What Taylor Swift thinks about 2017, and what it teaches us about Activism

[Lexicus]

None. Hillary is just singled out for it to keep her out of the White House.

Which has just worked out excellently for America, right? Right??

 

[metalhead]

Agreed. Everyone was just kinda going along with it all at the time because it would have been bad politically not to.

Berzerker seems to think she did something worse than most of the rest. I'd like to know what that is, specifically.

None. Hillary is just singled out for it to keep her out of the White House.

That ship sailed about 13 months ago. As context, I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Berzerker]

Can you quote her lies and explain how they are responsible for getting us into a war?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security.

That article gives an overall assessment of her performance... She wasn't some dupe of the GOP on Iraq.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15586#pop1

That one covers some of her lies

She must have told some really egregious lies to be singularly worthy of going to prison, so I'd like to know what those lies were.

Just about every politician didn't lie us into war, the ones that did deserve to be in jail... You think she deserved the White House.

 

[metalhead]

I don't see lies. I see things that hundreds of members of Congress were saying. Your explanation sucks.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't see lies. I see things that hundreds of members of Congress were saying. Your explanation sucks.

On this point, IIRC she didn't bother to read the intelligence brief that summarized the case for war. Which is a serious problem.

 

[metalhead]

Well, she was in on some pretty good info about Iraq, I'd imagine, on account of being married to the previous president.

I still don't see anything that isn't the same garden variety arguments that most members of Congress were making at the time. The claim that she "lied us into war" is laughable.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't see lies. I see things that hundreds of members of Congress were saying. Your explanation sucks.

So lies are no longer lies if enough people say them? Here's some of her lies:

Well, first of all, Hans Blix, who was the head of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, on [inaud.], did not endorse that resolution.

She hid behind the UN Inspectors while ignoring the results of the UN inspections.

he was not asking the United States to threaten that unilaterally.

But she voted for unilateral war while dropping his name for cover... Poor Hanz apparently told her to vote for war.

Furthermore, there were a number of resolutions authorizing force before the, the U.S. Senate. One was the Levin Amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin in Michigan, which would have authorized force, but only if Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the inspectors and the United Nations found him, therefore, in material breach and authorized force. Hillary Clinton voted against that resolution. Instead, she voted for a Republican-sponsored measure which essentially gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to launch a war against Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.

See now? She claimed her vote was to apply leverage for inspections but actually voted against inspections, she voted for war instead.

And when he did launch that war, in March five months later, UN inspectors had been in the country for months, and had unfettered access. The Iraqi regime was cooperating completely. And Bush invaded anyway. And Hillary Clinton didn't mention a single word in opposition. She didn't say, oh wait, this is just to give the inspectors, you know, give you leverage to get the inspectors back in. since they're back in you shouldn't be doing this. no. she supported the decision to invade 100%, even after the, long after the inspectors had returned and were engaged in unfettered inspections, and weren't finding anything.

Imagine that, not a word from her about letting the inspections continue.

Hillary sez:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction.

And the guest's response:

Totally disingenuous. Virtually all the data that was made available for members of Congress at that time has been declassified. I have read it. And it is very, very weak. Indeed, leading up to the war I was among a number of strategic analysts that provided her office with detailed, empirical research that challenge the Bush administration's claims.

The idea these, the UN inspectors were saying all these things is baloney. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in fact, explicitly said there's absolutely no evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program anymore. The chief [inaud.] weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, had testified that while he couldn't rule out Iraq having some old warheads, you know, from decades earlier lying around somewhere, that they didn't have any offensive military capability. They'd achieved, for all intents and purposes, at least qualitative disarmament.

Meanwhile, virtually nobody took seriously the idea that the decidedly secular regime of Saddam Hussein, the Baathist regime there, was in any way collaborating or supporting or giving sanctuary to the Salafi extremists al-Qaeda, who considered Saddam an infidel, an apostate, and a traitor to Islam. And the Department of Defense, so Hillary Clinton, actually, was the only Democratic senator to make that particular claim.

So--and it also, also since been revealed she didn't even read the [inaud.] national intelligence estimate, which actually cast doubt on some of the Bush administration's claims.So this idea that there's somehow this consensus, that everybody thought they had weapons of mass destruction, these missiles and the support for al-Qaeda and nuclear program, is baloney. The independent arms control analysts were saying, no, this is ridiculous, don't believe this stuff. But she instead decided to side with the administration.

The Bush crowd defended their lies by claiming everyone - including intelligence agencies - believed Saddam had WMD. And thats your excuse for her lies.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, she was in on some pretty good info about Iraq, I'd imagine, on account of being married to the previous president.

I still don't see anything that isn't the same garden variety arguments that most members of Congress were making at the time. The claim that she "lied us into war" is laughable.

I agree, it's just utterly bizarre to single out Hillary Clinton here the way he does.

 

[Berzerker]

Just about every politician didn't lie us into war, the ones that did deserve to be in jail... You think she deserved the White House.

she's the most recent of the liars to run for prez...and the only one being defended by her supporters

here's the problem y'all have - you condemn Trump while you supported Hillary. You aint getting rid of that stink by shooting the messengers.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, you keep repeating that dumb line. It's really not as clever as you think it is.

