This was the argument that Clinton supporters made, and it really wasn’t a bad argument until it was proved wrong.
Now that the election is over and lost, maybe we can stop dumping on Clinton? The Democratic party has never been a pacifist party, and while Democratic presidents from Roosevelt on have been willing to intervene aggressively in foreign affairs, that willingness - however misguided - has been based on trying to right wrongs, not on manifest destiny or greed or expression of testosterone as with the other party.
As for the economic policy, like anyone on the left I deplored the rise of the DLC, but I see its support of global banking interests and the rest of its economic policy as based on a genuine belief that this is good for the economy and ultimately for the people, not on the pure greed and love of class stratification that characterizes the other side. The Clintons, Al Gore, Al From, Sam Nunn, Harold Ford, even Dick Gephardt, these are all people with whom I have had strong policy disagreements, but they were/are all dedicated public servants who don’t hate poor people and don’t think the function of government is to redirect capital from the people into the pockets of the God-appointed few.
HRC is a centrist mainstream Democrat with a lifetime of public service and an unimpeachable track record as social progressive, and doesn’t deserve this continued criticism, as legitimate as it was to raise it during the primaries.
[quote=“M_Dub, post:10, topic:100676”]
The United States didn’t assassinate Qaddafi.[/quote]
Well, we tried, but that was under Reagan.
I said it in '86, and I’ll say it now: I don’t think the US should be flying into other countries to kill elected leaders, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over Qaddafi’s death.
