Oh Dan, why confuse those on the right -- and the far left -- with a reality that only fucks with their Clinton Derangement Syndrome?
how many innocent folks around the world is she responsible for killing?
#ImWithHer and always have been.
Low quality troll bait.
@4 How very self descriptive of you
Well, at least Joe Biden lies more than John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.
Of course, Savage doing the same thing they've been doing all election cycle. You call bullshit on what Hillary says and I quote from Ansel earlier...

"It would be helpful to the progressive cause across the country—and the cause of defeating Donald Trump—if Hillary Clinton, who polls show is distrusted by millions of voters, stopped lying—and if her supporters and allies didn't undermine their own credibility by minimizing or excusing it."

Apparently contradicting Hillary in any fashion is the same as aiding and abetting Trump. I guess we all have to continue pretending that Libya never happened.

Of course Hillary still has my vote, I thought the convention was mostly positive and made me feel good about her as a candidate, but a lot of us are tired of this whole thing where we're not allowed to be critical of her because "Trump".

Also, this while thing about lying and showing it as a percentage is fucked. This means you can lie more times in total that someone else but as long as you also tell the truth more often it balances out when you display as a percentage. For example. Obama has 149 Mostly False, False, or Pants of Fire statements, while Bernie has 30 Mostly False and False (0 pants on fire) statement and Hillary has 66 Mostly False, False, or Pants of Fire statements, but Obama is rated higher because of all his True comments.

So, good try with the data Dan, but it's far from the best way this could be measured. It should be weighted not just a percentage.
Bernie lies as often as Hillary, provided you've defined lie to mean "cite statistics that are disputed." instead of "lie."
lying with statistics is still lying, Dan
But hey, this is better than the average Dan Savage "pro-Hillary" post dedicated to insulting Bernie voters. He actually sort of made a positive comment about Hillary.
Details.... schmeetails.... Bengazi!
@2: well, Vince Foster was 1, then I lost count.

if you remember from the George W. Bush presidency, a big part of the job is murdering in our name. having presumably supported that ongoing slaughter with your vote, you will be happy to know she'll be ready to take up the challenge on day one.
It seems like the point, on a very practical level, is that if you a) have a reputation for lying (even if that is an unfair or inaccurate reputation), and b) need to win over people who are concerned enough about your honesty that they are willing to not vote for you; then c) you should at least lie more carefully if you want to get elected.

Whether Sanders or Obama lie is beside the point, because they are not on the ballot.
Obama was doing all the corporate security state bullshit people are attacking Clinton for, and was responsible for much of it (!), but no one was this worked up to pull him down and Romney up in the last presidential election. This level of Clinton hatred seems clearly to me to be a combination of long term GOP smear with media participation - AND a deep underlying cultural misogyny.

I can't believe anyone at The Stranger is talking about fucking emails. At least talk drones or regulatory corruption or something real. God. This is a low point for The Stranger....emails...just like the previous Secretaries. But it is Clinton, so it must be a sign of a deep alliance with Satan. Sheesh.

This is why this line of criticism helps Trump, because it doesn't speak to progressive issues at all - only trivializes real progressive issues and the huge challenges that face everyone. Fuck. Try making your argument about how we should ignore the massive difference in world view between Trump and Clinton on climate change. The would be real. And take thought. And intellectual rigor. And guts. Sheesh, emails.
lol @ Savage
As per usual, those infected with Clinton Derangement Syndrome are still suffering from dementia that can't be cracked by facts.
@16 I call them Clintonistas.
Yes, polls show that Hillary "is distrusted by millions of voters". Not surprising when the Republican attack machine has made her target #1 for a couple of decades now. Anyone who watched Fox News for a few days would come to that conclusion. And for 10 months, we had Bernie Sanders throwing out similar Republican talking points!