Her argument about the politics of her vote is not lies. And is certainly not lies that got us into the war. The whole idea is simply absurd.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, you keep repeating that dumb line. It's really not as clever as you think it is.

Her argument about the politics of her vote is not lies. And is certainly not lies that got us into the war. The whole idea is simply absurd.

It wasn't meant to be clever, it was a response to Lex's accusation I'm singling Hillary out as if I'm the partisan hypocrite. That would be you guys...

You wanted the quotes, I posted them.

 

[Synobun]

I think it's important to separate the personal from the big picture. One influences the other but they aren't arm-in-arm (for the most part). This of course changes if the "big picture" specifically impacts you.

It's fine for Taylor that her year was good. That's, well, good. Nobody has an obligation to be miserable because things aren't looking like they're going well elsewhere or in general. That's unhealthy, and it leads to all sorts of problems. First and foremost it makes you incapable of enacting valuable change in your environment.

She's white and affluent in a celeb-geared culture. That she had a good year makes sense and it doesn't necessarily make her blind to the woes of others. That she has been divorced from disaster is not a concept to throw in her face. That's a good thing. More people should be divorced from disaster. That there are so many going through turmoil of varying types is bad. Lamenting that someone isn't embroiled in some sort of catastrophe is the opposite of the intended goal.

Jezebel is a source of particularly misguided op-eds, in my opinion, and it's rare that I've seen something nuanced or otherwise balanced come from their publication. The piece in the OP, in particular, doesn't seem to add anything to the dialogue except a barely coherent muttering about how terrible the world is and how that is specifically counter to Taylor Swift's life and experience. It doesn't serve as a "Gotcha!" and does not appear to make anyone think differently about a perspective. The comments on it definitely fulfilled the anti-Swift sentiment, and I can only assume that that is ultimately what the op-ed was intended for.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator action: Let's get this thread back on topic people. This thread has been going back and forth on enough unrelated political discussion.

 

[metalhead]

It wasn't meant to be clever, it was a response to Lex's accusation I'm singling Hillary out as if I'm the partisan hypocrite. That would be you guys...

You wanted the quotes, I posted them.

And they aren't "lies that got us into war," in any way. That's not "partisan," that's reality. You just have a weird obsession about this that ignores the plain reality that there is nothing remarkable about what Hillary Clinton did and said about the Iraq war.

You want to criticize her vote, fine. But to just invent things to attack her about is absurd. It's not like there is a lack of legitimate criticism to be made; inventing new ones is ridiculous.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator action: If you want to debate Hillary Clinton and unrelated political discussion, please start a separate thread about it and not derail this thread. Please bring this thread back to topic.

 

[Commodore]

I mean, I do get what you're saying but I just think people are wrong to think that way.

I don't think people are wrong to think this way though. I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of people who do support things like LGBTQ rights, but fighting for those things doesn't put food on the table or keep gas in the car. I've said before and I'll say it again, I find it completely unreasonable for anyone to ask or demand that a human being place the needs and concerns of strangers above the needs and concerns of themselves and those they are directly responsible for.

I mean, I refuse to accept the idea that I am wrong because I won't fight for some nebulous causes that don't directly concern me. Especially considering I'm in a job where if I get caught protesting (which is a very likely scenario considering you can't do anything nowadays without someone catching it on camera), I get fired. If that happens, is the LGBTQ community going to pay my bills and keep my kids clothed and fed? No, they will not. So tell me why I'm wrong for securing the well-being of myself and my family instead of the well-being of strangers? The most you'll get out of me is I'll vote for politicians and policies that support those causes, but don't expect to see me out there actually fighting for them. And even that's not guaranteed since first and foremost, I'm going to vote for politicians and policies that support my interests.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

... Especially considering I'm in a job where if I get caught protesting (which is a very likely scenario considering you can't do anything nowadays without someone catching it on camera), I get fired. If that happens, is the LGBTQ community going to pay my bills and keep my kids clothed and fed? No, they will not.

As a member of the LGBTQ (add the rest of the alphabet here) community, I could never ask you to put yourself in that position. It isn't right, and I don't think you're wrong to hold that position either. My fight (if I had one) is not yours. If you chose on your own to support the community by your own accord, that would be terrific. But it would be wrong for those of us in the community to expect you to take up our cause if you have reasons not to. And those reasons can be as simple as "I don't want to." No one should be forced by public opinion to take up the cause of another. Activism comes from within IMHO.

 

[Ryika]

I think the point where I disagree is really the thing about voting. If a person gets by reasonably well (middle class+), are they not in some way "morally obliged" to vote for a person who is likely to help those who are marginalized? Unless that politician would be threatening their well-being (a loony communist who wants to kill the idea of private property for example), voting to help those in need, and not voting to get an even bigger piece of the pie, I something I would expect from people, as voting is a completely risk-free action if the system works the way it's supposed to work.

 

[Perfection]

Like what?

My Mouthing off on the Internet is a public service.

And if this has inspired you to take positive action why does it necessarily have to ruin everyone's year?

If I ruined anyone's year that would be hilarious.

 

[Commodore]

If I ruined anyone's year that would be hilarious

You have ruined mine. I just found out this year that isn't Jeff Goldblum in your avatar and I haven't been able to sleep right since.