Word
Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government’s ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing “decency” standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.
Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry’s increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: “Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she’s done nothing to suggest to the contrary.”
What about secrecy and executive power? It’s difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband’s administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious “executive privilege” claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests — claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking. […]
President Bush has recently had some nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, leading some to speculate that Bush sees her as the Eisenhower to his Truman — a candidate from the opposing party who criticizes his foreign policy during the campaign, but will likely pursue a very similar policy should she be elected.
As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton’s “right” to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it’ll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn’t good for our republic.
Neither is our overly interventionist foreign policy, or the continuing erosion of our civil liberties, be it in the name of “family values,” government paternalism, the war on drugs, or the war on terror.
Basically, he’s right.
I will not support Hillary Clinton in the primary. Of all the Dem candidates, she and Joe Biden are the ones I least want in the White House, for the reasons ably outlined by Mr. Balko. I’ll vote for her if she wins the Dem nomination, simply because America cannot take another Bush-style Republican calling the shots- and let’s face, all of the major GOP contenders are Bush-style Republicans. I think Hillary would be marginally better on a lot of these issues than the major GOP candidates, and I think that she’s more prone to being influenced by the ACLU on civil liberties matters than the Bushies are. But her instincts on executive power and an imperial foreign policy seem completely wrong to me. Here’s hoping Obama (or someone not named Biden) can rally an upset.
The only thing that sets her apart from main street Republicanism is her probable judicial nominees. I agree with you on indifference to her as a candidate. And I expect a lot of bitter pills being swallowed by progressives if she wins.
This is why I’ll never get the love I see for the Clenis on the lefty blogs. He was just as bad.
Any Democrat but Biden and Clinton! I would rather vote Green than vote for either of them. Good thing I live in New York.
Considering how the next president will have so many scandals and crises to inherit, and therefore will have a miserable first term, Hillary has failed to explain to me why I need to follow her. I have no confidence that she can go into the White House and start sorting things out.
In fact, why do any of the Democratic candidates want to go into that mess? Only a few have explained why to my satisfaction (Dodd, Kucinich, Obama, Edwards).
Let’s face it, the next president could be as doomed as Carter, no matter which Democrat wins.
A big lesson learned these past 8 years is that who is in Congress is slightly more important than who is in the White House. A real Democratic victory would be bigger majorities in both chambers. That’s why I am watching races in Iowa, Ohio, and Minnesotta more closely than the presidential race.
Al Franken winning a senate seat would be a huge victory.
And next time Holy Joe is up for re-election, he’s a gonner.
This is what we fight for. A Senate with backbone.
In other news, Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.
Cue the wingnut meltdown in 3…2…1…
Bwa ha ha ha. HC will rule the world with the powers left her by W. The Queen of the Liberals will wield her extraordinary powers to exact vengence and justice. Republicans will be begging for habeus corpus from the liberal inqusition. They’ll seek legal counsel from the ACLU. I can’t wait.
Bwa ha ha ha. HC will rule the world with the powers left her by W. The Queen of the Liberals will wield her extraordinary powers to exact vengence and justice. Republicans will be begging for habeus corpus from the liberal inqusition. They’ll seek legal counsel from the ACLU. I can’t wait.
That is the amusing side to it, yes. The GOP will be decrying the same powers they gave Dubya.
I’m supporting Ron Paul, and Hilary is the ONLY Democrat I fear winning the election. I can live easily with anyone else.
Her only asset is the idea that the Republicans would frantically try to take away all those powers – and who knows, get the budget deficit decreased.
Traditionally, even a strong lead for the nomination this early in the campaign cycle would be almost meaningless. That’s much less the case than it used to be, but one can always hope.
One can hope for that, too – but a Congress with a backbone would be a very rare creature.
Agree. Which makes it difficult for me to understand why the the Repigs loath her so much. Projection? A grudge against her husband? Misogyny? Then again I haven’t understood what the heck could possibly be going on inside their heads for some time now.
While I, too, find Ms. Clinton’s political agenda, particularly as it relates to American foreign policy, far to similar to the war party’s, and I don’t think we’ll see much in the way of a “global peace initiative” under her presidency, I think there are two profound and fundamental differences that make her about a million times better that gw bush.
First, I don’t see in her the network of corruption, cronyism and straight-up payoffs that has been the mark of the bush administration. Under bush, that resulted in everything from “heckuva job brownie” to abu gonzales. I think she’ll be more interested in competence and accountabillity than in rewarding just anyone. I think, if nothing else, she cares a great deal more than the frat boy about how she is perceived.
Second, on domestic issues I think she’ll be much more than “better than bush”. I think she’ll approach greatness. There are so many big issues this country needs to deal with internally, and they keep getting eclipsed by wars and terrorists and occupations and general foreign adventures that OF COURSE should not be the primary purpose of the American leadership. I think under the second Clinton presidency we will see serious solutions to healthcare, education, infrastructure, the things that are important to American people.
Look, I have nothing against the Iraqi people. But I don’t want to keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars to either build their shit or blow up their shit. It’s time that america spent some of it’s wealth on the american people. I think the american people agree. And I think Sen. Clinton agrees…
mikey
Sure Senator Clinton is far too centrist for my tastes. But what exactly are we hoping for. Kucinich? Naguhhappin. Obama?, well maybe but appealing to unity without giving our more conservative brethren any recognition of their values seems to me to be doomed to failure. Sending the more extreme looney members of the right to their growleries where they will sit and lick their wounds and bemoan their lack of influence is the best that we can hope for. So maybe a “triangulating” consensus builder is what we need right now. I see in Senator Clinton a decent set of core values and an understanding that somewhere around a third to a half of the electorate are not similarly inclined.
Senator Clinton is not unelectable, neither is she ineluctable. But right now she seems to be the best we can hope for.
tritonesub- it isn’t her triangulation that disturbs me, but her view of the uses of American power.
On domestic issues, yes, she’ll be a lot better. Think Teddy Roosevelt: decent on domestic, imperial on foreign.
I share your misgivings Bradrocket. I hope that her more agressive foreign policy posturing is to mollify “security” voters.
How so? What is she going to do that’s 1% as bad as the things any of the Republicans want to do?
Given her support of Patriot Act, I doubt she’d be decent on domestic issues, unless those issues are a very narrow set: civil rights for all Americans.
But I won’t vote for her. I’ll vote green or libertarian until Americans get sick of the centrist cobags.
Also, she knows that before she puts her hand on the bible that winter’s morning in early 2009, bush and cheney are going to ratfuck her but good.
She has no way of guessing what regional middle east catastrophe will be underway on the day she takes office. Cheney is going to attack iran, israel WILL get sucked in and attack Syria, Iran and turkey will move to secure their interests, so what happens with Saudi, Dubai, Kuwait and The Emirates? What do the russians do? The chinese?
