2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNew Yorker: Where Clinton's Post-Paris Debate Went Wrong
Amy Davidson in the New Yorker:
"...I think she said something like, ‘The bulk of the responsibility is not ours,’ ” Sanders said. “Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unravelled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” Clinton voted to authorize that war; he voted against it. Dickerson asked, “Are you making a direct link between her vote for that and what’s happening now for ISIS?”
“Oh, I don’t think any—I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now,” Sanders said.
In other words, Clinton had managed, in a couple of sentences, to simultaneously open herself up to the charge that she sees ISIS as someone else’s war and that she rushed into wars too readily. Those notions feel paradoxical, and yet they both feed into a critique of Clinton as someone who does not always embrace responsibility. It did not help that she replied to Sanders not by acknowledging the specific disaster of Iraq but by saying that there had been big terrorist attacks before Iraq, too—under Reagan and “when my husband was President.” Perhaps “cannot be America’s fight” was an attempt to reassure non-interventionist primary voters, but she has favored more direct military involvement in Syria, and needs to better explain that she knows what the consequences might be, rather than occluding them. In that sense, the exchange touched on a fear that Clinton is not only hawkish but hawkish in a politically opportunistic way."
Edited for formatting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Exactly my thoughts about her. "We came, we saw, he died" is far too glib a comment for a possible commander in chief to toss off to the media.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)
catbyte
(39,152 posts)I'm not a Bernbot either. I have concerns about both. I'll vote for either one, tho.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I used to believe that she talked a good talk because Dems in general, and women in particular, are seen as too "weak" to be Commander-in-Chief.
But her behavior as SOS changed my mind on that, permanently. I saw too many articles showing that she consistently argued for more intervention, more escalation, more war.
>She argued for the failed surge in Afghanistan (Biden was against the surge and wanted to narrow the focus on al Qaeda).
>She argued for taking out Gaddhafi. Now Libya is a failed state.
>She argued for regime change in the Ukraine. And then compared Putin with Hitler when he dared intervene (never mind the centuries of history between the neighbors. Really, if Putin had tried regime change in Cuba...well.)
>She argued for taking out Assad in Syria. And the current catastrophe is the result.
Personally, I consider her an absolute disaster as SOS.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)On 1/24/1992 Bill left New Hampshire to return to Arkansas for the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. Many people think that was a move to bolster his sagging poll numbers while the Jennifer Flowers stuff was ongoing.
Just two days later 1/26/1992 Superbowl Sunday both Bill and Hillary went on 60 Minutes following the Superbowl where Bill admitted causing "pain' in the marriage and Hillary did the "Stand By Your Man" quote. That has stuck with me all these years and has made me skeptical about their motives and their character.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)One could argue it many different ways. Yes we are responsible, but not entirely, but how much?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Congress understood those obvious facts and voted No. Those who voted yes demonstrated a disturbing and deadly lack of judgement, poor discernment and a willingness to trust known liars with precious lives.
It was obvious to millions. The majority of Democrats voted no. Those who voted yes were so wrong they should never stop apologizing.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This means that 111 Congreesional Democrats voted yes while 147 voted No. As I said most Congressional Democrats voted No on the IWR.
Every word I wrote exactly true. And you have not responded to them.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)That's the best comparison in my opinion.
artislife
(9,497 posts)and increase the best comparison....add in New York and she voted with the complete majority!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Nothing to do with gender.
artislife
(9,497 posts)One I am a woman.
Two, she is a woman.
Using her gender is completely kosher to her campaign and her supporters' arguements.
Three, I didn't use the word woman as a slur.
= epic fail as a response for DC --BOB.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Ciao.
artislife
(9,497 posts)arriverderci!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)robbob
(3,750 posts)It is mearly pointing how how statistics can be twisted to make whatever point you want. In other words if you take "all" elected representatives, a majority of democratic reps. voted against the Iraq war. If you narrow it down to Senators, a majority voted FOR the resolution. If you narrow it down to NY reps, and finally NY female senators, you arrive at "100%" voted for the Iraq war.
