Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Here's the full transcript, it was an excellent summary.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/07/cnn-exclusive-hillary-clintons-first-national-interview-of-2016-race/
Let's use this as an example:
:
There is so much falsity and evasion in this answer it cannot be reasonably or shortly summarized. I'd say refer to the FTLOGDE Hilary thread for a full rundown.
However, let's stick to the original point. Here's Hillary just moments later:
So she had no obligation, right? Wrong:
Now putting aside all the incredible, layers and piles of bs overlaying and running under this, here is Hillary in the course of this interview saying there was no law, no regulation, and that she had no obligation, and then quite simply stating she was OBLIGATED to turn over documents.
It's actually worse than the abbreviated version. It's nuts and actually a criminal mentality.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't want to belabor the email issue because it's so boring. But she's been very clear all along about what she did and why she did it. You seem determined to believe she's some sort of psychopathic liar. That's fine. To me, the whole issue couldn't be less important.
timschochet
Footballguy
Next week Hillary plans to lay out her economic plan. Hopefully it will be a little less dramatic than that of her main Democratic opponent. It would be nice for once to listen to some ideas that have an actual chance of happening.
The Commish
Footballguy
If what's she saying is true and their are no guidelines about how our high ranking gov't officials communicate or what devices they use to communicate with, I find that incredibly troubling to our national security. To the point that on one hand I find it very hard to believe, but then again, it IS the US gov't so I guess anything's possible.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You haven't understood or explained the most basic issues, like what Blumenthal was doing with an Executive Branch email address or the existence of public records laws. Yeah, saying that there is no law and no regulation and saying there is no obligation to maintain or retain or produce public records and then saying she was obligated to turn over records all in the same short span within an interview is damned near abnormal.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The disconnect is, you want more of the same in Washington. You've made that abundantly clear by your comments. You don't mind being lied to, I do. I'd rather have an honest discussion and disagree with the position than have some blowhard try and make nice with me and convince me of something they don't believe in just to get a job.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK it's false. (I'm not agreeing it is but let's accept your premise.) so she broke the rules because she wanted an extra amount of privacy. And then she explained it falsely on TV either because she didn't understand or because she deliberately wanted to cover up her earlier mistake or falsehood. Even if all this is true, there is still one question that should be asked: Why is any of this important? It's not like her time as Secretary of State was some big secret. We know every action she took, every decision she made. We already have complete records of her stated reasoning for every decision. There's no corruption there. She served completely honorably (and IMO ably.) She has been an excellent public servant, and I don't believe that this minor issue, whatever she did, should touch upon her personal integrity (which I regard as pretty high.)
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
Good Lord you are delusional. We don't know every action she took. We don't know every decision she made and we don't have complete records.
timschochet
Footballguy
I care about honesty as well. But my first goal is a prosperous America with less problems than we have now. Shouldn't that be the priority?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is the same woman who ran on building a fence in 2008, just like Trump today. Now she's not racist, she's evolved like a simian climbing down from the trees. In the same campaign she also supported sanctuary cities.
So she's for deportation. ???
And she said that all the GOP is the same on immigration. Ok she can say that but it's untrue.
Rubio obviously is one who has plainly stated he is for a path to citizenship.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420550/rubio-still-supports-path-to-citizenship
I think Graham and Pataki have as well. Through last year Hillary has held positions on immigration from the right of Trump (yes), the same as Trump (the fence), Bush (technically arguing for 'no path'), to the same as everyone between Bush and Rubio (which is where Hillary was 1-2 years ago), and Rubio himself (see above), and to the left (sanctuary cities).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'll have to look at Hillary's previous comments about illegal immigration, but I don't believe you're correct. I know for a fact that she supported the McCain Kennedy bill back in 2006 and I've heard her support a Path to Citizenship several times in the past.
Rubio supported s very watered down Path to Cotizenship in 2013 but no longer does. Jeb Bush supports amnesty without citizenship. So Hillary is correct in her criticism.