Eeeenufff with this already. Vote Hillary as if your lives depend on it -- because they just might.
I like this visualization that popped up on twitter:… via @infowetrust
I couldn't find any "fact checking" about Clinton's statements on her Iraq war votes that are notoriously false. This large gaping hole in the analysis questions the Independence of these "fact checkers", and points to the obvious: this is largely a meaningless exercise because there is no attempt to insure that critical issues are systematically covered in the survey. Sorry, Savage, I'll have to rate your claim that Clinton lies as little as Sanders as being mostly false, at best.
I think it's important to understand that it's not the lies alone that bother so many people. It's her long track record of failures (while actually holding positions of political power) in COMBINATION with her lying...
Kirmser's post.
Aug 03, 2016 3:48pm
The politifact article was a joke. Supposed to be non partisan, but they take a bunch of things hillary said that are true, tested them and declared them true, then used that to assert that she lies lesss, then they took some exagerations from bernie, political fluffing, and called them lies. Whereas Hillary's actual lies were whoppers. Especilly the times she tried to assert things like she did not vote for war, she voted for diplomacy, or that she opposed DOMA to prevent worse laws or that Bernie supported the Minute Men malitia. Real untruths.
@21 "It's her long track record of failures (while actually holding positions of political power)"

Since it's such a long track record you could maybe cite a few?
The NYT republished a PolitiFact op-ed. It didn't carry out its own analysis, as is implied here...
In the 2016 primary race, she did not lie less than Bernie, she lied more than Bernie. Examine all the contested statements rated by Politifact after she and he began their campaign. And, she has continued to lie. Yes, politicians lie... I get it, it happens all the time. But what has she lied about? She lied about the borderline illegal behavior she engaged in with her email server... not simply what she did, but what she allowed to occur and the risk to national security she created... that lie is not a small one. And worse, she's continued to double down on the lie.
Are we talking about someone we want to hire as POTUS or are we talking about ways to get Trump hired as POTUS???
I don't know what the point is to all these You Lie! articles if all we need is reasons to vote FOR them as opposed to AGAINST them. You want us to vote for her or not? Let us know in an Election Board Cheat Sheet. We'll be waiting for it. Sooner rather than later.
Dan, thank you for calling out the BS! I know some will never listen, but someone needs to do it anyway. Maybe, over time, it will penetrate some heads. I'm not optimistic, but we should try anyway.
@17: That's funny. I call them Republicans.
National politics is just sports for The Stranger these days. Ansel writes one article with a true statement - that valid criticism of Clinton isn't an implicit endorsement of Trump - and Savage pounces on it and begins to spin. The cowardice your office is steeped in is staggering.
30: Ultimately that's what partisan politics is: it's about the team not the game. It's why so many "conservative" Republicans are willing swallow Trump's dick (he's on the team bruh!). It's why mainstream Democrats cry foul anytime someone criticizes Obama or the Clintons. It's a sportsball brand thing. Yeah, there are substantial and important policy differences (or just sheer idiocy like Trump), but that's not what the emotional attachment to Clinton is about. People really invest in the intraparty politics, showboating, and celebrity culture aspect of the thing.
Ansel..."true statement..."

That's a good one....
Look the race is Clinton v. Trump. That's it.

Sure. Clinton, being an establishment centrist lies more than Sanders.

So what? She lies waaaay less than Trump.

The third parties don't count since they won't be on the ballot in half the states.

Therefore. Since Sanders is unfortunately NOT the candidate and since Sanders has endorsed Clinton- there is only one choice. Clinton.

Pretty basic. There is no argument.
So that makes it ok that she's still lying in the first place?
@33 It's fine if you believe that she's the only rational choice, but that isn't the argument being made here. The point is that you do not need to engage in doublethink to support Clinton, much like you've attempted to demonstrate in your comment. That seems to be the point that honest Clinton supporters are trying to make as well.

I just wonder how far The Stranger is willing to carry water for a candidate that, realistically speaking, doesn't care about the people that read their publication. Actively lie? Well, they're already done that throughout the primary season - read anything by Matt Baume. Attempt to break and shame anyone engaged in an independent movement to reduce the influence of corporate politics? Look no further than Dan Savage.

A few years ago I was getting drinks with a person that regularly publishes here, and they half-jokingly said, "Yeah, I know they're kind of a propaganda outlet, but at least they're my kind of propaganda outlet."

Now they're the DNC's propaganda outlet, and they're not even getting paid for it.
@34. Because politicians lie... or you know, if you are Sanders.... "exaggerate."

And if they all lie, why is Clinton the one called on it?

Several people have pointed out reasonable points - not all lies are created equal - but if ts honestly all about Clinton's false hood as versus... what? ... then trump is far more egregious.

