MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 4 days ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- PeraclesPlease (58)
- William K. Wolfrum (51)
- artappraiser (49)
- artappraiser (48)
- artappraiser (46)
How a Hillary Clinton Presidency Could Let ISIS Off the Hook
By A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 7:44pm |As political leaders across the world swear to engage in total war against Isis in the wake of the massacre in Nice, not enough notice is being taken of the fact that the long-term prospects of the group will be boosted if Hillary Clinton is elected as the next US President.
URL:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/15/how-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-could-let-isis-off-the-hook/
- Add new comment
- 6126 reads
Comments
I think the conclusions of this article are questionable if not downright bogus. From
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/06/hillary-clintons-likely-defen...
On the other hand, there has been a whole lot of fear-mongering in Cleveland. I'm surprised no one asked this author to speak so they could be even more fearful that HRC will let ISIS run amok.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:12am
Whether this author, the one I linked to, is laying out solid information about Hillary, her history, her advisers, and her appointees, and whether that information is fear-mongering or the basis for belief in what we can expect from her going forward depends on the accuracy of his claims. Same goes for your link to the article by Patrick Tucker. If you think they are merely fear-mongering you might try to show where they have distorted the truth.
Flournoy says she does not recommend boots on the ground and seems to think that makes whatever she does recommend somehow within the pale. I believe that Cockburn shows how idiotic her suggested actions actually are.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 2:50pm
Ultimately the Counterpunch point seems valid. Clinton has been a big supporter of "regime change." 1) She voted to authorize the war against the Iraqi people, 2) pushed Obama hard to topple Gaddafi, and 3) has advocated and apparently still advocates a harder line against Assad. The first two led directly to ISIS's explosive growth. The last if implemented would create more chaos and possibly a power vacuum which ISIS would rush to fill.
by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:40am
This article is based on two premises. That Hillary is going to make Flourney her SoD and that this signals a hawkish shift from Obama's policy.
I've seen no reports that Hillary is planning to make Flournoy her SoD so if it's "rumored" it's certainly not widely rumored. But it was rumored that Obama was going to make Flournoy his SoD after Hagel left until she withdrew herself from consideration for the post. Did that mean Obama was turning hawkish? If Obama was planning to make Flounoy his SoD how could Hillary planning to do the same thing signal a turn from Obama's policy? This article is the worst type of scuttlebutt and conjecture with premises that don't stand up to a first glance of scrutiny. At this point it's just gossip not worth discussing.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:27pm
Well, it is on Counterpunch. Isn't that enough?
by Austin Train on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:20pm
No it isn't. But the past is prologue and the basic assumption of the piece is that a President Hillary Clinton administration would pursue a similar foreign policy to the one she pursued as Secretary of State and for which she voted as Senator. That's persuasive isn't it A.T.?
by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:29pm
I have seen reports that Flournoy is on the short-list for SoD for a while now. If you missed something it probably isn't the first time.
The position papers and statements quoted by Cockburn exist. Flournoy is already a powerfully influential woman so I think her policy positions are worth paying attention to. During that time that Flournoy was not the SoD Hillary was in a position of even more power and influence and continued to give reason why virtually everybody on planet earth who has even a semi-informed opinion has concluded that Hillary is more of a hawk than Obama.
The article gives more reason to believe that under a Hillary administration the tactics used in Syria would change. Flournoy's recommendations seem profoundly stupid to me. What do you think?
I'd say that after the election is when it becomes not worth discussing.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:05pm
Flournoy's quote that I posted states that the fight against ISIS has been underfunded. A quote. So you can jump all over the place about Syria, but the title of this junk piece is that Hillary will let ISIS off the hook.