Rubio supported s very watered down Path to Cotizenship in 2013 but no longer does. Jeb Bush supports amnesty without citizenship. So Hillary is correct in her criticism.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That story is from June 30th:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420550/rubio-still-supports-path-to-citizenship
You concede she supported the fence.
I provided a link to her radio interview in 2003 where she said we had to stop employing illegal immigrants. That's her, as she was clearly annoyed to see Hispanics in [gasp] Westchester of all places.
And you mention only Bush, which I mentioned.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There's a thread for this where the facts are laid out, flesh it out there if you must. - Her time as a SOS must be a secret because even though it's her biggest experience in her bio it did not even come up in the interview.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
In any case, a Path to Citizenship is one of the main reasons I am supporting Clinton this time around. I honestly believe that she is the ONLY candidate who can get this accomplished. Bush or Rubio will be hamstrung by a GOP House that believes that their views were vindicated by the election. But if Hillary can capture 70% of the Latino vote or more, the GOP leadership will be so distraught about future elections that they will override the Tea Party base and work with Hillary to get it done.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Bush or Rubio will be hamstrung by a GOP House? But Hillary will be on better terms with them? If on the odd chance Rubio did get in on the strength of say an extra 10% of the Hispanic vote the GOP will be beholden to him.
(And you imply this but Bush btw I think is full of it on the amnesty thing and is really likely to propose a path himself).
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
You and I agree on immigration, so I sympathize with your thought process here. However, I think President Hillary arrives in DC with instant lame-duck status because of her history. If she proposed legislation guaranteeing parking sports for war widows, the Republican congress would vote as a bloc against her out of sheer hatred.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah we disagree there. I say Boehner and McConnell will be relieved by Hillary- they will look at her as one of their own in a way they never did with Obama. They will seek to work with her in an era of bipartisanship as a means to defeat the ideologues on both sides of the aisle...
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I want to point something here about this:
The entirety of Hillary's comment on Trump's comments was that she is very disappointed. Your mother gets disappointed when you take cookies out the jar without permission.
How incredibly under the acceptable bar is her response?
It's crazy, she attacks the GOP for not being strong enough, but her comment is, "very disappointed." Gosh, that is stern, Hillary.
She also completely avoids the point that Trump donated to her. I have a few thoughts on why - 1. she agreed with him on the fence issue in 2008, if the donations were then that might be one reason why. And 2. Access. 3. Access. And 4. Access.
She blows by that and does basically what is an old standby for Hillary, the broad brush attack. Personally I think the criticism of the GOP on the issue is a must, of course, but it's funny how she makes the leap from Trump right to painting the GOP in the same course of completely evading the point of the question, which is Trumps past support for her and the Foundation and her "friendship" with him.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Wow. That is some kind of fever dream. - But I will say that the GOP could use whatever evidence and hearings against her to push her into accepting all kinds of initiatives. Heck, on the corporation front she will probably sign any deregulation they send her, Wall Street and mega corporations have already paid up front.
Whether it's important is subjective. Whether she lied is not. It's 100% clear that she lied about what she did.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
That is hysterical. Nobody knows what Hillary was up to or how much money she made with her secretive communication. You do not delete emails for no reason. Extra emails have already turned up after she stated she turned everything over. The whole one device thing is a lie too, correct? There are so many lies I cannot keep them straight. Eventually, she will not be able to either and things will come crashing down. That will probably be after she is elected which will be very messy.
It is important because she disregarded nation security in her attempt to obscure transparency and accountability. Pretty much the opposite of what an excellent public servant does.
dhockster
Footballguy
How could we possibly know every action she took, every decision she made, and have complete records when nothing she is turning over is complete. New stuff is popping up all the time.
I also like how you even can't say lie in your hypothetical (she explained it falsely, and earlier mistake or falsehood).
And if she were willing to lie about unimportant stuff (according to you) why would you not conclude that she would be willing to lie about important stuff?