And I take umbrage that this is all "sports ball." B.s. I support Clinton because she is far more progressive than trump and won't put Scalia 2.0 on the court. The platform matters.
To buy this assertion, you have to believe the statements politifact checked were chosen completely at random or at least without any bias. You don't have to believe that they're in the tank to wonder if the process by which they choose statements to check may favor some more than others.

Secondly, this politifact analysis ignores how many times the false statements were repeated. Making one false statement is bad, doubling down on a false statement again and again is worse, but politifact doesn't keep track of that.

Third, and more importantly, you have to believe that every false statement is equally consequential, and it's the number of false statements that matters most. Ansel never claimed that Hillary lies the most, only that the lies about the emails have been particularly pernicious. It's troubling that Clinton blew up a relatively minor issue by repeatedly and blatantly lying about it for over a year. More troubling (to me) than Sanders exaggerating a couple of statistics or making a dumb misstatement ("if you're white you don't know what it's like to be poor...").

I'm not saying her repudiation for dishonesty is entirely earned, but jesus christ, Savage and other Clinton devotees are just as bad as the worst Bernie fans when it comes to willful lack of critical thinking.
@33 Now, the argument is about being sycophants for the next 4 years, like most Clinton fans were under Obama's presidency, or continuing to put pressure on neoliberal Democrats including and especially after Clinton gets elected (assuming she does). Lesser evilists typically tell us that we have to hold our nose, but then they behave as if their candidate was in fact more than good enough and hardly ever put pressure on their candidate or anything with a D, which explains that progressives are in the same unenviable choice every 4 years: vote for Wall Street or vote for Wall Street. I assume that you know the saying about insanity and repeating the same stupid mistakes.
Dan you stupid fucker, Ansel was talking about the email server in particular. It would be helpful if Dan Savage stuck to his advice column since his political bias is so drippingly obvious that his editorializing is more like campaigning.
@38: Putting pressure on anything with a D is a good way to make people think you don't have standards.
@39 Focusing on the email server right now is a very targeted political act. From the beginning, Bernie Sanders said the issue was bullshit. Why? Because it is not a meaningful political issue for progressives. However, the GOP, and the go-along misogynists, love focusing on the emails, because elevating the emails trivializes all the issues Bernie Sanders campaigned on.

Sanders was extremely clear about his position on the emails for a reason. Sanders endorsed Clinton for a reason. It simply doesn't matter for the next two months that Dan Savage, or anyone else, was a biased asshole in his support for Clinton or gratuitously insulting to Sanders supporters.

Sanders advocated revolutionary change, but Sanders is not a "tear or collapse the country down to the foundation to start again" leftist. That approach certainly didn't work for neocons in Iraq. If that is a person's position, they should have the intellectual honesty and guts to say so, instead of weaseling around about email servers. Who knows? Maybe there is no other way to avoid the catastrophe of climate change, but I don't see that there is time now to start from chaos. Obama already dropped the ball big time on climate change catastrophe.

Not even corporate half measures will happen if we endure 4 to 8 years of angry, and armed, resentment when it is impossible for Trump to create the white fantasy land for his voters. Even a close presidential election is likely to have endless destructive and distracting aftershocks from his resentful supporters and their fearful servants in Washington. It would be best, including for progressives, if Clinton wins big.

Personally, I am particularly disgusted by Obama and Clinton rehabilitating the status of arch war criminal Henry Kissenger among Democratic leadership. It tells me something about how the world works and the deals they are willing to make that troubles me deeply.

But, I have no doubt active support for Clinton is absolutely necessary. Who knows? maybe she has already worked out a grand coalition with key international corporate scum elements who are willing to address climate change head on. And nothing is going to change if we don't get to working harder at the local and state level.
@40 Per usual, you've got it exactly backward which doesn't surprise me at all. Sticking by your D, no matter what, shows that you have no principles, only allegiance to a cartel. I also never said that I would put pressure on anything with a D but I am more than fed up having to correct your continual distortions of what I say.
@41 Sanders primarily objected to corporate media rehashing the same tripe viz Clinton's email rather than discuss overarching issues like inequality. There is also little doubt that Clinton's use of a private server shows her will to escape transparency, which doesn't set her apart from all other pols who try to escape transparency. Transparency is not only a meaningful issue for progressives but it is more evidence that she'll push for politics as usual.
Who lies more? Hillary or the people lying for Hillary?
@43 Really, that's all you've got? Hillary Clinton kept the same half-assed approach to communications as all previous Secretaries of State and made it less easy for opposition congressman to paw through her emails? What about Benghazi? Sheesh, a whole world of stuff to critique the Obama/Clinton corporate security state wing of the Democratic party about and all you do is carry Trump's water for him.