She may have mulitple hot wars on her hands, plus a determined asymetrical war against the american mainland. It’s very possible that bush and cheney will leave her a world in flames, and perhaps her hawkishness might be very necessary.
It certainly remains to be seen what state the world might be in when bush and cheney slink off to their respective comfortable lives in bumfuck wyoming and buttfuck texas…
mikey
Bush I did it to Clinton with Somalia in ’92.
It would be nice if we could have someone at least pay lip service to reality. Today, that prospect is looking pretty good.
This:
“As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton’s “right” to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming”
…is wrong, I think. Not that he wouldn’t enjoy seeing it, but it’s not going to happen. “The left” is already annoyed with her; I don’t really see why they’d start to pull their punches after she’s elected, if that happens. If President Hillary continues to abuse the Constitution and engage in reckless foreign policy, I don’t think actual leftists are going to cut her any slack for not being as bad as her predecessor.
Now, hardcore partisan Democrats may be in the uncomfortable position he describes, but those aren’t really “leftists” at all.
Ya know, this “as a Libertarian” bullshit needs to go. How about “as an American citizen” I’ve had to sit by and watch elected officials supposedly representing me, as an American citizen, launch a full frontal assault on my basic liberties.
Clinton is yet again a choice leaving me with the lesser of two evils. I didn’t want to vote for Kerry in ’04 and I’m damn sure not going to vote for Clinton in ’08.
She and the rest of the Washington crowd, feed from the same troughs as Bush and his boys. The label on the trough may be different, but they still operate as a distinct and separate society, quite removed from what I and millions of other Americans endure every day.
Something is terribly, terribly wrong here, I am worried about a lot of things, but the illegal spying, the use of Government institutions to harass and intimidate, the ever-growing power of those who have the most cash, we’re in trouble and Clinton isn’t going to fix a goddamned thing.
These people do not care what we think, they do not care about what struggles and problems we face, none of them. The ego-fest that is this interminably long primary season has shown that other than Chris Dodd, and oddly enough, Ron Paul, just how far off every major candidate is from understanding and than acting accordingly, to what is written in the Constitution.
There, that’s better.
I meant “”
“This is why I’ll never get the love I see for the Clenis on the lefty blogs. He was just as bad.”
You’re either stoned out of your gourd or too young to remember the 1990s. Clinton was by no means “lefty” or even liberal, but he was, by no motherfucking stretch of the imagination, “just as bad” as George Bush.
K, so I can’t put in a fake html close tag.
Duly noted.
As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton’s “right” to employ the same executive powers … (Balko)
I won’t be squirming, because I won’t be defending her right to use the overextended executive powers. But I do admit I’ll be chanting in the ear of the wingnuts who rolled over and let Bush grab these powers, without considering the consequences: “Told ya so, told ya so!”
At least for a few months.
Mikey:
Also, she knows that before she puts her hand on the bible that winter’s morning in early 2009, bush and cheney are going to ratfuck her but good.
…and the conservatives will be ready to blame her for absolutely *everything* that happens afterwards. I’m sure that National Review has a template ready to go:
“At the end of 2008, things were finally looking up for Iraq.
“Then came the Clinton Administration, Part II.”
To say that you won’t support Hillary Clinton in the primary is good news to her, since she is going to win it anyway and that implies that you will support her in the national election. She has long ago made the decision that she can punt the progressives, since they’ll still vote for her in the national election and she doesn’t need them to win the primary.
Clinton represents every asshole pundit from the fake left. You might as well elect Thomas Friedman for president. There is no way that I’m ever going to a poll to elect Hillary Clinton for anything. I plugged my nose and voted for Kerry, but that is as far as I’m willing to go.
Clinton/Biden in ’08: Yahoo!
I’m with ya 100% Brad.
Here’s hoping for Gore, Kucinich, or Edwards (in that order).
All due respect, Brad (and commenters), but you replace “Hillary Clinton” with “Al Gore” and turn the clock back to 2000, and suddenly we are ‘electing’ Bush. (we’ve even got someone from New York talking about voting for the green party).
dont’ we ever learn?
The tough part is already happening. With Turkey authorizing military action in Northern Iraq to attack the PKK, we will find ourselves having to choose between backing our ‘ally’ Turkey or our ‘friends’ the Turks. Bush I failed the Turks the first time around. Just like Custer and Somalia, the enemy will be all around. If Turkey rolls tanks over the border, Iran may not be far behind. I am not sure this is going to wait until November 2008.
this conversation is stupid and useless. nothing matters more than a) environmental policy and b) the supreme court and its possible 3 vacancies for the next president.
the next president will either choose to put us in the direction of saving our children from a mad max style future or let it ride not worry about it.
the next president will move our ultimate judicial authority in a definitive direction (and therefore dictate to a great extent social policy) for the next 40 years, e.g. our lifetimes.
much as i care about the stuff (iraq, creeping imperialism here at home) it pales, it hides in the corner next to the above.
welcome to political triage. wake up. get real. the contempt with which i say the last four words cannot be expressed via the written word, so please imagine a contemptuous snort of epic proportions: Ron Paul. Ralph Nader.
to clarify: and therefore we will vote for hilary if she wins and we will fight for her all but to the death, because the alternative in front of us will be a vile piece of dog excrement representing the insanely dangerous modern republican party. i base some of my loathing for these cretins on the investigative work (no really, i mean it, love ya demo a! the bestest!!!) done at this very website. its authors surely recognize that it’s a democrat or disaster.
Hey, they’re not actually voting for the guy who’s going to kill a million people, they’re simply refraining from using their vote in the only way that would actually stop him. Conscience = clean.
No.
RG, you have a point there, except that if the Mideast goes into a multi-front hot war as Dain Brammaged worries, that’ll be fuck-all to environmental policy, social spending, and a non-authoritarian future.
We’d need a draft. We’d need more billions of dollars we don’t have. We’d need materiel we don’t have. And we might not be able to depend on Chinese loans.
Plus, if we can’t assert a satisfactory amount of dominion over the clusterfuck conventionally, peeps will be tempted to use the big bombs. “Fewer American casualties!”
nothing matters more than a) environmental policy and b) the supreme court and its possible 3 vacancies for the next president.
What Robert Green said.
Hey, they’re not actually voting for the guy who’s going to kill a million people, they’re simply refraining from using their vote in the only way that would actually stop him. Conscience = clean.
Screw that. Electoral College, anyone? One more blue lever-pull in New York means absolutely shit. Or RI, Mass, New Jersey, etc. The main idea was always to get the magic 5% popular vote to get a progressive party on equal federal footing with the crap we’ve got now.
