Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 13, 2017

Last fall I winced whenever Hillary Clinton or her surrogates promised regime change in Syria. Don't these people get it? Americans don't want to be waging more wars in the Middle East.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Now an important new study has come out showing that Clinton paid for this arrogance: professors argue that Clinton lost the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in last year's presidential election because they had some of the highest casualty rates during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and voters there saw Clinton as the pro-war candidate.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

i don't believe, as the author suggest, that this has been overlooked by anyone.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-07-13 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She didn't sell regime change in Syria as waging war in the Middle East, and neither did Bill Clinton when he said the same thing.

I'm not trying to defend the policy of regime change, but it's not in and of itself a call to arms.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 01:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

No she lost them because she ignored them. People abhor being ignored.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-13 03:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This and the fact she slobbered all over herself praising henry the butcherer Kissinger and said she took his advice.

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-07-13 03:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wrong, wrong, wrong. She lost because she assumed black people would vote for her, because she's a democrat, as they did Obama. They did not. In fact, most of them didn't even vote in this past election.

#5 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-07-13 08:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 I don't understand why. She carried hot sauce in her purse.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-07-13 08:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

Well, she didn't lose because she was the worse candidate. I think we can safely let go of that one.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-13 08:18 AM | Reply

#7 She cheated to become the nominee, Zed. It was just like Chicago in 1968. And all she would have brought us is more open borders, more globalization, and more more war.

Of course, those where her public policies, not her private ones.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-07-13 08:28 AM | Reply

#8

This is an argument you've lost.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-13 08:31 AM | Reply

Heliumrat, in the future, please be mindful not to use "lust", "Hillary Clinton", and "--------" in the same lede.

Too much lust drives a man insane. Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire.

#10 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-07-13 08:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Hillary didn't promise a ground war in Syria. She explicitly opposed a ground war.

Since a ground war is the only way to change that regime, any desire she expressed to see Assad out of power was no different than what Trump is saying about the far more dangerous Kim Jong-Un.

There is a difference between opposing a leader as a diplomatic position and actively waging war to remove that leader from power.

Calling her opposition to Assad "war lust" is ridiculous.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2017-07-13 08:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Seriously....she lost 4 or so key swing states by a very small margin.

I don't think "war lust" had anything to do with it.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-13 08:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 It changed the mind of a far left friend of mind, who voted for Jill Stein instead. All because he thought Hillary would bring us into head-to-head conflict with the Russians in Syria. And that's pretty hard to do, he's really stubborn. Wanted Bernie.

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-07-13 08:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

i don't believe, as the author suggest, that this has been overlooked by anyone.

Almost. Hillary Clinton still doesn't see it.

The author also has a limited scope: Syrian intervention was just one straw on the camel. The fact is that Hillary has been a war hawk her entire career. She carried that legacy with her into the election and it scared away a lot of anti-war liberal voters.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-07-13 09:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

14

NW

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-13 09:46 AM | Reply

""She lost because of the cheating republicans and Crosscheck!!!!!!!"
-Danni"

If it wasn't a significant factor in the election then why is Trump employing Kobach to do the same thing nationwide? Just for fun? The deniers can't explain any logical explanation for so much time and effort being put forth to deal with a non-existent problem; voter fraud. Because they aren't dealing with voter fraud, they are trying and succeeding at suppressing the votes of likely Democratic voters. That's not an opinion, that's a fact which y'all just can't deal with.
Couple of weeks ago folks like you were calling the Trump/Russia connection a nothingburger. Your credibility on this type of things is non-existent.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Seriously....she lost 4 or so key swing states by a very small margin. "

Your words defy logic when you make fun of the claims made by Greg Palast who can show that 1.1 million voters, mostly Black, Latino or Asian, legally registered were disenfranchised simply because another voter had the same first and last name and it was in those very swing states you mention. Makes the deniers like you look like the one's who can't deal with the truth.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 10:22 AM | Reply

Hillary didn't promise a ground war in Syria. She explicitly opposed a ground war.

