Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk

[Martin Eden]

84. You're totally avoiding the point of discussion.

Should Hillary Clinton have known Bush was hell-bent on invading Iraq regardless of the UN Security Council and inspections process? It has been explained to you, and not just by me, that any informed politician should have known this. We here at DU sure as hell did.

You talk about facts and what her constituents were requesting, but you've offered no facts regarding what her constituents were requesting. Nothing to counter the huge anti-war rallies in New York City.

And although it's a red herring to the point of discussion, I'll answer the question in the subject title of your post anyway. My answer is no, a good senator should not vote along the lines of their constituents -- not when their constituents are terribly wrong in matters of war, and especially not in the matter of Iraq.

Why?

I'll tell you why.

The Bush administration orchestrated a systematic campaign of misinformation to deceive the American people about Iraqi WMD and alleged ties to al Qaeda. To a large extent, this campaign was successful. The mainstream media was little more than a stenographer for the Bush administration's claims, and most people didn't have the time or the tools to dig deeper.

But a United States Senator is supposed to dig deep, for facts and for understanding the agenda & its consequences.

A United States Senator is supposed to faithfully represent the interests of her constituents -- even when (or especially when) the people have been egregiously misled by warmongers steering a course towards disaster.