Plus, Gore did win, if you recall. 00 was not an election, it was judicial coup. So none of the fucking votes mattered, in the end. Blaming Nader is just a DLC-triangulating-“sensible liberal” bullshit red herring. And you know it.
Please substitute ‘Kurds,’ for ‘Turks.’ And Robert, you just wrote the Demo platform, no matter who wins the nomination. Plus a great bumper sticker!
my wife hates the preznit too!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/popup?id=3717904&contentIndex=1&page=7
Triton
Obama?, well maybe but appealing to unity without giving our more conservative brethren any recognition of their values seems to me to be doomed to failure.
Fuck ’em, I say. They don’t give a shit about my values. Hell, they don’t even think I HAVE values.
I’m not voting for Hillary because I like her or think she’d be a good President. I’m voting for her so I can ram “President Hillary” down the throats of every wingnut in the country. It will be worth putting up with her to accomplish that, no matter how bad a President she turns out to be. (it’s not like she could be any worse than Bush)
That’s not what’s being discussed here. People are talking about not voting for Clinton as a matter of conscience, which presumably applies no matter where you live. I’m asking how clean your conscience can be when you use your vote in a way that allows people like Bush to come close enough to winning to steal the election.
The joy of living in Florida is that we are so fucked up down here we can’t even do a primary election correctly. The DNC has taken our delegates away, so I don’t have to get worked up about the primary election at all, which means that I get to dutifully vote for whichever one of the Dem candidates finally gets the nod.
And I will, whether I like it or not.
Although I swear to God, if I have to vote for Hillary Clinton, I’m having a drink first. I’ll take a hip flask in the voting booth with me, take a swig, and push the button. There’s just no way I can vote for her completely sober.
In fact, the whole idea has already turned into a twangy country song in my head…”If I have to vote for Hillary Clinton, I’m a-getting drunk…..”
it’s a democrat or disaster.
That’s a slogan right there, that is.
Big block letters. White. On a blue background.
Mr. Green, I am SO buying her book. Truly amazing work.
And I thought working with babies was tough…
HumboldtBlue said,
October 12, 2007 at 20:36
How about “as an American citizen” …Clinton is yet again a choice leaving me with the lesser of two evils. I didn’t want to vote for Kerry in ‘04 and I’m damn sure not going to vote for Clinton in ‘08…
She and the rest of the Washington crowd, feed from the same troughs as Bush and his boys… These people do not care what we think, they do not care about what struggles and problems we face, none of them. The ego-fest that is this interminably long primary season has shown that other than Chris Dodd, and oddly enough, Ron Paul, just how far off every major candidate is from understanding and than acting accordingly, to what is written in the Constitution.
On the one hand I find your commitment to principle to be brave and noble. On the other hand I think you are dead wrong and believe things about democrats that are not true and that the republicans want you to believe and hence you act accordingly: you stay home on elections.
It’s the tragedy of America, since 1972. And when you look at it that way, it’s hard not to believe that the USA is doomed.
But at least you get to feel good about yourself. You know it’s the same sin as the Washington Press Corps pundits we love to hate; their personal feelings on a matter are the truth of the issue. Sadly, Yes!
I think that’s an ideal protest Jillian.
And yes, absolutely agree with the folks here. I have no intention of cutting Hillary slack, and would far prefer the likes of Kucinich. But much better to put a conservative SANE Democratic president in government and yank hard to the left, than to deal with any of the Republicans in power.
As to Ron Paul; he’s Grover Norquist without the connections. Sure he might manage to pull us out of Iraq and balance the budget, but expect social programs, environmental protection and corporate regulation to be slashed vigorously.
I won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I want the war to end, and I do not believe that she will end it. I am essentially a single issue voter on that, and as such I have no reason to vote for Hillary over the Republicans. At some point the lesser of two evils is still too evil. Hillary Clinton is at that point for me, and that pill is too bitter to swallow. I don’t care about abortion and gay rights, and the political parties are essentially the same on civil liberties and economic policy. I full expect Hillary will still win, but I also fully expect her failure to end the war will see the end of the Democratic congressional majorities for a generation, and will lose the white house come 2012. This is, in many ways, a far more depressing time than 2002 ever was.
TB, how is your conscience doing when your party nominates someone who can’t garner a majority of the countries support, and then you turn around and blame this countries citizens; rather than blaming the corrupt Democratic party that refused to nominate someone a majority of citizens could support?
The blame for the failures of the Democratic party rest squarely on the Democratic party. You’re not owed our support. You have to earn it. It’s not the Ralph Nader’s fault that Al Gore bought into so much of the media BS in 2000. Clean up your own house before you start casting blame on other people for your own failures.
Right, I get it, the slogan of the Greens: it’s not our fault.
Soullite, I hate to break it to you, but NONE of the Democratic candidates are going to end the Iraq war. NONE. Not a single one of them will.
Dennis Kucinich would. Mike Gravel would. And either one of them has only a slightly greater chance of getting elected than I do.
Every single Democratic candidate who says they will “bring the troops home” is lying to you. The best you can hope for is a symbolic drawdown in the first few months of ’09, and that’s about it. We are in Iraq for either the next decade, or until one faction of the civil war over there gains enough power to be able to force us out militarily, as happened in Vietnam in ’75. I will stake whatever reputation I might have on this.
It’s not gonna happen, and the people who are supporting Democratic candidates because they think some Dem will bring the troops home are in for a rude fucking disappointment come 2010.
Hillary says she’ll roll back Bush’s expansions and that she doesn’t believe in the unitary executive theory. I know, not worth much, but better than nothing, and better than the Republicans. And if he thinks “the left” will defend her on this, he’s smoking crack.
Soullite: “I don’t care about abortion and gay rights, and the political parties are essentially the same on civil liberties and economic policy.”
this excerpt from Ralph Nader was brought to you by The Committee To Elect Another Republican President
Soullite, it looks like you’re either trolling or confused. Since I think I remember past comments of yours that weren’t trollish, I’m going with confused. Who’s the “you” you’re referring to? Who’s the “we”? Who’s the nominee that a majority of the citizens supported but the dems refused to nominate? And how by all that is holy are the democrats essentially the same as republicans on civil liberties? Although I guess if you “don’t care about abortion or gay rights,” that’s something of an answer right there.
I, for once, am a little more optimistic than Jillian. Wow.
Here’s how I think it’ll play out. With the proviso that we’re dealing with the same war in ’09 we’re dealing with now, which I kinda don’t think we will be. But based on that assumption.
Jillian’s right. They’re gonna try to weasel. How do you weasel? You get out of the cities, stand down from combat ops, draw down to 60,000 troops and put ’em in big bases in the middle of nowhere. If you can cut a deal with the Iraqi government, you could stay forever.