The more Hillary talks, Tim, the dumber you come across.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Great book review by Hillary of Kissinger's book "World Order" from last year- it provides some insight into her thinking about future global policy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html
When Americans look around the world today, we see one crisis after another. Russian aggression in Ukraine, extremism and chaos in Iraq and Syria, a deadly epidemic in West Africa, escalating territorial tensions in the East and South China seas, a global economy that still isn’t producing enough growth or shared prosperity — the liberal international order that the United States has worked for generations to build and defend seems to be under pressure from every quarter. It’s no wonder so many Americans express uncertainty and even fear about our role and our future in the world.
In his new book, “World Order,” Henry Kissinger explains the historic scope of this challenge. His analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration’s effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century.
During the Cold War, America’s bipartisan commitment to protecting and expanding a community of nations devoted to freedom, market economies and cooperation eventually proved successful for us and the world. Kissinger’s summary of that vision sounds pertinent today: “an inexorably expanding cooperative order of states observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, and adopting participatory and democratic systems of governance.”
This system, advanced by U.S. military and diplomatic power and our alliances with like-minded nations, helped us defeat fascism and communism and brought enormous benefits to Americans and billions of others. Nonetheless, many people around the world today — especially millions of young people — don’t know these success stories, so it becomes our responsibility to show as well as tell what American leadership looks like.
This is especially important at a time when many are wondering, as Kissinger puts it, “Are we facing a period in which forces beyond the restraints of any order determine the future?”
For me, this is a familiar question. When I walked into the State Department in January 2009, everyone knew that it was a time of dizzying changes, but no one could agree on what they all meant. Would the economic crisis bring new forms of cooperation or a return to protectionism and discord? Would new technologies do more to help citizens hold leaders accountable or to help dictators keep tabs on dissidents? Would rising powers such as China, India and Brazil become global problem-solvers or global spoilers? Would the emerging influence of non-state actors be defined more by the threats from terrorist networks and criminal cartels, or by the contributions of courageous NGOs? Would growing global interdependence bring a new sense of solidarity or new sources of strife?
President Obama explained the overarching challenge we faced in his Nobel lecture in December 2009. After World War II, he said, “America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace. . . . And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.”
I was proud to help the president begin reimagining and reinforcing the global order to meet the demands of an increasingly interdependent age. In the president’s first term, we laid the foundation, from repaired alliances to updated international institutions to decisive action on challenges such as Iran’s nuclear program and the threat from Osama bin Laden.
The crises of the second term underscore that this is a generational project that will demand a commitment from the United States and its partners for years to come. Kissinger writes that foreign policy is not “a story with a beginning and an end,” but “a process of managing and tempering ever-recurring challenges.” This calls to mind John F. Kennedy’s observation that peace and progress are “based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions . . . a process — a way of solving problems.”
America, at its best, is a problem-solving nation. And our continued commitment to renovating and defending the global order will determine whether we build a future of peace, progress and prosperity in which people everywhere have the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential.
Much of “World Order” is devoted to exploring this challenge. It is vintage Kissinger, with his singular combination of breadth and acuity along with his knack for connecting headlines to trend lines — very long trend lines in this case. He ranges from the Peace of Westphalia to the pace of microprocessing, from Sun Tzu to Talleyrand to Twitter. He traces the Indian view of order back to the Hindu epics; the Muslim view to the campaigns of Muhammad; the European view to the carnage of the Thirty Years’ War (which elicits a comparison to the Middle East today); the Russian view to “the hard school of the steppe, where an array of nomadic hordes contended for resources on an open terrain with few fixed borders.” This long view can help us understand issues from Vladimir Putin’s aggression to Iran’s negotiating strategy, even as it raises the difficult question of “how divergent historic experiences and values can be shaped into a common order.”
Given today’s challenges, Kissinger’s analyses of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are particularly valuable.
