discussion comment
16 years ago
Thanks, peaceful72, I'll try to find that book. Sounds interesting.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Mine is fixed now (using IE). Thanks.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"...If California drives the porn industry out, some other state will gleefully take it in."
I don't think so. It looks like California is the only legal safe harbor for porn movie production in the USA. Watch from 3:21:30 in the video.
Njscfan, thanks for finding this link for us. Very interesting. I liked the line of strippers at the end, who voiced their opposition to the legislation. Funny how the Russians could pronounce the word "legislation" better than some of the Americans.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"...we use to have a guy that wanted girls to kick him in the nads as hard as they could"
Are you SERIOUS? Damn, that's like level 9. I'm only at level 1. LOL.
I miss Wondergirl. She was pretty cool I thought.
discussion comment
16 years ago
This reminds me, wasn't Wondergirl into the BDSM lifestyle before she became a stripper? What ever happened to her by the way?
discussion comment
16 years ago
"...I don't take sand to the beach."
Clever line.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Actually, this tax was declared unconstitutional recently by a district judge. However, that decision is under appeal by the state. Here is the article.
Judge strips Texas of its 'pole tax'
The Legislature's imposition of a $5-per-patron fee on strip clubs is declared unconstitutional.
By Miguel Bustillo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 7, 2008
HOUSTON -- Texas was forced by federal law to end its poll tax on voters four decades ago, and now another levy has put the Lone Star State in constitutionally murky waters: the "pole tax."
Texas lawmakers last year imposed a $5-per-patron fee on strip joints to raise more than $40 million annually for anti-sexual-assault programs and healthcare for the uninsured.
The fee, which took effect Jan. 1, infuriated the owners of Texas' 162 strip clubs, who said politicians were cynically taxing a population they knew would not fight back. After all, critics reasoned, men who make a habit of drinking and stuffing currency in the attire of scantily clad women are usually not eager to tell the world about it at legislative hearings.
"It's not like Al Sharpton is going to show up and protest that we're being discriminated against," said a man who identified himself only as Dave, as he exited the Penthouse Club in Houston.
On March 28, however, Texas strip club devotees found a powerful ally: An Austin judge declared the pole tax unconstitutional, saying it infringed on expression protected by the 1st Amendment.
Travis County District Judge Scott H. Jenkins said in his ruling that laws limiting such expression had to pass strict constitutional tests and that the pole tax didn't because, among other things, indigent healthcare had no connection to strip joints.
"There is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured," he wrote.
A spokesman for Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott said Abbott would "vigorously appeal" the decision. And state Rep. Ellen Cohen of Houston, the former head of a women's shelter, said she was prepared to write a narrower measure.
"We need more funding for sexual assault victims, to get the word out and to educate people," the Democrat said of her law, which had bipartisan support. "That's what this is all about, and there is general agreement that it is a good thing."
Stewart Whitehead, an attorney for the Texas Entertainment Assn., which challenged the law along with an Amarillo topless bar called Players, stressed that adult businesses supported rape crisis centers and other programs Cohen wanted to beef up. However, he said, strip clubs do not want to be singled out for taxation.
"We hope this sends a message nationally that these establishments are protected by the 1st Amendment and you can't impose an unfair tax on them just because they are an easy political target," Whitehead said.
Texas lawmakers tried to pass a fee on strip clubs in 2004 to finance education, but the levy, derogatorily dubbed "tassels for tots," failed.
When lawmakers debated the new fee last year, supporters did not claim a link between strip clubs and sex assaults, only that a business that hired women would benefit from programs women used.
But after the law wound up in court, lawyers for the state argued that it was really a regulation, and summoned witnesses who said strip clubs contributed to sexual violence.
"Our customers are not happy about that. They find that very insulting," said Dawn Rizos, co-owner of the Lodge, a lavish club near the Dallas Cowboys stadium that has a VIP room inspired by the movie "Casablanca." "We obviously don't feel there is any correlation between what we do and [sexual] assault."
Rizos said some club owners thought Texas should fine sex offenders to pay for the programs, a model already used to raise revenue from drunk drivers. Hoping to avert a long and costly legal battle, she said some would also accept being part of a solution -- as long as others were taxed.
"I'm in the minority here, but I would not mind partnering with the state to do something like this that would help a lot of people and put a positive face on our industry," she said.
