Skip to main content

View Diary: Are Women who Support Soldiers as Guilty as Hillary? (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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 PST

    [ 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 PST

      [ 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 PST

      [ 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 PST

        [ 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 PST

          [ 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 PST

            [ 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 PST

            [ 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.

              If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

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

              [ 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 PST

                [ 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?

                  Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

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

                  [ 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.

                      Primary season: All sizzle, no steak.

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

                      [ 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.

                  If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

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

                  [ 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?

                  Your candidate sucks and if they win, I'm going to vote for that Nader guy. So there!!!

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

                  [ 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 PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site