When it comes to Asia, he notes that all of the region’s rising powers, China included, have their own visions of regional and global order, shaped by their own histories and present situations. How we contend with these divergent visions — building a cooperative relationship with China while preserving our other relationships, interests and values in a stable and prosperous region — will go a long way toward determining whether we can meet the broader global challenge.
In my book “Hard Choices,” I describe the strategy President Obama and I developed for the Asia-Pacific, centered on strengthening our traditional alliances; elevating and harmonizing the alphabet soup of regional organizations, such as ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and APEC (the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization); and engaging China more broadly — both bilaterally, through new venues such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and multilaterally, in settings where regional pressure would encourage more constructive behavior and shared decision-making on matters from freedom of navigation to climate change to trade to human rights. Our “pivot to Asia,” as it came to be known, is all about establishing a rules-based order in the region that can manage the peaceful rise of new powers and promote universal norms and values.
This kind of methodical, multilateral diplomacy is often slow and frustrating, rarely making headlines at home, but it can pay real dividends that affect the lives of millions of people. And without an effective regional order, the challenges multiply. Just look at the Middle East. “Nowhere,” Kissinger observes, “is the challenge of international order more complex — in terms of both organizing regional order and ensuring the compatibility of that order with peace and stability in the rest of the world.”
Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.
There really is no viable alternative. No other nation can bring together the necessary coalitions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today’s complex global threats. But this leadership is not a birthright; it is a responsibility that must be assumed with determination and humility by each generation.
Fortunately, the United States is uniquely positioned to lead in the 21st century. It is not just because of the enduring strength of our military or the resilience of our economy, although both are absolutely essential. It goes deeper than that. The things that make us who we are as a nation — our diverse and open society, our devotion to human rights and democratic values — give us a singular advantage in building a future in which the forces of freedom and cooperation prevail over those of division, dictatorship and destruction.
This isn’t just idealism. For an international order to take hold and last, Kissinger argues, it must relate “power to legitimacy.” To that end, Kissinger, the famous realist, sounds surprisingly idealistic. Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone. If our might helps secure the balance of power that underpins the international order, our values and principles help make it acceptable and attractive to others.
So our levers of leadership are not just about keeping our military strong and our diplomacy agile; they are about standing up for human rights, about advancing the rights and role of women and girls, about creating the space for a flourishing civil society and the conditions for broad-based development.
This strategic rationale guided my emphasis as secretary of state on using all the tools of foreign policy, even those sometimes dismissed as “soft.” I called it “smart power,” and I still believe it offers a blueprint for sustained American leadership in the decades ahead. We have to play to our strengths. And in an age when legitimacy is defined from the bottom up rather than the top down, America is better positioned than our more autocratic competitors.
Kissinger recognizes this as well. He understands how much the world has changed since his time in office, especially the diffusion of power and the growing influence of forces beyond national governments. International problems and solutions are increasingly centered, in ways both good and bad, on nongovernmental organizations, businesses and individual citizens. As a result, foreign policy is now as much about people as it is about states. Kissinger rightly notes that these shifts require a broader and deeper order than sufficed in the past. “Any system of world order, to be sustainable, must be accepted as just — not only by leaders, but also by citizens,” he writes.
That is true abroad, and it is also true at home. Our country is at its best, and our leadership in the world is strongest, when we are united behind a common purpose and shared mission, and advancing shared prosperity and social justice at home. Sustaining America’s leadership in the world depends on renewing the American dream for all our people.
In the past, we’ve flirted with isolationism and retreat, but always heeded the call to leadership when it was needed most. It’s time for another of our great debates about what America means to the world and what the world means to America. We need to have an honest conversation together — all of us — about the costs and imperatives of global leadership, and what it really takes to keep our country safe and strong.
