Daily Kos

View Story | 87 comments

  •  tips to end brutality please? (13+ / 0-)

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:31:17 AM PDT

    •  wtf! (6+ / 0-)

      why make this shit about gender???

      -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

      by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:35:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a woman and think and feel like one. (8+ / 0-)

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:36:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  because, (5+ / 0-)

        it is.

        "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

        by theRoaringGirl on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:46:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  snark? or no? (6+ / 0-)

          how does one's gender affect culpability in being complicit in an ill-advised, immoral military occupation?

          -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

          by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:55:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  simple. (8+ / 0-)

            There are those who blame women for the World's ills. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. If that woman had just worn her headscarf. If that woman had just voted "Present". The implication is that women are to "weak-minded" to make up their own mind or even realize their mistake, reassess a position on our own.   Particularly if that woman is in politics.

            Seeing error is permitted if the one admitting the error is male, he's a 'flip-flopper; but he is allowed to change. If female, not so much. Had HRC voted against the limited action, there would still be a bias. It still wouldn't matter. Instead of being called a 'warmonger', instead, she would have be castigated for being 'soft'. Had HRC come out and said "I will get us of out of Iraq", she still would be the 'warmonger'

            Scylla and Charybdis with a whirlpool dead center.

            "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

            by theRoaringGirl on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:12:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for seeing my point! (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              macmcd, jimstaro, Owllwoman

              "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

              by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:16:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wow (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              mattman, Sandy on Signal, El Yoss

              i just don't see it.

              i can't speak for anyone else; only myself.  i disapprove of any/everyone who voted to authorize military action in iraq - regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or even party affiliation.

              -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

              by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:23:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Should Obama have refused (8+ / 0-)

                John Kerry's endorsement then?  And that of other Democrats who voted the same way Hillary did?  I've never gotten an adequate explanation for why it is now OK to vote to continue and fund the war as Obama has done consistently in the Senate.  Sorry, I simply don't buy the BS that we have to keep killing Iraqis endlessly, because Hillary Clinton voted the wrong way on the authorization.  And it would have passed whether she voted for it or not.

                There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                by Boston Boomer on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:27:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  two things: (5+ / 0-)

                  1. she refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing on her part.  she refuses to admit it was a mistake to vote for it, much less express any sort of regret for her complicity.  others (kerry, edwards, etc) have.
                  1. to pretend her only influence was as 1 senator out of 100 is..."misguided".  2002 was the time to lead.  she was a former first lady, with much credibility and respect built up domestically and internationally.  are you telling me that, along with bill clinton (a former president only two years removed from office) that the only thing she could've done to prevent the invasion/occupation of iraq was to simply vote against it? i call bs! they/she should have been leading the opposition movement and rallying democrats around the cause of, well, sanity in american foreign policy.  ...

                  but she didn't.  and she has yet to demonstrate any sort of fundamental difference in her decision-making process that would lead me (and many others) to believe she would make the right decision in a similar future situation.

                  -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

                  by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:40:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did you know Gates testified (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, Boston Boomer

                    before both the Senate and House Armed Services committees this week about Iraq and funding?  Did you know it was on cspan?

                    Did you care?  Do you think it was important?

                    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                    by Fabian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:26:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so what if Gates was on Cspan? (0+ / 0-)

                      What is the point?  Gates just follows Bush's doctrine of stupid policies blindly.

                      Gates is Sec. of Defense.  Don't try to make him into something else. He is for war, war, war.

                      •  Democracy is a process (0+ / 0-)

                        A long, tedious, arduous process.
                        One that requires the participation of anyone who hopes to influence the outcome.

                        Now some people might think - hey, we'll just ignore Bush's continuing crimes because in eleven months we'll have a new administration and then things will change for the better.  It's a nice thought.  But if you knew for certain that in eleven months, you were going to divorce your abusive spouse and marry a brand new one  but that you would still have to deal with everything that your current spouse did in the interim, would you simply ignore everything that they did for eleven months?

                        Spending you deeper in debt?
                        Entangling you deeper even deeper into international conflicts?
                        Ignoring decaying infrastructure?
                        And so on?

                        Or maybe you would divorce the bad spouse now.  After all, you know he isn't going to change.  

                        Or maybe you would try to do some kind of damage control, try to stop the bleeding, restrain the damage?

                        There is no knight in shining armor, folks.  Just us.  Our votes, our congress and yes, even our expletives-deleted president.  It's all part of the package that is democracy.

                        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                        by Fabian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:00:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree with you. (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, otis704, roseeriter, seattlegonz

                    I don't support what Hillary did and I think Bill Clinton should have spoken out against the war if he thought it was wrong.  

                    I don't care whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gets the nomination.  I see very little difference between them.  They both have heavy corporate support.

                    While Obama pretends to reject lobbyist money, he still accepts it in roundabout ways and has accepted lobbyist money regularly in the past.  He has lobbyists working in his campaign.  He now has more than 300 wealthy bundlers.  While he did make a speech in which he criticized the war 5 years ago, he has done nothing to stop it since.  

                    It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.  I don't care which corporate candidate wins.