But you can’t. Without the American troops serving as the armed wing to the Shiite government, the government falls. If the Americans come back out, start taking casualties, the pressure at home ratchets back up. Congressional elections only twenty months out. No matter what you do, you lose baghdad, basra, and iran takes effective control of the south. Come out and fight, lose politically at home. Stay in your bases, the iraqi government says “jeez, you guys are useless, I’ll make points by throwing you out”.
America can’t stay, and can’t control the situation, so by 2011 we’re out. Oh, and that stupid embassy? It’ll be burned to the ground long before that.
But that’s all moot if cheney starts the conflagration. And I think he will…
mikey
mikey, I suspect the Iraqi government “throwing us out” is going to happen – and it’s going to involve scenes that look a lot like like this.
After all, we got thrown out then, too.
While not particularly excited about Clinton, my vote goes Dem regardless of who gets the nod.
“…simply because America cannot take another Bush-style Republican calling the shots…” That’s a compelling reason and I would add that if Hillary does become president there are a few things that should be considered.
One, this nation finally electing a female as head of state, ( Pelosi marks a milestone as well) and two, if a Dem is elected president I personally believe we have much more of an ability and chance to effect change in our political system.
Perhaps a bit idealistic but I see a presidential Dem as being more malleable and responsive to the public. Hillary is afraid of being torched by liberals and left leaning voters, definitely wants two terms, and will most likely do anything to get re-elected.
That’s my two cents.
Hillary also accepted more campaign money from private health insurers than any other candidate in either party, ‘cepting Mitt. What does that tell you?
Maybe America will get lucky and Gore will enter the race. His Nobel prize won’t hurt.
um I think Richardson has promised to withdraw troops. heres a linky linkys
who knew mikey was a clintonista?
People are still blaming Nader for 2000,are you fucking kidding me?I didn’t support him them but how about the fact that your hero Gore who you just hope will enter the race and just save us all was running as far right as he could,was basically the uber-centerist triangulator you all love to hate.He did 0,thats 0 for global warming when in power passed extremely retrograde labor treaties,NAFTA ring a bell,how bout welfare reform,how bout don’t ask don’t tell.Even his cousin Gore vidal takes him to the woodshed on this shit.But even intelligent progressives get friggin amnesia around election time and think ohh he’s so much different now.The 2000 elec.was a coup.but instead of blaming Nader how about shedding some of that blame on the man how alienated a good deal of his base by campaigning to the right and not even protesting the bogus result as President-Pro-Temp.Come on guys you’re smarter than that,but if not just keep on doing what your doing,Lather,Rinse,Repeat every couple of years.Did the Dems winning the last elecs and taking both houses,then do absolutely fucking nothing of import not teach us that these are good cop bad cop tactics.We are still at war,still in a police state.And I am not gonna deal with,well we don’t have a big enough majority so…..no you control the committees,you control the schedule,why do the repugs control the debate you pussys?Do I have the answer?Sadly-No.I’m not a political scientist just a working class guy,but I know when I’m being bullshitted.And I hate to see people on my team buy the bill of goods.
Oh yeah I forgot they raised the minimum wage by two dollars yippee.No more generic Ketchup!
What are you getting at?
Your Joking right?
I have problems with the last two points of this first paragraph of Balko’s writing. Neither are very specific but I assume the mention of Clinton’s “robust” role in enforcing “decency” standards refers to the fact that she was married to Bill Clinton when V-chips were made mandatory on televisions. And while teaming up with Rick Santorum doesn’t look good for her, if the goal was to prevent children from buying “Grand Theft Auto” what’s the harm in that?
Soullite, I hate to break it to you, but NONE of the Democratic candidates are going to end the Iraq war. NONE. Not a single one of them will. Dennis Kucinich would. Mike Gravel would. And either one of them has only a slightly greater chance of getting elected than I do.
What about Dodd?
You’re either stoned out of your gourd or too young to remember the 1990s. Clinton was by no means “lefty” or even liberal, but he was, by no motherfucking stretch of the imagination, “just as bad” as George Bush.
Getting a little trigger-happy, aren’t you? You should have stopped to consider if the poster was saying that Clinton was as bad as his wife.
But, in the spirit of enquiry, why is it inappropriate to say that Clinton was as bad as Bush is? Does the fact that Bush is expanding programs, like its extrajudicial kidnappings, that Clinton put in place mean that it’s worse to expand them rather than originate them? I don’t see why that is, and I think it requires significantly more argument to make that kind of case than claiming that the person is stoned out of their gourd, something I would expect to hear from a right-winger.
Maybe America will get lucky and Gore will enter the race. His Nobel prize won’t hurt.
Yes it will, for a couple of reasons:
1. Gore might be convinced that he’s doing more good now than he could as president; and
2. A Nobel Peace Prize is just the kind of thing that a lot of Americans would be suspicious of. After all, it’s awarded by Europeans, it has to do with peace, which means wimpiness, and to top it off, Jimmy Carter has one.
And while teaming up with Rick Santorum doesn’t look good for her, if the goal was to prevent children from buying “Grand Theft Auto” what’s the harm in that?
The harm is that she wasted a ton of time and effort on something that is, in the grand scheme of things, painfully trivial.
But, in the spirit of enquiry, why is it inappropriate to say that Clinton was as bad as Bush is?
Well, there is that whole endless war in Iraq thing, as well as that warrantless wiretapping thing.
And yeah, I know that Clinton kept up the sanctions and the bombing WRT Iraq. I know his hands are not clean by any stretch of the imagination. But I think it’s well nigh impossible to deny that Bush has made things measurably worse for the Iraqi people, as well as for us here back in the States, than Clinton did.
Clinton only looks good now in comparison to what we’ve had for the last 7 years.
Well, there is that whole endless war in Iraq thing, as well as that warrantless wiretapping thing.
When it comes to warrantless wiretapping, that’s another case of Bush expanding a program that Clinton got rolling. And while Clinton didn’t go to war with Iraq, he did bomb the shit out of Kosova, a situation which was as much a crime against humanity as Bush’s Iraq misadventure. Less people may have died, but that’s because there were proportionally less people to die, which is hardly better. It was still a case of targeting civilians and their infrastructure, rather than military targets and had predictably horrific results, even into the present day.
If I could work my will, both Clinton and Bush would be sitting in opposite cells at the Hague, along with Albright, Negroponte (the Butcher of Honduras), and Henry Kissinger.
And yeah, I know that Clinton kept up the sanctions and the bombing WRT Iraq. I know his hands are not clean by any stretch of the imagination. But I think it’s well nigh impossible to deny that Bush has made things measurably worse for the Iraqi people, as well as for us here back in the States, than Clinton did.