Texas, generally conservative, has a tradition of tolerance toward topless bars. But the moral tide has turned against the clubs over the last decade, and many are facing stricter regulations. In Houston, the clubs recently lost an 11-year fight to overturn a city ordinance that bars them from being within 1,500 feet of day-care centers, schools or churches. Some owners say they'll conceal dancers' nipples to barely skirt the law.
Owners have already raised cover charges and drink prices to generate the extra $5 per customer for the pole tax, which strip clubs were supposed to pay the state in quarterly installments starting this month. Smaller clubs could go out of business, owners say.
But experts say that at the dozens of larger, more upscale clubs, $5 is nothing compared with the sums tucked into G-strings.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I wrote:
"doesn't that mean the dancers invest capital in their own business?"
MisterGuy repsonds:
"What business? They don't own the strip club. Tips can be and are taxed very easily right now."
Hello Misterguy. I wasn't very clear in what I said. What I meant by saying dancers invest capital in their own business, is that in order for them to go on stage and dance in the club, they typically have to pay the club a fee for the right to do so. In other words, they are investing their own capital on themselves, in the hopes that they can earn above and beyond that amount in tips. To me, that seems more like an investment. And I've heard a few rare stories where a dancer has actually lost money on a bad night. (i.e., her "investment" didn't turn a profit)
"...If anyone should be eligible for Workers Comp, it's a stripper...lol...they literally ruin their bodies (backs, legs, feet, etc.) from dancing and gyrating so much."
I agree. And not only that, but some of these girls do some dangerous acrobatics on those stripper poles. I bet a workers comp policy would run pretty high for a strip club owner. Does anyone know of any dancers who were seriously injured on those poles? I've heard of dancers spraining their ankles and so forth... but nothing too serious.
In general, I believe that dancers should be afforded the basic coverage and benefits that every worker has come to expect and enjoy on his or her job. I just don't know how severely this would impact the indutsry. Like that article said, it would increase expenses by about 30%. That's not chump change.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess I'm still confused as to how a dancer could be considered an employee, when the strip club she works for doesn't pay her anything. No salary. No wages. No benefits. Nothing. In fact, it is typically the dancer who pays the strip club a "fee" for the right to dance in that club. So who exactly is working for whom here? If the club owner makes money directly off the dancer, and not vice versa, how does that make her an "employee" of the club in the eyes of the IRS? I thought the definition of employee is someone who gets reimbursed for doing work for someone else. Yet in this case, the club is paying zero. I mean, even a waitress gets paid minimum age. Does anyone know of any dancer who gets paid an hourly wage by the club, and/or benefits such as health insurance, social security contribution payments, etc? I just don't get it.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I like the name "Bubbles". Especially on big dancers. It is so blatantly cartoonish that I actually love it. But that name is really rare these days unfortunately. Anyone ever meet Bubbles?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Thanks for all the detailed comments guys! It looks like I'm not the only one with this problem. I'm going to try the ear plugs that casualguy recommends. Maybe shadowcat should try that same brand too, so he can have conversations with the dancers. It amazes me that a lot of strip-club owners just don't get it. They think they're putting on a rock concert, when really the customers are trying to avoid the loud music. In fact, it's counterproductive to the whole strip-club exeperience.
Maybe I'll open a club that plays only soft music. I'll call it "Strip & Talk". Now there's a novel idea, eh?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Snowtime, Paris Texas is probably my favorite movie of all time. It's very slow but beautifully shot and well acted. It kind of strikes a chord with me because I had some family issues along the way. It's not for everybody though.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Woody Allen - in the company of two women talking about occasionally having "really bad orgasms".
Allen says, "Really? I don't think I've ever had a really bad orgasm. In fact, my worst orgasm was pretty much right near the top."
discussion comment
16 years ago
Snowtime, yeah, I forgot about Hardcore. I vaguely remember that one. Thanks. I'll also put "Last Picture Show" on my Netflix list. Thanks again.
There's this Brazilian movie about two friends who fall in love with the same stripper. Supposed to have some really hot scenes in it. Haven't rented it yet, but it's on my list. Called "Lower City".