Why don't any of you level your GOP talking point attacks against Obama for all the same stuff? (the guy personally signs off on drone missions that have killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians). Because your friends will be offended? "How dare you attack Obama. He's cool." I get it. He IS cool. Personally, I think it is because the 30 years of character attacks on Clinton as somehow uniquely horrid have been easier to make stick because of straight up misogyny. misogyny

Why not actually listen to Bernie Sanders instead of the GOP? Be open to learning more about how the domestic and international world functions and try to understand why Sanders means what he says right now. Also, if you are a youngish person, try to come up with a NEW way of looking at all this and acting in a new way. The old ways are stale. Get your teeth into some real local and state stuff, and gnaw and grind.
@43 Looked at some of your past posts. Agree with a lot of your positions. Since you seem to have decided to be a hold your nose and vote person, I still think it's better to lay off the personal stuff about Clinton now for the benefit of really good down-ballot candidates, even if you are in a "blue state". The bigger the Clinton win the easier it is likely to be to move on some the many environmental issues where Obama has been really really bad. I think Clinton's lack of warm fuzzy support will make it easier to attack her policies from "the left", unlike with Obama.
Hillary cant help lying,look at her husband."I did not have sex with that woman".Billy may not have had vaginal sex.But where did the mysterious stain come from?Did Billy boy have his little pepe out?
It would also be helpful if this article had any substance whatsoever. A paragraph written saying "Hillary doesn't lie because politifact says so" is some junior high school level bullshit. All this is is a headline! No doubt playing off of the fact that most idiots these days don't require much more than a headline to form an opinion. Politifact is the most cherry picking word twisting bullshit website I have ever seen. Grow the fuck up, you should be thoroughly embarrassed by this.
I find it ironic how far left liberals who supported Bernie Sanders, but cant support Hillary Clinton because she lies. Same people who had NO PROBLEMS AT ALL supporting Mike McGinn lying to the entire city about not blocking the viaduct tunnel plan, just to get elected.
I'm was on the fence about sitting out this election or holding my nose and voting for Hillary, but after seeing yesterday's NYT story about the U.S. bringing pallets full of $400,000,000 to Iran I was like WTF!!!! It sounded like some right wing conservative B.S. but turns out to actually be TRUE. Yes, we might have to endure four years of Trump if too many people sit this one out, but then maybe things will be so bad that we can get a decent Democrat elected in 2020. This is purely anecdotal, but after the last Demo convention there were thousands of Obama bumperstickers all over SF while this time around I'm seeing very few Hillary stickers. Obviously, a lot of people feel the same way about her.
Why, I just avoided bosnian sniper fire the other day...
@46 Campaigning on progressive issues like transparency is not only the best way to defeat Trump now or his equivalent 4 years from now but it is how to elect progressive down ticket candidates. Selling a seriously flawed candidate by not mentioning it is so, is counterproductive because most people already know she is flawed and it takes credibility away from your message.
@52 She is no more flawed than any other corporate Dem, except to the degree that the public has internalized GOP talking points. At least she's not dumb enough to make an "I am not a witch" video. You've got Clinton derangement syndrome. Challenge your gullible inner misogynist, realistically compare Clinton to any other top corporate Dems (Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell, for example), and get to work.
@50 The $400 million was money the United States impounded in 1979 with the breakdown in relations at the overthrow of the Shah. Resolution of that issue included the payment of $2.5 billion (!) by the Iranian government to American citizens and businesses to compensate their losses caused by the actions of the new government at that time.

