General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy cousin's husband has PTSD as a result
of what he experienced as a soldier in Iraq. He tried (unsuccessively thank goodness) to commit suicide last year. He has been in intensive therapy.
I will not cast a vote for anyone who should have known better than to authorize that damned war. No one will ever convince me that any of our lawmakers at the time did not know that the Bush cabal was lying about WMD. Those who voted yes did so out of political expediency, and are responsible for untold suffering.
Another cousin lost his good paying job working for Tyco in NC, and now is finally working for about half of what he was making. The reason for the job loss? It was outsourced to China.
I will not cast a vote for any candidate who votes for policies that cost Americans their jobs.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)My entire industry was changed by H1-B visas and outsourcing. Many people lost their careers. We cannot close our eyes to those who have suffered, such as the vets who fought in that awful war of greed. That's why I am not a centrist, I am a liberal.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Compromise on war votes and other matters of life or death.
yardwork
(61,821 posts)If Gore had been elected in 2000, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. 9/11 might have been avoided too - it's very likely that there would have been no wars.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee and you don't support her, you are helping put another Republicsn in the White House.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,879 posts)Your logic and your conclusion are, in my opinion. both correct.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)over voting the announcement is already in the bag and announced. I really do have the option not to vote for her and I would likely exercise it. Iraq is her burning tire. I don't want anymore dead in oil wars for her owners.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I don't believe that Al Gore would have prevented the 911 attacks. I do, on the other hand, believe he would have responded in a very different way and not have used the attacks as a lame excuse to start an unrelated resource war in Iraq.
Please bear in mind that we are talking about what Al Gore would have done. Hilary Clinton is not Al Gore. She has taken a much more hawkish posture during her political career than either Gore or President Obama. In fact, it was her hawkish instincts that cost her the Democratic Party's nomination in 2008 as Obama ran as an opponent of going to war in Iraq while Mrs. Clinton stubbornly refused to admit a lapse in judgment for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
I was one of those who, even before the start of 2008, recommended to my fellow DUers Mr. Obama for having more of what it takes to be President than Mrs. Clinton. While I have often been disappointed in Obama, even to the point of feeling betrayed, I will give him credit for the faith he places in diplomacy before a use of force. In that respect, I still feel my decision to support Obama over Mrs. Clinton in 2008 was a good one.
I still don't trust Mrs. Clinton. She's still a war hawk in the Middle East while I feel more than ever that US military involvement in that region is rooted in an imperialist lust for oil, not in a desire to democratize the Arabs or preserve a Jewish state with its own imperialist desire for land. This is at a time when our national priorities would appear wiser if we moved to first supplement with an aim to completely supplant fossil fuels as a source of energy with renewable energy sources. All we are accomplishing by fighting resource wars in the Middle East is keeping fossil fuels industries on life support. No amount of oil is worth one more drop of a young American fighter's blood.
Moreover, Mrs. Clinton background is that of a corporate lawyer. As her husband's political career took him from Arkansas to Washington, D. C., she became cozy with large corporate interests which are too ofter at odds with public interests. Again, I do not trust Mrs. Clinton not to side with Wall Street and other corporate power centers against the rest of us. Income inequality will tear America apart, and I see Hilary Clinton as one who will exacerbate rather than remedy this problem.
Yes, Hilary Clinton is better than any Republican on the horizon. That's not saying much, is it? I think she's on the right side of many issues, but still wrong on war and trade. She's not going to compromise away any of the hard won victories made in recent years by gay and lesbian Americans not make lame excuses for bad cops who use the color law to murder or manhandle young blacks. But I don't trust her not to put Social Security on the table to get Republican votes. I don't trust her not to further fray the social safety net in a deal with congressional Republicans. I don't trust her to do whatever it takes regrow the American middle class if that is too much of an inconvenience to corporate interests. And I don't trust he to do any more than the Obama administration did to bring order back to our lawless banking industry.
If Hilary is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. When she's president, I will work to undermine her pro-corporate agenda.
[center]
[/center]
Skittles
(153,321 posts)but I would still vote for her over a repuke
Evergreen Emerald
(13,071 posts)But it is irrational to blame Clinton for all of the evil in the world. She voted to give Bush the authority, assuming he would use it reasonably. Who knows what he said to them behind closed doors. And her vote meant nothing in the bigger picture. It held no sway. She was not the deciding vote.
She made a huge mistake. But her mistake is not the cause of your cousin's husband's PTSD. I wish him the best.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)I am questioning her motives and lack of judgment.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And think it is logical and principled.