Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,
Insomnia
insomnia

Hillary Clinton declares war on Democratic activists.

In a newly released campaign recording today, Hillary Clinton blamed "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and MoveOn.org for her repeated losses throughout the election, and accused both of voter intimidation.

----------------------------------- 

"Moveon.org endorsed (Senator Obama) -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down. . . We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. 

MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know, they turn out in great numbers. 

And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
 

----------------------------------- 

The audio of this is available over at Huffington Post.

As a highly informed Democrat who takes an active role in my country's politics, I reject and denounce Senator Clinton's statements. This is just further evidence that Hillary Clinton will viciously attack *ANYONE* who decides for any reason that Barack Obama is the superior, more intelligent, more conservative candidate.

And no, I don't mean conservative in the sense of neoconservatives... who are, in fact, willing to disregard intelligence and common sense in order to risk everything for their hollow dreams of a global Pax Americana. I mean conservative in the best possible sense... prudence, care, and a nuanced approach to foriegn policy, rather than the kind of hamfisted hackery we've seen over the past seven years, going into not one, but *TWO* simultaneous longterm occupations, with no exit strategy for either of them.      

I joined moveon.org in the late '90s not because I liked, trusted, or believed in Hillary Clinton's terminally unfaithful, lying husband -- I didn't -- but because the smears and attacks against him were excessive, and disproportionate to what was appropriate. 

Sadly, Senator Clinton has let us all down since then, by playing up the same kind of ugly smears against a fellow Democrat, by fearmongering and beating the drums for war on Iraq *AND* Iran, by her repeated slimy ties with lobbyists and her corrupt fundraising antics, and, of course, by her old-fashioned corrupt partisan politics. 

Like most of moveon.org's members, I do not believe in or support every initiative they suggest... but they *DO* and *HAVE* accomplished numerous things that have helped keep this country somewhat more on the rails than they would otherwise be had they not been there.

Lots of people talk about issues... MoveOn.org's claim to fame is that they have historically made it easy to do things about them.  They get results.

... unlike Senator Clinton.  

I think it needs to be asked... did she get the people of upstate New York the 200,000 jobs she promised them? No. They *LOST* 30,000 jobs under her tenure... which is bad enough.. had she not made it worse by throwing Al Gore under the bus, blaming him for her failure, because he didn't win the presidential election... primarily because he had to run *AGAINST* the corruption of the Clinton administration.

That's not class. That's crass. 

Contrary to Senator Clinton's statement today, Moveon.org isn't "a gusher of money that never seems to slow down" for Obama.  His loyal grassroots supporters are. Moveon only supported Obama relatively recently in the contest, and Obama had *already* achieved his greatest fundraising successes prior to MoveOn's endorsement of his candidacy.

Hillary Clinton says "we have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party."

So, she doesn't want our votes then?! I'm in my forties, but I, of course, interact with younger voters constantly, and it's great to see them not only enthusiastic about politics, but incredibly informed in many cases... certainly moreso than supposedly "adult" individuals who have the chance to ask a candidate anything they want, but choose to ask them about why they don't constantly wear a flag pendant that they wore only a few days prior to the debate.

If anything has been remarkably clear to me in this election, it's not just how informed and intelligent so many young voters are... but how ignorant, scared, and pessimistic so many older voters can be. (Bitter, even.)

Senator Clinton complains that "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan".  This is untrue. MoveOn.org *NEVER* opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Not once.

Still, she fails to address the key point of the argument... we invaded Afghanistan in order to remove a government that refused to turn Osama Bin Laden -- a very popular leader in that part of the world -- over to perhaps the second most hated nation in Afghanistan -- The Russian invaders presumably still being #1 at that time -- so that he could face justice. Not an easy thing for any leader to do, under the circumstances.

That said, the government of Afghanistan *WERE*, in fact, willing to extradite Osama Bin Laden to another country to stand trial

Indeed, this was something that the U.S. should've pursued in the U.N. -- a global *INSISTANCE* that Osama Bin Laden be turned over to a neutral international criminal court to stand trial for his crimes. Such an action by the Bush administration, at a time when the entire world sympathized with our loss, would've given our nation unprecidented unity, and the most unanimous potential international coalition that the world had ever seen, should the Government of Afghanistan refuse our request.

So, why did the Bush administration effectively shut down this line of negotiation in order to rush into a war... besides, of course, for the bullshit failed ideology of the neoconservatives? 

Just think... Osama bin Laden could be behind bars today -- if not judicially executed for crimes against humanity -- if it weren't for those who rushed to put our troops in harm's way. Instead, he is a free man.