Freakin trolls.
@42: Check your innuendo detector.
Data from over a year ago is pretty stale, especially with Wikileaks actively targeting HC (scrutiny to which no other candidate has been exposed). That said, how evenly do they fair when it comes to lying under oath?
Looking at politifact today, there is something glaringly missing from these charts: they do not weight the importance of the statement. For example, Hilary has been given truthful grades for:
-Pointing out 500 people applied for police job in Dallas.
Well, i was going to make a list, but just that. She also got some mostly trues for poking holes in Donald Trump's windbag.
Meantime, she has pants-on-fire for continuing to lie about her previous lies regarding classified emails on her anti-FOIA personal server (thank you "most transparent administration in history".)
@53 Come on, Clinton being pro-NAFTA, pro-welfare reform, pro-deregulation of finance, pro-Iraq war, pro-fracking, pro-charter schools, pro-TPP until she had to say differently, and much more has literally nothing to do with gender bias, or GOP talking points. You seem very confused.
@58: "pro-deregulation of finance, pro-Iraq war"
o I am laffin.
@59 that's very unfortunate because it is no laughing matter.

Actions speak much louder than words. She gave Bush a blank check to wage war on Iraq one month after Saddam Hussein had agreed to renewed weapon inspections without conditions and even though the Bush admin claims about Iraqi WMD were being debunked almost in real time. She also was explicitly for attacking Iraq unilaterally if it didn't comply with what were made up claims that she didn't bother to check. Either she is deceptive or she is grossly incompetent and not qualified to govern. Personally I don't believe in incompetence at that level of government were nobody farts without 100 people overseeing it.
@60: "She gave Bush a blank check to wage war on Iraq"
That's one of those accusations that would be damning if only it were true.
Clinton or Trump.

That's your choice. no whining, crying, or petulant temper tantrum is going to change that now.

Clinton or Trump.
@59, 61: She voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq after Saddam Hussein had already agreed to allow inspectors to return, in defiance of the UN's refusal to approve an invasion, and in direct violation of the UN charter. That's a fact. She also defended that decision until well after it helped cost her the 2008 nomination. That is also a fact. And her begrudgingly-admitted "mistake" helped lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Once more, a fact. None of those are things to be proud of. She either made a calculated political decision that supported a war crime, or she believed Bush, in which case she's too stupid to be President. I don't personally believe she's that stupid.

@62: You might need a little remedial education on the subject of the electoral college. People who do not live in swing states do not have to choose between a war criminal and a wannabe war criminal (because their votes are pretty meaningless).
@63: Let me know when said Authorization constitutes a "blank check".
You're also ignoring her statement AT THE TIME that she voted yea grudgingly and in the hopes that the Authorization would serve as diplomatic pressure rather than escalating to actual conflict.

Additionally, the American invasion of Iraq does not constitute a war crime. War crimes were committed by both sides in the course of the conflict, but even a vote explicitly in favor of going to war would not constitute "support[ing] a war crime".
@58 Except for the Iraq resolution, those are almost all exactly the some positions held at the time by Murray and Cantwell. And Cantwell did vote for that resolution.

Did I miss your "rampant evil" posts about Patty Murray? She's running right now, but ONLY Clinton has to carry all that corporate Dem baggage in your mind.

No, I'm not at all confused. Lots of people have been finely trained to think of Clinton as possessing some Special Evil Soul, when in fact she is just another corporate security-state Dem in her positions - but one with lot longer track record, and also a track record of trying to help the poor and vulnerable from her earliest time as a young adult.

Given your positions, Clinton's history suggests you should actually trust her more than Cantwell and Murray to be sincere about wanting to accomplish the progressive elements in the platform negotiated by Sanders.

@64: The Authorization gave Bush "specific statutory authorization" (as required by the War Powers Resolution) to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend the US against Iraq or to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. There were no restrictions placed on him except for the standard restrictions required by the WPR, namely that he make regular reports to Congress. Clinton voted against the Levin amendment, which would have authorized Bush to use force only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process (inspections that in fact began and were still ongoing when the invasion began). She chose instead to support the Republican version of the bill, which had no such stipulation and allowed him to invade at will. That's as close as anyone's gotten to a "blank check" since the last Congressional declaration of war in 1942.

I'm not ignoring her attempt to have it both ways at the time, that's entirely in keeping with her character. She also said she voted for the AUMF "with conviction" and stated as late as 2007 that she did not consider her vote a mistake. Once the invasion had begun she voted for a resolution expressing "unequivocal support" for the President's "decisive action". That's not the least bit indicative of someone who was expecting the AUMF to be used only after diplomatic options were exhausted. Where was her outrage at being betrayed? There was none, because the whole thing was a charade and anyone honest knows it.

