She did make a error in judgement with the emails. Of course so did her predecessors and many others, including Republicans. But it still* was* a error. It may equal 5% of what we know about Trump.
Meh. GWB and the CIA pulled a fast one on a large majority of Congress- and the US Public. I dont blame her.
So, “if she was running against anyone else, I wouldn’t vote for her”- you’d vote for a Republican who supported the War in Iraq?:dubious:
Other than Sanders- every candidate supported the War originally. Even Trump.
which most Democrats supported.
Most Democratic Senators. In the House it was 126-82 against.
Taken together, most Democrats opposed it.
It isn’t just the Iraq War vote. It’s that she was extremely late to admit it was a mistake, and never provided any leadership to the anti-war cause. It’s that she still has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan, which is in its 16th year. It’s Libya. It’s Syria. It’s that Hillary approves of selling weapons to the evil Saudi regime, weapons which then get used against civilians in Yemen.
No one knows what will happen in the Middle East during her administration. But we can reasonably expect more terrorism, more civil wars, more of all kinds of violence. Hillary seems to have learned nothing from the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Thus it seems quite likely that she’ll continue getting America involved in conflicts in the Middle East, still believing that nation-building is a good idea.
But we’re talking about the Senate.
No one else has a good plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Does Trump? Cruz? Rubio? Maybe Sanders, but he supported that war.
*“But we can reasonably expect more terrorism, more civil wars, more of all kinds of violence.” * That’s true. No matter who is President, that will continue. It has gone on since the days of the Romans, and before. It will continue.
No they didn’t. Many, many people, including former President Jimmy Carter, many members of previous Republican administrations, the now sitting president and thousands and thousands of everyday Americans said the invasion was a mistake and would lead to the destabilization of the middle east. As a senator, she had access to not only information that was available to the public, but also classified information that made it clear that the war was a terrible idea. She was either incredibly stupid in her analysis, or more likely, craven in her decision to go along with something that she knew was a bad idea.
No, I wouldn’t vote for a Republican, but as a resident of Washington DC, my vote doesn’t really matter, the Democrat will always carry the District. What does matter is my money. Over the years, my wife and I have given thousands and thousands of dollars to the Democrats. After this election, that’s over. Forced to choose between a right of center candidate and an outright fascist, we chose Clinton, but we’re done. After this election, any money I would have given the Dems is now going to charities supporting protection the environment.
In the current political climate…there is no “anti-war” candidate. Trump is obviously tired of the stooging at this point. Very evident at the last debate. “Drain the swamp” has excited the culture of wish fulfillment among the Trump supports.
“War” = some sort of never ending occupation in the middle east.
Which is why most Democrats shouldn’t be President. Neither should most Republicans. Anyone who cannot pass the “Did not vote for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands and wasted trillions of dollars” test shouldn’t make it one step closer to the Presidency.
We only need one person out of a hundred and fifty million. We can afford to be picky.
The best criticisms against Clinton are the ones Obama and Sanders made during their campaigns. At least the best criticism that a Democrat should believe, since they came from Democrats most Democrats claim to trust.
She’s likely the most outspoken hawk left out of all the Dems. Not only did she fuck-up royally on Iraq, but continued to do so in Libya. And now, I firmly believe she’s getting a pass* on her proposed no-fly zones in Syria, which is a de facto declaration of war against both, the only recognized Gov in the area and its Russian allies.
None of those were in the senate and none are Presidential candidates. Sure a minority did warn against the war. Few were in power.
The classified info supplied to the Senate, etc was full of BS and supported the idea that Saddam had WMD and a Nuke program.
Democrats are turning into the falling in line party while Republicans are turning to the falling in love party. Whatever Democratic Presidents do receives muted criticism at best, because the real enemy is the Republicans and no Democrat wants to undermine the party and have them get crushed in the next midterm. So Clinton can deregulate, bomb, sign free trade deals, and cut the federal budget and workforce, and if Democrats show any signs of discontent, the Republicans will start scandalmongering and every democrat will rally around the President and forgive all.
Both Obama and Sanders are supporting Hillary’s run for president though. So their criticisms aren’t that strong.
I forget Obama’s criticisms of Hillary (I think he said she was entitled, felt like it was her ‘turn’ to be president) but Sander’s criticisms are that she is too conservative on domestic and foreign policy.
Part of it is that Trump is such a major threat that democrats are terrified of what happens if he gets into office. So in this election cycle, I think democrats are going to be more willing to overlook flaws in our standard bearer.
Not strong enough to maintain that she shouldn’t be President, but strong enough to maintain that there were better choices, and not just themselves. Several of her primary opponents criticized Clinton during the primary and endorsed Obama.
His central critique was that she represented the status quo and he represented change. Sanders said the exact same thing. Obama criticized her war vote. Sanders criticized her closeness to Wall Street. Obama attacked her as a flip-flopper. Obama’s team also shrewdly started the “no drama Obama” meme as a way to contast Obama’s lack of drama with something always going on in Clintonworld. It was a neat way to give some credence to the scandals surrounding them without overtly bringing them up. The Obama team also wasn’t too proud to let some allies make more pointed critiques of Clinton, such as that Bill had crossed the line into being racist in some of his angry rants against Obama, and also minimizing Clinton’s vaunted “experience”, by comparing Clinton’s claim to be able to run the country with the idea of Melinda Gates running Microsoft, or Andrea Mitchell being Fed Chairman because she’s married to Alan Greenspan.
Obama’s bombed five countries and is steadily ramping up our involvement in the ground war against ISIS. The silence from the anti-war movement is deafening. In addition, lefty bloggers who were ferocious critics of Bush have now been almost completely marginalized and their readership down by huge numbers for not being Obama cheerleaders. See: Glenn Greenwald.
Part of this is understandable, it’s a 50-50 country and so all it takes to tip the balance is for a few people who matter to leave the reservation. As long as Clinton meets the low bar with her supporters of being better than Ted Cruz, the worst thing anyone on her side will say is, “I don’t agree with that.” And then they’ll donate the maximum amount to her campaign.
It really isn’t, you’re just not traveling in those circles. I live in the deepest indigo-blue land of the SF Bay Area and believe me it is not hard to find criticism of Obama’s more aggressive foreign policy ventures here. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein is considered conservative by many in these parts :).
So it is incorrect to say it is silent, but it is probably fair to say it is muted. There are several reasons for that and I agree Obama’s popularity with the demographics that typically support anti-war movements is a big one. But also the smaller scale and low media profile of drone strikes vs. something like the Iraq war with its huge mobilization.
I would assume part of the muted response is the fact that Obama’s wars are much cheaper and do not put as many lives at risk.
The Iraq war cost trillions of dollars, injured thousands of US soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, etc.
Obama’s bombing campaigns cost billions at most, tend to be targeted (although civilians do get killed) and they do not put US lives at risk. People are more tolerant of cruise missiles, special forces and bombing campaigns vs. a massive land based invasion.
So people will not treat them the same. Also the war in Iraq wasn’t really necessary. People didn’t oppose the war in Afghanistan as much because the Taliban was in Afghanistan. Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the US and didn’t harbor anti-western terrorists. Obama’s wars are against groups that pose a threat to western nations.