Skip to main content

View Diary: Women of Peace and Courage (and a challenge to Sen. Clinton) (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's relevant to her... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

    statement about troops.  What my comment above says is that my strong feelings about imperialism are not driven by my feelings about the Senator. It's not an "imperial adventure" because she is involved, nor is using those words meant as a slam at her in particular. I'm not sure what you mean by using that phrase "tipping my hand." It's not a joke or a hidden agenda: I would, honestly, like to see her disavow using hard power to pursue  terrorists, as part of a wider vision of how to more fairly and effectively use our military. That's what the point is about, nothing more or less.  

    Edgar08, I appreciate that you and I have kept this a polite and (I think) mostly positive conversation. I can see this touches a nerve with you, and I understand that it is not easy to be a fan of the Senator at dKos. Whatever I say, you seem to be convinced that I harbor some deep prejudice against HRC. I'm sorry about that, because it's not the case. Rather, it's that I would like to see her aspiring to be one of the greats---not just a comptetent president and not just "Bill the Second." Like it or not, she is a groundbreaker, and she has the stuff to rise above.  I would love to see her bring a clear vision--her own version of the Just Society (a  la Trudeau), of the New Deal (FDR), People Power, whatever---I'd like to see it clearly articulated and driven home. A broad vision supported by details.

    I'm sorry that this comes across to you as being unfair. Perhaps we should just leave the conversation where it is. To end on a positive note: the Senator is lucky to have a supporter with your loyalty and dedication. If you're one of the ones shaking hands and walking the neighborhoods on her behalf, she is fortunate indeed. Maybe our conversation will help you engage those who are uncommited.

    •  If you think how you qualified (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton's plan is relevant to any statement about troops, then you're clearly pre-disposed to assume the worst of anything she says.

      I doubt you're refuting my point at this point.

      If you were pre-disposed to assume the best or at least not the worst, you'd have never said "Imperialist Adventure."

      More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

      by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:19:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  pre-dispositioned? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

        I don't understand the terms of our discussion. You want to interpret my remarks in the worst possible light, but you also want me to put the rosiest and best interpretations on Senator Clinton's remarks?

        I don't think our discussion is going anywhere, in that case.

        Thank you for the time and effort you have put into it, but I think we are coming from very different places. Best wishes to you (I mean that, by the way, as well as my earlier comments about your loyalty to the Senator).

        •  Lets recap then (0+ / 0-)

          the discussion.

          You alluded to Clinton's plan to leave some troops in Iraq to combat terrorism as an "Imperialist Adventure", and then claimed to want to like her or something like that, but then I pointed out that anyone who wanted to like her would never allude to her plan in those terms.

          Only someone who was trying to get other people to not support Clinton would put it in those terms.

          I've claimed that's what your agenda is.

          That's the terms of discussion.

          And just to be clear about where I'm coming from.  My loyalty is not to Sen. Clinton.  My loyalty is to the truth.  If you were to allude to Obama's plan in the same manner, if you called his plan to leave troops in Iraq to combat real terrorists an "Imperialist Adventure", my response to that would be very much the same.

          If Edwards said "we need to keep a few troops in Iraq to keep tabs on Terrorists," and someone calle that an "Imperialist Agenda" my response would be the same.

          It's wrong.

          More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

          by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:56:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  those would all be imperialist (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            paul2port, fiddlingnero, CanadianBill

            Short of a clarer multilateralist explanation, or clear UN peacekeeping, yes, I wthose sound pretty imperialist. Terrorists aren't combated very effectively by armies. As we should have learned by now, as the French learned in Algeria and the British learned in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you don't like the sound of "imperialist," but that's what it is.

            Please stop assigning me motives that do not exist. I  do not speculate on your motives. Kindly do me the same courtesy.

            Good day.

            •  We disagree (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think that's what it is.

              Imperialist means to assume governance over a different country.

              One can maintain a military presence without doing that.

              Either that or all our bases in every part of the world are Imperialist.  I don't believe they are.

              In any case, sorry about assigning that motive.  I'll look forward to reading any of your posts about Edwards's and Obama's Imperialist Adventures.  Cause that's their position is as well.

              No one's claiming to remove every last American Troop out of Iraq.

              More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

              by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yawn.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aphra behn, fiddlingnero

        tedious, 'My candidate is the greatest...' b.s.

        Clinton is clearly part of 'The Money Party', she luvs her some Rupert Murdoch, she's stated for the record that if elected we will be in Iraq indefinitely.

        She often uses Republican talking points and has used the, 'Democrats want the terrorists to win...' meme.

        You like her.

        Fine.

        That does not give you the right to mount personal attacks against those who do not.

        That's what Republicans do.

        So...

        Hike on over to LGF.

        You'll fit right in there.

        'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

        by Nestor Makhnow on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          Wrong.

          There may be good criticisms of Clinton.  Calling her plan to leave some troops in Iraq to combat real terrorists an "Imperialist Adventure" is not one of them.

          Intentionally mis-leading people about where Democrats stand on issues.  That's a Republican thing to do.

          Perhaps it's you and the author here who are not blogging on the right blog.

          More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

          by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me, newb? (4+ / 0-)

            Perhaps it's you and the author here who are not blogging on the right blog.

            One line in a totally fucking outstanding diary that you take some kind of issue with the wording, and the author is some kind of troll?  You've GOT to be kidding me.  

          •  Well, if you know of simple, easy, foolproof (4+ / 0-)

            way of determining who is a 'real' terrorist and who is just an ordinary Iraqi citizen frustrated with teh US occupation please let me know, then I might share your opinion of Sen. Clinton's plan.

            Until then it just looks to me as continuing the same old clusterf**k, which actually is imperialist.

            And are there not 'permanent US bases' already built?

            It's 'imperialist' despite your narrow definition. 'Governance' can always be accomplished by local proxy - see Karzai and al-Maliki.

            The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

            by FrankFrink on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are one deluded fool... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aphra behn, fiddlingnero

            ...the people who are killing our troops in The MeatGrinder live there homer. They didn't fly in from Afganistan nor Indonesia.

            And anybody who does not understand that is just, plain not informed about the facts on the ground in The MeatGrinder.

            I did not appreciate you hi-jacking my comment to this diarist to spew yer dumb-ass 'analysis' larded with copious quantities of unsubstantiated assertions.

            Less do I appreciate the assertion that Clinton is right about Iraq.

            Pay attention here as it seems to have escaped your grasp that:

            The war in Iraq is illegal according to international law. Yeah, we are now just like the terrorists you are so concerned with in that regard.

            There are a very, very small number of terrorists in Iraq now.

            There were none there before Bush started his excellent adventure. None. Saddam killed 'em all.

            None of this helps us in our very real fight against terrorism. It hurts us. That's why I and many other thinking people want it to stop.

            Clinton is saying what she is saying about staying in Iraq because she is a member of The Money party not because she gives a fuck about terrorists.

            I am not misleading anybody about what Clinton has said about staying in Iraq. What you cannot seem to grasp is that she not only has said it she has lied and is lying about the reasons why.

            If, as I suspect, you really think it's to fight terrorists...

            Google the following:

            The Money Party

            AIPAC

            Rupert Murdoch and Hillary

            Military Keynesianism

            Juan Cole

            Then get back to me. But...

            Spare me the unsubstantiated assertions. They are without merit.

            'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

            by Nestor Makhnow on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:28:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site