"Produced by Walter Salles, director of 2004's Oscar-nominated The Motorcycle Diaries, this visceral drama set in Brazil follows two childhood friends entangled in a steamy love triangle with an exotic dancer. Temptation, lust and jealousy make this volatile situation explosive as the two friends, Deco and Naldinho (Lazaro Ramos and Wagner Moura), vie for the affection of the tantalizing Karinna, played by City of God's Alice Braga."
discussion comment
16 years ago
There's a new movie coming out called "Zombie Strippers", starring Jenna Jameson. The strippers eat their customers after dancing! That might be the best one yet. But I haven't seen it.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Nastassia Kinski in the movie "Paris Texas". She's working in a peep-show booth. Harry Dean Stanton is her estranged husband, who hasn't seen her in 5 years and doesn't know what became of her. He tracks her down in another state and follows her to work, not knowing she turned to stripping to support herself. He winds up in her booth behind the one-way mirror, so he can see her but she can't see him. No nudity, but psychologically interesting and pretty heavy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BjvIAWYfP8&feature=related
discussion comment
16 years ago
Can't forget the classic strip club scene from The Graduate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9tzmrXeA8
discussion comment
16 years ago
"That's right, I've killed women and children. Killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill..."
Clint Eastwood, "Unforgiven"
discussion comment
16 years ago
Wow, that is odd. Maybe my computer is allergic to TUSCL? Of all the websites I've ever visited, this is the only one that is slow (and I mean REALLY slow). I guess I'll just have to accept it. Unless other people chime in and back up my claims. Thanks for the feedback.
discussion comment
16 years ago
On the contrary, my statements are taken directly from the anti-war advocate and author Steven Zunes; not some right-wing think tank. In fact, I am finding it hard to locate any serious anti-war advocates who support Hillary over Obama. Even the infamous Michael Moore of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame said, during a Larry King interview, that he would find it morally wrong to vote for Hillary. (minute 3:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkaRhPxJIh4&feature=related
"...Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003)."
www.antiwar.com
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hillary's role in the invasion of Iraq was unique. She'd been in the Senate for less than two years, but was understandably more famous and more visible than any other member. She was also respected as an intelligent, capable politician who'd won her Senate seat largely on her own merits. She was a star. And she became the most high-profile Democrat leading the march to war.
Had she done the opposite--forcefully opposed the invasion, as a few courageous Senators chose to do--the Bush administration would have had a much bigger hurdle to cross in terms of convincing the press and the public that invasion was the most prudent course of action. Would she have taken heat for it? Of course. Would she have put herself out of the running for the presidency? Possibly. But she wasn't president yet. She was a Senator.
I have no doubt that Clinton, along with a vast majority of Americans, now regards the war as a spectacularly bad idea. History will surely record it as such. But some of us thought it was a bad idea in 2001, and in 2002, and in 2003 (to paraphrase another presidential candidate). And even today, Clinton still won't say she was wrong to vote for the war. She won't join the other major candidates in refusing to vote for funding without a deadline for withdrawal. She may be trying to appear tough for the general election, concerned that as a female candidate, she needs to err on the side of hawkishness. That's a poor excuse, though, if it's true (not to mention a seriously amoral calculation), and if it's not, then we have no choice but to believe her support of the war was genuine. Either way, Democrats can do better when it comes to the person they choose to lead their party.
discussion comment
16 years ago
It is important to review Senator Clinton's past and current positions regarding the Iraq War. Indeed, despite her efforts in response to public opinion polls to come across as an opponent of the war, Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the most hard-line Democratic senators in support of a military response to the challenges posed by Iraq. She has also been less than honest in justifying her militaristic policies, raising concerns that she might support military interventions elsewhere.
Pre-War Militarism
Senator Clinton's militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush's 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that "The so-called presidential palaces ... in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.
Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from "containment" – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq's neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to "regime change," which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.
Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that "It is clear...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."
In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq's possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling" although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
The Lead-Up to War
Though the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was inaccurate in a number of respects, it did challenge the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Senator Clinton didn't even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn't necessary for her to have actually read the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read the report, it's unclear who could have actually briefed her.
During the floor debate over the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Clinton was the only Democratic senator to have categorically accepted the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, Iraq's alleged long-range missile capabilities, and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. (Some Democratic senators accepted some of those claims, but not all of them.)
In the months leading up the war, Senator Clinton chose to ignore the pleas of the hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in her state and across the country against the war and similarly brushed off calls by religious leaders, scholars, community activists, and others to oppose it. Perhaps most significant was her refusal to consider the antiwar appeals by leaders of the Catholic Church and virtually every mainline Protestant denomination, which noted that it did not meet the traditional criteria in the Christian tradition for a just war. Instead, Senator Clinton embraced the arguments of the right-wing fundamentalist leadership who supported the war. This categorical rejection of the perspective of the mainstream Christian community raises concerns about her theological perspectives on issues of war and peace.
In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush's ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, "The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."
When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq."
