Hlavní strana > Hledání

Vyhledávání slova "Clinton".

RSS Přidej na Seznam.cz Add to Google
Prohledáno za: 0.397sec.

Čtete nejnovější články / Starší napřed / Zobrazit relevantní napřed

Strana: 1/ 16032 Celkem nalezeno 160314 záznamů.

‘Scarily Youthful’: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Glam New Look’ Sparks Meme Fest

Náhled

Appears to be preparing for another presidential run amid favorable polling among Dems. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

‘Scarily Youthful’: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Glam New Look’ Sparks Meme Fest

Náhled

enclosure image A bombshell new poll of registered Democrats recently suggested Hillary Clinton, who is not running, as their top choice for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, amid rumours she may yet jump on the bandwagon. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Hillary Clinton Debuts New Bizarre, Bag-less, Cheeky Look

Náhled

It appears as though she’s had some kind of round of botox injections or plastic surgery, as the 72-year-old appeared wrinkle-free through the cheeks and the bags under her eyes are now gone. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again

Náhled

How Biden Kept Screwing Up Iraq—Over and Over and Over Again In September, former Vice President Joe Biden attempted to portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war he voted for 17 years ago. Sure, as a U.S. senator, he voted to authorize the war, Biden told an NPR interviewer who asked about his foreign policy judgment. But that was only after Biden got a “commitment” from George W. Bush, the war’s architect, that the former president “needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program.” Alas, he continued, “before we know it, we had a shock and awe”—the opening aerial bombardment of the March 2003 invasion—and then “immediately, the moment it started,” Biden opposed the war. His mistake, he said, was trusting Bush. Much like Donald Trump’s own flexible history on Iraq, it was bald revisionism that a wag might call malarkey. Journalists and fact-checkers quickly called attention to the persistence of Biden’s support for the war. But that had the effect of obscuring Biden’s distinct and—now that he’s running for president again—relevant history with Iraq. Reviewing Biden’s record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that arrayed people at the bloody intersection. He was not just another Democratic hawk navigating the trauma of 9/11 in a misguided way. He didn’t merely call his vote for a disastrous war part of “a march to peace and security.” Biden got the Iraq war wrong before and throughout invasion, occupation, and withdrawal. Convenient as it is to blame Bush—who, to be clear, bears primary and eternal responsibility for the disaster—Biden embraced the Iraq war for what he portrayed as the result of his foreign policy principles and persisted, most often in error, for the same reasons. Biden contextualized the war within an assertion that America has the right to enforce its standards of behavior in the name of the international community, even when the international community rejects American intervention. While Biden, as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for most of the war, had unique prominence for his views, they didn’t come out of nowhere. For while Biden bullshitted through his September NPR interview, he also said something true: “I think the vast majority of the foreign policy community thinks [my record has] been very good.” That will be important context should Biden become president. He’s the favorite of many in Democratic foreign policy circles who believe in resetting the American geopolitical position to what it was the day before Trump was elected, rather than considering it critical context for why Trump was elected. * * *Early in 2002, Biden became alarmed that the Bush administration was prematurely losing focus on Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, which Bush’s advisers had decided to invade soon after 9/11. Yet that did not drive Biden into opposition. Instead, by the summer of 2002, with the foreign relations committee gavel in his hand, Biden held a series of hearings to start “a national dialogue” on Iraq. He postured as picking no side at all, to avoid “prejudic[ing] any particular course of action.” Biden’s position meant Bush, at the height of his popularity and without the obstacle of the opposition party’s premier foreign policy voice, could do as he liked. It is important to remember the commanding political position that Bush held for two years after 9/11. By the time of Biden’s hearings, Gallup recorded Bush’s approval rating at 71 percent. By the time of the Iraq vote, it was 67 percent. National Democrats embraced the war on terrorism with enthusiasm and, with few exceptions, were disinclined to challenge Bush on foreign policy even as that foreign policy became more militant and extreme. Biden, one of the leading Democratic voices on foreign affairs, recontextualized this extremism within the patina of traditional Democratic internationalism. Not only could Democrats wage the sort of politically beneficial war Bush had monopolized, they could augment it with international legitimacy, allied contributions, and greater preparation for the difficulties ahead. Rather than questioning the purpose of the proposed Iraq invasion, Biden took it for granted that the world would go along, if only America had the wisdom to ask it. He considered that both a substantive alternative to Bush and the responsible, sober course of American foreign policy. Biden’s hearings highlighted the dangers of occupation, such as the basic uncertain Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Strana: 1/ 16032 Celkem nalezeno 160314 záznamů.

