Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Wells]

I suspect the general left is scared of Trump not for his foreign policy, but his domestic policy. Naturally, this ignores that the Presidency is designed to be weak at home and powerful abroad.

No, pretty scared of a guy who's openly advocated for war crimes being elected on that basis too.

[Deleted]

I find it cute that some people still label Hillary as "left".

She is the Republican candidate the GOP wouldve wanted.

[Wells]

I find it cute that some people still label Hillary as "left".

She is the Republican candidate the GOP wouldve wanted.

Last time she was in elected office she was one of the most liberal democrats.

[Orbitus]

No, pretty scared of a guy who's openly advocated for war crimes being elected on that basis too.

And that he is asking why we can't use nukes. It is because he has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE why we can't. If we do, then everyone else does.

[Merkava]

And that he is asking why we can't use nukes. It is because he has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE why we can't. If we do, then everyone else does.

He's said a couple of things about nukes. Which one are you referring to?

[Orbitus]

He's said a couple of things about nukes. Which one are you referring to?

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/joe...ant-use-nukes/
While I know it is a snopes article and an MSNBC video, there is no public record of it because it was supposed to be a briefing for Trump. Trump asked a "foreign policy expert" why we can't use nukes 3 times to the guy. It wasn't a government one it was a guy that was a private foreign policy expert. Sorry, but if that isn't unsettling, nothing is to the average Trump supporter. That also includes the torture (waterboarding), violations of the Geneva Convention (killing civilians and targeting families of terrorists), and they call Hillary the warmonger? Yeah no thanks.

[Merkava]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/joe...ant-use-nukes/
While I know it is a snopes article and an MSNBC video, there is no public record of it because it was supposed to be a briefing for Trump. Trump asked a "foreign policy expert" why we can't use nukes 3 times to the guy. It wasn't a government one it was a guy that was a private foreign policy expert. Sorry, but if that isn't unsettling, nothing is to the average Trump supporter. That also includes the torture (waterboarding), violations of the Geneva Convention (killing civilians and targeting families of terrorists), and they call Hillary the warmonger? Yeah no thanks.

First off, I'm not a Trump Supporter.

That's curious. Why would you pick that one? Trump has said a lot of goofy things about nukes. Why would you pick something that Trump has denied, that's totally unprovable, that Snopes says

The claim was certainly vague, citing unnamed sources and offering little context as to what had purportedly led Trump to "ask three times" why the United States "couldn't use" nuclear weapons during a briefing that took place "several months" earlier

Here's what else your source says...

That article's secondary headline stated: "If this is true, it’s truly shocking." But while the claim certainly turned heads, it's worth noting that Scarborough was not a party to the conversation. An MSNBC executive said that Scarborough heard the tale "days" before repeating it, but the source and provenance of the anecdote were unclear.

Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski were targeted by former Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a controversial e-mail she sent to Chuck Todd (host of MSNBC's "Meet the Press Daily") attempting to influence their programming, released as part of Wikileaks' DNCLeaks.

In that e-mail, the former DNC chair pressured Todd to "stop" Morning Joe hosts from covering the Democratic primary in a manner which she did not approve of. The leak contained other indications the DNC had coordinated with MSNBC on messaging.

[Orbitus]

First off, I'm not a Trump Supporter.

That's curious. Why would you pick that one? Trump has said a lot of goofy things about nukes. Why would you pick something that Trump has denied, that's totally unprovable, that Snopes says

Here's what else your source says...

I never said you were a Trump supporter, I said the average Trump supporter.

I picked that because he has the attitude that he would actually say it. But if you want, allowing more nations to have nukes is just as unsettling. I would rather have no nations have nukes, than more nations have nukes.

[zenkai]

I find it cute that some people still label Hillary as "left".

She is the Republican candidate the GOP wouldve wanted.

Pretty much, if she knew how to email or wasn't so damn dishonest she would have been a shoe in with republicans.

[Daerio]

First off, I'm not a Trump Supporter.

That's curious. Why would you pick that one? Trump has said a lot of goofy things about nukes. Why would you pick something that Trump has denied, that's totally unprovable, that Snopes says

Here's what else your source says...

Evidence isn't required to make a claim against Trump, but evidence is required to dispute any illegitimate allegations made, if you're to believe the Clintonbots.

And snopes again, lol.

[Nadiru]

I never said you were a Trump supporter, I said the average Trump supporter.

I picked that because he has the attitude that he would actually say it. But if you want, allowing more nations to have nukes is just as unsettling. I would rather have no nations have nukes, than more nations have nukes.

Nukes get a bad rap. They provide a useful service.

[Merkava]

I never said you were a Trump supporter, I said the average Trump supporter.

I picked that because he has the attitude that he would actually say it. But if you want, allowing more nations to have nukes is just as unsettling. I would rather have no nations have nukes, than more nations have nukes.

