Question for those here since before Iraq war II

[SoLeftIAmRight]

Do you remember the 12 percent against the war and how there were many here who proudly proclaimed that they were a member of that 12 percent.

I remember and I was one of the 12 percent.

Many people here proudly claimed to be members of this select group.

Many strong voices on the left loudly expressed that Bush's war was crazy.

Remember all that was done to move public opinion.

Condi's mushroom cloud - Powell's tubes - Rummy poison (he was right - hesold it to them)

Some people - SANDERS - were in that smart 12 percent.

Some - Clinton - were not against this greatest blunder. She knew the truth and still made the wrong vote.

She fucked up way to big in that choice to give her support over SANDERS.

[hedda_foil]

1. I was one of that number, as were all but a handful of DUers in 2002-2003.

Shock and Awe they called it. Damn them to the hottest flames of hell. As a nonbelievers, I don't think there's any such place as he'll, but I'm willing to make an exception in their case. of

[Bonobo]

2. Sure as hell wasn't 12 percent here.

DU was furious with the Democrats that supported that shit. We ALL saw through it but I don't think any of us could have believed then that war would just keep on rolling along so long...

[bigwillq]

3. Lurked in 2003, joined in 2004

I would have been a 12 percenter.

Go, Bernie, Go!

[Punkingal]

4. Yep....

Remember it well

[Sancho]

5. Some of us have been against US intervention wars for a long time...

and Iraq was pretty minor in the scheme of things:

Korea: about 35,000 American deaths
Vietnam: about 60,000 American deaths

I personally knew people who fought in Korea or Vietnam, and had friends who died in Vietnam. Actually, my father was in the Army during the Korean War - at least my parents used the GI Bill after WWII as the first generation to go to college.

Frankly, the US today - including college students and DUers are pretty "mild" in their opposition today. Complaining about a single member of Congress and a single vote as a result of Bush/Cheney's lies is nothing.

Get out and take over some buildings, protest, burn draft cards, shut down parades. You can't have it both ways. Even Bernie votes repeatedly to fund the MIC. If there are weapons built, someone will die.

Compared to the 60's and early 70's, I don't see much opposition to war or defense spending today. There is no serious anti-war sentiment right now.

[neverforget]

10. It wasn't "minor" to the Iraqis.

It's not all about just the US.

[Sancho]

11. And it wasn't minor to the 100,000 Americans killed in SE Asia over wars we started.

Bush and Cheney are criminals. I believe that...but it's misleading to go after one vote of hundreds.

If people want to stop the opportunity for things like Iraq - then the US defense budget needs to be cut in half, we need to close half the bases around the world, and the entire foreign policy needs to change.

That is not "one vote" of Congress. That will take a lot of people standing up for peace - at numbers like we had when we shut down the Vietnam war.

I don't see it now. I see a growing MIC. Worry about terrorism. Military style police. Lots of investment in new weapons.

I don't see anyone protesting.

[randome]

6. She made a political calculation with her vote. The IWR was going to pass.

Politicians typically don't want to be seen on the losing side of a vote. Her voting no would have been a better choice but in the end it would have meant nothing.

She is, IMO, too much a political animal but on the other hand...she's a politician. No big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

9. That is exactly why I don't want her for President...

...when a tough vote came along, and it was obvious to any thinking person what the right vote was, she opted for political expediency -- and polished her credentials as a tough war hawk.

Yes, there are many votes where I would have your attitude and shrug and say "Hey, waddaya expect, she's a politician after all!". But this vote was not one of them. Too important.

[randome]

12. There was no 'tough vote'. The outcome was clear.

As for 'polishing her credentials', I think some of that comes down to generation and gender. I can only imagine what women have to go through to 'prove' themselves to our male-focused society. Same with her 'we came, we saw, he died' comment. But if you try to see the person behind the image, I don't see Clinton as a war hawk in any sense of the term.

You need to take into account the generation she hails from, and try to look beyond the surface.

Clinton will be a fine President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

13. Oh I do take her generation into account...

...she and I share the same generation. And I am very aware of what it means to be a woman in a male-dominated profession.

Clinton has demonstrated again and again that she is hawkish, and that is based on observing her, over her years in the Senate and as Secretary of State. Her love of regime change is no secret, and look how well that has worked out for us -- not to mention the Middle East -- over the last few years.

I don't want to be too critical here, but it seems to me you are stretching more than a little bit when you try to dismiss her "We came, we saw, he died" remark as justifiable because she has to prove herself in our male dominated society. No, that is the very antithesis of the feminist philosophy that I embraced: the whole damned point was not to achieve the same status as men, it was to change the values of the system itself.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. Sad

but true

She could have joined Sanders and Wellstone. Her voice could have changed the conversation.

There was a time we she was respected

[randome]

15. But neither Wellstone nor Sanders became political juggernauts after the IWR.

In politics, it isn't the 'true blue' who get in a position to change things. Granted, we would all be better served if politicians voted their conscience and included more self-reflection.

But that's not the kind of system we have in place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Live and Learn]

7. K&R nt

[NCTraveler]

8. While Sanders vote on the IWR was the correct one...

And Clinton was on the wrong side, you can't whitewash Sanders help in building public opinion up as high as it was. The years running up to the war Sanders himself was calling for regime change for many of the exact same reasons given for the IWR. Bush himself even referenced it often.

Iraq Liberation Act. Not one person can honestly deny it was a big reason there was so much public support for the IWR. And yes, we were ahead of the curve at the time and I am extremely happy Sanders evolved on the issue. Tho there can be no greater display of too little too late after he spent years building support for regime change.