Yes, that's the sad part, that Tony Blair can't advocate effectively.
It's not the millions of Iraqis killed and wounded, their lives destroyed, the area turned into a country of widows and orphans, or the number of foreign troops killed, it's that Tony Blair can't advocate for economic policies.
Because goodness knows that is the most important thing, right?
Not human life.
And goodness knows that without the whorish Tony, there's no one in England who can step up to the plate.
It's the stupidity.
Fortunately, some fight back against stupidity -- Kyle Kulinski fights back at the idiot Tom Watson.
How about since you're propping up a candidate who lost to Trump, and supported: - Iraq war - Patriot Act - Libya intervention - Syria intervention - Wall st deregulation - NAFTA YOU get out of the party, Tom. It's the people's party you substanceless prick.
Why should Justice Dems leave the party?
They didn't support the Iraq War.
They don't have blood on their hands.
Hillary Clinton does have blood on her hands.
But a whorish group refuses to (a) accept that she lost the election and that (b) she should have never been the candidate to begin with.
Barack beat her in 2008, remember?
Because she supported the Iraq War.
Roger Simon (POLITICO) noted in January of 2008:
Hillary Clinton thought she had driven a stake through it, but it turns out to be the issue that will not die: She voted to authorize the Iraq war, she refuses to say it was a mistake, and she refuses to apologize for it.
And Barack Obama continues to whack her for it.
Obama opposed the war early and was lucky enough to not yet be a senator when it first came up for a vote.
Again and again, he pressed this advantage Thursday night at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles in the first one-on-one debate between Obama and Clinton.
Obama exploits the issue in two ways: First, he says Clinton’s vote in favor of the war shows bad judgment.
“I was opposed to Iraq from the start,” Obama said, “and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.”
In October of 2007, he trailed Hillary. And then Barack's campaign began making the point that her judgment was lacking as evidenced by her vote for the Iraq War.
The argument resonated with voters.
Barack brought in a ton of first time voters. This included young voters, absolutely. This also included voters who saw him as a continuation of Selma or even of MLK's dream.\\
These voters were never going to stand with Hillary. Some would hold their noses and vote for her but they would never stand with her.
For those who've forgotten, the press portrayed Hillary (and Bill) as racists in 2008. The press ran with the story that she was hanging in the race as she waited for someone to assassinate Barack Obama.
All the bitches whining about Bernie Sanders and the supposed damage he did to her in 2016 need to grasp that there was not a climatic event that produced amnesia in the US during the year 2016.
She was the racist, she was the War Hawk.
To run her eight years later without having addressed any of those issues?
That was stupidity on an epic scale.
She was damaged and bloodied in the 2008 campaign.
Eight years later, she lost.
That's only surprising if you think people didn't believe Marjorie Cohn or Keith Olbermann insisting that Hillary was calling for Barack's assassination.
Grasp that, Hillary love slaves.
Your 'brave' Keith called her a racist repeatedly and then insisted she was calling for Barack to be assassinated.
And he got away with it.
The corporate press didn't insist that his commentary was out of bounds. They either echoed it or ignored it.
She was not going to win eight years later.
That's before you get into how polarizing and divisive she has been throughout her public life as wife-of and, later, as US senator.
Cedric and Wally updated their sites:
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.