dagblog - Comments for "I'm With Her"

Naive analysis that was all

James Poker — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:50:57 +0000

Naive analysis that was all too common and was a tribal blindness for Democrats (as opposed to liberals and centrists). This is why we end up with such a weak candidate and will quite possibly see President Trump. Fill in the blank: (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, _______). Democrats often don't learn. I wonder if Clinton noticed Romney recorded being frank in his contempt of real people when he laughed about them with donors.

. I think any leader who

jollyroger — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:27:26 +0000

In reply to 1. 350 dead, by your own

. I think any leader who kills 350 of his own people is in need of a little intervention

That's a pretty low threshold for starting down a path that ends , logically, with the possibility of regime change.

I can see I'll have my work cut out for me on that adjacent thread if I want to preach restraint when sovereign states interfere with the monopoly on the use of force enjoyed within the lines defining states.

OTOH I am sanguine about enlisting you in support of a world government

I was, perhaps, a bit

armchair guerrilla — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:32:21 +0000

In reply to You write "the actual UN

I was, perhaps, a bit careless in suggesting Blix actually took a specific position on the AUMF, but there is no doubt Blix believed a credible threat of force was necessary to get Saddam to comply with the inspections. He came to Washington in October 2002 to meet with administration officials, including Colin Powell, and expressed this view. It is laid out in his book, relevant excerpts here http ://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php.

The CNN link is an odd parsing of Clinton's statement. It focuses a snippet of what Clinton said ("And the U.N. inspector, Hans Blix, said give us the time, we will find out, give us the hammer over their head, namely the vote...") as demonstrating the falsity of her entire answer. It's not clear to me whether "the vote" Clinton was referring to was the AUMF or Security Council, but either way, the main point of her statement, is that Blix did in fact support the threat of force as leverage to obtain compliance with inspections. The CNN "fact check" asserts that because Blix did not support a unilateral US invasion (neither did Clinton and this is not what she said, in any event), Clinton's statement is false because she voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required the administration to go back to the UN before using force. Clinton, however, along with other Democratic Senators, opposed the Levin Amendment, not because they favored a unilateral US invasion, but because, (1) Russia and China (and possibly France) would veto any Security Council resolution authorizing military force, and (2) as Sen. Feingold noted in opposition, it would cede to the UN the decision on whether to send US troop into combat.

The "fact check" is casually dismissive of Clinton's stated opposition to unilateral military action. In fact, she was quite clear. Why not look at what she said in her floor speech.

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[...]

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

[...]

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

It is not hard at all to

armchair guerrilla — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:29:00 +0000

In reply to You write: " What would have

It is not hard at all to imagine how the situation could have turned out worse. Qaddafi uses massive firepower against rebels and civilians alike. The rebellion spreads and metastasizes, as in Syria: Game on. Of course it's easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to look back now and claim we should have done nothing, but that's not so easy with a mad despot threatening a bloodbath. As Maiello points out, the intervention itself was, at least initially, a success in deposing a nasty dictator (current revisionism aside - sure, he helped out a bit with AQ, because it was in his interest) through concerted international action without a ground invasion. And yes, Clinton did urge greater involvement as the country began to break apart (whether those efforts would have been successful, of course, is an open question, although it's worth pointing out that Libya, with a total population of around 6 million, is not as riven by religious/sectarian hatreds as Iraq). From the NYT:

As the months passed and the factional fighting grew worse, Mrs. Clinton pressed for the administration to do more, asking the Pentagon, for example, to help train security forces. But she was boxed in by the president’s strictures and the Libyans’ resistance.

“It’s like you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to say, ‘O.K., we won’t have boots on the ground, but we know we got to do something,’” Mr. Ross said.

Even modest proposals foundered. When Mrs. Clinton proposed sending a hospital ship to treat wounded Libyan fighters, the National Security Council rejected the idea, aides said.

But whatever her misgivings, Mrs. Clinton prized her relationship with the president and respected his authority to set policy. So she went along, as disciplined as ever.

Excellent post Thx

rmrd0000 — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:09:57 +0000

In reply to I was, perhaps, a bit

Excellent post

Thx

Oh, but she's a warmonger who

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 18:53:14 +0000

In reply to I was, perhaps, a bit

Oh, but she's a warmonger who actively supported Bush's war and only into intervention. (cliff notes edition)

I found a Georgia poll about

rmrd0000 — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:00:25 +0000

In reply to The answers to an exit poll

I found a Georgia poll about the African-American exit poll

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/...

I can't find your poll. i think you have now resorted to just making stuff up, hoping that you won't get called out.