In terms of sheer numbers, Bush has still killed less Iraqis than Clinton, even considering the latest study which estimates 1 million dead. Bush is doing his level best to catch up, but Clinton is still the top murderer of Iraqis so far. Now, I may grant that the knock-on effects of bombing the infrastructure will lead to serious problems down the line, but the problems with the Iraqi infrastructure were already there because of Clinton, therefore I don’t think they can be isolated from one another. Clinton’s responsibility for Iraqi deaths continues to the present day because the US military is striking a severely weakened infrastructure which doesn’t have the means, thanks to Clinton, to be rebuilt. This is one reason why I think they’re as deplorable as each other.
in terms of sheer stupidity, this thread wins.
the amount of stupid it takes to think that “clinton was as bad as bush” is a lot of stupid.
it’s “malkinesque” stupid. people who think this way are children. the dumb kind of child, the kind of child Left Behind even by No Child Left Behind. i hope the thread ends here.
No, I’m not joking. I’m trying to discern a point to your post besides “RRRAHHH- NOT NADER’S FAULT!1!” You seem to be saying that the Dems suck (NS) and Gore was a crappy VP for allowing Clinton to push NAFTA, WR, DADT etc., therefore [insert whatever point you were trying to make here].
in terms of sheer stupidity, this thread wins.
the amount of stupid it takes to think that “clinton was as bad as bush” is a lot of stupid.
it’s “malkinesque” stupid. people who think this way are children. the dumb kind of child, the kind of child Left Behind even by No Child Left Behind. i hope the thread ends here.
Well, let’s put it this way, so that even you may understand it. Clinton is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bush is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Getting into moral hairsplitting about which war criminal is worse ultimately ends up absolving one or the other of responsibility for their crimes, whereas the right thing to do is condemn them both equally.
Reaaally. What are those?
Care to give a for instance? No?
No, I’m not joking. I’m trying to discern a point to your post besides “RRRAHHH- NOT NADER’S FAULT!1!” You seem to be saying that the Dems suck (NS) and Gore was a crappy VP for allowing Clinton to push NAFTA, WR, DADT etc., therefore [insert whatever point you were trying to make here].
Well, if I may try to divine a point, and Demize can refute me if I’m wrong here, but the loss of the presidency was the Dems’ own fucking fault for having a triangulating, center-right at best, DLC sonofabitch for a presidential nominee, rather than giving the people someone they could seriously get behind and believe in. Which is true. The Democratic party is a center-right party, and polls consistently show that the electorate is far more supportive of social safety nets, environmental protections, etc. than the Democrats are, or at least let themselves appear to be in public. What we have in this country is a case of industry setting the agenda, and determining who’s “electable”.
It’s also ridiculous to complain that Nader spoiled the election for you all when you had Democrats voting for Bush in numbers which far outweighed the vote for Nader. What really happened, though, is that Gore spoiled his own election by refusing to demand a statewide recount which would have settled the issue, and the election, in his favor.
Read upthread and he gives his for instances.
Wow. I thought it was only wingnuts that answered their own questions after nine minutes.
I guess partisanship can bring out the crazy in anybody.
If you want a full-length argument, I suggest Marjorie Cohn’s “Nato Bombing of Kosovo: Humanitarian Intervention or Crime against Humanity?” in the March 2002 issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, pages 79-106.
In short, though, the argument is that by focusing on sustained bombing campaigns which made no distinction between infrastructure and civilians as opposed to military targets, NATO, led by the US, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Kosova, including, but not limited to, the bombing of a radio and television station in Serbia which was broadcasting images that the US did not want seen…same thing as the targeting of al-Jazeera in Baghdad and Kabul.
Furthermore, one can also throw in the Iraqi sanctions, which left over 1.5 million dead and the infrastructure in a shambles.
Actually I’d like to know what other crimes against humanity were committed aside from the bombing of the TV station. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of International Journal for the Semiotics of Law handy- wait-
More here. You know, normally people provide their own links when making these kinds of claims. As far as I can see from skimming Cohn’s blog post, we dropped 25000 bombs during the campaign, killing 500-1800 civilians, and our motives were not entirely pure. I don’t know if that constitutes a crime against humanity. It does appear to be literally 1/1000 as bad as what Bush has done in Iraq. It also looks somewhat like these people have other axes to grind and are allowing themselves to be Milosevic tools.
Though I would’ve preferred that the US got their Iraq policy right 30 years ago, the international sanctions during the 90’s were legit. What were they supposed to do, nothing? Invade?
Actually I’d like to know what other crimes against humanity were committed aside from the bombing of the TV station.
May I infer that you agree that bombing a civilian TV station was a war crime? If so, then what is the point of looking for more examples?
I’m utterly baffled by the idea that committing war crimes is excusable as long as someone has a longer list of misdeeds. That kind of thinking just enables imperialists in a constant race to the bottom. However, if you would also like other examples, there’s the Pancevo industrial area, which caused huge spills of oil, mercury, and other toxins into the Danube. Similar targeting of civilian infrastructure occured at Kragujevac, the Bor mining center, and Novi Sad. Plus, there’s the use of depleted uranium, which has been linked with numerous developmental defects and cancers.
More here. You know, normally people provide their own links when making these kinds of claims.
That’s fine, but why was I supposed to provide your links? I had never seen that blog post before; I was only aware of the journal article.
It does appear to be literally 1/1000 as bad as what Bush has done in Iraq.
Literally? Would you explain the thinking that goes into that equation? Is it that there have been more deaths from Bush’s war than from the bombing of Serbia? Obviously not, because you then dismiss the deaths due to sanctions in Iraq, which far outnumber the deaths due to Bush’s war. So if it’s not numeric, then what is the metric of badness that you use to determine that it’s “literally 1/1000 as bad as what Bush has done in Iraq”?
It also looks somewhat like these people have other axes to grind and are allowing themselves to be Milosevic tools.
Oh, of course. Any principled position against American Empire is simply yet another axe to grind, whereas implicitly supporting American Empire is the morally neutral default state. Right.
Though I would’ve preferred that the US got their Iraq policy right 30 years ago, the international sanctions during the 90’s were legit. What were they supposed to do, nothing? Invade?
So it’s better to do the wrong thing, as long as you personally can’t think of an alternative. And if I don’t provide an alternative, that means that the sanctions were completely right, despite the huge toll on the infrastructure and the 1.5 million deaths, which, since they cannot be pinned on Bush, are dismissed from consideration. Now the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq due to the war are a crime, because…well…there’s not a really good reason why, but Bush is responsible therefore it suits one to consider it bad in this case.
I don’t know if it’s a war crime, maybe it is. I’d like some more information about that incident. It doesn’t seem to qualify Clinton as history’s greatest monster, or anywhere near worth mentioning in the same breath as Bush.
This isn’t common knowledge and I would really appreciate links to your sources for this.
You’re running around calling Clinton a bigger war criminal than Bush. You need to provide some supporting links.