-  A war which has cost over 500 US lives, including those of numerous contractors and aid workers, who horribly butchered for all to see. 
-  A  war that has cost over 800 coalition lives -- for we should honor the dead of our allies as if they were our brothers.
-  A war that has killed tens of thousands of Afghanis, and turned whole cities into little more than ghosttowns. 
-  A war which has significantly increased opium exports into all major western countries.
-  A war which *STILL* has *NO EXIT STRATEGY IN SIGHT, EVEN AFTER SEVEN YEARS!*

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban are once more on the rise, optimism is fading, hunger is increasing, and there are far too few jobs, many of which are being done by foriegn workers. Afghan police and military are hideously corrupt, and support for the Karzai government is gradually eroding. 

So, for Hillary Clinton to attack and belittle those who believed that war should be the last resort... 

... who believed that we should've forged a strong international coalition *BEFORE* going to war.
... who knew that we should've built up enough troops in the region in order to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice, rather than let him slip through our fingers.
... who were appalled to see US soldiers die in Afghanistan's early days because they rode into battle in the backs of unarmored rented pickup trucks rather than armored vehicles.

Well... WE WERE RIGHT to urge caution, weren't we?!  

It's not that war in Afghanistan should've been completely ruled out -- although the goal of Taliban compliance or capitulation could likely have been accomplished through US airpower alone -- but to rush into war in such a hamfisted, haphazard manner without even having adequate numbers or basic equipment on the ground?! No wonder Osama Bin Laden is still a free man.

"The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all!" 
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

So yes, we Democratic activists do "turn out in great numbers" to vote for Barack Obama... but we're not some kind of infestation, Senator Clinton. We're reasonable, rational Americans who are fed up with Bush-era incompetence... the kind that you bought into, hook, line, and sinker.  

We're Americans, Hillary. And your belittling of Democrats who actually give a damn about their country is an elitist statement that insults us all.

"they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them."

Perhaps that's because you were *WRONG* about the three biggest national security issues that faced our country?!

You supported rushing us into a conflict in Afghanistan, with still no exit stragegy after seven years... and despite your position, you have yet to suggest any kind of adequate exit strategy except "stay the course"... which,frankly, isn't a strategy. 

You repeatedly backed the Bush administration to the hilt, without effective oversight or any sense of caution. As a result, BILLIONS have literally disappeared in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- simply unaccountable and gone forever -- while our country can't even manage to rebuild and properly house the refugees of New Orleans.

You fearmongered about both Iraq *AND* Iran, accusing both countries of having active nuclear weapons programs, even when the intelligence for such claims simply wasn't there.

During the most recent debate, you said:
"We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. . . Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region. . . we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power."

Perhaps you didn't get the news a few months back that Iran scrapped their nuclear program years ago, and didn't notice that President Bush was deservedly ripped apart for the kind of behavior you are now exhibiting?!

In January, you said... 
 
". . . we are pursuing every available diplomatic avenue to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program once and for all."

...and in November:
"Iran . . . must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply . . . ALL options must remain on the table." 

These are not coincidences.  Senator Clinton knows very well what she is saying, and that she is fearmongering on the issue... even though her statements are not factually supported by the available intelligence.  

Incidentally, this kind of language is nearly identical to President Bush's language in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But that's nothing new for Senator Clinton either. 

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda. . . If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological And chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." 

In fact, during the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons are not in doubt” and were “undisputed.” Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2005 speech at the UN was “compelling”, although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims, in many cases going to the actual sites of claimed "weapons facilities" and "mobile biological labs", only to find absolutely no threat whatsoever.

You have, Mrs. Senator, played the role of a Bush administration apologist and sockpuppet.

Even during the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 that your husband launched at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, you played the role of cheerleader and apologist, claiming that...

 "the so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs. . . When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.

There were, of course, no weapons labs in Saddam's presidential palaces, and you misrepresented the facts regarding UN weapons inspectors, who were still in Iraq performing their duties until ordered to pull out at the request of the Clinton administration.

You, madame Senator, *DESERVE* to be criticized for your national security and foreign policy positions, because they have been systematically hamfisted and wrongheaded, showing gaping -- or willful -- ignorance of critical intelligence sources and of the complete lack of the kind of meaningful oversight that you *should* be performing in order to make sure US troops are only sent into conflict when they are fully prepared to fight, and only when we have an actual plan in place to win the war, win the peace, and return home.

"they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Excuse me, but did or did not you and your husband argue in support of the disenfranchisement of Nevada caucusgoers? Did or did not your campaign encourage your caucus leaders in Nevada to criminal behavior, telling them "it's not illegal unless they tell you so"? How can you possibly claim indimidation of your supporters, when your campaign effectively encouraged your supporters to engage in widespread voter supression and fraud?

How dare you, Senator Clinton.

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 16 comments