Madeline Albright slams Bernie Sanders for lack of knowledge on foreign policy-

[leto1776]

Bern's too busy worried about how he's gonna afford to give away all kinds of "free" stuff to worry about anything else.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Albright didn't actually say anything if you read her quotes. Baseless assertion. Much better for Clinton supporters to compare experience, not aptitude.

Dude you serious? Go back and read what she said. I never made the claim she provided tons of examples to base his 'lack of knowledge' character on.

Actually he's correct. She gave no specifics; unless you have an additional source where she makes specific criticism about specific things he said to explicate why they are such crude, "simple" answers. So, unless she does that, I'm going to assume she's supporting Hillary because Bill Clinton vaulted her to power two decades ago. Perhaps that's a more reasonable explanation for her position in the absence of any substantial commentary or criticism.

Utterly toothless.

She said he has a lack of knowledge.

I never cared or said that she gave many examples. I didn't give many specifics the guy above is acting like she never said anything negative about Sanders. He was acting like she never said he lacked knowledge. I never made the claim that Albright gave examples or evidence. The name of my thread title for crying out loud is that she "slammed him for lack of knowledge". She did however, give one example in the video with the example of North Korea. Sanders saying "One or handful".

Watch the video she says he gave "simple answers and that most people know how many dictators North Korea has".

Then look at the comments with "quotations"

Here I will post them

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright slammed Bernie Sanders on Saturday, expressing concerns over the Democratic presidential contender's "lack of knowledge" about foreign policy.

"We have to have a president that is ready on Day 1 to deal with problems," Albright told NBC News in an exclusive interview. "I have never seen such a complicated international situation, and we can't afford learning on the job."

Albright, who has been stumping for fellow former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire this weekend, added that Sanders' responses to foreign policy questions at the last presidential debate "surprised" her.

"I've been very concerned about his lack of knowledge," she said, citing his answer to a question about which country poses the biggest threat to the U.S. right now.

"I think that he gave very kind of simple answers," she said. "In contrast to Secretary Clinton, who not only talked about what was going on in each of those countries, but also [spoke about] the other concerns about it, and the relationship to each other, and what the United States had to look out for."

 

[Fawlty]

I'm unconvinced that Albright has a relevant point here. And I wonder if you are even familiar with Sanders' answer on the "threat" question. He worries about an isolated country lashing out (N Korea). He points out that China is in the world, and that Russia is in the world. His implication is that they can be dealt with diplomatically, while a nuclear nation like North Korea, who cannot be dealt with diplomatically, is in his mind a greater threat. I won't even discuss Iran as a threat, because that's simply preposterous. Any answer he comes up with is largely irrelevant. Although Clinton managed to step on her own dick a little, trying to disclaim her own role in normalizing relations with Iran through the nuclear deal. She goes back to the old Hezbollah pinata and takes a whack. Sanders is at least being honest that we should pursue more deals with Iran (particularly because we are in need of them as a regional ally against ISIS).

I personally disagree with him and I feel Russia is a bigger threat than he thinks, because getting tangled up with them in the middle east while they are being aggressive in Ukraine are a couple of key ingredients in a shitstorm soup. But he gave a good answer to the question.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Well Bernie can't run on voting for the Iraq war, NAFTA and helping orchestrate the Arab Spring.

Those are all super popular with public.

 

[therealdope]

Hillary is a war hawk.

And Albright supports that 100%. She once declared humanitarian bombing the opposition into the stone age!

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Wasn't she the one that said "What's the point of having an awesome military if you're not going to use it!"

Her endorsing Hillary makes Bernie more appealing to me.

 

[Renard]

She did align with Muslim terrorists to bomb Christians and got the head cutters of terrorist organization lists.

This all sucks. Can't vote for Hillary. Don't think I can vote for Rubio either as he now comes across to me as the Republican equivalent..

Trump is actually looking like a viable candidate. SMH/FML.

Trump is going to have great plans. We're gonna be stronger and smarter than ever. Our trade deals are going to be tremendous - listen he knows some men and women, people you've never heard of - they're the best negotiators in the world. They're good, they're excellent. Trump happens to under-rated. We're going to become the best country, listen we're going to be so strong, so strong you won't believe it.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Trump is going to have great plans. We're gonna be stronger and smarter than ever. Our trade deals are going to be tremendous - listen he knows some men and women, people you've never heard of - they're the best negotiators in the world. They're good, they're excellent. Trump happens to under-rated. We're going to become the best country, listen we're going to be so strong, so strong you won't believe it.

LOL. Yeah, it's kind of shit.

But Marco Rubio was my guy, but after last night, I think I have to call him Marco Pubio. He was talking like a child regurgitating something his parents told him to say.

 

[LuchaBear]

Dude you serious? Go back and read what she said. I never made the claim she provided tons of examples to base his 'lack of knowledge' character on.




She said he has a lack of knowledge.

I never cared or said that she gave many examples. I didn't give many specifics the guy above is acting like she never said anything negative about Sanders. He was acting like she never said he lacked knowledge. I never made the claim that Albright gave examples or evidence. The name of my thread title for crying out loud is that she "slammed him for lack of knowledge". She did however, give one example in the video with the example of North Korea. Sanders saying "One or handful".

Watch the video she says he gave "simple answers and that most people know how many dictators North Korea has".

Then look at the comments with "quotations"

Here I will post them

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright slammed Bernie Sanders on Saturday, expressing concerns over the Democratic presidential contender's "lack of knowledge" about foreign policy.

"We have to have a president that is ready on Day 1 to deal with problems," Albright told NBC News in an exclusive interview. "I have never seen such a complicated international situation, and we can't afford learning on the job."

