This message was self-deleted by its author

[BainsBane]

39. If you voted for Obama, you voted for that troop surge

Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

He campaigned on it. Claiming it was now Clinton's doing is disingenuous. Every single one of us contributed to it by voting for Obama. How about people start taking responsibility for themselves for a change instead of vilifying Clinton?

The shocker: An American Secretary of State promoting US dominance around the globe, like every other since WWII. America is an empire. That must be a woman's fault. How dare she implement the policy of the President we voted for? She should have single handedly dismantled the American empire, like Kerry is doing, right? Oops. Not so much.

The level of dishonesty in many of these arguments against Clinton are astounding. When people twice vote for a policy that they then turn around and blame someone else for, they don't deserve to influence anyone's vote.

I get that the main goal is to keep Clinton from becoming President at all costs. But is there anything you all actually stand FOR? If it's peace, why did people vote for John Kerry? Why did they twice for for the surge in Afghanistan? If you all were so opposed to ousting Qaddafi, why didn't you vote for Mitt? The GOP did oppose that intervention. In fact they continue to squawk about it to this day. You all voted for the president who implemented those policies, and now you turn around and blame his Secretary of State for them. It's weak and dishonest.

For an article that talks about hypocrisy, it sure employs a lot of it. I expect more from the Socialist Worker's Party. One thing I expect is some basic historical context. I guess any hapless liberal can do their commentary now. Since when do socialists refer to themselves and their readers as "liberals and progressives"? They are supposed to be leftists for God's sake. Liberalism and socialism are antithetical ideologies, and someone writing in a socialist publication should know that much.