#11 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-07-13 08:39 AM | REPLY

She was for a No Fly Zone.

What we learned from Libya is that a No Fly Zone is actually an all-out air offensive, supporting insurgent ground forces and NATO special operation forces.

That's a war, with troops on the ground, no matter which way you try to parse it.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-13 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*What we learned from Libya is that a No Fly Zone is actually an all-out air offensive, supporting insurgent ground forces and NATO special operation forces.*

I see you forgot, or perhaps never learned, about the two No-Fly Zones in Iraq then.

Nah, no way you'd forget about that.

So you're just lying by omission then. Carry on.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't know if her "War Lust" cost her the election. I do know that my perception of HRC as a War Hawk was an important contributing factor in my unwillingness to support her. I also know that many other liberals out there felt the same way. The perception is, if war benefits Wall Street, HRC favored it.

#21 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-07-13 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A crap personality, a lousy campaign, and questionable integrity is the reason for her loss.

#22 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-07-13 01:44 PM | Reply

I see you forgot

#20 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-13 01:18 PM | REPLY

Nope. They are not a relevant comparison. Iraq wasn't in the middle of a nationwide civil war. Russians weren't on the ground providing air defense. Hillary wasn't the Secretary of State.

You know that though, because you're smart.

...

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-13 02:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

We can keep going. Want to compare it to Bonsia? We went tank plinking there too. Well, we tried to. The tanks hid in the forest and waited until we got bored. Wildly different terrain from Syria.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-13 02:45 PM | Reply

Also note, because you brought it up, the Iraq No Fly Zones were the prelude to the US ground invasion. 21,736 sorties under the guide of a NFZ just prior to Iraqi Freedom. We attacked air defense complexes that weren't a threat to our own pilots and had no ability to project power against Iraqi Shia civilians, using the NFZ as justification. We flattened the complex so we can could insert US special operations units through Jordan.

Once "Iraqi Freedom" began, the number of airstrikes actually decreased.

So no, you can't trust the US with a No Fly Zone. It's a prelude to ground war. Maybe waged by our regulars, maybe waged by ethnic militias, always waged by special forces.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-13 02:51 PM | Reply

"Want to compare it to Bonsia? We went tank plinking there too. Well, we tried to. The tanks hid in the forest and waited until we got bored"

Bosnia is fine.

"Iraq No Fly Zones were the prelude to the US ground invasion."

No, all the PNAC signatories winning in 2000 was the prelude to invading Iraq.

Clibtin had no plans yo invade Iraq, neither did Gore.

But Bush sure did.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 05:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So no, you can't trust the US with a No Fly Zone. It's a prelude to ground war.

Actually, a GOP President is a better predictor of the US launching a ground war.

Of course, you knew that too, and decided to ignore the part where the US starts and leads the ground war.

Why did you do that? I guess you don't care much if the US starts wars. You're more concerned that a US No Fly Zone is a prelude to someone else starting a war. Like the next administration that happens to be Republican, for example. LOL!

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 05:38 PM | Reply

The author has some serious correlation is not causation problems.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-13 06:03 PM | Reply

"21,736 sorties under the guide of a NFZ just prior to Iraqi Freedom."

If by "just prior" you mean "starting twelve years before" then sure.

Maybe you should take a moment to reflect on the fact that the No Fly Zones were established by a GOP President after he invaded Iraq. Coincidentally, this President's son, also Republican, also invaded Iraq.

But no, it was the No Fly Zones that caused the invasions. Not a stupid neocon policy that you excoriate Clinton for, even as her body count of dead Americans is what, four, compared to 4000 for W.

You're blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and talk out one side of your mouth. One might say tere is a No Fly Zone over the right side of your head.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 06:23 PM | Reply

"Couple of weeks ago folks like you were calling the Trump/Russia connection a nothingburger. Your credibility on this type of things is non-existent."

screw you. I never said anything of the sort.