Líbí se Vám tato stránka? Sdílejte ji s ostatními.

Přidat.eu záložku

uživatelské kanályVlastní zdroje: - -

Přidejte svůj vlastní RSS zdroj, který budete vitět pouze Vy na stránkách jednotlivých kategorií. Maximální počet na každé stránce je 8.

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

NWOO.ORG

New World Order Oppositton

Aspenský institut českého Heydricha v sukních!

Stanislav Novotný 14.12.2019, 19:58

„Nezávislá“ státní zástupkyně, ministři, zkorumpovaní novináři, lokajští bankéři, supertuneláři, prodejce informací z archivu předlistopadových bezpečnostních služeb, novodobí cenzoři, zkompromitovaní politici  všeho druhu, pravidelní respondenti České televize, genderové „odbornice a odborníci“… nekonečná řada jmen v seznamu Aspenského institutu. Jmen, která seznam, již svým umístěním, staví na pranýř. Aspenský institut, coby produkt Clintonovské válkychtivosti a úchylnosti, nám vyrostl v Praze
číst...

Že na srazy milionu chvilek chodí jen padlí na hlavu se potvrdilo

Lubomír Man 14.12.2019, 19:47

A legrace je, že to potvrdil internetový portál Seznam.cz, který ovšem jinak dělá milionu chvilek co mu na očích vidí. V přivolávání mas na milionové srazy nemá u nás – kromě jediné ČT – konkurenci, a není mu ani zatěžko označit poslední patnáctitisícový shluk lidí na Václaváku za „plné Václavské náměstí“. Nu a do tohoto
číst...

Přehled zpráv – RusVesna, RusNext 13.12.2019

Božena W. 14.12.2019, 19:42

1; Facka celé ukrajinské společnosti. Podezřelí z Šeremetovy vraždy v posledních letech pohádkově zbohatli. Vyšetřovatelé oznámili vinu celé skupiny lidí, která byla zapletena i do dalších zločinů. 2; Ve Velké Británii skončila slyšení ohledně ukrajinského dluhu Ukrajina odmítá vyplácet vypůjčené peníze a nahromaděné sankční úroky, které mohou dnes dosahovat až 4,5 miliardy dolarů. 3; Zelenskij:
číst...

Unisono – Za všechno může Putin

admin 13.12.2019, 19:40

To byl jeden chlapík, co jmenoval se Donald byl to fešnej blonďák a chtěl bejt jako Ronald prestituti píšou, že před Kremlem si kleknul už to bylo v suchu, Vladimír to hacknul.
číst...

BABIŠ V PLNÉ PALBĚ

Petr Novák 13.12.2019, 19:00

Před 17. listopadem jsem psal, že dle toho, kdy se nejvyšší státní zástupce Pavel Zeman rozhodne zveřejnit svou zprávu o případném pokračování trestního stíhání na Babiše, se prokáže za koho a jak kope. Dle datumu kdy tak učiní, NIKOLIV dle toho JAK rozhodne! O to totiž vůbec nejde. Pokud by tak učinil těsně před 17.
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 12. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 08.12.2016, 12:37

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 11. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 28.11.2016, 15:53

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 10. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 23.11.2016, 01:35

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 9. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 16.11.2016, 13:26

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 8. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 08.11.2016, 11:57

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Tomio Okamura

Tomio Okamura:Nedostatek cenově přístupného bydlení, zrušení daně z nemovitostí/převodu nemovitostí.

Tomio Okamura 11.12.2019, 13:51

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: SPD představilo nový komplexní projekt pro rodinné politiky.

Tomio Okamura 11.12.2019, 09:40

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: Porušil Andrej Babiš český zákon o střetu zájmu?

Tomio Okamura 10.12.2019, 20:14

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: Jak bude v praxi fungovat návrh zákona SPD na zvýšení přímé hmotné odpovědnosti.

Tomio Okamura 10.12.2019, 15:23

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: SPD se daří plnit program v oblasti digitalizaci státní správy.

Tomio Okamura 10.12.2019, 11:06

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Česká televize

Karel Kovy Kovář a Veronika Lišková Waltz

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:31

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12372-karel-kovy-kovar-a-veronika-liskova/
číst...

