Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (109783)	11/2/2007 10:01:38 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, Your point about the left not being monolithic is well taken. Obviously I understand that, but it's sort of difficult to address every view on the left (as it would on the right also despite your own silly rhetoric). My point is that the left is "generally" very anti war NOW even though some politicians voted for it originally and there are a variety of views about what to do now. I agree with you 100% about Hillary's voting record on this issue. Her rhetoric on Iran is consistent with that RIGHT NOW. There may be individuals (like you) that are not giving her a free pass on that, but the media in general, her opponents in the primaries (not all voted for it), and much of the left is either giving her a free pass or not nearly as rough a time as they are giving those on the right. I think this is obvious. It also must be true! Otherwise, she would not be dominating the democratic primaries right now. Someone who voted against it (like Obama) would. He would at least be in thick of it and attacking her with some enthusiam. I could even see Edwards. At least he apologized to the democrats. >Hillary is part of the establishment that believed those lies< I disagree with you about this. There were obviously a lot of lies told in the drive up to war. But the lies were told to sway public opinion (here and abroad) that the US was justified to go to war (not informed politicians). In addition, Hillary and President Clinton had basically just left office. So they were probably as informed as anyone on Iraq. Even if they weren't, the lies were so transparent that I (and many others) knew going in the administration was lying. So you are left with a few choices. 1. She and other democrats in office that voted for it are idiots because they had more information than people like me and still couldn't figure out the administration was lying to sway public opinion. 2. She agreed that we should go to war 3. She thought we shouldn't go to war, but decided to go along because the president was extremely popular at the time and the general population had been swayed. She voted against her own view because of the politics. I'll give you a hint. The answer is not #1. #3 is pretty ugly. I am not even criticizing her vote (unless #3 is the reason). I am criticizing those on the left that are overwhelmingly supporting her despite her past and current views. I'm willing to accept responsibility for not supporting a major change in tactics because I am still unsure what the best thing to do is. I think this is a very difficult situation. I am willing to play this hand for a little while longer. It's a very crappy hand that I didn't vote for, but IMO it was and still is a choice between two crappy hands. I'm not sure which one is worse yet.