I'm just picking on you because you're thin skinned and a frickin nut.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-13 06:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-13 06:23 PM | REPLY

You're defending somebody that signed off on the invasion while sitting on the Armed Forces Committee. Then, as Secretary of State, oversaw a "No Fly Zone" that was actually a Close Air Support air war against a foreign country that was not only zero threat to us, but had already surrendered their WMD programs, causing a mass proliferation of weapons into North Africa, and into Syria where the liberated arsenal of Milan anti-tank missiles greatly lengthened the most violent civil war in decades.

There is nothing that can wash the hawk off of Hillary's image. People have to move on from that and just learn to love it if you vote for her.

#31 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-07-13 06:56 PM | Reply

I'm defending them?

No, I'm saying Clinton and Obama invasions can't hold a candle to Bush and Bush.

Unless you don't count cost, or American casualties, or however you're doing it, which is how, exactly?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 07:01 PM | Reply

"You're defending somebody that signed off on the invasion while sitting on the Armed Forces Committee."

You're equating that person with the Commander in Chief who ordered the invasion, if not placing her above.

You're so desperate for Clinton, not Bush, to be the warmonger.

Why is that, comrade?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 07:15 PM | Reply

"You're defending somebody that signed off on the invasion while sitting on the Armed Forces Committee."

You're equating that person with the Commander in Chief who ordered the invasion, if not placing her above.

You're so desperate for Clinton, not Bush, to be the warmonger.

Why is that, comrade?

Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 07:15 PM | Reply

consortiumnews.com

inthesetimes.com

www.salon.com

#34 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-13 07:35 PM | Reply

Here is why Hillary lost

www.thedailybeast.com

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-13 07:51 PM | Reply

Sigh.

Compare the Bush body count to the Clinton body count.

Compare the Bush war spending to the Clinton war spending.

Or refuse to, that's fine too.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 07:53 PM | Reply

Laura just hates Hillary because she has better cankles.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-13 07:54 PM | Reply

You're so desperate for Clinton, not Bush, to be the warmonger.
Why is that, comrade?
Posted by snoofy

Why can't they both be warmongers?

#38 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-13 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think you can tell who is the bigger warmonger by the size of their wars.

Apparently nobody else in this thread thinks that.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 08:03 PM | Reply

I think you can tell who is the bigger warmonger by the size of their wars.

Apparently nobody else in this thread thinks that.

Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 08:03 PM | Reply

Keep polishing that turd. That's your right to do.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-07-13 08:05 PM | Reply

Being a warmonger is like being pregnant to you, yeah? You either are or you aren't.

You don't do body counts, just like that warmonger Bush. Nor do you count costs.

Being an empiricist, I tend not to discount that information.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-13 08:14 PM | Reply

"I'm just picking on you because you're thin skinned and a frickin nut."

The one thing you can't say about me honestly is that I am thin skinned. Then I present a very good argument which you don't even respond to and call me a "nut." Sorry, you are incapable of accepting the truth, I understand, to do so would exile you to the land of us who realize that American elections are stolen on a regular basis and that would not be something you could do considering your own position in the world. I honestly do suspect (know) that there are many of business people who understand the game, they can't question the election system, the money controlling politics, etc. without jeopardizing their businesses. I know that, I don't hate you for knowing it too and protecting your business. But, IMHO, you ought to develop a different online personality on some sort of platform where no one could know who your are and then be able to admit that, yes, our business world is dominated by demands that we appear to be conservatives or else we will be rejected in the small, local, business world. Need to be able to attend Chamber of Commerce meetings, etc. and be one of the "good old boys" or else your business will not survive. Been there, done that. But not in Kansas. OMG! Florida is bad, but S. Florida isn't Kansas.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-13 10:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The title of the thread is a stupid question.

Everyone knows that the elitist democrats lost because they ignored the cries of 10s of millions of working people who wanted to lose their insurance so Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet could pay less taxes.

#43 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-07-13 11:59 PM | Reply

Hillary Pelosi 2020

#44 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-07-14 08:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort