I wrote a related diary Does Hillary's Foreign Policy Experience Translate to Being More Qualified as Commander-in-Chief three months ago and got instantaneously and viciously attacked by Hillary’s supporters and possibly paid staff that has infiltrated DK for all I know. I doubt they even bothered reading the actual fine argument I was making, but instead solely zeroed in on the fact I was quoting H.A.Goodman. They responded within seconds of my publishing so it is impossible they actually took the time to actually read the diary carefully, and careful reading it surely required.
Well, with yesterday’s yuuuuge development in the form of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard quitting her Vice Chairmanship at the DNC so she could endorse Sen. Sanders for POTUS, I feel the need to revisit my diary from three months ago.
Tulsi Gabbard's Reason for Endorsing Sanders for POTUS and Commander-in-Chief
Tulsi Gabbard, Congresswoman from Hawaii, stated that her decision had nothing to do with DNC politics but rather that she was deeply concerned with who the next Commander-in-Chief would be. As a soldier and veteran of the Iraq war, for Tulsi this decision is deeply personal. She believes that Sen. Sanders has the judgment required of a Commander-in-Chief, and that there is a stark contrast between him and Hillary, in that her record shows continuation along the path of irresponsible interventionism, regime change and bleeding both our country and the countries in the Middle East. BAM! Mic drop!
Tulsi’s announcement comes on the heels of several important developments and articles published over the past couple of weeks. One could say that Hillary opened the door for open season upon her alleged foreign policy preeminence by not only mentioning but moreover DEFENDING Henry Kissinger during the 6th Democratic debate. Here’s what Sen. Sanders had to say about it in no uncertain terms, after he passionately listed a litany of global destruction and bloodshed Kissinger left in his wake: I am Proud to Say that Kissinger is No Friend of Mine. Here is also an article by Ben Norton in Salon.com that speaks more to this: Destroying notion that Clinton's better on foreign policy.
After the heated debate, a number of equally heated articles were published highlighting both the destructive nature of Kissinger’s legacy, and Hillary’s warm and cozy personal relationship with the man, as well as taking professional advice on matter of foreign policy from him. Kissinger is regarded as a war criminal in many countries around the world, where he was responsible for millions of deaths. What Kissinger represents it Realpolitik at its worst. Here’s what Greg Grandin from The Nation had to say in Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton's Tutor in War and Peace:
Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level.”“Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level.
This is the kind of guy Hillary takes advice from on matters of foreign policy! Great.
Several days later, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University published a detailed and severely damaging article here in our very own Daily Kos: Clinton is a Danger to World Peace. Sachs particularly focused on Hillary’s statement she made during the debate whereby she claimed the Security Council had finally adopted a peace deal she helped broker in 2012. Sachs dismantled that statement in the most cogent way I have seen in English language print. I highly recommend every voter to read it and share it widely. Meanwhile, another influential person, Lawrence Korb, came to Sen. Sanders’ aid in regards to the alleged lack of his foreign policy “expertise” he is continually accused of by his opponents and detractors. Bernie Sanders is More Serious on Foreign Policy Than You Think.
I have no doubt that Sanders will be willing to challenge the foreign policy establishment, as Obama did on such issues. Does Sanders have the same amount of foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton? Obviously not. But Bill Clinton had far less foreign policy experience than George H.W. Bush, and Obama had less than John McCain—and both presidents had effective foreign policies. If he is elected, I believe Sanders will also be able to attract a competent foreign policy cohort, just as Obama did—including many of the current Clinton team. With the right partners in place—and, above all, the right principals and instincts—a President Sanders could be just the foreign policy president we need.
Secretary Clinton deserves credit for backing away from her Iraq War vote, but she seems to have learned nothing from its disastrous fallout. She supported the intervention in Libya, which took place without congressional authorization and has left anarchy in its wake; she has been a leading voice among those calling for the U.S. to take a more active role in Syria; and she has backed the Obama administration’s expansive drone war, which has served as an effective propaganda tool for terrorist recruiters.
Finally, another Kossack diary appeared today on a related topic What are the odds Hillary Clinton has us neck-deep in another ME quagmire in her first term? Good read. Highly recommend it.
My advice is for everyone who is under some kind of mainstream media induced spell to snap the hell out of it, and to think hard and long about who they are electing for the next Commander-in-Chief. Read the little pearls of wisdom linked in this diary. If you wish, read my old diary from three months ago. Inform yourself. Don’t go in blindly repeating the MSM mantra of first woman president, she has more experience, she sat in the situation room with President Obama....la la la
