A while ago, 0ne kossack made a mistake. S/he inadvertently trivialized Hillary's support for the Iraq War both as ancient history and as an easily forgivable mistake. S/he neglected to acknowledge the tremendous consequences. And s/he was called out on it. But then s/he updated his/her diary and admitted and corrected his/her mistake. And that was easily forgivable.
The other day, another made a similar mistake, saying Hillary's misdeed of tremendous consequence should be forgotten because it was soooo long ago. Long ago? Hillary didn't stop perpetuating the misdeed until early 2007, when war fatigue had set it and it was safe to publicly reconsider her position and the onset of her campaign was nearing. Not the bronze age. Not even last century. Selling guns to Iran? That was a while ago and quaint by comparison.
Hillary Clinton, did not make a mistake. As history clearly shows, and current events showed as well, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were entirely correct and thoroughly convincing that the inspections were working. While their messages were roundly suppressed by the mainstream media, including the Serious Democrats, anyone with any interest in the subject heard them. The world community certainly knew the truth.
When Colin Powell went to the UN with his five pieces of "evidence" that Iraq posed a clear and present danger, the faces in the audience were widely unimpressed. Villapin and his German counterpart stood and spoke, rejecting the quality of the "evidence" and the implication that the inspections and sanctions weren't working. This is why the U.S. had to settle for a "coalition of the willing," a coalition of the cowed, coerced and bribed, which even France and Germany ultimately joined with conspicuously small gestures. Only the UK among major nations stood stalwartly with the U.S., which, as the Downing St. memo later demonstrated, was based on the most craven subterfuge: fitting the facts to support the policy. Meaning: war profiteering, geopolitics, and "corporatocratic" militarism over honesty, morality and practicality.
I knew it was fraud because 1) of the fact Cheney falsely tied 9/11 to Iraq on 9/12, and never was that falsehood controverted; 2) there were people on the Left, Michael Moore just one among them, who were not fooled and quite resourceful and outspoken about ferreting out and reporting the truth; 3) the international press was a source of incredibly dispassionate, factual information. Powell's five pieces of evidence were thoroughly examined by the international intelligence community as a combination of wild, fantastical speculation and outright fraud months in advance.
Hell, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, close friends of the Clintons and many other Democrats, knew, at least about the Nigerian "yellow cake." Since Novak was able to report on this in July, 2003, in an act of both treason (?) and ideological vengeance, and given the tremendous import of the escalating drumbeats, it's highly likely that Joe would not have shared his knowledge and experience with others, in spite of the risk. I believe Wilson to be a man of that level of conscience.
With or without Wilson, there is absolutely no possible way that one of the most intelligent, politically connected insider couples in the world did not know as much as millions of Americans, progressive American investigative reports and pundits, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, virtually the entire European intelligence community, international media, and millions more foreign anti-war activists. To argue for their innocence speaks to the absurdity to which people will go to protect these master opportunists dressed in costumes of compassion.
No stinking way. Given the circumstances, arguing that they or other officials on The Hill were duped by the administration is preposterous on its face. That they may have been deceived by specific lies here or there is one thing. But they most certainly knew that there was absolutely no threat of a "mushroom cloud" "smoking gun." And they certainly knew exactly why the international community had to be dragged and coerced into a pantomime of support, even then in numbers and with financial contributions that clearly spoke otherwise, some of which was paid, even with "interest," to them by the U.S. through back-door channels as quid pro quos. A protection racket with flesh and blood on the line. They knew. On The Hill, they all knew. Even Colin Powell, who at first spoke out against a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and then later about the threat and efficacy of War. He came around, as he has before in false flag operations, because he is a top-gun soldier of the MIC establishment, a coward willing to do the bidding of sociopaths.
To be sure, Wall St., the MIC and the corporate media mounted a jaw-dropping, relentless, wall of mis- and disinformation. One study at the time reported that there were a little over 500 talking head panelists used during the run-up to the war, only 3 of which were people who questioned the arguments being made. For this reason, I can understand that many, many people outside of the above circles were in fact duped. And no doubt those most closely affected, even if one or two hops from the fallout, were primed for willingly suspending whatever disbelief they might have had about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq or the threat of WMD's or any of the other transparently bogus rationals the administration and stenographic media gave for the War. And no doubt these people, especially among the Democrats, are the ones most willing to forgive Hillary for a "mistake" that they themselves made. That's understandable, except that where their excuse seems plausible--if grossly unfortunate since the truth was so near at hand-Hillary's is totally implausible, and therefore not a "mistake," but a cold, calculated, sociopathic misdeed in itself.
The decisions made on The Hill, especially among those who signed the AUMF, with or without caveats, AND then supported the invasion and occupation for YEARS and YEARS--as if they miraculously NEVER got wind of the facts--had nothing to do with the actual threat in Iraq. They had everything to do with the pressure coming from the oil interests, MIC, war profiteers, Wall St. and the corporate media, and the cowardly, self-serving, amoral decisions of many Democratic officials sworn to the public trust, including Hillary, to both seek cover within the manufactured establishment groupthink, and to make a cold political calculation that their support would maintain if not enhance their political security going forward. Each one of them put their own power trips ahead of the nation and the world, and all those who suffered death or injury, and those families and friends who suffered right along beside.
