02-10-2016, 11:19 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Martin:
From what I have seen of Trump, which is several debates and a couple of speeches, he thought the Bush invasion of Iraq was a mistake since it destabilized the Middle East.
He wants to have better relations with Putin and Russia. Something which worked pretty well with Obama.
Where he goes off the edge is his extension of an anti terrorist campaign inside the USA: the abandonment of civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects, and also stop and frisk.
But if you take a look at what Hillary Clinton's ideas about foreign policy are, and who she consults with, I mean it is very hard not to call her a neo conservative. In fact, Obama made a very bad mistake appointing her as Secretary of State.
What she did in both Libya and Honduras was pretty bad. And what she wanted to do in Syria was, gratefully, reversed by Obama. Her views on the Middle East and Israel are pretty much AIPAC's down the line.
Libya, I think is an object lesson in how short sighted, and shallow and neocon she really is. And Obama was really dumb to go along with it. Gaddafi almost had the rebel opposition defeated. And there was no such thing there as "mass slaughters and atrocities". That was all manufactured to demonize him. Then, the three witches out of MacBeth-- Clinton, Power and Rice-- bamboozled Obama into his NATO intervention. During which Gaddafi called Tony Blair twice and said, this is not what you think it is. These guys are part of Al Qaeda, you will have an extension of that in north Africa if they win.
He was right. And we do. There could have been a settlement there in which Gaddafi stepped down, was offered safe harbor and his son be allowed to take over. But this was turned down, even though guys in the Africa military command were for it. But now, Libya is a disaster, a nightmare state.
Her ideas about Russia and the Ukraine etc. that is all out of the neocon playbook. And BTW, she consults with jerks like Kagan and Kissinger. Who, IMO, JFK would have urinated on.
So although Walinsky has a tendency to overwrite, he was like that with RFK also, generally speaking, I think he is correct here. Although I would not go as far as he does and vote for Trump. If I am in California, I vote for Stein. As a protest vote.
That is all we have left in America, isn't it? Once Bernie Sanders lost the nomination we have nothing but futile protest.
Hi Jim,
My objection to Trump is in no way an unconditional endorsement of Clinton. I don't trust her either. But I do think she is less likely to provoke a full scale war than Trump. Personally, (and this is from far away in the UK where anything outside Republicans and Democrats gets very little coverage) I actually liked Sanders. I still follow him on Twitter. I think the way that the Democratic party selected its candidate makes a mockery of the name of the party. I think Sanders would have made a great President, but it was clear that one way or another, that could not be allowed to happen.
If Sanders is allowed to stand nationally, or any other independent candidates in any other state, all that does is split the vote especially on the left. I really do think it's the worst choice of candidates since before WW2, maybe even ever. I might even have preferred GWB for a third term over either of these two. It's that bad.
In Britain, we can't believe it's even possible that Trump might be President. But then London elected Boris Johnson Mayor more than once, so they can't be too smug. :-)
Martin