@
Swordsmyth I've been trying to understand the disparity between her voting record and her public statements (which both seem to be consistent within themselves, but not with each other). What it seems like, to me, is that she supports the idea of continuing to be an influence and taking an incremental approach to getting our military out of harm's way, rather than what most of us here at least used to favor which is immediate withdrawal.
I personally trust her judgment on these things, given the independent work she's done to try to figure stuff out and I think ultimately we're in the same scenario:
1. Make the mess (already done, can't change it)
2. Heal the mess
3. GTFO, and don't make new messes
She brings up things that I find sensible such as that if we are to just abandon the Kurds in Syria it'd not only be morally bad but would send a bad message of untrustworthiness. And I think similar is the case for most places - we started messes by intervening, but could even bring bigger messes by immediate withdrawals. So yes, I am fine supporting such a vocal opposition of regime change who wants to incrementally withdraw, and I think the treatment she's getting is pretty good proof that she's driving the neocons/neoliberals insane with her vision.
And even those who may not share my same general optimism of what she's about, I think you should be able to see how she isn't as bad as the Democrat mainstream Clintonites who are trying to smear her dishonestly for "loving Assad" and stuff like that.
Connect With Us