Karel Kovy Kovář a Veronika Lišková Paso doble

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12372-karel-kovy-kovar-a-veronika-liskova/
číst...

Jakub Vágner a Michaela Nováková Paso doble

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12377-jakub-vagner-a-michaela-novakova/
číst...

Veronika Khek Kubařová a Dominik Vodička Paso doble

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12373-veronika-khek-kubarova-a-dominik-vodicka/
číst...

Matouš Ruml a Natálie Otáhalová Slowfox

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12375-matous-ruml-a-natalie-otahalova/
číst...

Jakub Vágner a Michaela Nováková Slowfox

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12377-jakub-vagner-a-michaela-novakova/
číst...

Veronika Khek Kubařová a Dominik Vodička Valčík

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12373-veronika-khek-kubarova-a-dominik-vodicka/
číst...

Matouš Ruml a Natálie Otáhalová Paso doble

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12375-matous-ruml-a-natalie-otahalova/
číst...

Veronika Khek Kubařová a Dominik Vodička Slowfox

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12373-veronika-khek-kubarova-a-dominik-vodicka/
číst...

Karel Kovy Kovář a Veronika Lišková Slowfox

Česká televize 12.12.2019, 13:30

Celý tanec najdete na: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/12607522764-stardance-x/12372-karel-kovy-kovar-a-veronika-liskova/
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

ParlamentníListy.cz

ParlamentníListy.cz

Česká politická scéna jako na dlani

Sebevražda! Kalousek se pustil do křížku se Zahradilem. Jde o sudetské Němce

14.12.2019, 21:20

Prezident Miloš Zeman navrhl někdejší ministryni spravedlnosti za hnutí ANO Helenu Válkovou na ombudsmanku. Na počátku příštího roku by mohla nahradit končící Annu Šabatovou. Europoslanec Jan Zahradil se nad Zemanovým návrhem zasmál a připomněl slova Válkové z roku 2014. Dostal se kvůli tomu do křížku s Miroslavem Kalouskem (TOP 09). Šlo o druhou světovou válku a sudetské Němce.
číst...

Silou EU si nejsem tak jistý... Profesor Kovář odhaluje, co přijde teď

14.12.2019, 20:44

Český historik Martin Kovář nemá po čtvrtečních volbách o Velkou Británii strach. Musí se prý smát všem, kteří po vítězství Borise Johnsona malují čerta na zeď. Zato silou EU už si tak jistý není.
číst...

Kdo v listopadu 1989 řídil změny? O těchto jménech se mluví. Ale Jakeš byl mimo. Spisovatel Čejka také o Babišovi a dnešní cenzuře mlčením

14.12.2019, 20:00

ROZHOVOR Před listopadem 1989 již panovalo znatelné uvolnění poměrů. „Jinak bych se těžko mohl stát na jaře roku 1989 vedoucím odboru kultury ÚV KSČ. Vždyť pouhý rok předtím zamítl Miloš Jakeš mou kandidaturu na ministra kultury ČR se slovy: ,Soudruh Čejka má někdy podivné názory!‘“ vzpomíná spisovatel Jaroslav Čejka, který byl v roce 1989 krátce vedoucím odboru kultury ÚV KSČ. Sám Jakeš už byl podle Čejky v klíčových okamžicích mimo hru. Zato jiní... v rozhovoru pro ParlamentníListy.cz několik jmen zaznělo. A Jaroslav Čejka také promluvil o tom, zda je dnešní literatura prosta cenzurních zásahů, či nikoli.
číst...

Čte si to Minář? Průšvih na transparentním účtu Milionu chvilek. Petr Žantovský si otevřel výpis a nestačil zírat

14.12.2019, 07:46

TÝDEN V MÉDIÍCH Za významný mediální počin týdne považuje Petr Žantovský analytický článek o Karlu Krylovi, hlasu vzdoru, který byl po revoluci neprávem utišen. Mnoho z Krylových textů z posledních let jeho života se naplnilo, ale po více než čtvrtstoletí říct, že měl pravdu, je spíš žalozpěv než oslava. Naopak nejeden důvod k pousmání vyvolává pohled na některé částky a vzkazy na transparentním účtu Milionu chvilek pro demokracii. Je z nich zřejmé, že akce spolku neprovází celonárodní souhlas. A také je dobré si připomenout, že jeho akce neřídí nějaká naivní banda dobrovolníků, ale velmi dobře placený management.
číst...

