(a) I thought it was offensive to exploit the Khan’s loss for political advantage, especially when the exploiting party had contributed so much to that very loss.
(b) The current election has exhibited more hate, lies, and chicanery than anything I have seen since I became vaguely conscious of politics in the 1950s. Exploiting the Khans – and Trump’s attempts at counter-exploitation – are small potatoes within the general picture. On the one hand, a plutocratic war criminal – on the other, a plutocratic, fascistic, bigoted would-be war criminal – both parties degrading one another into ever worse behavior. Yet people voted for both of them. Why?
Yeah, what was that uproar about FB squelching stories from conservative sources? Because I keep getting them in my news feed. I also keep getting suggestions to like some Trump-related page.
There are two general possibilities. One is that Clinton, in spite of being a senator, in spite of her connections, experience, knowledge, and seeming intelligence, was deceived by the phony intelligence which anyone who cared could see through except the neocons at the New York Times. In other words, that she was innocent through monumental incompetence. The other is that she knew very well the intelligence was cooked, and went along with the war on the theory that if it turned out badly, it would be on Bush, and if it turned out ‘well’, she and the other Democrats would have been in on it. I strongly believe the second theory, but I concede the first is remotely possible. However, we can never know without serious war crimes trials, which of course will never occur, so one has to guess according to the visible evidence.
I love that when people want to bag on Hillary, they emphasize that she’s a clueless, stupid little old woman who only got where she is through pity votes and her big strong husband, but when it comes to her votes in the Senate, she’s suddenly well-connected, experienced, knowledgeable, and very intelligent.
But we mustn’t vote for the other candidate, because she once nefariously allowed France and Germany to talk her into singlehandedly murdering people somewhere.
That seems to be your thing, but you’ll recall some other notable people running for public office on their war record. Or, if you’d like to take your thinking back a bit, Gold Star families is just the government’s manipulation of people into accepting and supporting a war that cost many many lives across a wide swath of the globe.
Because apparently the anarchists just can’t get their shit together to run things on a national scale. Because they organize and canvas and vote. Etc. But you’re asking rhetorically.
Engaging in armed conflicts isn’t the responsibility of the SoS anyway. Granted, she handled the discussions with France and Germany.
I’m conflicted on this episode. The operation in Libya has certainly been botched, especially the aftermath, but there was a freaking massacre going on over there at the time. I don’t think letting Gaddafi having his way was a reasonable and humane option.
I don’t know who or what you’re reading. I see no evidence that Clinton is clueless or incompetent, as I said. I suggest you reject the argument that she is incompetent, and hold her responsible for her actions.
Well, I’m reading your comments, as well as many many others who dismiss her as someone who’s gotten where she is by riding her husband’s coattails. It’s good that you don’t think she’s incompetent!
I’ve never said or thought Clinton was incompetent. Indeed, I voted for her when she first ran for the Senate precisely because I thought, once out of the shadow of her husband, she might turn into a heavyweight more or less on the side of the angels. But that would have taken a kind of moral constitution she apparently doesn’t possess. She’s competent, but as an apparatchik with an unfortunate attraction to militarism and military solutions, or I should say non-solutions.
So, what if Libyan (or Pakistani or Afghan or Iraqi or Sudanese or Serbian or Panamanian or Vietnamese …) planes bombed the US to straighten things out here? Would that seem reasonable? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
Sorry, I wasn’t aware of a methodical massacre of the opposition to the Supreme Leader in the United States. Where can I learn more about the backlash against the American Spring?
So there are conditions under which you would welcome foreign intervention, but they don’t happen to exist right now. Of course, in the minds of some leaders of foreign countries, they might, and they might do it on their own say-so, just as the US leadership does. Is that the principle you want to establish? Do you think that’s the right way to do things?
the Libyan regime was inhumane and something had to be done - but I have no idea how to pack “something” in a coherent package.
often the bombings for peace are inconsequential and inconsistent. in 2007 the French government was totally happy to sell Gaddafi a nuclear power plant, aircrafts and modern equipment for the military. a handful of years later France was the first in the line bombing all sorts of shit out of Gaddafi.
the Lybian regime in 2007 was not very different from the regime in 2011, the Arabian spring changed the playing field but does imo not justify the extreme U-turn in policies.
I don’t have a solution, but the interventionism of the Western bloc since Yugoslavia in the 1990s is not a good way, they feel less like enforcing human rights and more like political power games.
Citation needed because that is very much after-the-fact self-serving bullshit. I mean, there were tens of thousands of people protesting that the war was being led up to under false pretenses in cities all over the country. Clinton and others willfully ignored any evidence that went against the narrative and then pretended, when the war went bad, that they were “misled” and had “no way to know.” Bullshit.
