I have thought long and hard about this particular issue, because it's a criticism that has been leveled at HRC so many times, including right here in this comm. And I came to the conclusion that those who level it are talking from a perspective that is simply too extreme for me.
In the first place, I am not and never will be a pacifist. Should military action be the first response to every international problem? Hell, no. But should it be on the table, as one of many possible tools that can be used if a situation calls for it? Hell, yes.
Does that mean I approve of EVERY instance where the U.S. has taken military action? Hell to the no. (Lest anyone forget, I was one of those "dirty hippies" protesting the Vietnam War back in the early 70s, lol.)
The Iraq War was complete bullshit, OF COURSE. It should NEVER have happened. We all know that. But it wasn't really about "American exceptionalism" or trying to solve a problem that had no other viable solution or any other valid rationale. It was about 1. Cheney's lies, and 2. W's fantasies ("I'm gonna go whup Saddam Hussein's ass and finish what my daddy started back in 1990! Yeehaw!").
But I don't have to be in favor of the Iraq War or any other specific military action to believe that there are times and places and situations where military intervention IS an appropriate response. Are we going to make mistakes sometimes? Unfortunately, yes. That's the nature of life. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and NEVER take any action, anywhere.
I haven't watched this speech yet, but I have a feeling that's probably pretty close to how Hillary sees things. If that makes her--or ME--a "warhawk," so be it.
It was definitely part of the underpinnings, yes. But what got a lot of people to go along with it, iirc, was the "threat" of those non-existent wmds that we now know were nothing but a big fat pack of lies.
I'm not saying the idea of American exceptionalism is 100% non-problematic, by any means (which is why I stuck to the "warhawk" issue and didn't go deeply into the "exceptionalism" issue in my original reply). It's certainly been used as an excuse to justify a lot of things that should never have happened, including the Iraq War. However, in the case of Iraq, it was just that: an EXCUSE that Bush and Cheney used to convince others to go along with something that they wanted to do for their own dastardly reasons. That's what I meant when I said the Iraq War wasn't really "about" American exceptionalism.
I don't think you can so neatly separate their personal motivations from the concept of American exceptionalism. It's deeply embedded in the fabric of American politics. I don't think it was an excuse, but more like the psychological foundation that allowed them to carry out their actions.
Imo, whether or not the Iraq War was "about" American exceptionalism has a lot to do with semantics. I don't think it was "about" that, because I don't think it was the REAL reason Cheney and Bush told us all the lies that led Americans (including Hillary and ALL THE OTHERS in the Senate who voted in favor of the resolution) to go along with the invasion. Was it used as an excuse to "sell" the invasion to the American people? Sure. But was it the REAL reason for the invasion. Hell, no.
I have no idea what "most of the planet" believed, because I was (and am) here in the US. My only frame of reference was this country and what people here believed, so I can't even speak to that.
Aside from the fact that you haven't cited any source(s) for these rather sweeping pronouncements, I don't think there's any way you OR I can possibly know exactly what information those Senators had access to, and I'm really not comfortable speculating on that.
I am not, in general, comfortable making speculations or assumptions based on my own or anyone else's personal impressions, without something factual to back things up. Just so you know.
I'm not going to argue about how much "American Exceptionalism" may or may not have played into it, because that's not an area I have researched enough to feel sufficiently knowledgeable about it (nor do I have time to do so).
I said the Iraq War was a mistake. I didn't say whether or not I "excuse" anyone for their vote on the resolution; because to me, that's neither here nor there. All I know for sure is that they all cast the votes they did based on the information they had at the time--whatever that information consisted of--and who knows what other factors. I think most if not of the Democrats (definitely including Hillary) now realize it was a mistake and have done for quite some time. (She has CLEARLY stated as much.)
I can't really evaluate her "judgment" in casting that vote, because as I already said, I DON'T KNOW exactly what information was made available to the members of the House and Senate that they were basing their votes on, and I'm not comfortable making assumptions about things like that.
To me, "excusing" people for voting for the resolution would be like saying they didn't make a mistake, and I'm NOT saying that at all. But I don't feel the need to paste a "war criminal" label on Hillary or any of the others who voted for it. If that means I'm "excusing" them, that's your view, and I'm sure I can't change your mind about it.
I certainly wish that the resolution hadn't been approved and that the invasion of Iraq never happened; but that doesn't change the fact that both things DID happen. Mistakes were made, and bad things happened, and that sucks. I honestly think it's kind of silly, however, for you and me to argue at this point in time about what they MUST have known or not known back then.
Lastly, you misquoted my final paragraph by chopping off about half of it, which I consider to be dishonest and misleading. So I'm going to paste the whole thing here, with the part you chose to omit in bold:
"I'm not going to argue about how much "American Exceptionalism" may or may not have played into it, because that's not an area I have researched enough to feel sufficiently knowledgeable about it (nor do I have time to do so).