Minářova bomba. Živí nás Milion chvilek, školy jsem nechal. A odmítavá slova o revoluci

14.12.2019, 18:22

Předseda spolku Mikuláš Minář v rozhovoru pro deník Právo poodhalil, jak funguje společenství, které řídí. Při pohledu pod pokličku se např. ukázalo, kolik má vlastně spolek zaměstnanců a z čeho je financován. Zdůraznil také, že se nepokouší o žádnou revoluci.
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Zvědavec

Skládáme střípky informací

Trvalý růst v uzavřeném systému není možný

Juan Convidado 13.12.2019, 00:10

Odpověď na článek Zlaté doby pokroku končí. Neustále odvracíme pozornost od dvou neřešitelných problémů, kterými jsou populační exploze a prudce ubývající neobnovitelné zdroje levné energie.
číst...

Dinosaurus NATO se ztěžka vleče

Finian Cunnigham 12.12.2019, 00:10

Roztržky a nevraživost na summitu NATO, který proběhl tento týden, nebylo možné skrýt, dokonce ani pomocí strojených výzev k „jednotě“. Američany vedená vojenská aliance je dinosaurus, který rozhodně překročil dobu svého zániku.
číst...

Americký úřad FDA prohlásil: „Ať jedí bavlník“

William Engdahl 11.12.2019, 00:20

Vládní regulátoři v USA schválili geneticky modifikovanou odrůdu bavlníku jako „potenciální řešení pro hlad lidí“. Radikální řešení spočívá v tom, že konzumace GM semen bavlníku, vyvinutých na Texaské univerzitě A&M, avšak bez nezávislých dlouhodobých testů, bude kromě zvířat povolena i lidem. To vyvolává nové, vážné obavy ohledně bezpečnosti našeho potravinového řetězce. V důsledku toho může být světový potravinový řetězec brzy kontaminován geneticky modifikovanými semeny bavlníku, přičemž úřady jednoduše ignorují veškerá rizika.
číst...

Zlaté doby pokroku končí

Vlastimil Podracký 11.12.2019, 00:10

Když ministr Brabec vypočítává, co musíme udělat, jak musíme přejít na elektřinu, ale zároveň zrušit elektrárny, jak musíme zateplit domy, což znamená už žádný dům nepostavit, co nás tedy čeká?
číst...

Pozdní pláč nad nevratnou katastrofou

Autor neuveden 10.12.2019, 00:20

„Německý režisér a scenárista libanonského původu Imad Karim patří mezi nejostřejší kritiky islámu. Mirka Haasová se pokusila přeložit co nejvěrněji jeho FB příspěvek…
číst...

Požáry v Amazonii způsobují rychlejší tání ledovců v Andách

Matthew Harris 10.12.2019, 00:10

Pokud jste v několika posledních měsících zapnuli televizi nebo si přečetli zprávy, pravděpodobně jste slyšeli o rozsáhlých požárech, které během letošního roku napáchaly velké škody v amazonském pralese. Požáry se v deštném pralese vyskytují každý rok, ale v posledních 11 měsících došlo k nárůstu počtu požárů o více než 70% ve srovnání s rokem 2018, což svědčí o výrazném urychlení odstraňování vegetace ze strany místních těžařských a zemědělských společností.
číst...

Rozborová zpráva k Istanbulské úmluvě

Zdeněk Chytra 09.12.2019, 00:10

Rozborová zpráva Úmluvy Rady Evropy o prevenci a potírání násilí na ženách a domácího násilí (Istanbulská úmluva) její neodlučitelné součásti Důvodové zprávy k Úmluvě Evropy o prevenci a potírání násilí na ženách a domácího násilí
číst...

Chvála české rozvážnosti

David Hilbert 07.12.2019, 00:10

Podle známého kontroverzního výroku Ústavního soudu z dubna tohoto roku je diskriminace (v tomto případě Rusů) v pořádku, pokud ní nevedou hanebné pohnutky. Důvody, které k tomu Ústavní soud vedly jsou ve stručnosti tyto.
číst...

 

+ Přidej RSS kanál | Copyright (c) 2009 Seznam.name. All rights reserved. Created by Kukej | Kontakt | Výměna odkazů

1.05985