The post reminded me how deeply disappointed in HRC, amongst many, many others, I was over her vote in the Senate to let President Bush loose with his Iraq war scheme.
It was not sufficient then, or now, to explain that she really wanted all diplomatic and UN type avenues exhausted first…
I don’t care WHY she did it… the action alone is what we are left with.

Comments here reminded me that her presidential primary campaign used the arguments which whatzername later took up and turned into “pallin’ around with terrorists.”
There’s a nasty sector in the Dems we try to pretend doesn’t exist and that was right out there in the open … with HRC at the helm…
I don’t care IF she approved the message, missed it, whatever- it is the action we are left with.

As much as I admire HRC on certain levels, I have come to think she lacks large vision .
I don’t think that qualifies as hypocrisy…
And so have to disagree with Mr Mitchell.

As to the:
” Because, unlike for the rest of us, it’s never their ass that’s on the line.”
framing of this post…

That’s because WE do NOT put their hineys on the line!

Singling out HRC to yap about when all those other “leaders”, of whom so many are still there in DC being all leader-y, is disingenuous at best…

Unless of course, HRC was expected to perform above all others because she shares the same toilet as the past pres…?
PHHHTT

In the runup to the war in Iraq it was disappointing to me
to have so many Democrats jump on the Bush bandwagon.

I lost respect for Colin Powell after that show in the UN. Only
later did I learn he was put up to it by Bush and Company.

It is a sad fact that many of our politicians will do what ever is
politically expedient for them without any consideration of what
the impact is for the future of the United States. We must find a
way to get the money out of politics so we can elect more
average citizens instead of millionaires.

JMHO.

DD

I don’t find either realism or insight here. IMO realism indicates that our problem is how to extricate ourselves from these counterproductive and unaffordable wars. There are far more that two alternatives and one of them is the unfortunate alternative that there is no “good” way to do it. An insight might be that both wars are far off track but specifically in Afghanistan we are now just interlopers on an internal power struggle that has been characteristic of that country for — well centuries I think it is. Worse still all the evidence points towards the conclusion that the faction we are supposedly supporting is not legitimate.

We could go on to debate whether the domestic or foreign agendas should be addressed simultaneously, or in sequence. Realism again indicates that the former is the only actual choice. However, given the apparent climate in the US itself, one has to wonder what the hysteria from the right wing would be like if Obama unilaterally began to draw down forces in both countries at an accelerated rate in order to #1 save a few warehouses full of money, #2 stop killing our people and some of “their” people, and #3 redirect resources into creating a few million jobs.

I guess I just don’t see the point of this article at all.