The poster is mocking how statistics can be twisted ad adsurdum by changing the sample group. It has nothing to do with sexism.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Thank you.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)that would make DU any sillier than it already is!
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)The war was more than a mistake.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)about the Senate. I said most Democrats in Congress voted No and that's a simple fact. In the Senate there was a slight majority for the war, in the house a large majority against it, Most Democrats In Congress Voted No. Which is what I said and you claimed I was wrong. I was not wrong. You just wanted to change the subject, which you did. You still have not bothered to address my point, correctly stated as it was and now supported by the actual numbers.
Most Democrats in Congress voted no on the invasion, by a good margin. Learn to deal in truth. You can't run a PPP poll on past historical facts.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think a better comparison is to other Democratic Senators at the time and a majority voted the same as Hillary.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)from just how wrong that vote was and how clearly it resulted in an unmitigated and unending disaster, in direct contrast to his original assertion of "nuance" and "it's complicated".
No, even average idiots who didn't have their heads up their asses knew the Iraq war was bullshit, that it was an imperialist adventure wrapped in patriotic bloody shirt waving over 9-11, and that it was going to be a disaster.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I was firmly against going to war with Iraq. I attended three anti-Iraq war protests here in DC including a massive one the weekend before the attacks started which the media mostly ignored.
However, I do understand how this was tough call for many Democrats, especially Hillary being a Senator from NY where the worst attacks occurred.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)disposed an ethical life in favor of ambition.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This was probably the most difficult vote in their entire political career. They were wrong and made a mistake but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. Of course no Democrat trusted Bush.. except perhaps Lieberman... but the evidence they were presenting was hard to dismiss taken at its face value. I think the tipping point for many was the Colin Powell UN speech. Most Democrats considered him a straight shooter and wouldn't lie about something this serious.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The House Democrats voted by a large margin against the war. Most Democrats had better discernment that those in the minority who voted with the Republicans to authorize war. Powell was obviously lying. I could tell and so could most Democrats in Congress!!!!!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Millions of people, here and elsewhere, saw that the so-called "evidence" was bullshit. And in any case, they did not have to take it at "face value". They could have questioned Colin Powell closely about it, but chose not to do so, again out of political cowardice. And NO amount of evidence could change the fact that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, so invading them in response to it was insane.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I can't simply dismiss them all as "baloney".
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Martin Eden
(15,626 posts)Only if "right" was a based on a calculation of how the vote would affect the senator's political career ... as opposed to how it would affect America and the rest of the world.
Seriously, any person qualified to be a US senator should have known the war was being sold on a campaign of misinformation and that once given authority the PNAC Bush administration would invade.
For a senator with a moral compass who put the interests of our nation first, the vote should not have been difficult.
More than ever, in October 2002 America needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up, speak truth to power, and make every effort to stop this mad rush to a war of choice based on lies. It broke my heart that John Kerry -- who gained the national spotlight leading veterans against the insane war of his generation -- failed to fill that role.
In a Democratic primary I have never voted for any candidate who voted for the IWR, and I never will.
It is possible for politicians to change and begin to redeem themselves. Hillary Clinton has not. She was a hawk then, and she's a hawk now. To put it bluntly, I do not trust her in matters of war and peace.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Facts are anathema to the Clinton supporters.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)I'm really getting tired of hearing the excuse from the Bush administration the majority of Democrats agreed with their decision to unleash Shock and Awe on the people of Iraq...
To hand the Bush administration the power to invade another country that clearly offered no threat to our country, especially after witnessing their complete incompetence in the months before we were attacked on 9/11 boggles the mind.
Hillary has no logical excuse for her support of the attack on Iraq. The fact that she's being anointed by the leaders of the Democratic party has our next President requires a mass outbreak of amnesia.
