BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Be A Good Idiot And Vote For Hillary

TUESDAY OCTOBER 16 2007 9:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: HIllary Clinton, Iran, Iraq,

It is fascinating to watch Democrats make such stupid decisions when picking presidential candidates. We can go back to the eighties and take a look at Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale. What the fuck? Pathetic candidates. Then came Bill Clinton, the Godsend. Realistically, he squeaked through. Without Ross Perot taking votes from Bush senior, he probably would have lost. And he certainly came with a shit load of baggage. After Clinton, the Democrats picked the most boring man alive, Al Gore. They followed that lame pick with the extraordinarily weak John Kerry. You could offer Kerry $10,000 and he couldn�t say something in a sound bite.

Now the Democrats are in a fantastic situation. The Iraq occupation is still seen as a Republican creation and a Republican problem. The majority of Americans want the war to end. So, who is leading the primary polls? Hillary Clinton, one of the few people running who voted for the war. And she has not backed down from her vote. Now, of course, she says she wants to end the occupation, (because the polls have changed) but she is still a war mongering corporate tool. The one issue Democrats could knock out of the park and they will put forth a candidate that who barely differs from the Republican opponents. Amazing, but consistent.

Sure, we are a long way from Election Day, but right now Clinton is pulling away in primary state polls. As careful as she plays the game, I would not expect a crazy Howard Dean scream meltdown. She has a massive funding machine in place and a shitload of Clinton heads who will vote for anyone who was ever anywhere near Bill. It�s sad, because I don�t see a big difference between some of her policies and Bush�s policies. Take Iran. Here�s what she wrote in Foreign Affairs this month.

Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

Okay, so what Hillary is talking about here is pre-emptive war. If they do what we want them to do, then all is well. But if Iran does what it wants to do, then �All options must remain on the table.� That is how Hillary has decided to treat a sovereign nation. Seems quite familiar to another president who is currently in office. Never mind that Iran would never attack the US in a million years with a nuclear weapon. Whoever thinks that is a possibility is complete and total moron. And we should not be bombing to protect Israel. They seem to be big boys and can take care of their own problems.

Hillary already has already given Bush the green light to attack Iran�s Revolutionary Guard.

And Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran�s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move � more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far � would intensify America�s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.

Ignorance at its best, the same as we�ve gotten from Bush for all these years.

From the Iranian perspective the answer is obvious: Make as many nuclear weapons as fast as you can. We invaded Iraq, who didn�t have them and eventually talked to North Korea, who did have them. It�s pretty simple; a nuclear weapon is the only thing that will make the US back off.

The idea that Hillary actually used the line, �let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government� is fucking amazing. That�s a Bush line, straight out of the build up to the Iraq war. It also something the Iranian people won�t really go for when bombs are raining down on their country and killing them.

Only targeting the Revolutionary Guard is an idiotic idea. The Guard is not a separate entity from the Iranian population. They are not bred in warehouses on an island.

�They�re not a group of voluntary jihadists signing up to fight the United States. Many are conscripts taken from the regular army,� said Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

So, that should help with the �we only have a problem with your government� plan. We are killing your brothers and fathers because we don�t like your government. Cool? Bombing will only increase support for the Iranian government, rather than foster any roots of democracy.

But keep throwing your support behind Hillary, Democrats. Of all Democratic candidates, she is the only one I could see leading the US into another war.

207 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 14

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

OCT 16, 2007 11:34 AM

FearTheReaper said:
Dick Durbin, AT THE TIME, voted against the war. He's not exactly Dennis Kucinich. Why? He actually looked at the intelligence. Hillary's excuse of, "I voted with what info I had at the time" is a bullshit excuse, sorry. She actually didn't look into it, and like most Democrats voted out of ignorance.

That means very little to me. I don't give a shit about whether they voted for the war, because so few of them didn't. I care currently about whether they still support it or not. Eventually there reaches a point where you stop getting pissed about something you can't help. It's that whole "flip-flop" nonsense that Republicans paraded around about John Kerry; it's bullshit. At least she shows the ability to recognize and admit a mistake.

The reason I'm not voting for Hillary is that it would mean potentially 28 consecutive years with only two families in the White House. I don't care about anything else she says.

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA

January 2003

OCT 16, 2007 11:42 AM

Saraah said:

If Hillary went back and admitted her intiial vote was wrong, she'd be called a flip-flopper. Now she's being a called a warmonger. Whatever. The vote was made based on false information, presented by the administration. It's all well and good to go back and claim that the democrats who voted against the war did so with purest of hearts and a prescient understanding of where the war would take us. Maybe some, but the rest were pandering cowards who were content to go move in a herd and therefore not be able to be singled out for anything (bad OR good).

I'm sorry, but there were pretty significant numbers of people both in the general public and in US politics to whom it was patently obvious that war with Iraq would be a monumental logistical disaster (especially with a peanut's gallery of people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld running the show), and that it was being pursued as a fatalism by the Bush administration. Whitewash that all you want, but the fact is you had to be neither fucking Nostrodamus nor Abbie Hoffman to believe those things in 2003.

Saraah

Los Angeles, CA

March 2007

OCT 16, 2007 11:42 AM

Rafi said:

s5 said:
That's some scary shit. And get a load of this quote:

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Wow, invading and attacking Pakistan too?

Oh wait, that wasn't Hillary Clinton who said that, it was Barack Obama, and his comments were not well received.

Attacking Obama in an article about Hillary that doesn't even imply endorsement of him is a pretty huge red herring.

Not really. The article ends with this:

"Of all Democratic candidates, she is the only one I could see leading the US into another war."

firechild23

I'm lost

October 2007

OCT 16, 2007 11:43 AM

After all that happened with Iraq, would we even have the resources to war with Iran? I doubt it, and America needs to holster it's guns for a while and say, "Fuck this, I got enough stuff to worry about at home", only maintaining armed forces for defense.