We have a lot to talk about. Sometimes we’ll disagree. But that’s what democracy is all about. A real national dialogue is the only way we’re going to rebuild a political consensus to take on the perils and the promise of the 21st century. Henry Kissinger’s book makes a compelling case for why we have to do it and how we can succeed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html
When Americans look around the world today, we see one crisis after another. Russian aggression in Ukraine, extremism and chaos in Iraq and Syria, a deadly epidemic in West Africa, escalating territorial tensions in the East and South China seas, a global economy that still isn’t producing enough growth or shared prosperity — the liberal international order that the United States has worked for generations to build and defend seems to be under pressure from every quarter. It’s no wonder so many Americans express uncertainty and even fear about our role and our future in the world.
In his new book, “World Order,” Henry Kissinger explains the historic scope of this challenge. His analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration’s effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century.
During the Cold War, America’s bipartisan commitment to protecting and expanding a community of nations devoted to freedom, market economies and cooperation eventually proved successful for us and the world. Kissinger’s summary of that vision sounds pertinent today: “an inexorably expanding cooperative order of states observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, and adopting participatory and democratic systems of governance.”
This system, advanced by U.S. military and diplomatic power and our alliances with like-minded nations, helped us defeat fascism and communism and brought enormous benefits to Americans and billions of others. Nonetheless, many people around the world today — especially millions of young people — don’t know these success stories, so it becomes our responsibility to show as well as tell what American leadership looks like.
This is especially important at a time when many are wondering, as Kissinger puts it, “Are we facing a period in which forces beyond the restraints of any order determine the future?”
For me, this is a familiar question. When I walked into the State Department in January 2009, everyone knew that it was a time of dizzying changes, but no one could agree on what they all meant. Would the economic crisis bring new forms of cooperation or a return to protectionism and discord? Would new technologies do more to help citizens hold leaders accountable or to help dictators keep tabs on dissidents? Would rising powers such as China, India and Brazil become global problem-solvers or global spoilers? Would the emerging influence of non-state actors be defined more by the threats from terrorist networks and criminal cartels, or by the contributions of courageous NGOs? Would growing global interdependence bring a new sense of solidarity or new sources of strife?
President Obama explained the overarching challenge we faced in his Nobel lecture in December 2009. After World War II, he said, “America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace. . . . And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.”
I was proud to help the president begin reimagining and reinforcing the global order to meet the demands of an increasingly interdependent age. In the president’s first term, we laid the foundation, from repaired alliances to updated international institutions to decisive action on challenges such as Iran’s nuclear program and the threat from Osama bin Laden.
The crises of the second term underscore that this is a generational project that will demand a commitment from the United States and its partners for years to come. Kissinger writes that foreign policy is not “a story with a beginning and an end,” but “a process of managing and tempering ever-recurring challenges.” This calls to mind John F. Kennedy’s observation that peace and progress are “based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions . . . a process — a way of solving problems.”
America, at its best, is a problem-solving nation. And our continued commitment to renovating and defending the global order will determine whether we build a future of peace, progress and prosperity in which people everywhere have the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential.
Much of “World Order” is devoted to exploring this challenge. It is vintage Kissinger, with his singular combination of breadth and acuity along with his knack for connecting headlines to trend lines — very long trend lines in this case. He ranges from the Peace of Westphalia to the pace of microprocessing, from Sun Tzu to Talleyrand to Twitter. He traces the Indian view of order back to the Hindu epics; the Muslim view to the campaigns of Muhammad; the European view to the carnage of the Thirty Years’ War (which elicits a comparison to the Middle East today); the Russian view to “the hard school of the steppe, where an array of nomadic hordes contended for resources on an open terrain with few fixed borders.” This long view can help us understand issues from Vladimir Putin’s aggression to Iran’s negotiating strategy, even as it raises the difficult question of “how divergent historic experiences and values can be shaped into a common order.”
Given today’s challenges, Kissinger’s analyses of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are particularly valuable.
When it comes to Asia, he notes that all of the region’s rising powers, China included, have their own visions of regional and global order, shaped by their own histories and present situations. How we contend with these divergent visions — building a cooperative relationship with China while preserving our other relationships, interests and values in a stable and prosperous region — will go a long way toward determining whether we can meet the broader global challenge.