Right, I’m ignoring the sanctions, which I think were legit. Some people are saying that over a million people have been killed as a result of Bush’s war. 500-1800 civilians killed in Kosovo = ~.1% of Bush’s ~1.2 million killed.
No, that’s not what I said.
Since you’re condemning them I would think you’d have some kind of opinion of an alternative course of action.
Give me a break. If Clinton hadn’t maintained the sanctions you’d be accusing him of coddling a tyrant to get cheap Iraqi oil.
For one thing, whether or not you think they were justified the sanctions were legal, and the Bush war isn’t.
What Nullifidian said!It seems to me that I couldn’t have been clearer in my post.Maybe,TB,you’re being deliberately obtuse?I have had a so called “pragmatic”approach to American politics as you seem to be advocating,but I have evolved a more “radical”position due to past and current experience.It seems to me naive to say the least to continue supporting candidates and a party that never fail to disappoint,time,after time,ad infinitum.Robert Green I’m a big strong boy,in fact I was a member of the fist end of this nations foreign policy and under Clinton I always seemed to be getting deployed to one place or another.That is Imperialism.Maybe what is referred to as soft Imperialism,as apposed to BuchCo’s hard,but imperialism just the same.So I don’t think rhetorical brickbats are at all helpful in this particular discussion.But I got a hard head.Is it not moral relitivism to compare and defend one Imperialist as contrasted with another?What I thought I made abundantely clear in my 1st.post was that we as non reactionary peoples need to see the forest for the trees and get out of this political mindset altogether.As I said before,I do not have the answer,it would be arrogant to say I did.but I think a more mature political outlook on the “left”would maybe get us in the right direction.Let me know if this isn’t clear enough for you,I’ll translate into Esperanto if youd like.
Oh and I seem to remember an abundance of DU.rounds being used in Yugoslavia at the time,as well as in Vieques Puerto Rico,though not a war zone,it might as well have been for all the cancers caused by showering the island with hot ordnance for years and years.Cluster munitions were as big then as now in several theaters,the gift that keeps on giving.Who knows maybe I’ll get sick somewhere down the line sitting in a turret full DU.rounds,maybe not.But I assure you that once they impact ehavy metals and uranium dust is scattered all over the place.
“Though I would’ve preferred that the US got their Iraq policy right 30 years ago, the international sanctions during the 90’s were legit. What were they supposed to do, nothing? Invade?”I think nothing would have been sufficient!
That makes sense. I need to let you go, my man- I’m not going to argue with a vibe.
Dude what vibe,I’m layin out my position.If you can’t deal,don’t let the door hitcha where they bitcha.
I never had a position I could articulate on the Bosnian nightmare that made any consistent sense, so, uh, well, so there. Anyway, FYI:
The NATO fact sheet on the air war indicates a lot of co-ordination with the UN. In other words, if you didn’t like the air campaign (which was relatively if not mercifully short) there’s blame to be shared both by NATO and the UN, which reached agreement both on how air power was to be used and what targets to include. It was an international war, and the bombing campaign involved direct consultation with UN forces.
http://www.afsouth.nato.int/factsheets/DeliberateForceFactSheet.htm
R.Bubba,yes that is true and part of my larger critique.While that op.was nominally “multi-lateral” I think we can agree that The U.N. to a large extent and NATO. completely,are tools of US.foriegn policy.If we are gonna split hairs Kofi Anon did retroactively legalize Bushco’s Iraq invasion.Also my larger point was that Clinton and Dem.elites will use embargo,sanctions,air and navel power as well as covert operations to further their policy,while the Bush and the Reps will use ground forces and all out hot war.What Clinton had the good taste to hide from us Bush proudly does by the light of day.Yes there are incremental differences in the tactics the overall strategem remains unchanged.And what I was trying to say to the but Clinton is at least better crowd is that I don’t and won’t choose between a neo-con and a neo-liberal those are essentially the choices we are left to suck on.
And i dont like people telling who I have to hold me nose and vote for or I’m a bad guy and lost you the election blah,blah,blah.Shit I voted for Gore,But I think one should vote for the candidate who best represents ones interests.This aint freaking Daily Kos is it?
Here’s a Human Rights Watch article on civilian deaths in the campaign. They say there were about 500 civilians killed and that about half of those were the result of attacks on “illegitimate or questionable” targets.
And a more comprehensive HRW report on the campaign had this to say about the TV studio bombing:
Calling this a crime against humanity seems a little sick to me. That phrase was invented to describe the systematic extermination of millions of humans, with the goal of erasing their ethnic group from the planet. Obviously if our military is deliberately targeting civilians it’s a crime and someone needs to answer for it.
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/088.shtml read this.
I think of it more in terms of a choice between A) losers who share about 50% of my values, mostly don’t deserve my support and will probably let me down on many occasions and B) satan incarnate. One of these two has to win, and no one else has a chance in hell.
A is the Dems and B is the Republicans, by the way.
Calling this a crime against humanity seems a little sick to me.
Considering that you don’t blench at the thought of 1.5 million civilian deaths, over half a million of which were children under the age of five, I’m sure you’ll get over it. Your queasiness is a little…convenient.
Note that I never characterized the RTS bombing as a crime against humanity. This is part and parcel of you dishonestly making up my position for me, which we will see many times before this thread is done.
For example, here is what I said: “May I infer that you agree that bombing a civilian TV station was a war crime? If so, then what is the point of looking for more examples?”
I was asking if you agreed with me that the bombing of RTS was a war crime, leading the literate person to infer that I think that the RTS bombing was a war crime, not necessarily a crime against humanity, although on occasion a war crime can also be a crime against humanity.
That phrase was invented to describe the systematic extermination of millions of humans, with the goal of erasing their ethnic group from the planet.
Actually its earliest use was during the Armenian Genocide, which was 1.2 million estimated deaths.
Obviously if our military is deliberately targeting civilians it’s a crime and someone needs to answer for it.
Yes, “someone”. Interesting that you don’t try to indicate who that “someone” might be.
It doesn’t seem to qualify Clinton as history’s greatest monster,
And here we have the second example of you rewriting my argument to suit yourself, even after I have already said “Getting into moral hairsplitting about which war criminal is worse ultimately ends up absolving one or the other of responsibility for their crimes, whereas the right thing to do is condemn them both equally.”
Sound like I’m trying to claim that Clinton is history’s greatest monster or anything close to it? I’ll answer that for you, since I don’t trust you to honestly relate anything about my position: no.
This isn’t common knowledge and I would really appreciate links to your sources for this.
I don’t have links to my sources, because my sources are text-based. What you find on the internet is little more than what I’d find given the same time. If you want to consult my sources, I’ve already given you a for instance with my citation of Dr. Cohn’s article.