Frankly, the Iraq situation is an act of Cowboy Diplomacy (I.E. Charge in with guns a blazing and expect to look like heroes), and we've been paying for it ever since.

Yeah, truely the work of a master strategist. (Rolls Eyes)

As for the upcoming election:

Frankly, I'm just sick of the American people's apparent inability to consider a third party, because I don't trust either the Republicans or Democrats side at this point.

Saraah

Los Angeles, CA

March 2007

OCT 16, 2007 11:53 AM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Rafi said:
I'm sorry, but there were pretty significant numbers of people both in the general public and in US politics to whom it was patently obvious that war with Iraq would be a monumental logistical disaster (especially with a peanut's gallery of people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld running the show), and that it was being pursued as a fatalism by the Bush administration. Whitewash that all you want, but the fact is you had to be neither fucking Nostrodamus nor Abbie Hoffman to believe those things in 2003.

Where on Earth did I say that only "fucking Nostrodamus" would have believed it would go poorly? Plenty of people believed it would go down like a nightmare, I never denied that. My point is that there were intelligent people on both sides who believed that it was possible that it would work, and in fact that it was the best option available. I'm not whitewashing anything. Kudos to the people who saw through the lies.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 16, 2007 12:01 PM

Formus said:
The reason I'm not voting for Hillary is that it would mean potentially 28 consecutive years with only two families in the White House.

I'm glad I'm not the only person disturbed by that prospect. I mean, I'll vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate (there's not a single Republican contender I'd be comfortable seeing as President), but it'd bother me.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

OCT 16, 2007 12:02 PM

Saraah said:

Not really. The article ends with this:

"Of all Democratic candidates, she is the only one I could see leading the US into another war."

Because she voted for the Iranian resolution. No other candidates did, Not even Joe Biden, war monger.

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA

December 2005

OCT 16, 2007 12:04 PM

Yup, this is a sucky situation. She's unelectable. We're screwed. Hopefully she doesn't lose too horribly, and the dems have a chance with Obama in 2012. At least he'd be able to pick up some Independent and Republican votes. Hillary will get absolutely none of those. I predict a massacre of Mondale-ian proportions.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 16, 2007 12:10 PM

ckdexterhaven said:
Yup, this is a sucky situation. She's unelectable. We're screwed.

Our only chance is if the Republican candidate is more unelectable.

Seriously, though, Clinton and Kennedy were the only half-assed electable candidates the Democrats have put forth since Franklin D. fucking Roosevelt (Peace Be Upon Him) himself. And both of them were elected by small margins. Carter slid in (arguably) only because of Watergate.

The Party has been moribund for decades, and I for one have litle faith in its prospects for recovery.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

OCT 16, 2007 12:13 PM

ckdexterhaven said:
Yup, this is a sucky situation. She's unelectable. We're screwed. Hopefully she doesn't lose too horribly, and the dems have a chance with Obama in 2012. At least he'd be able to pick up some Independent and Republican votes. Hillary will get absolutely none of those. I predict a massacre of Mondale-ian proportions.

While I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, I think you're drastically over-estimating the "Everybody Hates Hillary" thing and drastically under-estimating how Bush has skullfucked the popular appeal of the GOP.

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA

December 2005

OCT 16, 2007 12:18 PM

Zarth said:

ckdexterhaven said:
Yup, this is a sucky situation. She's unelectable. We're screwed.

Our only chance is if the Republican candidate is more unelectable.

It might get interesting depending on how the 3rd party candidate(s) do. If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we might see Ron Paul take a decent amount of votes away from him. Wouldn't be surprised in the least if the winner gets less than 45% of the popular vote, if that happened. But I don't know, I'm pessimistic about this upcoming election in general.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 16, 2007 12:22 PM

I can't remember an election I wasn't pessimistic about. That's just democracy. You get used to it. Or . . .

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA

December 2005

OCT 16, 2007 12:29 PM

Uncognitive said:

Personally, I think Hillary is failing to find any sort of niche to guarantee her any significant amount of votes. The far left dislikes her, the far right dislikes her. Independents dislike her. I don't see where she picks up votes. And those who are foolish enough to vote for her simply because she's a women, simply cannot be counted on to turn out to vote in significant numbers. Maybe I'm underestimating the support she would get from moderates, but I think she's far too polarizing a figure to get much from them.

And as far as the GOP, I think they'll come out if they are given a decent candidate (in their eyes) to vote for. A pro-lifer, who talks a big game about illegal immigration would work just fine. We'll see if one of their current candidates can be manufactured and crafted to at least somewhat resemble that image.

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

OCT 16, 2007 12:43 PM

jdmass said:
And? What is your point? You don't like Bush (neither do I), you don't like the democrats, so, maybe you should bring Hugo Chavez in. C'mon!

Do you really believe Iran to be a pillar of restraint and peaceful intentions? I do believe the level of threat they pose has been taken a bit out of proportion, but they are a rogue nation nonetheless.

Is going to war with them a good idea? Of course not, unless they start posing a real, serious, threat to the status quo.

Now, they don't. The moment they do, they will get their arses kicked. No matter who the fuck wins the election. The Iranians are not idiots. They can talk all they want, but they'd never dare to pick a fight.

*woosh*

farva

Portland, OR

November 2005

OCT 16, 2007 12:54 PM

You gotta love FTR...

Rags on one option while discussing not even one alternative, forms an opinion of a politician by looking at one aspect of her agenda and takes every possibly-sinister action and carries it illogically forward to its most most extreme outcome.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 14