if they get her on the emails, she should consider it getting off easy. she should really be charged with war crimes for her part in the carpet bombing of libya.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-indictment-1.3515080
Uncommon senses
Bush and Cheney would be a lot higher on war crimes list.
What 'carpet bombing' would you be referring to?
Did she make the decision to attack? No.
jessica murray
hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time. i certainly hope that she made that decision.
i mean, who else would have? the shadow government?
hillary clinton is a neo-con. she is of the same school of foreign policy as bush & cheney. while i'd agree that they should also be prosecuted, i do not believe that she is any less culpable or that a clinton presidency would be any less disastrous.
Uncommon senses
Those decisions never come from the State Department.
Same as Bush and Cheney?
Ridiculous. Do some real research.
jessica murray
she was endorsed by henry kissinger! she gets her policy from the same think tanks and her money from the same donors. the foreign policy that exists was put in place near the end of her husband's presidency, was continued by bush, continued again by obama and will be kept on path by clinton.
of the remaining candidates, she is the most hawkish, the most interventionist and the most likely to get us (as in nato) bogged down in more stupid wars.
you have the choice to remain blind to this. but, this is the reality: she will simply carry on the bush regime. and, she is no less culpable, and no less deserving of imprisonment.
MJM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to declare war or deploy the US Armed Forces. You could probably Google to find out who does.
As for "carpet bombing," you should probably look that one up as well. There's been nothing remotely like it done by the US since Vietnam.
jessica murray
yeah: that's the congress, right? lol. that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
the decision to invade libya happened at the united nations, and was orchestrated almost entirely by her department. the us armed forces did not attack libya. it was a un mission. and, it came out of a misleading and dishonest un resolution designed to create a legal basis for a convenient fiction. really, it was exactly like the lies that led us into iraq - except that it was orchestrated well, so the unilateral declaration wasn't necessary. it was really a lot of jostling with the russians, who got suckered into it (which has led to deep resentment in russia). so, there's your difference: the difference between clinton and bush is that clinton is not nearly as incompetent. is that good or bad?
and, yes, the bombing was indiscriminate and destroyed large swaths of the country.
justaviewer
What carpet Bombing?
Maybe your thinking of the Russian bombing of civilians in Syria?
jessica murray
no, i'm specifically referring to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in libya and the dramatic loss of life and infrastructure that resulted. they were bombed back to the stone age. and, she should be held accountable for that.
J.White
Hillary Clinton can travel just about anywhere without worrying about being charged with war crimes, Henry Kissinger can't. If you want to start charging Americans with war crimes better start with him.
jessica murray
he endorsed her, actually. but, let's not be swayed by comparisons. the crimes of others are not important in determining the criminality of hillary clinton. we need to stop thinking in these relativistic terms and get back to right and wrong.
there are lots of other people that should be in jail next to her. they could appear to themselves on closed circuit tv. to make sure they're still real. sure. but the crimes of bush, cheney, kissinger, genghis khan or henry VIII are not of any relevance in determining the crimes of hillary clinton.
the right wing are FASCISTS
WAR crimes, you mean real war crimes like Bush/Cheney committed, kidnapping, torture, disappearances, fall attacks on a sovereign country that has killed over one million civilians.
jessica murray
all of that stuff happened in libya under her authority as well, but with less total civilian casualties (although this measurement is complex to place in an apples-to-apples comparison).
WaterGuy303
I guess you feel Putin should be charged for his carpet bombing of Syria. Either that or you're a hypocrite.
jessica murray
frankly, i'm not aware of the accusations or their accuracy. this is the first i've heard of it. but, i tend to be highly skeptical of western accusations against russia. i would need for the accusations to be verified by an independent source that i trust. my initial reaction would be that that would not make strategic sense or be in the russian self-interest. i need more evidence before i can make a decision, but i highly doubt the accusations are accurate.
JPalmer
It was Canadian jets that bore the brunt of the bombing missions in Libya, far more than any other nation. Six jets flew over 600 official bombing runs, and there were many more unofficial.
jessica murray
yes, our participation in this debacle is shameful. and, stephen harper should have his day in court, as well.
