[Peace-discuss] Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner

Thu May 1 22:19:02 EDT 2014

 I like Anti-War.com.

   	-------Original Message-------
 From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
 To: ernest terga <ewj at pigsqq.org>
 Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's
Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner
 Sent: May 02 '14 09:22

Wow, [LINK: http://anti-war.com] anti-war.com does not like Hillary - they
always have been a phony site - not quite real journalism in the least -
suggest some of you who love them Google them and their "founders" in depth
- I did years ago and I was not pleased with what I found - it will take
some time to dig up what I found, though, so this is the only comment for
now -

Roger

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM, <[LINK: mailto:ewj at pigsqq.org]
ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:

Hillary Clinton is your most likely next president.

It means that the USA is politically bankrupt,
not just morally, ethically, and fiscally so.

She will promise Wisdom and Health Care reform
and strong capable leadership to rebuild amerika.

Of course, David, you don't like her just because she is female.  :)

   	-------Original Messa ge-------
 From: David Johnson <[LINK: mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net]
davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
 To: sf-core <[LINK: mailto:sf-core at yahoogroups.com]
sf-core at yahoogroups.com>, Peace-discuss <[LINK:
mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>,
[LINK: mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net] occupycu at lists.chambana.net
 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's Pro-War,
Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner
 Sent: Apr 30 '14 11:20

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties
Front-Runner
John Glaser, April 29, 2014
[LINK: https://mbox.station195.com/]
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/04/29/hillary-clinton-the-democratic-partys-pro-war-anti-civil-liberties-front-runner/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s
admired front-runner for the 2016 presidential elections, made headlines
last week when [LINK: https://mbox.station195.com/] she spoke out against
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. At an event at the University of
Connecticut she hit him with the boilerplate accusations of
anti-Americanism, questioning his motives for civil liberties and
transparency by citing his flight to human rights offenders like China and
Russia, and finally accusing him of aiding the terrorists.
 Some saw it as a strange tact for Clinton, who will be trying to lock up
left-of-center voters for her latent presidential campaign. The tide would
seem to be against her, given the fact that [LINK:
https://mbox.station195.com/] every branch of government has acknowledged
the NSA’s overreach and the need for reform, the poll numbers in fa
vor of NSA reform are very high, and Snowden and the journalists he leaked
to keep getting awards and high honors all around the world.
But she seemed unashamed in her condemnation of the whistleblower and in
her bold defense of the Orwellian national security state. To be frank,
Hillary Clinton has always been unashamed of her extremely hawkish and
right-wing positions on national security and foreign policy issues.
 Writing at Reason magazine, Steve Chapman [LINK:
https://mbox.station195.com/] explains how Clinton “is a
long-standing and unblushing advocate of frequent military intervention
abroad.” She voted for the war crime of invading Iraq, urged an even
bigger surge in Afghanistan as secretary of state, and was the leading
advocate within the Obama administration for strong military action in both
Libya and Syria, Chapman reminds us.
 She is even on the hawkish end of the spectrum on Iran: “Going back
to 2007, she has stressed the option of launching airstrikes to keep Tehran
from getting the bomb.”

The Democratic Party, which nominated Obama because he represented a more
prudent approach to foreign policy, apparently is happy to do a 180 with
Clinton. She may relish the chance to distinguish herself from her former
boss, reports The New York Times, by “presenting herself in her book
and in any possible campaign as the toughest voice in the room during the
great debates over war and peace.” Not the wisest; the toughest.

Proving one’s toughness by endorsing war is a habit of American
politicians, particularly Democrats wary of being portrayed, as Obama has,
as naive and vacillating. This option may be even more tempting for someone
who aspires to overcome any suspicion that female politicians are weak.

Is this seriously the Democratic Party’s best choice for president in
2016? At least Obama maintained the pretense of an antiwar,
pro-transparency candidate. How embarrassing the next election will be for
the left!
          --------------------
_______________________________________________
 Peace-discuss mailing list
 [LINK: http://compose.php?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net]
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
 [LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
 Peace-discuss mailing list
 [LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
 [LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140502/68cb62ab/attachment-0001.html>