomb people (including those pesky "collateral damage" people, like children) into a red mist?

And anyway, did the US directly do that to Gaddaffi? Or just assist rebels? I've seen you all over the map. The US should act militarily to defeat ISIS, but not assist a different set of rebels.

You aren't against war at all, you are just against the sides Clinton picks!

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

you should try a site like jackpine radicals or some other echo chamber where you'll find the affirmation that you seek.

If there's one thing I've learned in the eight years that I've been a Corrente reader, it is that the facile and the superficial get called out pretty quickly. Nobody comes here for today's doctrinaire perspective.

This is important because this challenges you and forces your to hone your argument and provide nuanced and detailed evidence for claims.

It makes you think, and that's a good thing.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

This is a community blog, you are privileged to have an account and to post here. You are a representative of the blog when you post here. All that is asked of you is to respect that privilege, to know the ground rules, and to follow them. If, as in this case, you decide you don't want to follow the ground rules, you are diminishing this place, you are tarring everybody else associated with the blog, and they either have to live with it or WASTE THEIR TIME DEALING WITH IT. So in a very real way, you are hurting others.

The phrase "if you have "no place to go", come here!" Doesn't mean this is a rule-free shit show. There are plenty of places for that, like 4Chan, reddit, whatever. This is a place that is meant to be for reasoned, "left of Democrat" discourse. We DO want to pull the Overton Window to the left. But we want to do it without violence, without fucking lying, without tribalism.

So pretty please, with a cherry on top, read and follow the fucking moderation page.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

So why, despite being mentioned by name ONCE, and being Secretary of State for only four of the six years described in the Hirsh piece, why is it Clinton, and not Obama who is the architect of all of these atrocities?

Why is it Clinton and not Obama, who you describe as having no trouble sleeping with the blood of murdered children on her hands?

Why is it Clinton, instead of Obama, who cackles and laughs and is held responsible for the decisions that you condemn?

Is Obama helpless? Is he hoodwinked? Bamboozled? Outplayed? Out-classed? Out-to-lunch?

Or is it merely that because of that intangible *something we don't know* which makes it all Clinton's fault? Perhaps, it is because she is simply evil?

Well, at that link, the wonderful Arthur Silber (also no fan of Clinton, read Songs of Death for an idea), gives a wonderful description (in 2008) of why she is evil:

To put the issue in other terms, and these are the exact terms you should apply to women in politics today: she beat him at his own game. Herod had set the terms of the contest, and Salome used them for her own ends. She fought on his terms, but she outwitted the man who had set the rules. She humiliated him -- and she got what she wanted.

For Herod -- for most men -- this is intolerable. It is inconceivable to Herod -- just as it is inconceivable to most men -- that the fault or the responsibility should be his. The fault and the responsibility must be Salome's. The fault and the responsibility must always be woman's. In any confrontation between a man and a woman in our culture, there is only one party to be punished: the woman. So it was with Salome, and so it is with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Kill that woman. That is the motive, and that is the goal. To the extent women are successful, to the extent they threaten men's monopoly on power and control, they must be demeaned, diminished, treated with unending cruelty, and mocked. When all else fails, they must be eliminated. Kill that woman.

Oh, and if you read Arthur Silber, you might want to send him money, because he is destitute and makes his only money off his blog.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Is Obama helpless? Is he hoodwinked? Bamboozled? Outplayed? Out-classed? Out-to-lunch?

Or is it merely that because of that intangible *something we don't know* which makes it all Clinton's fault? Perhaps, it is because she is simply evil?

You're trying to put words in my mouth. And doing a really bad job of it.

I don't want to go and try and dig up references, but AFAICR, it was Clinton (plus Susan Rice and Samantha Powers) who convinced Obama to participate in the destruction of the Qaddafi regime. Obama was advised by the National Security Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and another group that I REALLY can't recall, to do otherwise.

The way I usually express this is that Obama was stupid enough to listen to Clinton (and the others mentioned.) However, as Commander-in-Chief, he is ultimately responsible, whatever combination of factors led him to decide, one way or another. Whether Obama's stupidity was actually the deciding factor, or his decision had nothing to do with stupidity, the main culprit responsible is Obama.

Having said that, the US Constitution prevents him from running for a 3rd term. He's just not that interesting a topic as Clinton (or Trump or Sanders), at this point in time.

If you want to find comments of mine slamming Obama, Google is your friend.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

It means DO YOUR OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK! We aren't here to do your homework.

Google you? Google is YOUR OWN FUCKING FRIEND. I don't have to do your homework for you on what you remember or don't remember or what you presume or suppose or guess or anything else.

You made the claims, they were called out so back them the fuck up. With, as we used to call in the old days "linky goodness".

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

WRONG.

It is you that is wasting my time. It is you that is giving me homework. So, here you are again, making unsubstantiated claims. Just like I asked you not to. I pointed you to the goddamn moderation rules which clearly say the following:

4. Continue to contaminate the discourse by failing to back up claims with evidence or links -- or refusing to back down on the claim -- after repeated requests.

It is YOU that has to provide the links, not tell me and everybody else to fucking google it.

I don't have a single fuck to give about your perceptions.