That's when I quit the party.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
Somewhat difficult to see when you can't jump up high enough to get the view over your head. That's seems to happen a lot from the radius of Washington's self-aggrandizing circle of peeps.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)But the decision to respond the way she did in the debate is proof she makes poor choices for the American people
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Covert United States foreign regime
change actions
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1973 Chilean coup d'état
1976 Argentine coup d'état
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1980 Turkish coup d'état
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
2003-Iraq
2011-12 Mexico National Oil Industry
DhhD
(4,695 posts)State Department funded Wilson Center.
http://fpif.org/mexicos-oil-privatization-risky-business/
snip
The privatization and break-up of Pemex has long been a chief aspiration of neoliberal planners in North America. Promoters of the “free-market” model and supporters of NAFTA—including the World Bank, the State Department-funded Wilson Center, and the Mexican business association Coparmex—have predictably celebrated the reforms.
more at link
Agony
(2,605 posts)Clinton=Corruption… don't blame me
http://littlesis.org/maps/882-state-department-mexico-energy-reform-web
"David Goldwyn, who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role."
"Cashing In
Goldwyn, Pascual and Brown now stand to gain financially from the Mexico energy reform architecture they helped envision and construct.
Goldwyn
Goldwyn works of-counsel for Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, a firm that helped the Enterprise Product Partners become the first company to get a permit to export processed oil condensate from the U.S. Department of Commerce in June 2014. In a biography appearing at the end of a September 2014 presentation he delivered to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Sutherland partner Jacob Dweck disclosed he is presently “assisting clients” looking to export crude oil “as part of an exchange or swap.”
Doing a “swap” means exporting U.S.-produced crude oil to Mexico and trading it with Mexican-produced oil, serving as a way to wedge open the door on the current ban on U.S. oil exports.
Dweck and his Sutherland colleague Shelley Wong both sat on the Brookings Institution Crude Oil Task Force co-chaired by Goldwyn. All three of them contributed to a September 2014 Brookings report calling for increased exports of U.S.-produced crude oil, which was written in reaction to another report they funded and released simultaneously written by National Economic Research Associates (NERA).
Just months later, Columbia University's Adrián Lajous released a 13-page white paper calling for U.S. crude oil exchanges with Mexico. In the acknowledgements for the paper, he thanked Dweck for “comments and suggestions that helped improve” it.
"
DhhD
(4,695 posts)and the fascists global 1%.
randomelement
(128 posts)I think the regime change that took place on November 22, 1963 belongs in this list as well
DhhD
(4,695 posts)told to step down and away (see the footage)? The agent raised his arms and the palms of his hands to signal a, 'What up with this, command". The back and side of the car was uncovered for the purpose of a clearer line of fire. Who gave the command or chain of commands?
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)But I loved her necklace!
azmom
(5,208 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I sort of agree, but I don't think that Americans as a whole will care.
Spilling blood of Middle Easterners has never been a concern for the American public. Only those of us that regard them as human rather than targets in a real life video game give a shit.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about spilling the blood of American troops?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Some do, most don't.
They're either obsessed with who won on the voice or too worried about how food is going to get on the table. A situation that suits the war profiteers just fine.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)This is the single most important reason I will not vote for this candidate.
HRC is not redeemable from this perspective in this one's eyes.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)she became a cheerleader for what most of us knew would become a neocon disaster....
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
KoKo
(84,711 posts)And, her reaction to Gadaffi's brutal killing... which she laughed about in CBS interview...saying: "We Came...We Saw...He Died."
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)After she studies more "antecedents".....
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)a choice. IMO, O'Malley had a very good debate and he impressed me, but does it matter much? Sanders has been working hard to make Americans understand that this country has lost it's way, but does it matter?
Not only the political activist here and other Social media have been sending a message that they want change and so many don't support Hillary, BUT DOES IT MATTER?
But most of all I'm getting the message louder and clearer than ever before, that those in power in our Democratic Party and TPTB who have profited the most don't care what "we the people" have to say.
