Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster

It's fairly well known that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War when it counted; but later said it was a mistake.

Her mistake costed an enormous number of lives.

Well informed members of the public could have, and did, recognize the propaganda the media and Bush administration was based on lies without inside information that clearly should have been available to members of Congress.

For some reason she's still considered experienced at foreign policy because of her record as Secretary of State; however what isn't reported as widely by the traditional media is that her experience is one disaster after another, following a pattern of behavior established by many other war mongers including Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney who have both complimented her on her record, which is almost as bad as theirs.

She has supported disastrous policies in Libya, Syria, Haiti, Honduras and many other places.

She has an incredibly long history of making atrocious decisions which the media only reports briefly before forgetting it and reporting positive propaganda about how much experience she has over and over again.

The people that pay the price for it tend to be the poorest people around the world and the veterans who sacrifice their lives or get abandoned once they come home, despite an enormous amount of propaganda glorifying them.

The following New York Times article describes just one of her disastrous decisions about Libya followed by more about Syria, Honduras, Haiti and more:

Hillary Clinton, 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall - The New York Times 02/27/2016
By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE FEB. 27, 2016

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.

By the time Mahmoud Jibril cleared customs at Le Bourget airport and sped into Paris, the American secretary of state had been waiting for hours. But this was not a meeting Hillary Clinton could cancel. Their encounter could decide whether America was again going to war.

In the throes of the Arab Spring, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was facing a furious revolt by Libyans determined to end his quixotic 42-year rule. The dictator’s forces were approaching Benghazi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath. France and Britain were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign to halt Colonel Qaddafi’s troops, and now the Arab League, too, was calling for action.

President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late-night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support. .....

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. ..... Complete article

Just a few years earlier Hillary Clinton met with Qaddafi's son, Mutassim Gaddafi as part of the resumed diplomatic relations from several years earlier; however once they faced opposition it didn't take her long to turn against him and laugh at his death.

There could be a good argument why we have to try to get along with tyrants from time to time but Hillary Clinton was amazingly callous about it treating his death along with his father's as a joke when she said, "We came, we saw, he died," laughing as if foreign policy was a joke. This is especially outrageous when considering that it turned into a terrorist haven that contributed to the deaths of many people including four American's at the embassy, which should be considered a serious problem even if Republican's treat it like a political issue for their own gain. The truth is that both parties have an incredibly long history of fighting one war after another based on lies and selling weapons to many people around the world including an enormous amount that eventually get turned against us maintaining a permanent state of war.

Her record in Syria wasn't any better as indicated in the following article about it demonstrating her hypocrisy taking credit for a ceasefire she opposed before they attempted to implement it; perhaps if she did try to implement it as she claims it might have had a better chance:

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath 02/15/2016

In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

"But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together."

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. Complete article

Her hypocritical attempts to deny blame also became clear in her record in Honduras. According to Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy, 06/08/2015, the State Department was more concerned about maintaining relations with the new government and even seemed to support them preventing the democratic government from being returned to power. According to Democracy Now, Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres, a Honduran environmental activist, Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup. 03/11/2016 she later denied this but a close look at the record raises major doubts about it; unfortunately the traditional media doesn't take this look.

To make this even worse the refugees from the Honduran coup were among those Unaccompanied Minors Hillary Clinton said 'Should Be Sent Back' (06/18/2014). This was hardly reported at all when she was campaigning in Nevada and took a little girl in her lap and told her she would worry about preventing her parents from being sent back to their country.

I have no doubt that well informed immigrants were shocked by this incredibly obvious hypocrisy; however she's clearly relying on complacent people and media propaganda presenting her as the inevitable nominee; and she's still having a lot of trouble locking up what should be an easily rigged nomination.

Haiti was another one of her hypocritical claims for foreign policy success stories but according to the New York Times story, High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti, 03/14/2016, it was actually another one of her disasters. They report, '“You see all these people here?” said one of the Haitian-flag-draped protesters, Jean Renold Cenatus, 32, who said he was unemployed. “It’s because of what Mrs. Clinton did five years ago that we are facing this situation.”'

This was just part of the problems with her claims with Haiti; in addition to this she supported their president who didn't hold election when promised allegedly collected enormous amounts of money for them through their charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation, but most of it didn't get through to the people, leaving them desperate after the media stopped paying attention, and much more.

Why is she getting so much credit for her "experience" with this outrageous record? Presumably because the majority of the public simply doesn't research foreign policy very well and the media only reports the most important details very briefly and repeats positive propaganda over and over again.

An enormous percentage of the public often seems baffled about why so many people around the world "hate us," or at least that is the impression the political establishment often gives us. However the vast majority of the people around the world probably doesn't "hate us" at all, or at least not the majority of us; however they do hate it when our government bombs people all over the world based on lies and uses their clout to support tyrants and corrupt governments around the world that oppress their own people, often for the benefit of multinational corporations that donate to political campaigns and profit off of disastrous foreign policies.

If we were being bombed or treated like them by a foreign government we would hate it too; and when we portrayed ourselves as victims it is routinely used as justification for oppressive actions overseas that they hate.

The amazing double standard would be obvious if more people checked the details.

Amazingly, when it comes to foreign policy both parties are often almost identical, especially the politicians that have the most "experience" and a couple of the most bitter rivals of the democratic party, Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney, have spoken highly of Hillary Clinton's outrageous foreign policy "experience." Hillary Clinton once wrote, "Kissinger is a friend and I relied on his council when I served as Secretary of State;" (Hillary Clinton’s Ties to Henry Kissinger Come Back to Haunt Her 02/12/2016); and Dick Cheney once said, "I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president," (Dick Cheney heaps praise on Hillary Clinton 09/05/2011) These are a couple of the most outrageous war criminals that supported numerous wars and coups based on lies over the decades.

This is the candidate we're supposed to be the more rational compared to Donald Trump who is a "loose Cannon?" It is often hard to tell but "loose cannons" seem to be standard operating procedure for those that control foreign policies; however some do a better job arranging for propaganda to make them appear more rational or "experienced."

Both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are far more rational when it comes to foreign policy; but the entire political and media establishment portrays rogue actions as rational and refuses to give adequate coverage to more rational views and how they could do much more to avoid foreign policy disasters.