If you’d like another, here’s what a quick internet search that you could have done yourself turned up:
http://www.ieer.org/reports/bombing/pbwh.pdf
Bear in mind that this is not one of my sources, however it is something which tells much the same story as any one of the ones I’ve already read.
The fact that you haven’t heard of Pancevo is a major indictment of the mainstream American media.
You’re running around calling Clinton a bigger war criminal than Bush.
I am? Here’s the third instance of you making up things I never said and putting them in my mouth. If you can’t honestly address what I’m saying, why bother wasting the effort to type out anything?
Right, I’m ignoring the sanctions, which I think were legit.
Excellent! We all get to ignore the deaths due to sanctions, simply because you think they were a legitimate projection of American muscle. Apparently, it doesn’t matter what I and many others think, or even less what the Iraqis think–those that are still alive–but merely what you think.
Some people are saying that over a million people have been killed as a result of Bush’s war.
Yes, but we can throw that figure out since Iraqi lives do not matter to you. You might not like that conclusion, but it’s inescapable. If you’re prepared to wink at 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, then you have no moral authority to start complaining about three hundred million less deaths as a result of a war and its aftermath. All these Iraqi dead are useful for is a truncheon to beat Bush over the head with.
500-1800 civilians killed in Kosovo = ~.1% of Bush’s ~1.2 million killed.
What we have here is the “paradox” of the heap. The Greek philosophers wondered when a grain of sand would become a heap of sand. We do the same thing now, apparently, except that now partisans argue over when a number of deaths becomes a human tragedy. The answer seems to be it’s a human tragedy when the responsible party has a different political affiliation for oneself, otherwise it’s one of those regrettable but necessary events which can be excused because of its “legitimacy”.
No, that’s not what I said.
Well, your mouth says “no, no” but your statements say “yes, yes”. The Iraqi sanctions were no less neoimperialism in action than the current Iraq war is, but you wink at one and condemn the other.
Since you’re condemning them I would think you’d have some kind of opinion of an alternative course of action.
Would “smash the state” do? I’m not going to engage in some kind of armchair quarterbacking for the purpose of instituting a kinder and gentler American Empire. That’s what political analysis of that sort amounts to these days. It’s always taken in the implicit context of American Empire, and all the arguing is around the periphery–never ways to confront imperialism, but just ways to do it better. Screw that. I don’t view America as a benevolent empire; I think of it as an overgrown and ravenous spoiled brat, and the sooner the world says “No” to it the better.
Give me a break. If Clinton hadn’t maintained the sanctions you’d be accusing him of coddling a tyrant to get cheap Iraqi oil.
It’s a shame that Crossfire is no longer on the air, because you’re a past master at making shit up on the fly and applying it to a person you perceive as an ideological opponent.
For one thing, whether or not you think they were justified the sanctions were legal, and the Bush war isn’t.
Ah, legality, what a concept. The powers that be determine what is and is not legal, and therefore it’s hardly going to find that its own actions are illegal unless it suits them to do so. The concept of “legal” and “illegal” is a joke, since the state reserves the right to do things which would be, and often are, criminal offenses simply because it sets the rules. It’s a rigged game, and in international law it’s doubly so.
I wish you would tell me what US course of action would’ve been acceptable to you. The non sequitor you give in response later in the post- “smash the state” (by which I guess you mean “cease to be”)- isn’t going to happen, so in the physical universe we inhabit what is the least bad option for a government to take in this situation?
The 1.5 million number is inflated, btw- the ~500,000 is sadly not.
My apologies for mischaracterizing what you said. Here’s where you used the phrase ‘crimes against humanity’:
And you directed me to
I don’t know how I got the idea that you were misusing that phrase.
Jeez, you’re spinning worse than Tony Snow. You used the phrase “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and then the only example of that you gave was the RTS bombing. You can see how a person might reasonably think you were calling the RTS bombing a crime against humanity? Yes?
Moving on.
Thank you, I didn’t know that- I thought it came out of Nuremburg.
Because I don’t know.
You got me. With statements like the one above you seemed to be equating Clinton’s “crimes” with Bush’s actual crimes, which is the most ludicrous fucking thing I have ever heard, so I exaggerated your position to highlight that in a humorous manner. Have you ever visited Sadly, No! before, by the way?
You mean “Nato Bombing of Kosovo: Humanitarian Intervention or Crime against Humanity?”
Yes, I could’ve done the search myself but you’re the one making the argument. Support your assertions.
My mistake, you merely said that Clinton is a bigger murderer than Bush:
My apologies.
I’m making my argument. It’s up to you to argue for what you think.
When did I say that Iraqi lives didn’t matter? My point was that deaths resulting from legal economic sanctions are not war crimes. It’s a matter of legality, not “moral authority”.
Whoa whoa WHOA- we were talking about war crimes. “Human tragedy” != “war crime/crime against humanity”.
Great, then we can all be governed by Blackwater. Sounds good.
That would be great, except the other governments of the world are for the most part no more concerned with the will of the people than is the US gov’t.
Sorry, I shouldn’t have assumed that you disapproved of Saddam.
OK, well, we don’t have much to talk about if you don’t believe in the rule of law.
You got the last word,happy now.What a twit.
Shit, pardon me for having a discussion.
It’s a discussion when you concede some points and hold some,when you don’t insult and have a generally arrogant and condescending tone to your posts.Null is a regular as am I.Lets agree to disagree.
No problem, we can disagree; I just wish people would think a little bit before tossing off garbage like Clinton=Bush.
I wish you would tell me what US course of action would’ve been acceptable to you.
Well, tough. I’m not going to play that game, because it’s clearly meant to distract from the subject of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The US can go take a flying leap, for all I care.
The 1.5 million number is inflated, btw- the ~500,000 is sadly not.
If an author at The Nation told me that the sky was blue, I’d stick my head out a window to check. When it comes to foreign policy, they have a long history of carrying water for the State Department under the banner of liberalism.
Consider, for example, this passage: “The government of Iraq also bears considerable responsibility for the humanitarian crisis, however. Sanctions could have been suspended years ago if Baghdad had been more cooperative with UN weapons inspectors.”
The reason that Hussein may not have been in a mood to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors was that the US planted spies in the IAEA inspection teams. (Since you demand citations for everything, this information can be found, along with a citation to the original New York Times article, in Blowback by Chalmers Johnson.) Obscuring that reason is part and parcel of whitewashing the whole thing to make the U.S. look good.
You used the phrase “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and then the only example of that you gave was the RTS bombing. You can see how a person might reasonably think you were calling the RTS bombing a crime against humanity? Yes?
No, I don’t. I can see how a dishonest, partisan person who is intent on misreading other people to his own advantage could do so, but a reasonable person would consider the phrase “war crimes” that comes before the conjunction, and might even use the principle of charity to arrive at the correct conclusion that the author was intending the RTS bombing as an example of a “war crime”, rather than mucking up his nicely turned phrase with the inelegant conjunction “and/or”.
