The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I think the bigger problem with Clinton and most mainstream Democrats is that they are determined never to be blind-sided by Republicans on National Security. Remember, it was JFK and LBJ who escalated the Vietnam war. Given that the Invasion of Iraq was happening anyway, Clinton probably felt that voting for it would change nothing in practice but would secure her right flank from accusations of a lack of Patriotism whilst US Troops were under enemy fire.
It was, of course, the biggest mistake of her career and the main reason Obama beat her last time around and one of the main reasons Sanders has been so successful this year. I can also see why it has resulted in many (most?) progressives seeing her as (at best) unprincipled in her approach to politics. She provided aid and comfort to the Bush regime at a time when progressives opposed to the war were at their most beleaguered.
In her world view, a vote against the war at that stage ran the risk of marginalising her in US politics for ever more for no tangible benefit in terms of stopping the invasion. She clearly didn't anticipate the monumental fuck-up the Bush regime would make of the war, and most progressives have doubted her judgement ever since. But (in my view), it is not progressives who will determine the result of the next Presidential Election: they will however determine the margin of her victory, the degree to which Democrats can control Congress, and the general policy direction of her administration. That is, if they can hold their noses and vote for her in the first place.
Index of Frank's Diaries
Nah. If you are mislead into killing 100k people you don't go to the guy's parties afterwards for a hugout.
And more importantly: Not only should everyone in politics notice the PR waving off the selling pitch. No, even if Saddam had WMDs that is in no way or form a valid Casus Belly. Burning down a country because it could at some point do you serious harm is not defensible.
The problem with a nuclear first strike against the USSR was not just that it might not have worked. This is just the same on a smaller scale.
Other than the isolationists, Obama stands out for his failure to actually invade anywhere - although he came close in Libya.
If I can't call her evil for falling short on that very basic measure then the word has outlived its usefulness.
The Blue dogs have tended to control how far Democratic Presidents can go in pursuing progressive policies. But what if they progressive caucus were to outnumber the Blue dogs, or even failing that, if they held the balance of power and voted down any Hillary proposals not to their liking?
Hillary would then be faced with a choice: look for Republican backing for her proposals, or accept that it is progressives who hold the balance of power and who must be appeased.
It seems unlikely that Republicans would ever support any of her proposals, which leaves her with only one choice...
Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3 38 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 31 48 comments
by IdiotSavant - Apr 1 5 comments
by gmoke - Mar 28 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 29 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 30 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 28 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 23 61 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 42 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 338 comments
by gmoke - Apr 3
by IdiotSavant - Apr 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 3148 comments
by Oui - Mar 3053 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 309 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 298 comments
by Oui - Mar 2945 comments
by gmoke - Mar 289 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2817 comments
by Oui - Mar 282 comments
by gmoke - Mar 27
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2630 comments
by Oui - Mar 2610 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2430 comments
by Oui - Mar 2445 comments
by gmoke - Mar 233 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2361 comments
by Oui - Mar 2266 comments