Finally, if you don't think the American invasion of Iraq constitutes a war crime, then you are a very Good German indeed. Kofi Annan (who knows a fair bit more about this than you do) has plainly said that the war was illegal. It was a clear violation of the UN charter.…
As for lying about Clinton lying, there's no need for that. We have the Inspector General's report and to demonstrate it for us:…
@65 I am not sure what makes you think that I feel much differently about Murray, Cantwell, or Del Bene, Kilmer, indeed most of the Washington Democrat delegation that voted for fast tracking TPP. In the spirit of not painting everybody with too broad a brush, Murray did not give to Bush authorization to attack Iraq unilaterally, but she did vote to repeal Glass Steagall in 1999, which by itself is pretty damning.
Elizabeth Warren on the character of Hillary Clinton:…
@66: The Authorization as written allowed the use of force ONLY if peaceful efforts were deemed to have failed, and required the President to submit his determination of such to Congress upon the use of force. You misrepresent the Authorization to be broader and simpler than it was.
The Levin Amendment would have allowed any member of the UN Security Council to veto American military action. Hillary Clinton has been remarkably consistent in her justification for voting against it.

Finally, you (and the amateur historian whose opinion you cite) are mistaken in your assertion that the Iraq War is a war crime. The UN Charter makes no attempt to define war crimes, nor does it specifically address the legality of a preemptive strike (so long as no attempt is made to seize territory or control from another state). War crimes are defined by Customary International Humanitarian Law, and do not include wars of aggression. A war of aggression IS a crime against peace, under the Nuremberg Principles, which is EXPLICITLY defined as a thing separate from a war crime.
The bad news is that you're wrong. The good news is that it seems to be out of monumental ignorance rather than out of actual malice.
I want to be Venomlash when I grow up.
@71 You want to be master obfuscator?

The formulation is broad enough that if Bush judged that the security of the US was threatened, he had to say so to congress within 48 hours of doing whatever the hell he wanted.

Not only was it completely obvious that Bush was looking for any excuse to attack before the vote but Iraq complied with inspections according to the UN, yet Clinton applauded Bush with both hands and feet when he attacked. The proof is in the pudding.
@72: I know it's rough, but sometimes things are complicated. Sometimes it's murkier than "they're bad, we're good". Sometimes there is no "right", but merely a succession of varying "wrongs".
So forgive me for taking in the full picture, as much as it may be messy and difficult to understand (for you). You call it obfuscation? I call it refusal to boil reality down to a soundbite.
@63 Nope. So. By default you're voting for Trump.

Your choices are Clinton or Trump. You have no other choices. Clinton or Trump.

Even if your choices were Sanders or Trump you'd still have the nagging issue that Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

He also voted to authorize Obamas use of force in Libya and Syria.

And. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

If your litmus test is "no war criminals" and your metric for War Criminal is the authorization of the invasion of Iraq you have no progressive candidate elected to public office to vote for that is actually in this race.
@72 - Ugh, I say something nice about somebody and you twist it around to make it all about you. What a selfish asshole.

You're probably the type to vote third party in presidential elections.
This thread has inspired something new for my arsenal - the Barsinister Award.

You want to go around calling people "cunt"? You must be fun at parties.
@73 Iraq complied to weapon inspections based on bogus claims of WMD, yet Clinton cheered Bush for attacking Iraq. Your obfuscating rhetoric is meaningless compared to historical facts.
@77 Pridge would say just about anything to bat for Clinton, so who knows?
@74 conflating "promoting democracy" with full scale bombing and invasion is neocon ideology. Which side are you on?
@77: See ya next Tuesday :^)

@78: There you go again, boiling a complex bit of history down to a soundbite.
(Bush's argument, some people may remember, is that UN inspectors were being misled, that there were WMDs being hidden from them.)