Edit to add:

Given your poor track record on accuracy, I will bet that you don't know the sources of the poll you think you read.

The answers to an exit poll

Peter — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 16:30:40 +0000

In reply to I'm With Her

The answers to an exit poll question asking why people voted for HCR instead of Sanders, I think in Georgia, produced telling results free of the coding or apology. Many of the respondents stated clearly they rejected a more liberal change in direction for the country supposedly represented by Sanders. They did support the Center Right Obama regime and expected HRC to continue in that direction.

These are revealing candid statements about how far to the Right many Democrats have drifted and their acceptance if not support of the neoliberal economic and militaristic hegemony in foreign policy offered by HRC and the Democrat Party elite.

More killing of Muslims, further degrading the lives of the Working Class, police violence aimed at minorities, Panopticon surveillance in the Homeland and general Authoritarian Rule are the status quo too many people seem to be submitting to with their championing of HRC.

Leisure Class Democrats expect some protections under this type of regime and some even benefit from it. This may be why they code their words about supporting the status quo with illusions of integrity when referring to HRC as the strongest, qualified and effective leader.

For a long time, I wrongly

HSG — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 03:10:15 +0000

In reply to I just pointed out that the U

For a long time, I wrongly thought the initial decision to bomb the road to Benghazi was justified, although the continued air assaults were not. Responding to each of your defenses:

1) "It prevented the mass murder of civilians by Qadafi."

From the New Republic (5/7/15):

[A]ccording to members of the intelligence community who spoke with the right-wing Washington Times in a series of stories earlier this year, is that no solid intelligence existed to back up Clinton’s statements of the impending bloodbath in Benghazi. U.S. officials said that the Pentagon believed “Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting large civilian casualties as he cracked down on the rebels based in Benghazi,” according to the reports.

---------

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also didn’t find strong evidence suggesting an impending slaughter by the time NATO intervened. “Our assessment was that up until that point, the casualty figures—around 350 protesters killed by indiscriminate fire of government security forces—didn’t rise to the level of indicating that a genocide or genocide-like mass atrocities were imminent,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division. Based on HRW’s figures, Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas pointed out that less than 3 percent of the 949 people wounded in the city of Misrata were women in the first two months of the conflict, suggesting—despite the many horrible crimes committed—security forces did not simply indiscriminately target civilians, another rebuke of the Rwanda comparison.

From Foreign Affairs (March/April 2015)

As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses “appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity.”

2) "It removed a long-ensconced tyrant from power."

Okay. But did the removal serve the interests of the people of Libya or our own interests or the interests of Libya's neighbors. The answer to all three is obviously no. Also, Foreign Affairs notes Gaddafi's son Saif, Gaddafi's chosen successor, was a moderate. In fact, Clinton herself had welcomed him in Washington only two years earlier.

3) The U.S. worked in concert with willing allies, often following the lead of other democracies.

They accomplished an absolute disaster.

4) The U.S. was able to accomplish its goals without over-committing ground forces.

The short-term goal was accomplished but we are now facing calls from neocons and old-style hawks to commit troops and forces to fight terrorists in Syria and Iraq who were trained in Libya.

1. 350 dead, by your own

Michael Maiello — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 01:44:00 +0000

In reply to For a long time, I wrongly

1. 350 dead, by your own account. I think any leader who kills 350 of his own people is in need of a little intervention. I buy that Qadafi might have done worse, even in the face of the world's disapproval because the world's disapproval has meant nothing so often in the past and once you've spent decades lording over people, you really can't afford to just let things go unless you have some sort of Ferdinand Marcos style retirement plan and he didn't.

2. The "what the rebels then did," argument is interesting... I suppose the way to try to prevent that is to then occupy the country of the dictator you deposed, but isn't that what we agree is a bad move? Where does this leave us? I think the notion that you can't remove a human rights violating dictator because, if you do, somebody else might violate human rights, doesn't make a ton of sense. If you dig through the Dag archives (and I don't recommend doing it for this purpose) you'll see that I've evolved on this issue over time. It ultimately amounts to arguing that the Avengers shouldn't take down Doctor Doom because, if they do, Kang the Conqueror is going to show up to do crimes. I don't buy it anymore.

3. What was there before was a disaster. Absolutes are rare.

4. If neocons and old style hawks want us to commit ground troops to Syria, we can always say no. Cutthroats and violent extremists will always learn their craft somewhere. Iraq and Libya and Syria are places where people have learned the art of the war. But they have also learned in Chechnya and Afghanistan and Somalia. The world is full of dark places for those who seek them and the U.S. has not created them all.