Aftermath of Invasion
Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that – contrary to Senator Clinton's initial justification for the war – Iraq did not have WMDs, WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that December, she declared, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote" and was one that "I stand by."
In the face of growing doubts about American forces involved in a deepening counter-insurgency war, she urged "patience" and expressed her concern about the lack of will "to stay the course" among some Americans. "Failure is not an option" in Iraq, she insisted. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed." Indeed, long before President Bush announced his "surge," Senator Clinton called for the United States to send more troops.
During a trip to Iraq in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was "functioning quite well," although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival and a helicopter had to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted – in a manner remarkably similar to Vice President Cheney – that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" that same month, she argued that it "would be a mistake" to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that "We don't want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain." Less than two years ago, she declared, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit." And, just last year, on an appearance on ABC's Nightline, she described how "I've taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, 'Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let's get out by a date certain.' I don't think that's responsible." When Representative John Murtha made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces "a big mistake."
As recently as last year, when Senator John Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it.
Rewriting History
Senator Clinton has never apologized for her vote to authorize the invasion. She insists that her eagerness for the United States to invade Iraq had nothing to do with its vast petroleum reserves. Like President Bush, she claims that she did not lie about her false accusations about Iraq's weapons programs. She says she was misled by faulty intelligence, though she has refused to make public this intelligence that she claims demonstrated that Iraq had somehow reconstituted its WMD.
Senator Clinton has also claimed that Bush – at the time of the resolution authorizing the invasion – had misled her regarding his intention to pursue diplomacy instead of rushing into war. But there was nothing in the war resolution that required him to pursue any negotiations. She has tried to emphasize that she voted in favor of an unsuccessful amendment by Senator Byrd "which would have limited the original authorization to one year." However, this resolution actually meant very little, since it gave President Bush the authority to extend the war authorization "for a period or periods of 12 months each" if he determined that it was "necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq."
Despite the fact that Iraq had several weeks prior to the October 2002 vote already agreed unconditionally to allow UN inspectors to return, she categorically insisted that her vote "was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors."
She has also subsequently claimed that her vote "was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq" and was "not a vote for preemptive war." The record shows, however, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment by Senator Carl Levin that would have allowed for U.S. military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction and weapons systems pursuant to any future UN Security Council resolution authorizing such military actions, which would presumably have taken place had Iraq not allowed the inspectors back in as promised. In other words, she not only was willing to ignore U.S. obligations under the UN Charter that forbids such unilateral military actions by its member states, she tacitly acknowledged that she was unconcerned about supporting UN efforts to bring inspectors back into the country. Indeed, in her floor speech, she warned that this vote "says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed" and the resolution that she did support clearly authorizes President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, regardless of whether inspectors were allowed to return to Iraq and regardless of whether the Bush administration received UN support.
Senator Clinton has never criticized the Bush administration for its flagrant violation of the UN Charter or its responsibility for the deaths of the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. She has limited her criticism to the way the administration handled the invasion, implying that, as president, she would do invasions better. Indeed, she insisted that while not regretting her vote to authorize the invasion, she did regret "the way the president used the authority."
Senator Clinton has criticized the administration for not acting to gain more international support for the invasion, ignoring the fact that they actually had tried very hard to do so but failed. The Bush administration was unable to get authorization for the use of force from the UN or, with the exception of Great Britain, to get any substantial troop support from other countries not because they didn't try, but because the vast majority of the international community recognized that an invasion of Iraq was illegal and unnecessary.
Current Policy
A careful look at her current policy toward Iraq reveals that Senator Clinton is not as antiwar as her supporters depict her.
She would withdraw some troops, just as President Bush has been promising to do eventually, but insists that the United States should maintain its "military as well as political mission" in Iraq for the indefinite future for such purposes as countering Iranian influence, protecting the Kurdish minority, preventing a failed state, and supporting the Iraqi military. On ABC's "This Week" in September, she insisted that "withdrawing is dangerous. It has to be done responsibly, prudently, carefully, but we have said that there will be a likely continuing mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. We have to protect our civilian employees, our embassy that will be there."
If Senator Clinton were really concerned about the threat that al-Qaeda currently poses in Iraq, however, she would never have voted to authorize the invasion, which led to the predictable rise of al-Qaeda and other militant groups in that country. Similarly, there would not be the huge embassy complex nor would there be tens of thousands of civilian employees she insists that U.S. troops are necessary to defend if the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place. In addition, only because the United States overthrew the stridently secular anti-Iranian regime of Saddam Hussein has Iran gained such influence. And since the risks of a collapse of Iraq's internal security was one of the main arguments presented to her prior to her vote, Clinton should not have voted to authorize the invasion if a failed state was really a concern of hers.