@80: The Iraq Liberation Act was explicit in its military focus, directly authorizing the training of and provision of materiel to Iraqi resistance groups.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
@81 UN weapon inspectors conducted over 500 searches of facilities before the attack and found nothing. That's not a soundbyte, that a fact that was all over the press. UN weapon inspectors repeatedly said that Iraqi cooperation was increasing. That's not a soundbyte, that a fact. UN weapon inspectors debunked one after the other Bush admin claims of WMD BEFORE the attack. That's not a soundbyte, that a fact. All these facts were widely know when Clinton cheered Bush for attacking Iraq. That's not a soundbyte, that's a fact. You can confirm all these facts at History Commons: United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

Anybody with an ounce of honesty couldn't have concluded based on the evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the US or that it didn’t comply with UN inspections or even that a full-scale war on a starving country that was bombed once a week on average for an entire decade prior to 2003 wouldn’t almost certainly result into mass civilian death. There were 10's of millions of people in the street worldwide it was so obvious the Bush admin was lying but here you are carrying water for neocons and war criminals. Do you ever intend to stop moving ever further to the right as this campaign goes on?
@82 - My thoughts and prayers are with you during this difficult time.
@65 I voted for Phil Cornell in the primary. He lost because nobody knew who he was (I hadn't heard of him until the primary ballot), and his campaign website was as embarrassing as his campaign presence. But, I plan on writing in NO against Murray for the first time this year. TPP is bad news, and any Democrat who voted for it's fast track should be ousted. Sadly, she had no competition in the primary and now we're stuck between a TPP-loving Democrat and a TPP-loving Republican. I vote No on that choice.
@66 Actually, I don't believe you think differently about Murray and Cantwell relative to Clinton, but it is clear you FEEL differently about Clinton, which is why you waste time criticizing Clinton when it would be way more effective for us all to be talking about putting pressure on Cantwell, and Murray, about TPP, since Obama will need her(their) vote(s) to push it through now.

Since I don't have the special visceral reaction to Clinton that some lefties seem to have that is reserved for Clinton, I'm left asking myself why. All I can come up with is unconscious media created Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

But hey, this is from someone who believes that Democratic leadership rehabilitation of Henry Kissenger is a massive betrayal of "all that was once good and true" about the Democratic party "and could be so again." So, yeah, Clinton's a "made" gal, but at least she's not excited about the idea of a race war. I just don't see that it is right for me to act politically in a way that risks suffering for hundreds of thousands more people in order to "make a point" that does nothing to build the kind of local and state movements required to make lasting change.

Plus, I have no doubt that Clinton does not get a thrill from the suffering of others, but I believe the satisfaction from the suffering of others is a key part of Trump's self-identity construct.

@84 The dilemma is how to create the political dynamic that makes a Murray loss based on anti-TPP activism actually recognized as activism from "the left", rather than a right wing win.

I continue to be troubled by Obama getting a pass on TPP, as if it is a neutral event, as if there is nothing that can be done about it. On the other hand, this thread has energized me to try to do more in places where something can still be done.
@82: If you'll stop frothing at the mouth for a moment, I'd like to remind you that I never claimed the fact ACTUALLY justified invading Iraq. But again, you're simplifying a complex situation to suit your opinions. You're talking only of known knowns; consider the possibility of unknown unknowns.
Yes, there was evidence that Iraq was cooperating. But practically nobody was in a position to say that that was the totality of evidence, as there was (as there always is) a great deal unknown. So when the President of the United States, a man with access to far more intelligence than even members of Congress, vehemently claims that Iraq is hiding something, one might wonder what he has seen that hasn't made it to the general public yet. It's reasonable, in such a situation, to infer that American intelligence may have detected some dissemblance that had hoodwinked the UN and that the President was acting on such intelligence. He hadn't, of course, and he was just pursuing the same dogmatic goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein as he had from the start, but there was no way at the time to know that.

THINK with your head, anon1256. Hindsight is 20/20, but the deception was only "obvious" at the time to those who had decided beforehand (i.e. prejudicially and without evidence) that Bush was a liar.
@85 That's why I was hoping for a strong showing of an anti-TPP politician in our primaries. Pushing her out with a strong economic liberal would have been the best option. I honestly can't support her anymore, and am just writing "No" on my ballot. Though, in retrospect, maybe "No TPP" would be a better thing to write.
@87 You could choose that write-in they ran across during the hand recount in Al Franken's senate race: "Lizard people". If you do, I will to.

