General Discussion

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

17. After reading through your OP, I am still looking for your point.

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 04:26 PM

Mar 2015

Are you trying to rationalize that HRC's grievous error in supporting the Republicon I-War by saying that lots of good Democrats were "liberal internationalists"? I hope not.

Let's not be distracted from the real issue. We have a two party system in the hope that there will be a balancing of power, at least to some degree. In 2002 a number of Democrats decided to betray their own Party and join with Bush/Cheney who were obviously crazy. Instead of having the fortitude to stand up and do the right thing, they bowed down before the Boy Tyrant. As you point out "Neoconservativism tends to support unilateral or at least liberal coalitions acting alone whereas liberal internationalists are deeply committed to international institutions and their legal processes. " which would lead us to understand that the invasion of Iraq was not via "international institutions and their legal processes" and not by "liberal internationalists" but it was a "Neoconservative" war. If HRC isn't directly a neocon, her foreign policy sure parallels that of the neocons.

I expected the devious Republicons to lie to us, many recognized the lies, but when HRC repeated the lies, people listened to her that would never believe Bush.

You said, "She has since acknowledged the mistake and apologized for it." I haven't seen that. Do you have a source? The closest to an "apology" I could find is from her book, "As much as I might have wanted to, I could never change my vote on Iraq."

IMO telling the American people lies to gain support for an illegal war should not be on the resume of a presidential candidate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who CAN you trust on war and peace? [View all] wyldwolf Mar 2015 OP

One sentence on Sanders? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #1

Indeed, if that's all they have of Sanders, then I'm increasingly confident that Sanders is our man. android fan Mar 2015 #13

In a democracy, we're not supposed to "trust" politicians. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #2

Unrec, weak ass hit piece on O'Malley. FSogol Mar 2015 #3

And yet facts are facts. leftofcool Mar 2015 #6

The poster is accusing him of being a Democrat. FSogol Mar 2015 #11

and you called it a 'weak ass hit piece.' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #19

I was referring to your other 20+ childish paragraphs, but thanks for proving my point. FSogol Mar 2015 #21

you really protest loudly when you sniff a scent of O'Malley criticism. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #23

From wiki: FSogol Mar 2015 #40

From wiki: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #41

I never said own, I said invested in. Plus 5% is enough to make his son the director FSogol Mar 2015 #42

I mean, I would have owned my car after just a few months. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #43

President Chomsky. n/t Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #4

Tolstoy? Electric Monk Mar 2015 #5

My thought exactly Demeter Mar 2015 #8

Well, we *know* some people we can't trust. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #7

So true, Manny. hifiguy Mar 2015 #14

There was nothing liberal about voting for the Iraq war resolution. Your rewriting history is dissentient Mar 2015 #9

What history have I rewritten? Quote the relevant part. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #10

You seem to have fallen for the cover story of votes for the Iraq War being "liberal nationalism" .. Scuba Mar 2015 #16

But the argument that the Iraq War was "liberal nationalism" doesn't meet the definitions rhett o rick Mar 2015 #18

The IWR met the definition perfectly wyldwolf Mar 2015 #22

So you're saying Dems who voted for it didn't think Bush would misuse it? They trusted him? Scuba Mar 2015 #24

I'm not a mind-reader. But facts are facts wyldwolf Mar 2015 #25

The facts are that even though the resolution had words in it that encouraged the use of rhett o rick Mar 2015 #30

Probably none were 1's, but many we're 2's with a few 3's thrown in. Scuba Mar 2015 #32

I think mostly 3's. nm rhett o rick Mar 2015 #34

So your argument is that democrats in office at the time were fucking morons? Scootaloo Mar 2015 #28

The Iraq War was a Neocon war. International institutions and legal processes were not used. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #29

bwhahahahaha. cali Mar 2015 #12

I trust Congresswoman Barbara Lee 100% Dems to Win Mar 2015 #15

+1,000 Scuba Mar 2015 #33

After reading through your OP, I am still looking for your point. rhett o rick Mar 2015 #17

Tolstoy was a pacifist..so I'd trust him. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #20

war and peace is not the driving issue....having a winning ticket for the WH beachbum bob Mar 2015 #26

The middle class is disappearing. The middle class is now the upper low income. liberal_at_heart Mar 2015 #27

Boy do you have things backwards. First of all you label of "idealistic malcontents" rhett o rick Mar 2015 #31

So which neoliberal do you want us to vote for? Rex Mar 2015 #35

Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #36

But this isn't true!! It was MADE UP then retroactively "planted" on the internets wyldwolf Mar 2015 #37

Bless the intertubes scarcastic little heart. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #39

Me. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2015 #38