General Discussion

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)

106. I did not think for you. You equate supporting war with opposing women's rights.

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 04:58 PM

Mar 2015

That is what you said.

Women's rights is a critical issue. It is human rights. But it is separate from issues of foreign relations.

War is a terrible thing, however, simply because someone supports a war does not mean they support crimes committed during the acts of war by combatants.

In 2008, Obama ran on increasing our involvement in Afghanistan, and put huge numbers of troops in there. He owned that war. He supported pulling troops out of Iraq, but since President Bush could not get a status of forces agreement that gave jurisdiction of any crimes committed by US Troops to US commanders, ending our long war in Iraq was Bush's decision. Obama has led an intense use of drones to attack and kill combatants and some noncombatants in more than 20 nations.

And Obama committed us to Libya. He could not get support for US forces in Syria, so he armed the rebels. We are not bombing Syria and Iraq. He is now awaiting an authorization to use force against ISIS in any country in the world where they operate.

All Presidents will fight wars that hey see as in our national interest. That does not make them opposed to human rights, and in the world Hillary Clinton, "Women's rights are human rights."

Women's rights are a separate issued, and one Hillary Clinton has championed for decades. The fact that you don't agree with her on many issues does not mean that there are no issues that you agree on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Hillary doesn't speak out at the UN today against the Iran letter, she will signal to the world [View all] leveymg Mar 2015 OP

I hope she does this. blm Mar 2015 #1

Support the president Yes! voteearlyvoteoften Mar 2015 #2

You're correct, but I'm not holding my breath Schema Thing Mar 2015 #3

so many people ended up looking pretty silly over this type prognostication Sheepshank Mar 2015 #92

I wonder what her advisor thinks? n2doc Mar 2015 #4

Hillary Clinton says 'not there yet' on women's equality Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #5

She's already announced she will do a presser on the email matter. She'll look very self-interested leveymg Mar 2015 #6

She is not doing that as part of her meeting at the UN. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #7

As they say in Real Estate, "location, location, location." Silence conveys a powerful message, leveymg Mar 2015 #9

Since she is a private Citizen, she should join DU and make a statement. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #11

She's the presumptive Democratic candidate and the former Secretary of State. leveymg Mar 2015 #15

Ridiculous. Not a single primary or caucus has been held. She is going to speak on Women's Rights. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #18

If she talks about email, she should address this. She can simply say, "I do not support the leveymg Mar 2015 #21

That's right. The UN chose her by pulling her name out of a hat. She's just another American. Scuba Mar 2015 #37

The UN chose her becasue 20 years ago she appeared at the Beijing Conference. (See link) Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #69

you may want to go back and edit all of your presumptive posts Sheepshank Mar 2015 #74

If she supports women's rights, then she will oppose War. Women suffer from War more than from sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #34

So you are saying that Obama opposed Women's rights? I did not know that. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #72

You can think what you want, you don't 'think' for me.. So let me 'think' for you then. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #94

I did not think for you. You equate supporting war with opposing women's rights. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #106

France committed us to and planned the invasion of Libya for months before sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #112

President Obama went into that war with eyes open. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #116

I'm not sure she should address it at all. This issue already involves a Logan Act violation for stevenleser Mar 2015 #8

As usual, we agree to disagree. leveymg Mar 2015 #12

Don't you think NOT signing leftynyc Mar 2015 #27

Yup. Agschmid Mar 2015 #78

That is exactly what I was thinking. Jamastiene Mar 2015 #99

She needs to address that she was asked to do something stupid... Agschmid Mar 2015 #77

This. Agschmid Mar 2015 #76

he was wrong as usual Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #88

it does no such thing. but feel free to say so anyway nt msongs Mar 2015 #10

I doubt that she will mention it, sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #13

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 2015 #14

All Democrats especially on a world forum should speak out .. here's what Iran's minister just said Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #16

Now, if talks break down, it is the US which will look the spoiler. One would think the former SOS leveymg Mar 2015 #17