I find it strange that you picked the one example that has the least evidence available for him actually saying it. I mean it's Joe Scarborough saying some unnamed source told him something months ago. Something that Scarborough does a lot. Usually about Clinton.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I find it strange that you picked the one example that has the least evidence available for him actually saying it. I mean it's Joe Scarborough saying some unnamed source told him something months ago. Something that Scarborough does a lot. Usually about Clinton.

I would actually agree with this. A better choice would be to note that Trump apparently has no problem with wanting more nukes around the place, as when he suggested (at least twice, backing off when people told him how stupid it was) that Japan could possibly arm themselves against a North Korean threat.

[Nadiru]

I would actually agree with this. A better choice would be to note that Trump apparently has no problem with wanting more nukes around the place, as when he suggested (at least twice, backing off when people told him how stupid it was) that Japan could possibly arm themselves against a North Korean threat.

Japan can arm themselves against a North Korean threat. The insistence on nuclear power plants of the specific design that exist in Japan are precisely to facilitate "nuclear breakout" capacity. Regardless of whatever dumbassed thing Trump said, Japan is perfectly capable of becoming a nuclear power in a matter of months, maybe even weeks.

[Breccia]

Regardless of whatever dumbassed thing Trump said, Japan is perfectly capable of becoming a nuclear power in a matter of months, maybe even weeks.

Didn't Japan ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Not debating they have the tech, but I'm not sure they really want nukes.

[Nadiru]

Didn't Japan ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Not debating they have the tech, but I'm not sure they really want nukes.

Japan's status as being pro-status quo when it comes to nuclear weapons has always been somewhat questionable given their actions; Japan pushed nuclear electric generation very hard from the 60s to the 80s, and again, the specific type of reactor used is well within Japanese capability to modify into production facilities for nuclear weapons. Also, the circumstances under which Japan ratified the NPT (in exchange for territory) forces me to scrutinize Japanese actions with regards to nuclear weapons.

[Breccia]

Japan's status as being pro-status quo when it comes to nuclear weapons has always been somewhat questionable given their actions; Japan pushed nuclear electric generation very hard from the 60s to the 80s, and again, the specific type of reactor used is well within Japanese capability to modify into production facilities for nuclear weapons. Also, the circumstances under which Japan ratified the NPT (in exchange for territory) forces me to scrutinize Japanese actions with regards to nuclear weapons.

Huh...interesting. But I agree they could be ready in a hurry if they wanted to, and in the case of an actual attack, that'd matter.

[Theodarzna]

Clinton Keeps Saying Trump Would Start A War, But She Actually Started One In Libya

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton warned that her opponent Republican nominee Donald Trump’s foreign policy would start a war, but it is Clinton who is largely responsible for starting a war in Libya.

Clinton claimed that Trump’s willingness to fire upon Iran’s navy for its multiple provocations against U.S. warships would irresponsibly start a war. That said, it is Clinton who is widely held responsible for being the persuasive voice in the White House that helped push President Barack Obama into supporting the ouster of Libyan Dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Gaddafi was a well-known international villain who supported terrorism and horrendous violations against his own people, but before he was violently dethroned and killed in the streets of Libya, he had reached a detente with the West. When the Arab Spring caught fire in 2011, several dictators were toppled across the Middle East, Gaddafi was one of them.

Before the U.S. got involved in the Libyan uprising, it was the United Kingdom and France who first got involved. Several junior aides in the Obama administration pushed for the president to be “on the right side of history,” but Obama remained hesitant.

Seeing an easy opportunity to secure her foreign policy legacy, Clinton tipped the scales of a divided Obama administration in favor of air strikes in support of the rebels. She argued that the U.S. “will be left behind” if it does not get involved. By March 2011, the U.S. and NATO initiated Operation Odyssey Dawn, a massive air strike campaign which crippled Gaddafi’s regime.

U.S. and NATO replaced Gaddafi’s iron fist with the National Transitional Council (NTC), a Libyan resistance group that failed to ultimately gain control of the entirety of Libya. The tumultuous security environment opened up an opportunity for terrorist groups like Ansar al-Sharia to gain a foothold in the country. Militants from Ansar al-Sharia would later be responsible for the infamous attacks on the U.S consulate and CIA annex on September 11, 2012 which took the lives Ambassador Chris Stephens, Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Militants belonging to the Islamic State would later seize upon the chaos and establish a chapter in the coastal city of Sirte, where they still operate today. The United Nations-backed Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) has made significant progress in pushing back the terrorist group, but only after years of instability and several lives.

(source)

[Endus]

Clinton Keeps Saying Trump Would Start A War, But She Actually Started One In Libya

(source)

I like how your own source acknowledges that it was "started" by the UK and France. Clinton merely pushed for the USA to assist their allies. Takes a special kind of journalist to make the headline something that they explicitly contradict in the actual story.

[Breccia]

Rebuttal. My source, a former State Department official, is at least as good as yours, a reporter for the conservative blog Dailycaller, which was intentionally created to be as far right as the Huffington Post is left. So, if you're going to call my source biased, you'll have to defend yours somehow.