In my book “Hard Choices,” I describe the strategy President Obama and I developed for the Asia-Pacific, centered on strengthening our traditional alliances; elevating and harmonizing the alphabet soup of regional organizations, such as ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and APEC (the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization); and engaging China more broadly — both bilaterally, through new venues such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and multilaterally, in settings where regional pressure would encourage more constructive behavior and shared decision-making on matters from freedom of navigation to climate change to trade to human rights. Our “pivot to Asia,” as it came to be known, is all about establishing a rules-based order in the region that can manage the peaceful rise of new powers and promote universal norms and values.
This kind of methodical, multilateral diplomacy is often slow and frustrating, rarely making headlines at home, but it can pay real dividends that affect the lives of millions of people. And without an effective regional order, the challenges multiply. Just look at the Middle East. “Nowhere,” Kissinger observes, “is the challenge of international order more complex — in terms of both organizing regional order and ensuring the compatibility of that order with peace and stability in the rest of the world.”
Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.
There really is no viable alternative. No other nation can bring together the necessary coalitions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today’s complex global threats. But this leadership is not a birthright; it is a responsibility that must be assumed with determination and humility by each generation.
Fortunately, the United States is uniquely positioned to lead in the 21st century. It is not just because of the enduring strength of our military or the resilience of our economy, although both are absolutely essential. It goes deeper than that. The things that make us who we are as a nation — our diverse and open society, our devotion to human rights and democratic values — give us a singular advantage in building a future in which the forces of freedom and cooperation prevail over those of division, dictatorship and destruction.
This isn’t just idealism. For an international order to take hold and last, Kissinger argues, it must relate “power to legitimacy.” To that end, Kissinger, the famous realist, sounds surprisingly idealistic. Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives, America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone. If our might helps secure the balance of power that underpins the international order, our values and principles help make it acceptable and attractive to others.
So our levers of leadership are not just about keeping our military strong and our diplomacy agile; they are about standing up for human rights, about advancing the rights and role of women and girls, about creating the space for a flourishing civil society and the conditions for broad-based development.
This strategic rationale guided my emphasis as secretary of state on using all the tools of foreign policy, even those sometimes dismissed as “soft.” I called it “smart power,” and I still believe it offers a blueprint for sustained American leadership in the decades ahead. We have to play to our strengths. And in an age when legitimacy is defined from the bottom up rather than the top down, America is better positioned than our more autocratic competitors.
Kissinger recognizes this as well. He understands how much the world has changed since his time in office, especially the diffusion of power and the growing influence of forces beyond national governments. International problems and solutions are increasingly centered, in ways both good and bad, on nongovernmental organizations, businesses and individual citizens. As a result, foreign policy is now as much about people as it is about states. Kissinger rightly notes that these shifts require a broader and deeper order than sufficed in the past. “Any system of world order, to be sustainable, must be accepted as just — not only by leaders, but also by citizens,” he writes.
That is true abroad, and it is also true at home. Our country is at its best, and our leadership in the world is strongest, when we are united behind a common purpose and shared mission, and advancing shared prosperity and social justice at home. Sustaining America’s leadership in the world depends on renewing the American dream for all our people.
In the past, we’ve flirted with isolationism and retreat, but always heeded the call to leadership when it was needed most. It’s time for another of our great debates about what America means to the world and what the world means to America. We need to have an honest conversation together — all of us — about the costs and imperatives of global leadership, and what it really takes to keep our country safe and strong.
We have a lot to talk about. Sometimes we’ll disagree. But that’s what democracy is all about. A real national dialogue is the only way we’re going to rebuild a political consensus to take on the perils and the promise of the 21st century. Henry Kissinger’s book makes a compelling case for why we have to do it and how we can succeed.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And do you think this will excite the Democratic Party? Or repel it?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order
- Daily Kos (edited)
Doubt it.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah well, I don't really care about Mother Jones and Daily Kos. Let them support Sanders if they want.
