Friday, November 20, 2015

Hillary's got war if you want it

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy speech calling for more destruction.  We addressed some sections of the speech in yesterday's snapshot.

Bill Van Auken (WSWS) takes the speech on at length but we'll instead zoom in on his coverage of the questions Clinton was asked following her speech:

In a question and answer period following her speech, Clinton described her policy as “an intensification and acceleration” of the policies currently pursued by the Obama administration.
“We should be sending more special operators, we should be empowering our trainers in Iraq, we should be…leading an air coalition, using both fighter planes and drones” against a “broader target set.”
She added that the 3,500 troops that Obama has deployed to Iraq should be given “greater freedom of movement and flexibility,” i.e., they should be sent into combat with Iraqi government units.
Clinton also advocated stepped-up arming of Sunni and Kurdish forces in Iraq to fight ISIS, with or without the consent of the Shiite-dominated central government, warning, “if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.”
She also proposed a policy to “retool and ramp up our efforts to equip viable Syrian opposition efforts,” while virtually in the same breath declaring, “There is not going to be a successful military effort at this point to overturn Assad,” and that regime change now could only be effected through a “political process.”
In the question and answer period, Clinton said that she disagreed with Obama on Syria, believing that the administration could have done “more earlier to try and identify indigenous Syrian fighters, and adding, “We could have done more to help them in their fight against Assad.”
In reality, Clinton at the time was warning Congress that US arms sent into Syria could end up in the hands of Al Qaeda. Massive amounts of arms were funneled into these forces by Washington’s principal regional allies—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar—under the supervision of the CIA.
In a brief moment of discomfort for the Democratic candidate, she was asked to respond to a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that US regime change operations in Iraq and Libya had only created disasters. Her response: “It’s too soon to tell.”

More than 13 years after then-Senator Hillary Clinton voted for a US war of aggression against Iraq based upon lies about weapons of mass destruction, presidential candidate Clinton insists that the jury is still out on this criminal war, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands and turned millions into refugees.

AP reports an attack in southern Baghdad began with a roadside bombing followed by a suicide bomber resulting in 10 deaths (plus the suicide bomber) and twenty-eight more people being injured.

But the jury's still out, insists Cranky Clinton.

Too soon to tell.

Sounds a lot like Bully Boy Bush, doesn't it?

History will ultimately judge, BBB insisted.


Now, 13 years after her vote for war on Iraq, Cranky insists it's "too soon to tell."

It's interesting how these two are so similar.

It's also interesting that Bully Boy Bush says history will judge -- history and not some god.

Didn't BBB campaign on his Christianity, wasn't that supposed to be at the root of his 'compassionate conservatism'?

Hillary's not above grandstanding on the Bible herself.

But for both, judgment comes years from now.

No doubt, they hope it's long after they've passed away.

Which calls into question their statements about religion but that's a whole other discussion.

Wally and Cedric updated yesterday:

  • The e-mail address for this site is