I am not writing off Sanders or admitting defeat, but considering all the challenges I have to seriously consider the possibilities. I have concerns about Clinton’s focus in the general election where I am afraid she’ll move to the “right”...which makes me question her “vision” for our country’s future but most importantly her foreign policy positions.
Hillary Clinton is NOT as progressive as I am...but she is immeasurably closer to my position on domestic issues than ANY GOP politician is. The country would make progress on the issues under a Clinton presidency...which will be difficult regardless of which Democratic candidate wins and virtually impossible if a Republican is elected.
I reject the idea of voting to “send a message” which has NEVER worked on any politician ...win or lose...nor has it ever been shown to have ANY significant impact on a political party which is never that introspective…
The truth is that even though I may never vigorously “support” Clinton...and will criticize her as President when she goes against her promises or does something I find wrong if she wins...I will CERTAINLY vote for her.
However I have serious concerns about her approach to foreign policy.
Vote for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq-(not for the reasons you might think!)
There are multiple questions raised about Clinton’s AUMF vote and the reasons she gave only increased those concerns. She expresses an approach that makes sense to neocons who tend to dismiss the “costs of war” but make those of us who are concerned about the consequences of military intervention more than a little queasy…
Clinton said in 2002
My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.www.huffingtonpost.com/…
She has said recently:
As much as I might have wanted to, I could never change my vote on Iraq. But I could try to help us learn the right lessons from that war and apply them to Afghanistan and other challenges where we had fundamental security interests. I was determined to do exactly that when facing future hard choices, with more experience, wisdom, skepticism, and humility.
However...subsequent positions don’t really support the idea that she has actually learned anything from that experience which I will detail later.
At the time of the AUMF debate focused on something that really wasn’t being debated and no amendments supporting her “position” were ever introduced.
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam. “If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”www.slate.com/...
She now says…
President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
This “explanation” has some problems...the least of the problems is the idea that trusting Bush and giving him and his neocon advisors the benefit of the doubt shows good “judgement”… but worse than that she was supporting “leverage” for inspections for WMDs that didn’t exist and she could have known that if she hadn’t failed to read the reports.
• Hillary Clinton, John McCain and most others in Congress didn't read document • Newspaper: Six senators, a few House members logged as reading report
• Most in Congress were briefed several times, read summary of report • Report was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."
For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.
The intelligence report did contain passages that raised questions about the weapons conclusions, said John McLaughlin, then deputy director of the CIA.www.cnn.com/...
All this raises the most important question...can any negotiation based on the threat of force or other “leverage” actually succeed and does Clinton actually conduct her “due diligence” and consider the “costs of war” and the consequences of using that threat?
We threatened to invade unless we could conduct more inspections...the Iraqis refused because there were no WMDs!...we ended up in a costly and pointless war with millions of Iraqi casualties and thousands of US soldiers killed all based on a false accusation. The following history shows to me that Clinton really didn’t learn anything from Iraq!
Libya and Regime Change
Clinton’s excuse that Bush “exceeded” the spirit and intent of the AUMF is particularly hypocritical...that is exactly what she advised Obama to do regarding the humanitarian UN “no-fly” resolution in Libya. That resolution did not authorize bombing of targets in Libya.
The other bill involved that Sanders’ supported was about supporting a peaceful democratic process of ousting Gaddafi was not the military “regime change” implemented by the US and other foreign nations.
Clinton has repeatedly defended the Libyan military intervention as U.S. “smart power at its best.”
But where Clinton sees “smart power,” her attackers see poor judgment and a failure to learn from mistakes made in Iraq — a war that Clinton initially voted for as a senator, then acknowledged was a mistake during her 2008 Democratic primary campaign against Barack Obama.
As in Iraq, Clinton backed a military operation that toppled a dictator yet was marred by poor postwar planning that led to violent chaos and the ultimate rise of new and even greater threats to U.S. interests.www.washingtonpost.com/…
Syria -arming rebels and the “no-fly” Zone approach
Clinton also supported intervention in Syria which in that case was “overruled” by Obama who actually learned from the Libyan debacle.
“Yes, when I was secretary of state, I did urge along with the Department of Defense and the CIA that we seek out, vet and train and arm Syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against Assad,” Clinton responded. “The president said no. Now, that's how it works. People who work for the president make recommendations and then the president makes the decision.”
Read more: www.politico.com/...;
And Clinton has criticized Obama’s approach on Syrian and wants to implement yet another disastrous “no-fly” zone which both Obama and Sanders oppose. www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Iranian Nuclear Accord
Clinton’s “revision” of the Iran negotiation is also revealing. The actual facts refute her “version” and the approach of “leverage” when negotiating . The negotiation only actually succeeded when Clinton’s “hostage” approach was abandoned :
Hillary Clinton has likewise sought to spin the Iranian nuclear deal to her political advantage. According to her account, she initiated the engagement with Iran that, thanks to the pressure exerted by economic sanctions her State Department helped strengthen, drove Iran to the negotiating table, where the United States was able to “put a lid” on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Like most of Hillary Clinton’s re-telling of American diplomatic history during her tenure as Secretary of State, this one, too, is false. While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did in fact support secret back-channel discussions with Iran, via Oman, in an effort to build a framework for a larger nuclear deal. But the American position — that Iran would have to abandon its nuclear enrichment program — fell on deaf ears in Iran.
Ultimately, it was the United States that was compelled to change course and acknowledging not only Iran’s right to enrich, but the fact that this enrichment would be allowed to continue in perpetuity. It wasn’t economic sanctions that drove Iran to the negotiating table, but rather the reality of 20,000 spinning centrifuges inside Iran that drove the United States to the negotiating table. www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Clinton’s Military and Foreign Policy Advisors
This is perhaps the most troubling indication of Clinton’s foreign policy approach.
Hillary is praised for her close relationships with U.S. generals, to include David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal. Indeed, the article highlights the fact that Hillary is sometimes more aggressive in advocating for military force than the generals she confers with.www.huffingtonpost.com/…
The one aspect of Clinton’s emails during her tenure as SOS that isn’t discussed much is who she communicated with for “advice” and discussion. It is worthwhile to research these people...but this diary is already TOO LONG! www.washingtonsblog.com/...
This sums up my concerns…
The American President has significant powers in foreign policy-making. Hillary Clinton’s decision-making is in line with the flawed foreign policy of [ ]: bomb, invade, overthrow - and then think later, if ever.www.huffingtonpost.com/...