GOOD GUYS:
Hillary Clinton
Obama
Boehner
McConnell
Jeb Bush
McCain
Romney
New York Times
CNN
Washington Post
BAD GUYS
Tea Party
Daily Kos
Liz Warren
Red State
Free Republic
Rush Limbaugh
Mother Jones
Fox News
Cruz
Trump
Bernie *
* Some of these aren't really bad guys; Bernie seems like a nice guy and I like him, but he's on the wrong side.
GOOD GUYS:
Hillary Clinton
Obama
Boehner
McConnell
Jeb Bush
McCain
Romney
New York Times
CNN
Washington Post
BAD GUYS
Tea Party
Daily Kos
Liz Warren
Red State
Free Republic
Rush Limbaugh
Mother Jones
Fox News
Cruz
Trump
Bernie *
* Some of these aren't really bad guys; Bernie seems like a nice guy and I like him, but he's on the wrong side.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, good guys, and bad guys?
squistion
Footballguy
That was not written by Kos, himself (publisher of Daily Kos) that was a 2014 diary and opinion of just one person on the site responding to Hillary mentioning that Kissinger was a friend and she relied on his counsel as SOS. Sheesh.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Correct, I did not mean to imply that. Their links automatically imbed. If I had meant Markos himself I would have indicated that, I just meant the site.
This is the diarist:
The motto on his site is:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It's probably pretty representative though. I doubt readers of Daily Kos who are old enough to remember Kissinger are going to be very fond of him. And, especially with regard to foreign policy, Hillary, like Kissinger, is a centrist, a realist, a free trader. She does not share the leftist ideology of liberals in this country, with it's growing anti-Israeli sentiment and isolationism, for example.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
If those lists mean you're going to automatically write off opinions and facts presented by folks on the second list because they're on that list then you won't learn much.
squistion
Footballguy
For future reference, if you are referring to the site, it is Daily Kos. On the site itself when anyone refers to Kos, they are talking about Markos (and he is not referred by that as Kos is his nickname from his days serving in the Army).
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
(Gotcha, apologies, I will try to keep that in mind).
timschochet
Footballguy
Ah yes, Kissinger and Nixon with their spectacularly wrong detente and engagement establishment theories about how to deal with the USSR.
Along came Ronald Reagan of the "we win, they lose" theory of the Cold War, One of many reasons why the Reagan presidency was way more effective than the Nixon administration.
Along came Ronald Reagan of the "we win, they lose" theory of the Cold War, One of many reasons why the Reagan presidency was way more effective than the Nixon administration.
timschochet
Footballguy
It wasn't.
Well, I guess if you don't count domestic policy, foreign policy, or ethics you might be able to make that case.
The Commish
Footballguy
What world do you live in Tim?? We only know what they want us to know. But to the question of importance, it's so because actions speak louder than words. Not sure why you're afraid to look beyond the words, but I highly recommend it.
The Commish
Footballguy
I guess that would be the narrative for one who believes in the trickle down approach. Problem is, if you believe that approach works you are having to ignore TONS of evidence to the contrary.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you talking about "trickle down" economics? Or something else? Either way, I'm not sure how it relates to what I wrote.
You place a premium in personal honesty, and that's fine. However, when you state stuff like "we only know what they want us to know" you're already setting yourself up for failure, because there is nobody you can support in such a scenario. Bernie Sanders? Even if he somehow got elected, he'd only be co-opted by the dishonest system that you oppose. (Perhaps he already has been.)
I'm far more naive than you. (At least, that's how you think of me- or deluded, or blind, or whatever.) I truly believe that most leading national politicians (notice I exclude here state officials, Saints!) in this country truly want to make America a better place. Of course there's some corruption, and some lies once in a while, and conspiracies in rare instances, but far less than most people suppose. What there is more of than anything else is laziness, incompetence, and unintended consequences due to things being out of control. These issues worry me much more than deliberate malfeasance. I believe Hillary Clinton should be President because she is the most able.
- Status
Similar threads