Cloakuncloak
except for obama is still the commander in chief and it was totally up to him to give said orders
jessica murray
it's like blaming the prorogation of parliament on the governor-general.
it is widely, and in fact universally, acknowledged that clinton was responsible for the invasion in libya. it is something that is not disputed in the literature. and, in fact, she has broadly gone out of her way to take credit for it, too. i'm not presenting an obscure perspective, here - or even something the candidate would dispute.
hillary clinton is not a peace candidate. she will never present herself in those terms. rather, she's a very open and very hard-nosed imperialist. the projection she desires in regards to libya is that she made a hard choice that proves she is a strong leader. she wants credit for the removal of a dictator and the addition of a new province to the empire. she believes in a strongly hegemonic empire that is deeply involved in global conflicts. she actively promotes the idea of america as the policeman of the world and attacks people that would suggest otherwise as being isolationist. and, worse, she subscribes to the whole neo-hobbesian narrative of society requiring an enmy to unite behind.
so, when i claim that hillary clinton is a war criminal for her involvement in libya, realize that she would not dispute the facts on the ground. rather, she would argue that her response was justified - and that it proves she's a strong-willed, decisive leader.
and, as critical as i am, i will concede. hillary clinton *will* make the trains run on time.
--
D @ CFB Ontario
Sanders and Warren would make the Democrats unbeatable. And restore much credibility to American political leadership.
Uncommon senses
Do you think that Congress would act to help implement Sanders' agenda or just block everything?
jessica murray
see, this is such a terrible argument. the best thing you can do is convince somebody not to vote. because, you're basically giving up before you start. if you can't win, don't try?
sanders is going to have a hard time getting good legislation through. clinton will have an easier time getting bad legislation through. if i was an american, i'd rather hold out on the fight and keep pushing for good legislation than just give up. i mean, why run at all? why not just let the republicans win and go home and watch tv?
that said. bernie has been clear that he's going to need to flip the congress. so, yes: bernie will have difficulty with the existing congress. and the solution is to fire everybody in congress. which is necessary if you want anything done, anyways.
approval ratings for congress rarely exceed 20%, fwiw. and turnout is consistently atrocious. it really shouldn't be all that hard. you just need to get people to vote. and, hillary's not your ticket if you want enthusiasm.
--
starship3
I'm wondering how Bill's comments about Obama's 'awful legacy' can help Hilary. Is this all an indication the Clinton camp is beginning to implode?
jessica murray
clinton stumbled over his tongue. he got lost in a time warp and thought it was 2008. he was referring to the bush presidency.
the problem in 2008 was the media. the reality is that obama was running as a conservative democrat from the start. he came out against single payer healthcare during the primaries. he was throwing around all kinds of imperialist rhetoric. he was insisting on "fiscal responsibility". he sounded like stephen harper's conscience - that part of himself that nobody's allowed to see. and, he won by beating her on the right, too.
but, the media built him up as some kind of liberal. and, it only worked because he was a blank slate.
they're doing the same thing this year to trump. the reality is that trump is a moderate democrat. i mean, he's spent most of his life as a moderate democrat. he's well to the left of hillary on almost every issue. but, the media is working him up as a right-winger, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if trump somehow manages to win, and then governs as a moderate, there's going to be this mass of disappointed conservatives. but, they didn't do their research. they just relied on media to tell them a lie - and then they believed it.
justaviewer
Your correct in that Obama was a media darling - the toughest question he got was to rank college basketball teams. But he did try to fundamentally change America - just not in a positive direction. Obamacare is a disaster - who can afford a deductible in the thousands? More people lost their healthcare than gained it. In the end the only winners were the ones who donated money to his campaign they got paid back 10 fold.
jessica murray
i agree that obamacare is a disaster. but, we have easily forgotten that it is virtually identical to romneycare, which was modeled on gingrichcare. it was developed by the heritage institute. it's designed to increase profits for the insurance industry, and prevent the country from moving towards a socialized health care system. remember: hillary, at the time, was proposing a canadian-style, single-payer system. so, the entire narrative - from the primary debates through to the present - is consistent with obama running to hillary's right.
today, we're in the absurd position of people voting for hillary to "save obamacare from the republicans" - when, in fact, obamacare was written by the republicans to prevent the democrats from bringing in single-payer. it's surreal. but, it demonstrates just how powerful the media is in framing things for people that have a weak understanding of the issues.