Some would seek to hide Hillary and her treachery among the 82 Democrats Representatives who voted for the AUMF, as if saying that since 39% of the D's were corrupt actors they can be excused for their acts simply because so many engaged in them. Do these people hear their own words?
Because of the Iraq War alone--setting aside several other acts of commission and omission (such as TPP in recent months, which she will no doubt deny supporting only AFTER it is done, again for political expediency, and her supporters will obtusely accept as if no subterfuge had been committed)--Hillary will NEVER get back anywhere near the black on her bottomline for doing good vs. harm in the world. Trillions of dollars, millions of lives, and a century of blowback until the last medical and funeral bills are paid, on all sides, were knowingly sacrificed for political, and no doubt in many case financial (campaign war chests which the pols ultimately get to pocket), reasons.
(I actually had a Hillary supporter chuckle over the phrase "last funeral bill." This is how low some will stoop to trivialize the situation in order to defend their cherished criminal.)
Is Hillary alone responsible? Of course not (one ubiquitous straw man down). Is she culpable? Undeniably.
In a similar example of Clintonian ethics, Bill Clinton famously said, "give them the head of one banker and they'll just ask for another." THAT is the soul of the Clintons laid bare. THAT is what her supporters would have us accept as the world's leader. Because something something. 80% of the populace be damned. Victims of endless wars perpetrated for the pleasure of the MIC be damned.
One can debate whether or not knowingly assenting to and supporting a pre-emptive, unnecessary, fraudulent (as Moore said at the Oscars, "fictitious") War resulting in an enormous humanitarian crisis that continues to this day is legally a War Crime, perhaps. After all, the laws are written to protect the misdeeds of the powerful. But it is unconscionable to say such an act is not a War Crime on moral grounds, just as it is unthinkable to say that Wall St. did not commit crimes against humanity in recklessly bringing down the economy and ruining countless lives over reckless hubris and greed.
Should we forgive Hillary for this transgression? Of course. We cannot otherwise be fully human. But we cannot, must not translate this forgiveness into a Get Out of Jail and Proceed to the Highest Office in the World card. This is negligence rewarding negligence, fraud and catastrophic corruption, with certain license to commit more misdeeds for similar reasons from which she most certainly has not learned.
Why are so many Democrats willing to ignore Hillary's catastrophic failure of character, one of such great past, present and future consequences, one that clearly presents significant risks ahead if she be elected?
It matters not why they would do this. The only thing that does matter is that while their mistake in accepting and supporting the Iraq War, if they did, is no excuse for excusing Hillary's monstrous misdeed. What matters is the import of their support and excuses.
This is not a battle for the soul of the Party. This is a battle for the soul of the nation. Nietzsche nihilism is endemic. Orwell's double-speak has become the vernacular of the realists. And it is every bit as dangerous in the Democratic Party as the Republican Party, because the former is ostensibly the last best hope. Compassionate neoliberalism is not enough. Compassionate neoconservatism is not enough. Without a political revolution to reject these destructive ideologies, the practical import of any social progress will be rendered asunder under widespread misery from ineffectively unmitigated Climate Change that can never be effectively mitigated if we are to proceed by working hand in hand with the MIC, fossil fuel profiteers, corporate MSM, and Wall St., which is exactly Hillary's gambit, just as it was Obama's gambit to forestall his efforts seven precious years.
Corruption is not about bad people doing bad things really. Corruption is about good people doing bad things because they think it is normal. This is what Hillary did. And this is what her supporters, in essence, are doing today, whether by saying she was duped, calling it a mistake, or pretending it was committed long, long ago and a faraway land.
We see it every day. Someone catches a little lightning in a bottle and they think they just might be the next Zeus. They just might get their hands on "real money." When kos cited Susan Gardner's decidedly self-serving, un-nuanced "liberals have the same problem with money that Republicans have with sex"--disappointing and ironic since perhaps her most brilliant piece was her review of Chris Hayes' equally perspicacious screed on Meritocracy, he was excusing the same corruption. Excoriating the most liberal man of authenticity and integrity on the Hill while admitting to similar failings of his own. kos is a brilliant man but he has chosen to sit in a chair at the track rather than take a leading role in the progressive movement, and that is a tremendous shame from which we all suffer.
Back to Hillary's fateful, definitive choice. It was not a mistake, nor was it so long ago, nor has she changed the rubric that has given her the well-deserved reputation as a triangulator, the slave of her own political ambition. No matter who she sounds like on a given day, she is the same ambitious person committed to making decisions with cold calculation, with an unwavering ability to justify bad actions as necessary, and a fundamental need to remain firmly entrenched in the Serious community that routinely makes or permits the most atrocious decisions and developments in order to maintain the status quo within which they have such power, status, financial reward, and potential grandeur ahead.
She failed her 3AM call, people. She failed her 3AM call. For six years running.
None of the other hand-waving explanations and excuses for why she should be elected matter.
She is unfit to lead.
Time to screw on own courage, character, convictions and determination, and elect the man who IS fit to lead with the enormous economic, military, and environmental outcomes at stake.
Is he pure? No. Is he perfect? No. Except in comparison to the competition.
And he is certainly electable with the Democrats' advantage in numbers in national elections, so long as there are still Democrats enough who have the wisdom to see why you can't produce democracy with oligarchy and also care enough about democracy and the general welfare to fight for it. It would appear we do not have that critical mass of character. It would appear that the soul of the nation is in fact damned.