I consider this a chance to make and stand for peace Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #20

So that is proof that the 47 republican undermined the POTUS during a time of war Rex Mar 2015 #120

If asked by the media... Spazito Mar 2015 #19

That would work for me. leveymg Mar 2015 #22

Andrea Mitchell just dropped a hint that HRC may talk about the Iran letter. "Something substantive" leveymg Mar 2015 #23

She led witth it BainsBane Mar 2015 #24

The next complaint will be, she was too strong or too weak in mentioning it. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #26

She did a great job with it. The concern of timing was warranted blm Mar 2015 #29

But we were promised praise by the OP. randome Mar 2015 #30

Mark is a straight-shooter. He's not a BSer and shouldn't be taunted. blm Mar 2015 #31

Taunting? I'm asking for the OP to deliver what was promised. randome Mar 2015 #32

See #33, below. leveymg Mar 2015 #35

Pathetic attempt. FLPanhandle Mar 2015 #122

We got faint praise! joshcryer Mar 2015 #43

The servers should be turned over to the Archivist, if she is to be compliant w/the 1950 law. leveymg Mar 2015 #56

I'm the data will be. joshcryer Mar 2015 #61

"Clinton is making sure to keep everything close. No bullshit, no room for error." Yet, she erred leveymg Mar 2015 #91

Your praise is noted! joshcryer Mar 2015 #93

I praised her for her Iran letter statement. Right on! But, she still has to dig herself leveymg Mar 2015 #57

She never said she deleted them. joshcryer Mar 2015 #62

We'll see when this gets rewound later today. leveymg Mar 2015 #89

Totally fake scandal. joshcryer Mar 2015 #90

If it was a "totally fake scandal" everyone on MSNBC would be saying that. They aren't. leveymg Mar 2015 #105

oh FFS Sheepshank Mar 2015 #97

''I'm not sure she should address it at all. '' post 8 Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #54

and the presumptions made fools of more than one person today Sheepshank Mar 2015 #79

I hope you are listening to Hillary Clinton as I am... Spazito Mar 2015 #25

GOOD! She brought it up - Good on her for taking it on FIRST. blm Mar 2015 #28

Congratulations on addressing this issue, first. Good move, Mrs. Clinton. leveymg Mar 2015 #33

She said about half were personal BainsBane Mar 2015 #36

That's different from what we heard before, and we now know that 30,000 were deleted, another 5,000 leveymg Mar 2015 #39

This is the first we have heard from her BainsBane Mar 2015 #40

The State Dept regs aren't the issue. It's the law that she should have preserved and conveyed the leveymg Mar 2015 #47

She said unequivocally that she did not delete a single email. joshcryer Mar 2015 #50

When she turns over the server, that might be confirmed, depending upon how it was set up. leveymg Mar 2015 #53

Official business went to .gov addresses. joshcryer Mar 2015 #65

That was less than half of it. The other 30,000 or so were deleted. leveymg Mar 2015 #68

Where did the "other 30k" go? joshcryer Mar 2015 #73

Yes. Official email to non-US government officials. Foreign officials, business people, etc leveymg Mar 2015 #84

Proof? joshcryer Mar 2015 #86

She complied with the law as it existed at the time BainsBane Mar 2015 #63

That's what she says. The deletion of 30,000 email was bound to raise more questions. leveymg Mar 2015 #75

To what committee, Benghazi? BainsBane Mar 2015 #80

I agree. The GOP just twist things around into false narratives until real events lose all meaning. leveymg Mar 2015 #85

And you're there right with them BainsBane Mar 2015 #87

It's hard to stop a hanging party DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #95

so on top of your ASSumption that she purposfully detracted from the GOP kerfuffel Sheepshank Mar 2015 #100

Your faint praise is encouraging. joshcryer Mar 2015 #41

See #33, Josh. leveymg Mar 2015 #49

Half assed congrats FLPanhandle Mar 2015 #121

Oy vey. William769 Mar 2015 #38

Mitchell said a recent poll indicated 87 percent of likely Dem voters could see themselves BainsBane Mar 2015 #42