@86 As much as I'm pushing back at anon1256, I don't think there was ever a moment that justified a yes vote on use of force in Iraq. Yes votes by people who should know better: A lot of finger to wind "security-state" votes there, at best - corrupt military industrial complex payoff votes, at worst.
And here we four are, the last dregs in the bar at ten minutes to two...
@86 You literally sound like Rumsfeld.

@85 Of course, electing another Clinton says so much about entrenchment of power and money unseen on such a scale for almost a century.
@83 You are such a good cheerleader, Pridge.
@90: Yes, I know it's a lot more comfortable to reduce history to a simple parable with clear definitions of right and wrong. But the past is as complicated and messy as the present, and you'd do well to remember that. Dreaming of a return to a simpler time (that was never actually that simple) is exactly what gets conservatives into trouble.

@88: I know, the evidence never justified it. But the word of the President of the United States holds a lot of sway, even with the loyal opposition. And him lying to Congress and to the American people on such a matter of foreign really rather unprecedented.
Remember, Clinton wasn't the only Democrat to have been taken in, to have voted in favor of the Authorization while pleading for an emphasis on diplomatic over military measures. Is John Kerry a warmonger? How about Maria Cantwell? Or Tom Harkin? Or Max Baucus, Max Cleland, or Chris Dodd?
@87 "the deception was only "obvious" at the time to those who had decided beforehand (i.e. prejudicially and without evidence) that Bush was a liar."

Translated: You were right, but you right right for the wrong reasons. We were dead wrong, but we were dead wrong for the right reasons.
One could argue that she steals more nominations -- with the assistance of voter disenfranchisement and the DNC -- than Bernie ever did or will.
Thanks, Dan. I used to go to your weekly for info about shows coming up, food, etc, but your continuous, blatant pandering to this war mongering shill -- including your openly murderous attitude towards pit bull terriers -- has finally made me commit to never looking at another line from The Stranger. You guys are like the "indie" version of msnbc.
@93: Stopped clocks can be right on occasion, but that doesn't mean they're worth hanging on the wall.
@95 I'm sorry. I didn't hear you over all of the mealy-mouthed equivocating coming from post 87. I'd swear it was something about being a good judge of character and having the ability to know when you're being snowed is a pre-requisite for being a President.
@92 "him lying to Congress and to the American people on such a matter of foreign really rather unprecedented."

Are you kidding me? as if the Gulf of Tonkin declaration that lead to the Vietnam war wasn't based on lies. What about Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia? What about Reagan's Iran-Contra affair? I could literally go on forever with examples. Are you really this ignorant or just gullible?
@96: So, you want a candidate who is either telepathic or Wonder Woman (thanks to her Lasso of Truth). Apart from those two fairytale options, nobody's outright immune to being fooled on occasion, especially if the misinformation comes from what is thought to be a trusted source.
Again, you're demanding simplicity when the facts of the situation do not support it.

@97: One, the Vietnam War was already raging when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred. (Basic factual accuracy, once more.) Two, there's a world of difference between claiming a second attack on American forces (which was actually based on a sensor error misidentifying a salvage operation of vehicles lost during the first attack) and claiming a massive WMD development program with no basis in fact. Operation Menu was a covert bombing operation that was simply kept quiet; Congress was not outright lied to. Similarly, if somewhat more seriously and less legally, the Iran-Contra affair was simply a program kept quiet.
If those are the best examples you have, you don't have much case. Every president has at some point kept something quiet, often through what might be charitably termed lies of omission. But deliberately feeding Congress information known to be false in order to mislead them into taking major military action? That was unheard of in the modern era until Bush 43 came to power.
@98 You're just making excuses in an attempt to disguise shitty action. Polish and turd seems to be an appropriate metaphor.
@98 the most telling part of this exchange is how in order to provide cover for Clinton, you have to spin history and make excuses for war criminals that have been universally denounced for their actions. Good job, asshole.
@99, 100: In other words, you've already decided that Clinton TOTALLY KNEW the intel was fake and TOTALLY voted for WAR WITH IRAQ anyway and is TOTALLY GONNA drop bombs on Iran despite her strong record of pushing for diplomatic solutions with them as Secretary of State. So you're not interested in nuance or accuracy.
How serene it must be in your little world, where everything fits neatly into your preconceived worldviews and everyone is either good (you and your two or three chosen political candidates) or bad (everyone else who lives in the real world and has to make real-world tough decisions).

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.