Yes she did. Later, she softened the stance (a bit) when it was pointed out to her how crazy an idea it was, but that’s exactly the sort of thing Trump does that drives liberals nuts: says something outlandish and then backtracks.
This is a murky stance, given the massive expansion of the security state with the war on drugs and terrorism. There’s also the hollowing out of the middle class, runaway student debt and healthcare costs, increasing financialization of the economy, and the decline of the power of labor in general and unions in particular.
If there was a so called progressive era it didn’t last longer than the neo-liberal takeover of the Democratic Party under the Clintons. Figures like Sanders and Warren are its last gasps, echoes from an earlier age. In America and Europe there is a right wing backlash against neo-liberalism. Perhaps after they have their turn there will be another progressive surge, which assumes there’s a sort of repeating pattern to history. I wouldn’t count the neo-liberals out though, since that’s where the money is.
Nope, she stated that she wanted to unilaterally impose a no-fly zone, she sort of backed down later. Coming up with a later softer quote doesn’t negate what she said before. Also, every version of the plan that she talked about would apply the ‘no fly’ rule to all Syrian and Russian aircraft, which means that either the US would not enforce the zone (making it pointless) or they are would be threatening Russian aircraft - there isn’t some tricky position in the middle.
Thanks to Hurricane Ditka for: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/21/hillary-clinton-admitted-in-2013-that-a-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians-but-still-wants-one/
That’s ironic coming from someone who wants to ignore multiple clear policy statements from Clinton.
You’re right, there’s no trick. If the Russians agreed to honor the no-fly-zone, then there’s no risk of the confrontation, and that’s why she specifically said that it would take some negotiation and some time to implement. Your interpretation only works if you ignore her stated intent to negotiate with Russia, which you seem to be striving to do.
You guys would do well to read your cites for comprehension. Maybe you could lift a quote that says she was going to impose a no-fly-zone without negotiating with the Russians? Do notice that your same cite uses a shortened version of the one I provided, whose full text spells acknowledging the negotiation with the Russians.
Anyway, hijack mode off, since both of you seem hell-bent on ignoring the fact that she acknowledged she’d need cooperating with the Russians to pull it off. And hats off for a fine job of deflecting from Trump’s irresponsible NATO comments.