General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The manufactured outrage that purports to be legitimate criticism of Hillary is pathetic [View all]Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)But ... I did not say **all** Hillary voters, though you were very quick to assert that was my intent when you wrote:
"...your attempt at putting everyone into a nice and tidy "small" box..."
(my bold)
Perhaps you should take your own advice about trying to be "intellectually honest." You think it is I who needs to realize that people are more complex, and yet your reply and your leaps of judgment about me indicate an assumption on your part that I lack the complexity you ascribe to "people."
I'm all about "reality based politics." My political awakening came during the Vietnam war, and I've been voting since 1976. Never in my life have I had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that meets 100% of my expectations, yet I vote nevertheless. I couldn't support John Kerry in the 2004 Dem primary because of his IWR vote, but that didn't stop me from driving to Akron Ohio from my home near Chicago to help get out the vote for Kerry in the general election because GW Bush had to be stopped (as he should have been before invading Iraq).
I also rode a bus with others to join 100,000 protesters in our nation's capitol a few days before Shock & Awe was unleashed against Iraq. If you were here at DU in 2002 you would have been exposed to multiple sources of reliable information which left no reasonable doubt that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, assertions of alliance with al Qaeda were ridiculous, there was no solid evidence of WMD factories or "unmanned aerial vehicles" that could threaten our shores, and the warnings about "mushroom clouds" were pure hype. We knew all about the neocons and the "New Pearl Harbor" they needed to advance the agenda spelled out in the PNAC paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that became GW's official National Security Strategy and their ambition for a world dominated by unchallengable US military power. We knew the same people who urged Bill Clinton to invade Iraq back in 1998 gained key policy positions in the Bush administration. Pronouncements that our troops would be there just a few months and leave a flowering stable democracy in their wake were off-the-charts nonsense.
This is not hindsight. This is what we knew before October 2002 when Bush sought authority from Congress to launch the war it was obvious the Cheney cabal were intent on from Day One. If Hillary Clinton didn't know this and actually believed the Bush propaganda she is not nearly as intelligent as I think she is, and is unfit for high office. If, on the other hand, she wasn't fooled, then she was on board with the agenda and is complicit.
Both are unacceptable, and an automatic disqualification as far as I'm concerned.
I'm all about reality based politics. We can see the reality of this political decision at Arlington National Cemetery, in the tens of thousands of maimed veterans, in the million dead Iraqis, in the rise of ISIS and the ongoing horrors this decision unleashed, and in the obscene cost of a war that exploded our national debt and continues to starve vital programs at home.
I've been paying close attention to national politics for 45 years. I don't think I am exaggerating in the least when I state the IWR was the most important vote anyone in Congress at the time ever took while members of that body. This was a time when strong and principled Democratic leadership was desperately needed to stand up and tell the truth to avert a catastrophic disaster from which we may never fully recover.
My opposition to Hillary Clinton is not punitive revenge.
I weigh the qualifications of every candidate by multiple criteria. Foreign policy and judgment in matters of war and peace are critically important. The plain fact of the matter is I believe Hillary Clinton is on the side of the Powers That Be in a national security state where perpetual military intervention is a means to many objectives I disagree with and also an end unto itself.
I fully understand that, according to polls more than 20 months before the general election, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner to defeat whatever opponent the R's put up. If she is the Dem nominee I will certainly vote for her because the prospect of any R in the WH is much worse.
But I will not be at all happy with that choice, and I see no good reason to accept her nomination as inevitable at this point. If the Democratic Party can't do better, then the prospects for real progress and meaningful change are dim.
Yes, I understand that not all Hillary voters are in the same "box." Some of them might not be well informed about what Hillary should have known regarding the bogus war propaganda in 2002, or perhaps they're on board with that kind of military interventionism as I believe she was.
Whatever the case, I am highly motivated to point out how vitally important and relevant to the upcoming election the IWR vote is. This is why I have taken the time to compose this lengthy post with details of 2002.
One thing I know for sure:
Your attempt to put me in your own preconceived box is a "giant fail."