This is an article in the NY Times about how Obama failed to deliver on his promises of less war during his two terms. Please note that Hillary Clinton is considered more of a hawk than Obama and most democrats. And that one major reason that she lost the presidential race to Obama was that he opposed the Iraq war that Hillary had foolishly voted for as a senator. If Obama, a democrat, has failed to end wars and has actually started several new ones we rarely hear about, imagine what Clinton would do if we were so careless to select a nominee more hawkish than the current president who couldn’t make good on his promises to withdraw troops. Just go ahead and give up on peace with Hillary as commander-in-chief. A christian country which has given up on peace is a very confused place, isn’t it?
Why did the candidate Obama promising peace appeal to democrats 7 years ago, and these same democrats–who are allegedly weary of war–now embrace the more war-like candidate Hillary? When there is a perfectly viable candidate like Bernie Sanders who is more concerned domestic policy than new or continued military entanglements? The democratic party has lost it’s soul, with a hawkish frontrunner laden with Wall Street campaign contributions. War and corporate ties use to be more closely associated with that other party.
Also worth noting that the NY Times, along with CNN, apologized to their readers/audiences for not asking harder questions of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. And that this is a paper which endorses Hillary, while admitting Obama’s failure to involve the US in less wars as he’d promised. In fact, as we prepare to salute fallen soldiers on Memorial Day at the end of this month, most of us are forced to admit that we have no clue that we’re even at war with Yemen or Somalia. Support the troops? Most of you can’t even find all them on a map.
This article doesn’t mention it, but Obama has said that his biggest regret was military intervention in Libya, which Hillary urged him to launch as Secretary Of State. Even the Defense Secretary Robert Gates advised against it. But bloodthirsty Hillary pushed forward, and even the NY Times ran a blow-by-blow account which determined that Hillary was not concerned about the outcome of the action in Libya. Well, the outcome was chaos and the formation of ISIS in that chaos. We’ve now sent more troops there to clean up Hillary’s mess.
The Times article also quotes a military historian who claims that “No president wants to be a war president.” Not true. Plenty of presidents actively seek war. Or fail, as Obama has done, to withdraw troops as he promised when campaigning. Some presidents relish war. I believe Hillary Clinton is one of those. Far from learning her mistake of a vote for the Iraq war, in 2011 she said “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.” So she sides with Bush and votes for war, admits her mistake and almost ten years later is thinking more about how to profit from the war than end it? Hillary would love to be known as a war president and is pitching herself as one. She would gladly send US troops to unnecessary deaths to make lucrative deals for her wealthy backers. These aren’t wars which protect the US in any way.
DAILY KOS: When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.
“It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity,” she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation…
I’m not sure what is most disturbing about this quote, the idea that the destruction of an entire country, the continuing death tolls of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s and American troops is a “business opportunity”, just so a few rich corporations could line their pockets, or the realization that this is actually not anything new, but is how our country functions– this is business as usual everyone:
JP Morgan and Exxon calling the shots, calling in their favors at the State department in exchange for some funding to those who allowed them to pray on the innocent. If that’s not an example of the revolving door, I don’t know what is.
I can only shudder when I think of all the other “business opportunities’ those in power have planned for us. This is what the establishment gets you; we have a chance to change this, let’s not let this opportunity go to waste.
NY TIMES: WASHINGTON — President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.
Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate, would have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.
Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action.
“No president wants to be a war president,” said Eliot A. Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University who backed the war in Iraq and whose son served there twice. “Obama thinks of war as an instrument he has to use very reluctantly. But we’re waging these long, rather strange wars. We’re killing lots of people. We’re taking casualties.”