Albright, who has been stumping for fellow former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire this weekend, added that Sanders' responses to foreign policy questions at the last presidential debate "surprised" her.

"I've been very concerned about his lack of knowledge," she said, citing his answer to a question about which country poses the biggest threat to the U.S. right now.

"I think that he gave very kind of simple answers," she said. "In contrast to Secretary Clinton, who not only talked about what was going on in each of those countries, but also [spoke about] the other concerns about it, and the relationship to each other, and what the United States had to look out for."

I like how you take this wacko's opinion seriously.

 

[ocean size]

She also said that there is a special place in Hell for women that don't support other women. lol

She certainly didn't support those civilian Serbian women bombed, or the Iraqi girls that died as a result of sanctions she supported.

 

[jefferz]

She certainly didn't support those civilian Serbian women bombed, or the Iraqi girls that died as a result of sanctions she supported.

Yeah, it's not like they were trying to stop the serbs from continuing an ethnic cleansing or anything.

 

[ocean size]

Yeah, it's not like they were trying to stop the serbs from continuing an ethnic cleansing or anything.

You are right. All civilian casualties are justified because the best way to stop an ethnic cleansing is to bomb every member of the ethnicity from which some are doing the killing. When you've cleaned out that ethnicity, they can no longer cleanse the ethnicity they were trying to kill.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

What was Bernie's answer about the country that is our biggest threat? Did he say "none! climate change! Workers of the world unite!"

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

You are right. All civilian casualties are justified because the best way to stop an ethnic cleansing is to bomb every member of the ethnicity from which some are doing the killing. When you've cleaned out that ethnicity, they can no longer cleanse the ethnicity they were trying to kill.

Do you complain that German citizens were killed in order to end World War II? I'm curious.

 

[jefferz]

You are right. All civilian casualties are justified because the best way to stop an ethnic cleansing is to bomb every member of the ethnicity from which some are doing the killing. When you've cleaned out that ethnicity, they can no longer cleanse the ethnicity they were trying to kill.

If you're comparing what the Serbs did and NATO you're fucking retarded.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

If you're comparing what the Serbs did and NATO you're fucking retarded.

Meh, doesn't really matter who did what in war. NATO / USA didn't like Russia's ally - end of story. Rest is all propaganda to make one side seem bad and the other good. Useful terrorist group remarkably got removed from terrorist lists, and then came the regular propaganda.

 

[MicroBrew]

She also said that there is a special place in Hell for women that don't support other women. lol

There is a special place in Hell for Madelline Albright.
The sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein killed over half a million Iraqi children. When she was asked whether it was worth it , she replied it was worth it.

Come on really man? "western elites"




Anymore than Bernie? Bernie votes to support funding for military operations, supports drone strikes, and according to the anti-Israel crowd he is not "anti-Israel" enough. Not to mention Libya. I don't knock Bernie for these things as they were the right call in my opinion. But I don't understand this new definition of "war-hawk". Sanders and Clinton are essentially advocating for the same things in the Middle East. Hillary has not come out wanting to Bomb Iran or nuke Syria.

You think there aren't any elites in Western society that have the greatest say in foreign policy decisions.

Bernie was against the Iraq war while Hillary was for it. Hillary lost the 2008 nomination because she was for the Iraq war and Obama was against it.

Hillary was 1 f the parties pushing for the US to bomb Libya and she has been supportive of the US getting involved in Syria. Hillary is pro war.

 

[PEB]

I'm unconvinced that Albright has a relevant point here. And I wonder if you are even familiar with Sanders' answer on the "threat" question. He worries about an isolated country lashing out (N Korea). He points out that China is in the world, and that Russia is in the world. His implication is that they can be dealt with diplomatically, while a nuclear nation like North Korea, who cannot be dealt with diplomatically, is in his mind a greater threat. I won't even discuss Iran as a threat, because that's simply preposterous. Any answer he comes up with is largely irrelevant. Although Clinton managed to step on her own dick a little, trying to disclaim her own role in normalizing relations with Iran through the nuclear deal. She goes back to the old Hezbollah pinata and takes a whack. Sanders is at least being honest that we should pursue more deals with Iran (particularly because we are in need of them as a regional ally against ISIS).

I personally disagree with him and I feel Russia is a bigger threat than he thinks, because getting tangled up with them in the middle east while they are being aggressive in Ukraine are a couple of key ingredients in a shitstorm soup. But he gave a good answer to the question.

I am pretty sure Bernie understands the dangers Russia posses. I think he also knows that China is the great equalizer. China does not want Russia to push for greater conflicts with the US. I imagine if anything if they get their oil from Arab states they will continue to talk to Putin. I think Bernie is more worried about the fact that North Korea is run by an child who has never grown up.

 

[Fawlty]

I am pretty sure Bernie understands the dangers Russia posses. I think he also knows that China is the great equalizer. China does not want Russia to push for greater conflicts with the US. I imagine if anything if they get their oil from Arab states they will continue to talk to Putin. I think Bernie is more worried about the fact that North Korea is run by an child who has never grown up.

I haven't heard him comment much on Russia, other than to back Obama, which seems sensible, but I wonder how he feels about our efforts with Germany to pull Ukraine into NATO and tamper with their politics. I would be happy to hear him comment more directly on the Syrian intervention in any case. There are two major issues, one of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and one of shared airspace/conflicting military goals in Syria that are by any objective measure somewhat of a powder keg. I take his relative silence on the matter as him not feeling that Russia is a threat, which isn't giving me confidence in a sensitive time like this.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Come on really man? "western elites"

Are you serious? I don't like the vague allusions to "elites," but do you really think that Bush's aid of the coup d'etat or Obama's campaign against Gaddafi was ideological or based at all on national security or actual human rights concerns?