Posted by | August 12, 2014 14:54 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories War & Peace

MoveOn.Org is criticizing Hillary Clinton for taking stances much too hawkish on Syria and Iraq.

“Secretary Clinton, and any other person thinking about seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today,” MoveOn’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said in a statement.

Clinton, an expected presidential candidate in 2016, started to draw clear foreign policy differences with President Barack Obama in an interview published over the weekend. Clinton, who once served Obama as secretary of state, said her former boss failed to heed her advice calling for the U.S. to arm moderate Syrian rebels who may have been able to block the expansion of the jihadist military force known as the Islamic State.

But Sheyman argued Clinton should be learning the lesson from her 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama outflanked Clinton to the left on the Iraq War during the Democratic primary.

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

  • edmeyer_able

    So….when will the John McCainiacs and Sarah Paloons endorse her candidacy?

    • tiredoftea

      Not. They’re still be all swoony over Canadian Teddy to stop Rand Paul from stepping up.

  • Suzanne McFly

    This is definitely the biggest problem I have for voting for her.

    • tiredoftea

      That, and her too close ties to the financial industry. And, of course her direct line to the oligarch class through Bubba’s Global Initiative.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    I was for here a couple years ago and thought she might be a good successor in the Whitehouse. Then she stepped down as Secretary of State and opened her bloody mouth.
    She’s still bitter over her failed primary against Obama and looks less appealing to me every day.

    • mea_mark

      She is better than any republican. The problem is her main asset is that she is the front runner. Policy and her stand on issues is seriously lacking and needs to be questioned. Hopefully if she is questioned enough she will adapt a more progressive position. As it stands, I am certainly looking for someone else. Personally I like Sherrod Brown but he seems to be getting little attention and he may not want to run.

      • clo

        I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP with Hillary!

    • tigerrules


  • clo

    As a woman, she needs to show she’s tough.Her timing stinks, she should have kept quiet until things settled down in Iraq. I do think she is more hawkish than Obama, but that’s not saying a lot. She can lure republicans, especially Vs Rand Paul.
    If Hillary doesn’t run, we are up a creek without a paddle…
    Can you think of any other democrat, at this time, that could win?
    Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a chance, and I admire both.

    • pmichael

      just a very fragile opinion …
      – but don’t sell Elizabeth short.
      EW is not the ‘status quo’ – and the public is quite tired of the ‘status quo’.

  • pmichael

    She wanted us to give them *more* weapons –
    – which they would then either drop and abandon or *sell* to the very people they were intended to be used against ??
    And why is all this ‘created by Obama’? Again – seriously?
    Every OUNCE of the problems which now exist in Iraq were created by Dick Cheney, his Halliburton profits, and his lap-puppet, GW. I do not know how the man sleeps at night – knowing he literally traded away or sold American lives – and the promised ‘profit’ (oil) which didn’t even come to pass.
    Right-wingers need to just acknowledge this. We’re all vulnerable to trusting the people we support to tell us the truth. This particular war was and is an absolute monument to those who choose monetary profit over the truth.

  • bobby1122

    Hillary isn’t going to take blame for the worldwide foreign policy mess. Obama isn’t going to take blame, George Bush is out of office 6 years and he had “the surge” – a success- How is Tea Leoni going to play this on the suck CBS show ” Madam Suck”?

    • pignose4.0

      Tell us what Obama could have done that would have changed anything that has happened worldwide. You can’t but you parrot the right-wing talking points like you know what you’re taslking about but you don’t. bush broke it and it will stay broken for the foreseeable future so he will own it until it’s fixed, the surge didn’t fix it as we can see with the events taking place now.

    • CBS’s new drama “Madam Secretary” has yet to air and you have the gall to call it a “suck show” and “Madam Suck?” I suppose I should not be surprised. After all, a lot of Hillary Clinton’s worst right-wing critics are openly accusing CBS of “glorifying” Clinton with this series.

      But, as is the case with all prime-time TV shows, it’s the Nielsen ratings that will have the final word on whether “Madam Secretary” succeeds or not. Stay tuned . . .

      • bobby1122

        CBS and Obama’s White House have a biased connection. The Rhodes brothers. This story about a younger Hillary is for her campaign.

  • NativeSonKY

    For the hard-left crowd, Hillary isn’t an option – I just wouldn’t vote or I’d write in Warren. Same for Alison Lundergran Grimes here in Kentucky – even though he has bowed out of the race, I’m still casting my ballot for Ed Marksberry. He showed how corrupt the Kentucky Democratic Party was this year. Tired of this good-ol’ rich boy and girl network.

    • arc99

      handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.

      • OldLefty

        handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.


        Now, THAT is not an option.

        • NativeSonKY

          Oh well.

        • This only shows that the hard-line Far Left is just as Looney Tunes and out of touch with political reality as the hard-line Far Right is. And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.

          • OldLefty

            And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.


            There ARE facts that weigh in.

            I think that the facts indicate that EVERYONE has moved to the right.

            Obama is to the right of Dwight D Eisenhower, and the Birchers of his day are the Tea People of today.

            The difference is, they were the fringe of the Republican party back then, now they have taken over the party.

            There is no equivalent on the left.

            There is also no equivalent to Joseph Welch in the Republican Party to stand up and say, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” to Cruze, McConnell or Issa.

            • “There is no equivalent on the left.”

              Maybe not today, but have you forgotten about the McGovernites who took over the Democratic Party in 1972? Not only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a 49-state blowout (losing only Massachusetts), but it also froze the Democrats out of the White House for the next 20 years, save for a relatively conservative southern Democrat by the name of Jimmy Carter who won only because of the post-Watergate backlash against Gerald Ford for pardoning “Tricky Dick” Nixon.

              Four years later, Carter got tossed out by Ronald Reagan — and the Democrats lost control of the Senate. Only the gerrymandering of House districts kept the Democrats in control of that chamber (just as it’s keeping the Republicans in control of the House today).

              • OldLefty

                only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a



                I thought it was the
                death of RFK after JBJ announced that he wasn’t running.
                (Then, before Nixon escalated, he said he could win the war)

                Many of the problems we
                see today are a result of Reagan, and Carter was prescient, while Reagan told
                the public they were pretty. (By the way, the GOP now tells Americans that they
                are moochers), and there was talk of TOW missiles to Iran.

                And guess what?

                Pretty much everything
                you say has been true, over the last over the last 20 years just replace (D)
                for (R).

                Every poll shows that the
                American people are with the Democrats, (or liberals at least) on the issues.

                • Nixon won by a squeaker in 1968. Third-party candidate George Wallace nearly cost Nixon the 1968 election by siphoning off a lot of conservative white Southern voters — the very voter base the Nixon campaign was openly going after. Wallace — the arch-segregationist governor of Alabama — carried Arkansas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Georgia and, of course, Alabama, Had Wallace not been in the race, Nixon would have beaten Democrat Hubert Humprhey by a landslide.

  • Elliot J. Stamler would do the Democratic Party an enormous favor and do themselves one too to get the hell out of the Democratic Party and sign up with the Communist Party or the Green Party or the Socialist Party which is where they belong and which reflects their views. They are so toxic to my Democratic Party – they are our version of the Tea Party. Fortunately we can see in the Republicans what happens when out of cowardice or indolence or pusillanimity a political party gives in to the extremists. We Democrats must never permit this bunch of leftists and fellow-travellers to influence us…they will guarantee a President Paul/Cruz/Santorum/Huckabee/Rubio etc. etc. etc. And that will presage the end of democracy in America.