To the Editor:

Your two-part series on United States military intervention in Libya, “The Libya Gamble,” twisted beyond all recognition the relative roles and responsibilities of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall,” front page, Feb. 28, and “After Revolt, a New Libya ‘With Very Little Time Left,’ ” front page, Feb. 29).

That the articles would help Republicans attack Mrs. Clinton is to be expected, but supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders, like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, now say the articles’ revelations show that Mrs. Clinton is “the lead agent of every war that we’re in and the kind of wars that have created more and more chaos” (Mr. Sachs on “Morning Joe,” March 31). By contrast, your articles depict Mr. Obama as “wary” of the use of force. This is nonsense, closer to fiction than fact.

First, the “lead agent” on Libya was President Obama, the commander in chief. Yes, at a climactic moment, Mrs. Clinton laid out the diplomatic landscape for the president, explaining that Britain and France were determined to act to prevent a slaughter of Libyan civilians and that the Arab League was even urging NATO bombing. Those were precise and professional judgments.

Regarding the wisdom of airstrikes, compared with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., both of whom were strongly opposed, Mrs. Clinton was surely more supportive. But according to eyewitness accounts, her support was careful, measured and directly linked to the diplomatic need to support close allies who were fighting side by side with American troops in Afghanistan at the time.

After all, President Obama is no pushover. In 2013, he decided not to implement his “red line” threat to use force if Syria used chemical weapons again, overruling his secretaries of state and defense. On an earlier occasion, he overruled his entire national security team’s proposal to arm and train the Syrian opposition. For better or worse, American intervention in Libya was Mr. Obama’s decision, not Mrs. Clinton’s. It is called the Obama administration for a reason.

Second, as to why Libya deteriorated so dramatically after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s fall, Mrs. Clinton worked as hard as anyone to stabilize the country. But in doing so, she was operating pursuant to restrictions imposed by the president, who established strict limits on the United States’ military role. The president has come to regret limiting the American contribution to certain air assets and other unique capabilities needed at the outset of the air campaign. In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, he said the lesson he learned in Libya is “the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this”and that “there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies.”

Third, the report’s biggest flaw is the scant attention given to the consequences of inaction back in 2011 and the plausible policy alternatives at the time. Knowing Colonel Qaddafi’s track record as a sponsor of terrorism and a brutal dictator (psychopath?), Western leaders had good reason to believe the regime’s threats of mass murder.

Five years later, in Syria we also have the clearest possible evidence of what happens when a brutal Arab dictator is left unchecked during a democratic uprising. The consequences of inaction there have been immense, with hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children killed and refugees overwhelming the region and destabilizing Europe.

The truth is there were not a lot of options back in 2011. Once the Libyan uprising led to the Qaddafi crackdown, civil war became inevitable. The West did prevent that war from becoming a mass slaughter, which should be a source of satisfaction. The Libyan people certainly don’t blame America for the chaos they are living through. So why are the administration’s critics doing so?

Political transformations of this magnitude take time. Indeed, this week saw indications that Libya’s struggle for power may be easing. If true, then it is possible to imagine in the not-too-distant future the emergence in North Africa of a relatively tolerant representative government with substantial oil resources and a population that will never forget America’s help in a time of peril.

JAMES P. RUBIN

London

The writer, assistant secretary and chief spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton, is co-chairman of a study group at the Center for a New American Security in Washington on “Expanding American Power.”

(soiurce)

I'd also like you to describe the situation in which you title an article "Clinton Starts a War" while citing a source that said the UK, France, and the Arab League (oh wait, it doesn't mention the Arab League, my source mentions the Arab League, and I have confirmation) who "first got involved". How did she start a war if we weren't there first?

I'd further like you to describe how you cited an article about the Libyan invasion, that makes no mention at all of the UN. Specifically, Security Council Resolutions 1970 (15-0 and historical vote on this very topic) and 1973 seem relevant. They both make it abundantly clear that the US was not the only one that wanted to stop the brutal murder of civilians.

I'd further like you to describe how the person who started the war was anyone other than Gaddafi who bombed protesting civilians. Hence, the UK, France, Arab League and UN involvement. I mean, it seems pretty clear he shot first.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how your own source acknowledges that it was "started" by the UK and France.

GOD DAMMIT that's two Endus ninjas in one day

- - - Updated - - -

Within 24 hours of the debate, a third newspaper joins the ranks of the Cincinatti Enquirer (Clinton) and the New Hampshire Union Leader (Johnson) as endorsing a non-Republican for the first time in over a century. Each. (Sorry Dallas Morning News, it was only 75 years)

CNN reports the Arizona Republic as endorsing Clinton, and including the line "The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified."

The paper, in the past, asked its readers if they wanted The Stupid Fucking Wall, and if "all" illegal immigrants should be deported. The results were as decisive, if not more so, against both as the results of every honest poll about the debate itself.

At this time, I can find no evidence of any major US newspaper that has formally endorsed Donald Trump. To be fair, a few newspapers are sitting this one out completely.