                    There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                    by Boston Boomer on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:01:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It was a mistake that she trusted Bush (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    roseeriter, murrayewv

                    as many other Ds and Rs did. Why is it Kerry got a pass in 2004 but not Senator Clinton in 2008?
                    I looked at the AUMF vote as a signal sent to Saddam that the America was done with his games.
                    When Bush sent troops in what was congress to do? Cut the legs out from under them by objecting?

                    We are who we've been waiting for ... to have a drink with then a romantic interlude in the parking lot.

                    by usedmeat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:14:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I have written before that perhaps I understand (5+ / 0-)

                Hillary's position better than others because I have been on quite a few juries.  I know how it is to be forced to vote on evidence as presented and to vote to support the tradition of the law no matter what the "gut feeling" about the defendant.  I still recall one jury I was on almost forty years ago and the sadness I felt at the vote that I cast.  Does the sadness that I feel make that vote a mistake?  I don't believe that it does.  But I will always wish that I could have voted "present" and not have been forced to carry the burden of having voted to send a man to prison for kidnapping when I knew that he was only trying to see his mother before she died.  She did die shortly after he saw her and he turned himself in.  His kidnapee testified for him but he was still guilty of kidnapping.  I suspect that Hillary feels the same about her vote that is so unforgivable.  She voted based on the needs of the "Office of the President" and not on whether this particular President could be trusted with the power.  

                For me the problem is that we have allowed an untrustworthy President to remain in office after we know that he has broken so many laws.  It is not unforgivable to me for Hillary to have voted in a way that is consistent with the Constitutional upholding of the Office of the President.  I respect that I, too, would have voted that way.

                The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

                by macmcd on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:42:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  also, (5+ / 0-)

      i own several guns and am licensed to carry concealed weapons.  by default, according to you, i have an innate will to kill...?  how do you reconcile this with the fact that, somehow, i have never acted on this deep-seated urge to commit murder?

      -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

      by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:00:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why (0+ / 0-)

      do you think that people are laying the blame solely on Hillary?

      I've seen no evidence that people are saying that Hillary caused the war.

      That she supported it without looking at the NIE file, yes, that she did do.

      And people are right to talk about that.

      To the extent that she supported it, she's complicit.

      At the same time that she was saying that, Obama was running for office in Illinois.  In a time-period where the pressure to "be patriotic" was tremendous, he had the guts and the judgment to say:

      I don’t oppose all wars.

      And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

      What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

      What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

      That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

      Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

      But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

      I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

      I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

      I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

      So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

      You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

      The entire speech is available at Lawrence Lessig's site.  

      Let's be clear here.  There was as much pressure on Obama to support the war as there was on Hillary.  She had access to intelligence that he did not.

      He made the correct decision.

      She did not and she is STILL NOT WILLING to say that she was wrong.  She has to qualify it, to equivocate, to say well if I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it.

      That's the point.  Obama has the judgment part down cold.  Hillary does not.

      •  You want her to say this now? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        murrayewv

        To placate you.  I am a pragmatist.  I have no desire for her to say it now.  It would make a wonderful commercial for the right wing if she is the nominee.  

        It amazes how many Obama supporters condemn her for her vote for AUMF and then out the other side of their mouth say they won't vote for her or will vote McCain if she is the nominee.  It is not LOGICAL.

        Not saying you are one of those people, I'm saying it simply amazes me to no end.

        If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him because for sure, he is the better choice than 100 year, bomb Iran McCain.

        I am against all war for any reason whatsoever.  I am appalled by the war in Iraq.  At the same time though, I see that withdrawal has to be done in a way to protect our troops being withdrawn and the Iraq people who have been so totally screwed in this whole process.

        Hillary talked about the intrepters and the people that have helped the occupiers.  Those people need to be helped to get the heck out of dodge, etc.  They are in danger of losing their lives every day because they are heping the US and she talked about that recently.  

        It is going to be a major deal, complicated with many nuances, it's not a matter of just getting the f-ck out.  I wish it were that simple, but it isn't.  

        There is a part of me that understands when McCain says we will be there 100 years.  Our presence in the ME will surely be 100 years, if this planet can survive that much longer, which I have very serious doubts about.

        There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by otis704 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nowhere (0+ / 0-)

          in my comment did I threaten to vote for John McCain.  Rather I'm trying to point out why you should be voting for Obama rather than for Hillary.

          And please note the part that I bolded at the bottom of his speech... he gets how to manage US presence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. He understands what diplomacy really is and how it should be used.

          Hillary, on the other hand, jumped on the Cheney-Bush bandwagon about Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote, demonstrating that she still hasn't figured out the judgment thing.  The Iran NIE that came out shortly afterwards demonstrated just how ridiculous her position was and I haven't seen her acknowledge that either.

          Sen. Kerry and Sen. Obama are both on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I've watched a number of the hearings. There is no doubt in my mind that Sen. Obama understands very clearly where we need to go in terms of national security and foreign policy. He understands very well the points Sen. Kerry made in the 2004 debates that the NYT editorial board finally acknowledged were correct.

          Senator Obama is the best choice for President of the United States.

           
          Disclosure: I consulted with the Kerry campaign site from 10/2006 - 6/2007.

View Story | 87 comments