I will still work hard and do what I can to support Bernie because I feel he's fighting for me and the American people... but as I said last night after the debate no matter who anyone felt won the debate, in the end we will be told that it was Hillary who won the debate!
Can it be any clearer? I'm sure I will hear arguments saying how wrong I am, but where's the evidence?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)and he will receive my vote as long as he's on the ballot.
However, I've always assumed that the economic/political establishment in this country would never permit his election or, if somehow he managed to get in, they'd leave him spinning in the wind politically like they did Carter.
I believe that the elites in this country are hell-bent never to allow another candidate to win who shows any potential for dramatically re-structuring economics and politics in this country the way FDR did in the '30s. The only reason many of them did back then was, with all the unrest in the streets and growing popularity of communism, they were terrified of a Russian-style revolution in the US. That threat no longer exists.
Any candidate who comes along now with even a hint of that potential for another New Deal approach will be thwarted in one way or another.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)said is all that more disturbing. I'm a huge Jackson Browne fan and he wrote so many songs that have had a huge impact on me. I'm thankful that I was able to see him in concert quite a few times.
There are two songs that were written in the mid 80's when we began to see what Ronnie Rayguns's policies were doing to this country that have stuck with me forever. Over the years as I've done so many times I listen to his songs again and again the two I'm talking about can so easily apply today. One is "Lives In The Balance" and the other is "For America" and the words will haunt me forever. There is another that Steven Van Zant wrote called "I Am A Patriot" that was also on one of his albums. His intensity and understanding of what has shaped this country is so spot on that it's almost scary.
I've written the words down and filed them away so that when I'm gone anyone who goes through my things will see and understand how much they impacted my life. Of course I do have his songs stored on discs and other places, but it was important to me to emphasize them in a special way.
Should anyone here want to take the time and look them up they're easy to find online.
I too will keep campaigning for Bernie because I've met so very many people of different political groups who are able to connect with his message. I'm not just saying this because I support him, it's simply true. I've always voted and I've always been involved in political campaigns where so many don't even bother. But this is probably the FIRST time I've ever felt so bad and so helpless in my life. The manipulation is astounding and even though millions are feeling the affects of what our policies have done, I'm amazed at how easily they're willing to roll over as if nothing has happened. WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?
We've already paid a huge price for what's been done and I know people SEE it, but I guess always being a "cheer leader" for the POPULAR thing wins the day. We WILL pay a bigger price, I have no doubt!
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)A BIG
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)But Hillary capitulated to the war mongers. She isn't very Democratic if she doesn't understand how this is not a Democratic issue, ditto on the gun control issue.
Republicans get votes with fear and hate mongering. Once again Hillary is looking very Republican.
The Democratic should just throw that gun violence thing right into the lap of the Republicans and the NRA, they own it.
Baitball Blogger
(52,344 posts)attitude. If you never take personal responsibility for a war, it makes it easier to follow a strategy of perpetual wars.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
Turns out bailing out Wall Street hasn't been so good for the economy, has it?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Not so good for the rest of us....
dpatbrown
(368 posts)foreign policy experts expressed grave concerns when the Bush Administration started their drum roll for invading Iraq. They ALL said that would only cause havoc all over the Middle East, leading to fighting between many different religious factions. In her rush to judgment, Clinton did not understand the consequence of that approach, but Senator Sanders DID. In addition, many of us common folks believed Sanders. Bush, and his fellow liars, with the help of Clinton's vote, are responsible. No other way to interpret.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)It came out during her husband's administration.
Art often imitates life.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Not to be a broken record but this is how more debates can be useful. Good questioners invoke callback to statements from earlier debates, as well as referencing what the media had to say about them. So we get more than a vague cloud of words, in regards to specific questions, to divine from.
That's what we get. The candidates get to be compelled to be forthcoming while under the bright lights, and in close ups. Sounds like democracy to me. 