The article is BullShit.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:22pm
Actually CVille, the title says, "How a Hillary Clinton Presidency Could Let ISIS Off the Hook". Note the word 'Could'. The title is well explained in the text that follows. Calling BullShit on a predictive essay without offering any supportive evidence is ... BullShit.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:19pm
Yes, Flournoy has been on the top of the list for SoD for years. She was on the top of the list when Hegel left. Many expected Obama to select her for that role until she took herself out of consideration. So explain to me exactly how Hillary's rumored selection of the same person Obama was rumored to select proves that Hillary is going to enact a foreign policy your article claims Obama so despises.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:25pm
Well, now ya know. Glad to have brought it to your attention.
Maybe Obama thought Flournoy was a good choice at the time and today might make a different choice. Who knows? The thing is, she didn't become SoD back then but she might now and her own studied words show her to be a bad choice unless doubling down on stupid can be considered smart.
I have not understood or agreed with many of Obama's appointments. Either way, that is not the point. I thought his appointment of Hillary to SoS was bad checkers when at least one dimensional chess was called for. The point is that Flournoy has suggested idiotic policy and there is reason to think that Hillary likes the way Flournoy thinks. That is important because Hillary is about to become CiC.
I have tried to respond honestly to your questions while you have ignored mine but I have a couple more for you even though I doubt you will answer them. [1[ Do you think Flournoy is proposing smart policy in the paper referred to in Cockburn's piece? [2] Do you think Hillary is more hawkish than Obama, less hawkish, or do you maybe think that she is just the same and she and Obama are like in the fairy tale, 'just right'? [3] Do you think that Hillary would have acted the same as Obama did if she had been President for the last two terms and do you think she will act the same as Obama would for the next four or eight years? [4] Do you think anyone has influence on Hillary's foreign policy? Can you name anyone who does and about whom you have evidence to show they are good advisers? Kissinger maybe? Or maybe Flournoy, she has apparently impressed some people. [5] Do you consider Hillary to be a hawk?
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:03pm
Well, now ya know. Glad to have brought it to your attention.
What condescending bull shit. I knew it years ago when "in a letter Tuesday to members of the CNAS board of directors, Flournoy said she would remain in her post at the think tank and asked Obama to take her out of consideration to be the next secretary of defense."
So now you know that Flournoy was not just Obama's main pick to be SoD but I'll also bring to your limited attention that it was Obama that nominated her for Undersecretary of Defense. There is much more reason to believe that Obama likes the way Flournoy thinks than that HIllary does. That kind of contradicts your articles contention that this supposed pick by Hillary indicates she's about to change to a policy Obama "so despises"
We don't even know Flournoy is Hillary's expected pick. Only that Obama did in fact pick her. responding that Flournoy has been on the short list doesn't mean she's Hillary's expected choice. That's your attempt at obfuscation, with a snarky insult included. How about a link that backs up this article's claim that Flournoy is Hillary's expected choice. Or do you just uncritically accept every contention in a bs article you agree with?
I think this article is bullshit. It neglects to give accurate information about Obama's relationship to Flournoy. And it exaggerates Hillary's connection to Flournoy with out evidence to support it. It also fails to include a link to the report so we have to just take on faith the author's brief summary of it. I've said it often, imo Hillary is more hawkish than Obama and a case can be made but this article creates a false narrative. It's garbage but you seem to like garbage information. I read the link and didn't want to weigh in on it at all. I only did because other people seemed to be buying the bullshit.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:29pm
You are concentrating on the wrong point. The reference to a Washington Playbook that Obama despises is from the long piece in The Atlantic Monthly. Whether Obama will despise what Hillary does with the foreign policy is not the main point. The main point is that Hillary can be expected to change the military tactics in Syria and to change them in a way that only an idiot could expect to work for any interest that they are willing to own up to.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:44pm
A guy who thinks Hillary sent $150 million and 'kill lists' to military death squads in Central America might reasonably jump to conclusions about what she would do with Syria.
It is pretty clear Syria is a disaster zone with millions of refugees destabilizing not only the region but Europe. A presidential campaign cannot succeed with the premise the outlook is hopeless and just do more of the same. 'Tough' talk about, and more pressure on getting parties to negotiate does not mean plans for an Operation Syrian Freedom.
by NCD on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 11:18pm