You got me. With statements like the one above you seemed to be equating Clinton’s “crimes” with Bush’s actual crimes, which is the most ludicrous fucking thing I have ever heard, so I exaggerated your position to highlight that in a humorous manner.
You failed in one respect: it wasn’t funny. It was, however, highly dishonest.
And if it’s ludicrous to make the argument I’m making, then I’d be obliged if you’d actually respond to the argument I’m making. That argument is, since you seem to have trouble following it: Clinton is a war criminal. Bush is a war criminal. Since I find it ethically bankrupt to engage in hairsplitting about which one is worse than the other, since they’ve killed so many between them, I find it appropriate to hold them equally guilty and find them equally loathsome. I don’t see what’s so ludicrous about that position, and I’d be obliged if you would explain to me why you think so.
Yes, I could’ve done the search myself but you’re the one making the argument. Support your assertions.
I can support my assertions. What you are demanding is that I support my assertions in the precise manner in which you demand it: with references online, which is not where I get the vast majority of my information. Since you are demanding references from a source I hardly ever consult for information about world affairs, you put me in the position of seeking out what you could well have read yourself, and obliging me to read what I already know over again so that I can insure that these links you can find yourself are providing you with accurate information.
I’m making my argument. It’s up to you to argue for what you think.
But you are not making any sort of argument, you’re just making a series of willful misreadings and unsubstantiated assertions about what I believe. There’s no actual content in your posts and I’d be very grateful if you’d start putting some in.
When did I say that Iraqi lives didn’t matter? My point was that deaths resulting from legal economic sanctions are not war crimes. It’s a matter of legality, not “moral authority”.
Well, you say it every time you make legality the issue, as if legality itself can remove the value from a human life and make killing it an acceptable matter. If you’re going to then turn around a deplore the deaths of Iraqis in Bush’s war, it’s perfectly legitimate to question your moral authority to deplore those deaths when you wink at the numbers of deaths due to sanctions. Either Iraqi civilian deaths are bad or they are not. It’s really as simple as that.
Great, then we can all be governed by Blackwater. Sounds good.
Did I say that? As usual, you are making up shit again.
That would be great, except the other governments of the world are for the most part no more concerned with the will of the people than is the US gov’t.
And what does that have to do with anything? I”m not in favor of any governments of any sort. However, I also am particularly against governments which use massive deaths and the threats of massive deaths to strongarm countries to fall under the influence of superior force.
Sorry, I shouldn’t have assumed that you disapproved of Saddam.
Which is a fairly typical Crossfire response. The false dichotomy was a particular favourite of that show, and you’ve just given a particularly nasty example of it here. So fuck you.
OK, well, we don’t have much to talk about if you don’t believe in the rule of law.
Of course I don’t believe in it. I doubt very much if you believe in it either. The “law” is an abstraction. It has no hindsight, no foresight, no abilities of its own to impose its will in any way, etc. So then how can it rule? What can rule is the mechanisms of the state, under the cover of law, and when we start reifying the concept of the law, treating it as if it were a ruler in itself, that’s the first step in handing over our autonomy to the state. So of course there’s no rule of law. What there is is a rule of legislators who operate in their own interests and the interests of this enormous mechanism of state power, rather than the interests of the people, and then we have the judicial system and the cops, which act as the bureaucracy and the occupying army of state power. At no point does “law” come into this, except as a figleaf for maintaining systematic inequality and forcing conformity upon the dissenters. So you tell me, do you believe in the “rule of law”? If you do, why?
whether republican or democrat i have learned to love our neocon overlords
No, I said that. It’s what would happen were you to miraculously able to “smash the state”. The most ruthless people with the most guns would move in and take power.
And yes, I believe in the rule of law because it beats the shit out of rule by whim of the strong. Next.
No, I said that. It’s what would happen were you to miraculously able to “smash the state”. The most ruthless people with the most guns would move in and take power.
There’s one obvious way around that, but since you think that the elimination of state power would be a “miracle”, it’s not hard to infer why you can’t see the obvious.
But Pyotr Kropotkin did the work for you: “Under these circumstances it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willingly supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong” (Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves! pg. 87-88).
And yes, I believe in the rule of law because it beats the shit out of rule by whim of the strong.
That’s not an answer, that’s just a prejudice. To put it more bluntly: what is the “rule of law” and how does the “law” effect its “rule”?
Perhaps you ought to give your own links a closer read, particularly when it comes to the section titled “Critique”, which mentions Giorgio Agamben’s State of Exception. Hélène Cixous also makes the point that the law doesn’t have any concrete existence in Readings: The Poetics of Blanchot, Joyce, Kafka, Kleist, Lispector, and Tsvetayeva, although she approaches it from the perspective of a literary discussion of Kafka’s “Before the Law”.
Next.
I have a suggestion for what’s next. Perhaps you could start dealing with the argument I’ve actually made. I outlined it for you above, and you had no response to it. You could attack it on several fronts: 1) that neither Clinton nor Bush have committed war crimes nor crimes against humanity, 2) that moral hairsplitting over which war crimes or crimes against humanity are worse is an ethically sound position and doesn’t lead to diminishment or denial of the horror of the others’ crimes, etc. etc. Go ahead and put some flesh on the dry bones of your argument!
Well, nuts, if Kropotkin said it it must be true. Seriously, do you believe this horseshit applies to the real world? Because it doesn’t.
No idea what you’re talking about, not interested. I’ve told you what I think of your views and theoretical circle jerks are not my cup of tea, so off you go. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Well, nuts, if Kropotkin said it it must be true. Seriously, do you believe this horseshit applies to the real world? Because it doesn’t.
Oh, well, if you say it doesn’t, it must be true! When I next need to figure out what political reality is, I’ll just consult anonymous people on the internet. The fact that the anarchists were consistently the strongest fighters against totalitarianism in Ukraine, Republican Spain, etc. is neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating the truth of Kropotkin’s statement. All that matters is what you say is reality.
No idea what you’re talking about, not interested. I’ve told you what I think of your views and theoretical circle jerks are not my cup of tea, so off you go. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Oh, yes, you’ve told me what you think, but you’ve given me no reason to care what you think. At least I’m capable of adducing a series of a reasons, and addressing the fundamental issues at play here. You are doing nothing more than whining, misrepresenting, engaging in partisanship, and spouting off a lot of unexamined prejudices. Hell, in my last message I practically gave you a roadmap to an arguable position, and you still couldn’t manage it.
[…] 1, 2007 Why HRC Won’t Get My Primary Vote Posted by John O under Political Courtesy Radley Balko, channeled via Sadly, No! (By the way, Radley’s blog, The Agitator, has been on my blogroll forever. I loves me […]