Well I have been accused of being a 1 percenter. William769 Mar 2015 #45

Oh, I remember that very well BainsBane Mar 2015 #48

Me too. William769 Mar 2015 #51

Now that she has spoken, what is your assessment? Did she still do it wrong? Hekate Mar 2015 #44

This reads like satire after her presser. Where can I find the OP of praise you said she'd have Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #46

Yes, praise, indeed. joshcryer Mar 2015 #52

The thing is the OP affects that Hillary's statement would be some hugely important world moment Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #58

Judging from the crowd in the UN press gallery, that was a world important event leveymg Mar 2015 #66

No, you are perfect, don't ever change a thing. There was no ironic hypocrisy in your tactics here, Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #71

What should I change? The point of this is that she made a firm statement on the Iran letter. As leveymg Mar 2015 #96

It was definitely a significant moment. joshcryer Mar 2015 #67

OP says her silence would have been definitive, but her actual words are not really worth mentioning Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #81

Went from "she should receive praise" to "30k emails!" joshcryer Mar 2015 #83

Praise on her handling of one issue doesn't preclude continued skepticism about the other. leveymg Mar 2015 #98

Yeah, damning with faint praise. joshcryer Mar 2015 #102

Isn't "damning with faint praise" pretty much the same as saying "didn't applaud vigorously enough"? leveymg Mar 2015 #103

1 post of praise, what, 2 dozen of condemnation? joshcryer Mar 2015 #104

Really, I said it all in #33. leveymg Mar 2015 #107

The OP doesn't mention emails. joshcryer Mar 2015 #108

The rest of her presser was about emails. And she was considerably less forthcoming leveymg Mar 2015 #115

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Mar 2015 #55

This is like the "North Korea" criticism of one GOP Senator for not clapping vigorously enough. leveymg Mar 2015 #59

Now that she has-- and quite forcefully, I believe we should damn her with faint praise LanternWaste Mar 2015 #60

she did samsingh Mar 2015 #64

Hey...your presumption ws wrong...care up update your title? Sheepshank Mar 2015 #70

crickets lol B Calm Mar 2015 #82

... William769 Mar 2015 #101

No. I'm glad there wasn't a worst case outcome with Hillary about the Iran letter. leveymg Mar 2015 #109

you yourself are diverting from your own OP now and have done so since mid-thread Sheepshank Mar 2015 #110

There were two major issues in her presser. I don't want to lose sight of that. leveymg Mar 2015 #117

backpeddlaing in your own manure isn't very efficient. Sheepshank Mar 2015 #118

She's the one who wrapped her address to the world around an announced presser about email. leveymg Mar 2015 #123

ya sure...you like, don't like, change you mind, rechanged it and then blame HRC for you moving the Sheepshank Mar 2015 #127

Perhaps if you post some more, you could at last make your point. johnnyreb Mar 2015 #129

You mean, is this the sort of spectacle of ambivalence we should expect if she's the candidate? leveymg Mar 2015 #130

Ambivalence buys time...and maybe allows the right approach to stumble forth. Octafish Mar 2015 #134

I have a very high threshhold for embarassment... OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #111

tee hee hee heee +1 Sheepshank Mar 2015 #113

She did the right thing. I'm relieved. What's to be embarrassed about? leveymg Mar 2015 #114

perhps re-reading your own OP, and at least 1/2 doz of your responses will answer your own question Sheepshank Mar 2015 #119

In the last analysis, its clear that a lot of people are angry that HRC didn't resolve her problems. leveymg Mar 2015 #124

+1 FLPanhandle Mar 2015 #126

+1 FLPanhandle Mar 2015 #125

It's an amazing feat, ain't it? zappaman Mar 2015 #128

I notice that none of you guys are saying I'm wrong about any of this. leveymg Mar 2015 #131

Transcript... Octafish Mar 2015 #132

Please tell me what you think of #130 above. leveymg Mar 2015 #133