Since most estimates of the numbers of troops needed to carry out these tasks range between 40,000 and 75,000, the best that can be hoped for under a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she would withdraw only about one-half to two-thirds of American combat forces within a year or so of her assuming office. Indeed, she has explicitly refused to promise, if elected president, to withdraw troops by the end of her term in 2013. As Senator Clinton describes, it, "What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region – the ones that are going to remain for our anti-terrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis." This hardly constitutes a withdrawal.
Senator Clinton tries to downplay the risk of keeping U.S. forces bogged down indefinitely by emphasizing that she would put greater emphasis on training the Iraqi armed forces. But much of the Iraqi armed forces are more loyal to their respective sectarian militias than they are to protecting Iraq as a whole. Nor has she expressed much concern that the Iraqi armed forces and police have engaged in gross and systematic human rights abuses. As with her backing of unconditional military assistance and security training to scores of other allied governments that engage in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations, she appears unconcerned not only with the immorality of such a policy but the long-term strategic risks from the blowback that would result from the United States becoming identified with repressive regimes.
Little Difference from Bush
As her record indicates, Senator Clinton's position on Iraq differs very little from that of President Bush. For her to receive the nomination for president would in effect be an endorsement by the Democratic Party of the Iraq war.
In 2004, the Democrats selected a nominee who also voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, falsely claimed that Iraq still had WMDs, and – at that time – insisted on maintaining U.S. troops in that country. As a result, Senator John Kerry failed to mobilize the party's antiwar base and went down to defeat. What timid concerns Kerry did raise about President Bush's handling of the Iraq war during the campaign were used by the Bush campaign to focus attention away from the war itself and highlight the Democratic nominee's changing positions. Had the Democrats instead nominated someone who had opposed the war from the beginning, the debate that fall would have been not about Senator Kerry's supposed "flip-flopping" but the tragic decision to illegally invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us and the squandering of American lives and tax dollars that have resulted.
If the Democrats select another war supporter as their nominee in 2008, the result may well be the same as 2004. Large numbers of people will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee as part of a principled stance against voting for someone who authorized and subsequently supported the Iraq war. And Republicans will highlight the Democratic nominee's shifting positions on Iraq as evidence that their opponent is simply an opportunistic politician rather than the kind of decisive leader the country needs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"...This narrative that Obama is trying to spread around that somehow he is more "anti-war" than Hillary is pure fantasy."
Did Bill Clinton plant that seed in your head? Shame on him. Here is a transcript of the speech that Barack Obama gave in Chicago back in 2002, at the exact same time Hillary Clinton was bowing to George Bush and caving in to politcal pressure from AIPAC. Shame on her!
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech
If you read Obama's speech carefully, you'll notice the names of a few certain Washington insiders whom Obama warns against - all of whom have subsequently been shamed and/or resigned from office. You will also notice, quite shockingly, that everything Obama predicted in 2002 regarding the Iraq war has come to pass.
"...I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
"...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, AND STRENGTHEN THE RECRUITMENT ARM OF AL-QAEDA."
"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
discussion comment
16 years ago
"...Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is a completely valid reason IMO."
So if Hillary had a penis instead of pussy, you could hold her accountable for enabling George Bush to go to war in Iraq. But because she has a pussy, she gets a free ride when it comes to destroying the world. Or something like that.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Middle East has it right when they exclude women from major decision making processes. Jack Nicholson's character once said in a movie, when asked how he writes about women so well: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability".
One thing is for certain. This United States of America, under its current form of democracy, deserves EXACTLY what it gets. When someone like Ron Paul, who has studied more about our economic system and global policies than all the other Republican candidates combined, gets laughed off the stage at the GOP debates and relegated to quack status by the masses - yeah, you bet this country deserves everything that's coming. I will feel sad if we land in a depression or WW-III. But I will not feel sorry.
discussion comment
16 years ago
The oddest thing that ever happened to me in a strip club...
Around 18 years ago, somewhere on Bloomfield Avenue near Newark, NJ, a place called Dancer's Pub which I don't think is there anymore. Walked in one night and a dancer was doing a live act on stage with a 7-ft Boa Constrictor. During her break, she comes over to me at the bar and asks if she can drink with me. I said yes. Without asking, she wraps her huge snake around my whole body and then sits down on the stool next to me. We had a great time. And the snake was high mileage for NJ.