I don't believe that Al Gore would have prevented the 911 attacks. I do, on the other hand, believe he would have responded in a very different way and not have used the attacks as a lame excuse to start an unrelated resource war in Iraq.
Please bear in mind that we are talking about what Al Gore would have done. Hilary Clinton is not Al Gore. She has taken a much more hawkish posture during her political career than either Gore or President Obama. In fact, it was her hawkish instincts that cost her the Democratic Party's nomination in 2008 as Obama ran as an opponent of going to war in Iraq while Mrs. Clinton stubbornly refused to admit a lapse in judgment for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
I was one of those who, even before the start of 2008, recommended to my fellow DUers Mr. Obama for having more of what it takes to be President than Mrs. Clinton. While I have often been disappointed in Obama, even to the point of feeling betrayed, I will give him credit for the faith he places in diplomacy before a use of force. In that respect, I still feel my decision to support Obama over Mrs. Clinton in 2008 was a good one.
I still don't trust Mrs. Clinton. She's still a war hawk in the Middle East while I feel more than ever that US military involvement in that region is rooted in an imperialist lust for oil, not in a desire to democratize the Arabs or preserve a Jewish state with its own imperialist desire for land. This is at a time when our national priorities would appear wiser if we moved to first supplement with an aim to completely supplant fossil fuels as a source of energy with renewable energy sources. All we are accomplishing by fighting resource wars in the Middle East is keeping fossil fuels industries on life support. No amount of oil is worth one more drop of a young American fighter's blood.
Moreover, Mrs. Clinton background is that of a corporate lawyer. As her husband's political career took him from Arkansas to Washington, D. C., she became cozy with large corporate interests which are too ofter at odds with public interests. Again, I do not trust Mrs. Clinton not to side with Wall Street and other corporate power centers against the rest of us. Income inequality will tear America apart, and I see Hilary Clinton as one who will exacerbate rather than remedy this problem.
Yes, Hilary Clinton is better than any Republican on the horizon. That's not saying much, is it? I think she's on the right side of many issues, but still wrong on war and trade. She's not going to compromise away any of the hard won victories made in recent years by gay and lesbian Americans not make lame excuses for bad cops who use the color law to murder or manhandle young blacks. But I don't trust her not to put Social Security on the table to get Republican votes. I don't trust her not to further fray the social safety net in a deal with congressional Republicans. I don't trust her to do whatever it takes regrow the American middle class if that is too much of an inconvenience to corporate interests. And I don't trust he to do any more than the Obama administration did to bring order back to our lawless banking industry.
If Hilary is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. When she's president, I will work to undermine her pro-corporate agenda.
[center]
[/center]
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