It's true I haven't researched that particular issue in great depth, YET. But you can rest assured that I plan to. Hillary's emphasize it so heavily in her recent speech has made me realize that it's something I need to become more informed about.
After your truncated quote of my comments, you said, "We noticed." To which I ask, "We" who? I haven't noticed anyone participating in this conversation except you and me. I'm thinking it would have been more accurate for you to say "I noticed," since I don't see anyone else that you might have been speaking for.
I have thought long and hard about this particular issue, because it's a criticism that has been leveled at HRC so many times, including right here in this comm. And I came to the conclusion that those who level it are talking from a perspective that is simply too extreme for me.
In the first place, I am not and never will be a pacifist. Should military action be the first response to every international problem? Hell, no. But should it be on the table, as one of many possible tools that can be used if a situation calls for it? Hell, yes.
Does that mean I approve of EVERY instance where the U.S. has taken military action? Hell to the no. (Lest anyone forget, I was one of those "dirty hippies" protesting the Vietnam War back in the early 70s, lol.)
The Iraq War was complete bullshit, OF COURSE. It should NEVER have happened. We all know that. But it wasn't really about "American exceptionalism" or trying to solve a problem that had no other viable solution or any other valid rationale. It was about 1. Cheney's lies, and 2. W's fantasies ("I'm gonna go whup Saddam Hussein's ass and finish what my daddy started back in 1990! Yeehaw!").
But I don't have to be in favor of the Iraq War or any other specific military action to believe that there are times and places and situations where military intervention IS an appropriate response. Are we going to make mistakes sometimes? Unfortunately, yes. That's the nature of life. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and NEVER take any action, anywhere.
I haven't watched this speech yet, but I have a feeling that's probably pretty close to how Hillary sees things. If that makes her--or ME--a "warhawk," so be it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not saying the idea of American exceptionalism is 100% non-problematic, by any means (which is why I stuck to the "warhawk" issue and didn't go deeply into the "exceptionalism" issue in my original reply). It's certainly been used as an excuse to justify a lot of things that should never have happened, including the Iraq War. However, in the case of Iraq, it was just that: an EXCUSE that Bush and Cheney used to convince others to go along with something that they wanted to do for their own dastardly reasons. That's what I meant when I said the Iraq War wasn't really "about" American exceptionalism.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Imo, whether or not the Iraq War was "about" American exceptionalism has a lot to do with semantics. I don't think it was "about" that, because I don't think it was the REAL reason Cheney and Bush told us all the lies that led Americans (including Hillary and ALL THE OTHERS in the Senate who voted in favor of the resolution) to go along with the invasion. Was it used as an excuse to "sell" the invasion to the American people? Sure. But was it the REAL reason for the invasion. Hell, no.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I am not, in general, comfortable making speculations or assumptions based on my own or anyone else's personal impressions, without something factual to back things up. Just so you know.
I'm not going to argue about how much "American Exceptionalism" may or may not have played into it, because that's not an area I have researched enough to feel sufficiently knowledgeable about it (nor do I have time to do so).
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I said the Iraq War was a mistake. I didn't say whether or not I "excuse" anyone for their vote on the resolution; because to me, that's neither here nor there. All I know for sure is that they all cast the votes they did based on the information they had at the time--whatever that information consisted of--and who knows what other factors. I think most if not of the Democrats (definitely including Hillary) now realize it was a mistake and have done for quite some time. (She has CLEARLY stated as much.)
I can't really evaluate her "judgment" in casting that vote, because as I already said, I DON'T KNOW exactly what information was made available to the members of the House and Senate that they were basing their votes on, and I'm not comfortable making assumptions about things like that.
To me, "excusing" people for voting for the resolution would be like saying they didn't make a mistake, and I'm NOT saying that at all. But I don't feel the need to paste a "war criminal" label on Hillary or any of the others who voted for it. If that means I'm "excusing" them, that's your view, and I'm sure I can't change your mind about it.
I certainly wish that the resolution hadn't been approved and that the invasion of Iraq never happened; but that doesn't change the fact that both things DID happen. Mistakes were made, and bad things happened, and that sucks. I honestly think it's kind of silly, however, for you and me to argue at this point in time about what they MUST have known or not known back then.
Lastly, you misquoted my final paragraph by chopping off about half of it, which I consider to be dishonest and misleading. So I'm going to paste the whole thing here, with the part you chose to omit in bold:
"I'm not going to argue about how much "American Exceptionalism" may or may not have played into it, because that's not an area I have researched enough to feel sufficiently knowledgeable about it (nor do I have time to do so).
It's true I haven't researched that particular issue in great depth, YET. But you can rest assured that I plan to. Hillary's emphasize it so heavily in her recent speech has made me realize that it's something I need to become more informed about.
After your truncated quote of my comments, you said, "We noticed." To which I ask, "We" who? I haven't noticed anyone participating in this conversation except you and me. I'm thinking it would have been more accurate for you to say "I noticed," since I don't see anyone else that you might have been speaking for.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment