Should Hillary Clinton Resign her Post if This Adm Uses the Rights of Afghan Women Cynically?

[alcibiades_mystery]

This isn't a flamebait question. It seems, rather, utterly relevant.

Many on the left screamed for years that Secretary Powell should have resigned rather than give the anthrax speech before the UN. In Secretary Clinton's case, the matter is even more severe, since she has done more to advance the rights of women globally than probably anyone in recent memory. She has received well-deserved praise for these efforts, and one suspects that the position of SoS appealed to her in part because she could turn the US foreign policy apparatus into a serious mechanism for advancing global rights of women. And she would have been utterly correct to take that position, and to follow through on it, as I believe she has. Witness only her efforts in sub-Saharan Africa, and the point will be made.

But now several people who oppose further escalation in Afghanistan are suggesting that the Administration will cynically invoke the rights of Afghan women as a pretext for further conflict (the motivations for which remain hazy, in any case, apart from the usual suggestions that the whole thing is being driven by the military industrial complex or some oil concern). That's a fairly hefty charge, and it would put Secretary Clinton in an analogous position to former Secretary Powell. That is, she would see her life's work being cynically deployed for the purpose of revving up a war machine (knowing full well, I'm sure, the statistics that show that women and children suffer much more in catastrophe and conflict areas, moreover!).

I haven't seen anyone suggest that this would be cause for her to resign her position in protest, but it would seem a logical conclusion given the charges that are being flung about currently. So I'm asking. If you believe the plight of Afghan women under Taliban rule would be used as a mere rhetorical device, do you also believe that Secretary Clinton should resign her position in protest?

[napi21]

1. NO! Hillary is doing a great job and should stick with it as I'm sure whe will.

I understand the plight of the Afghan women, but THEY have to fight for their own rights. I don't see that happening. It's not our fight. It's tied closely to their religion and we shouldn't interfere. If we do that, we should then also invade Saudi Arabia, and many other countries too. We can't do that nor should we.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. That's not really the question, though

I'm not debating whether the US has some moral imperative to help Afghan women. That said, the notion that if we don't do it in Saudi Arabia (isn't Secretary Clinton putting pressure on them to address this point, actually?), we shouldn't do it in Afghanistan is morally dubious at best. The point that treatment under the Taliban had some kind of long history or tradition is historically inaccurate.

All that is beside the point, in any case. I'm asking 1) if you do see what you take to be a cynical, dishonest, or merely rhetorical use of Afghan women to promote escalation, 2) shouldn't somebody who spent her whole life fighting for the ACTUAL rights of women resign in protest?

[girl_interrupted]

3. Another Question...Should Joe Biden resign?

It's no secret he has been against escalation in Afghanistan. What kind of position does that now put him in?

Biden No Longer a Lone Voice on Afghanistan

From the moment they took office, Mr. Biden has been Mr. Obama’s in-house pessimist on Afghanistan, the strongest voice against further escalation of American forces there and the leading doubter of the president’s strategy. It was a role that may have been lonely at first, but has attracted more company inside the White House as Mr. Obama rethinks the strategy he unveiled just seven months ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/14biden.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. I'm not talking about mere opposition

I'm talking about the cynical and dishonest use of your life's work.

It's a little different.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes they most certainly are

Really there is a lot going on in that part of the world that we never hear about, not just death and war.

Opposition to troops. http://codepink4peace.org/blog/tag/afghan-women-speak-out-interviews/


"That position doesn’t represent all Afghan women however, a point that was made clear to Ms. Benjamin by Masooda Jalal, former Afghan minister of women and the only woman to run for President in 2004. She has been advocating for Afghan women since 2001 when she was one of the few at the Loya Jirga, but still shut out, “we were in the big tent during the Loya Jirga, but most of the deals where made in the small tents, behind the curtains, where women where not allowed to go.”

At recent gatherings sponsored by Code Pink in Afghanistan, Ms. Jalal told Ms. Benjamin that troops and development funds are both needed for reconstruction. “It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops - more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security - along with other resources,” she answered. “Coming together they will help with better reconstruction.”

Ms. Benjamin acknowledged this point in a separate interview with Scott Horton, saying that in addition to those who oppose more troops, there were those who “say that they felt if the U.S. pulled out right now there would be a collapse and the Taliban might take over, there might be a civil war.”

Shinkai Karokhail, an Afghan member of Parliament and woman activist, is one of them and expressed her view that “In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn,” “International troop presence here is a guarantee for my safety.”

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=437

[blm]

92. Hillary has been siding with McChrystal, Gates and Holbrooke from day one and prefers MORE troops

than Obama is willing to send.

I think the OP has it wrong that Hillary has done more than anyone else to advance women's rights - she has SAID more than anyone via PUBLICITY CAMPAIGNS that champion her words, but, what actions did she take that give her the top spot in advancing women's rights? You think her consistent hawk positions on war benefited women?

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Listen

I'm buying into a number of common premises for the purpose of pushing the thought on this. Not everything in the OP is my personal opinion.

[blm]

100. heh...OK...but, I think it unhelpful to even REPEAT the standard crap the corpmedia dumps on us

for years so that it becomes a false record of history.

[alcibiades_mystery]

101. I think this particular question is needed

It points up some clear incoherence in some of the lines of thought and alliances we see forming on this question. I have no problem with people holding contradictory notions in their head, so long as they're aware of them.

:-)

[burning rain]

4. It's inconceivable that we'd do anything serious on women's rights in Afghanistan, in any case.

So I think the issue will turn on hawkishness. Hillary's more a hawk than Obama, so I certainly don't think she'll find grounds for resignation in his Afghanistan policy. Remember, if she still has presidential ambitions, she looks better to more members of the party if she remains a good soldier in the adminstration. She can deny such ambitions, and maybe she has given them up, but she'd have reason to deny them if she still nourished them--being seen as possibly wanting to muscle the boss aside makes you enemies needlessly.

[DrToast]

5. What if she's the one using them cynically (as you put it) to increase troop levels?

Then what happens?

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. That's not within the scenario

I'm posing a hypothetical. It's fine to question it, since it is merely a hypothetical. But if you do, then you're not really playing. Again, that's fine, but it's a little too easy.

[Aramchek]

6. you do know that Hillary is one of those who are pushing for more troops, right?

she, of all people, knows what a difference our presence there has made in the lives of Afghan women.

[malletgirl02]

44. Interesting

Regarding the OP it is interesting how people on DU can support someone, but don't know that a basic policy position that person has. This isn't towards you, but the OP.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Oh, it's toward the OP, is it?

:rofl:

[VMI Dem]

7. Interesting take.

I look forward to Tuesday.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Why would Hillary Clinton NOT do something cynical?

I wouldn't consider voting for her in the primaries because I knew she was cynical to the core. Your question seems to assume much not spoken, and much not proven.
I guess I don't get it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Well, I don't agree with that

[WeDidIt]

12. First rule of flambait posts

ALWAYS use this as your first sentence:

"This isn't a flamebait..."

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Does that mean you don't have an answer

Okay then.

:thumbsup:

[WeDidIt]

27. That means I never read past the first sentence

when the first sentence claims what follows is not flamebait.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. So you don't have an answer

Okay then.

:thumbsup:

[WeDidIt]

58. Yep, when somebody says "this isn't flamebait" in their first sentence

it's guaranteed flamebait, so why bother?

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. I surrender

You're absolutely right. The first sentence was a terrible mistake. That established, please feel free to contribute something beyond your metacommentary whenever you're up to it.

[WeDidIt]

68. Why should I?

I never read past the first sentence and won't read it because of your first sentence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. I'm apologizing openly here for the first sentence

In any case, your contribution to this thread is now complete. You won the argument. The first sentence was awful, and colored the rest. I'll never do it again. Nice discussing with you.

[WeDidIt]

70. Glad to help. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. It is a good question

I think she should, but she wont.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. There are a number of possible answers

1) She thinks they are being used cynically, but she can do good work elsewhere, so it's a net gain on balance. That's fine, but wouldn't wash with the purist crowd.

2) She thinks they are being used cynically, but wants escalation anyway more than she cares about women's rights. That's an odd response, and could only be proferred by a real Clinton hater. Apparently, this is the answer of many DU leftists, which makes the strange partnership they've established with the primary-era Clintonistas seem very strange indeed!

3) She doesn't think they are being used cynically. This throws a wrench into the the very premise of the argument, as it wouldn't seem that you could believe in Clinton while also believing that the Administration is making the case dishonestly. Again, the people making this argument and the primary-era Clinton supporters would seem to have some troubles to work out, and I'll leave them to it.

Of course, the actual case would seem far more complicated than ideologists on either side would be willing to admit.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. I personally dont think she is thinking about that aspect of it at all

I am sure winning a war trumps the rights of anyone.

[saltpoint]

15. I'm not seeing the rationale for Secretary Clinton to resign.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Let me try again, then

Suppose you spend your whole life working for the causes of the disabled.

Then you get a job in a company, in part because they supposedly do a lot of disability outreach.

But when you get there, you find out that the disability work they do is a total sham, and not only doesn't help anybody, but actually harms the disabled.

Would you resign from that company?

[saltpoint]

20. She took the job knowing that policy of State would likely -- perhaps

necessarily -- be a gray-area undertaking. It usually is, it predictably is, and yet there are other things that can be done to affirm one's core beliefs in worthy causes.

Clinton is in a position now to affect those causes' outcomes. It ain't supposed to be pretty. There's likely a gritty, hard-bitten component that comes with the job.

True, any Cabinet member can stay or leave as their heart dictates, but in taking the job in the first place, it seems as if Sec. Clinton wants the opportunity to make some good things happen.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. I agree with that

Some people on this board are suggesting that the rights of Afghan women are completely beside the point, and that invoking them to justify escalation is pure cynicism and dishonesty. OK. If we believe that, then it's a bit more than "gray area policy messiness," is the point. It is out-and-out dishonesty regarding her life's work. If we believe the first, then the second (resignation) would seem appropriate, no?

[saltpoint]

24. As a mechanistic representation, she can resign on a principle, but

again, that would also cancel out what good she feels she could affect in her current role.

If she argues with herself that the evidence that her life-work principles are being misrepresented or dismissed by the team she works for, she can -- not must -- resign. It does seem that the equal argument is true, that she could decide to represent those core principles no matter the provisions or setting, something akin to a very self-directed and principled and effective third grade teacher who continues to effectively teach her students despite being in a school district with a superintendent with whom she disagrees or having to navigate around a school principal whose administrating she feels is an impediment.

If Sec. Clinton resigned now it would be widely perceived as a debasing act against the president, no matter how she framed the context of the resignation, and every pundit in the world would speculate out-loud that she was launching a political challenge against Obama.

I don't think her advisors would suggest a resignation on one issue and I don't think she'd be likely to listen to them if they did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Well, sure

One could have said the same thing about Powell. Indeed, that is his reason for not resigning.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. The question is, would she be LYING?

Powell was at the UN reciting a litany of things about Iraq and its non-existent WMD programs that HE KNEW were untrue, manufactured, and/or misleading. Even he was initially loathe to say some of the things he ended up saying. I fail to see how Secretary Clinton discussing the plight of women living under the Taliban to argue for our continued involvement in Afghanistan would be analogous to Powell's *presentation* at the UN. It may not ultimately be sufficient to obtain the necessary support for continuing our involvement in Afghanistan (or beside the point) but it has been well established how poorly women were treated when and where the Taliban have been in power and discussing it would seem to me to be appropriate within the broad confines of the debate. At any rate, I don't know that her discussing the issue would be "using them cynically".

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Well, right

In general, I agree with you that this argument (that the admin would be using the plight of women under the Taliban cynically or dishonestly) is a very odd argument indeed. It is, however, the latest argument to circulate among those opposing troop increases on DU. In that spirit, we must stick with the hypothetical. IF...and the big condition here is marked by the IF...these arguments about women ARE being used dishonestly or cynically (let's even say IF and only IF), should Secretary Clinton resign. You have to buy into the condition to really answer the question. If you don't buy into the condition for the purposes of the exercise or otherwise, then obviously the analogy makes no sense. If you do accept the condition - even as a thought experiment - then Secretary Clinton would be - at the very least - allowing a dishonest use of her own life's work for the purposes of war propaganda...she would be accepting it as a legitimate strategy of the discourse. That's tantamount to lying about something she cares deeply about, but only IF you accept the condition.

It's fine to dispute the condition. Hell, I'd agree with you. But that's not the question here. Many people seem to buy the condition. Shouldn't they also buy the conclusion?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Hmmmmmmm.............

I would never advocate for anybody to use certain arguments dishonestly or cynically and I guess I'd be pretty disappointed in myself if I found myself doing so. I'd certainly be disappointed in Secretary Clinton if she gave in to political expediency over truth and justice. As to whether I would call for hers or somebody else's resignation over it.........:shrug: I would think, however, it would be pretty difficult, in the absence of an admission by the person or party involved, to determine whether or not somebody might be using an argument dishonestly or cynically and even if you were able to do so, it seems to me that that probably wouldn't be sufficient enough to call for somebody's resignation, at least not in the world we currently inhabit- it would cull our political "herd" pretty quick if it were. In a more idealistic world, one should not have to resort to dishonesty and cynicism to make an argument about something but, unfortunately, we all know too well that politicians often just can't help being...well....politicians.

I don't know if that answers your question better or not but that's about the best I can do (I think). :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. I agree that it is next to impossible to determine if *this particular argument*

is being used cynically or dishonestly. The claims to that effect by other posters - offered as they are with such certainty - strike me as exceedingly strange.

But I want to enter the thought experiment with their own premises rather than my own doubts about those premises.

[ruggerson]

30. Many on the left "SCREAMED"

Maybe if you had wanted to avoid this being read as pure flamebait, you should have chosen a less rightwing, Bill O'Reill-ish way to characterize the left.

Just sayin'...

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. My apologies

I strike that word with your recommendation and ask the question again.

[marshall]

31. Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder

It would depend on whether she thinks Obama is being cynical.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Yes, that's what the question is asking

IF she judged it to be cynical and dishonest.

The IF is the conditional marker.

[marshall]

37. It would also depend on her own future plans

If she wants to pull a Ted Kennedy and challenge Obama in the presidential primary, she's probably looking for the best opportunity to break away from his administration and forge her own path.

But it's probably too soon to do that, even if that is on her mind.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. It would seem that such a decision should be made on principle

And not be dictated by pragmatics.

[marshall]

40. LOL

That would be a real shift in American politics.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Again, we're playing the hypothetical

It's easy to bust the hypothetical, but the people who seem to believe this stuff at least argue that they are acting on principle alone. The hypothetical MUST operate on that terrain. Anyone can say "What would be the selfish motive?" but that doesn't seem to be how people accusing the Administration of dishonesty are arguing their own position. For them, it is (supposedly) principle and nothing else.

[HughMoran]

32. "This isn't a flamebait question." Yes. Yes it is.

edit - irrelevant

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Let me answer here

1)The suggestion (and it is not mine) is that the operation in Afghanistan would not be conducted in support of women's rights, but that women's rights would only be used as an excuse. Once again, this is not my suggestion.
2) See #1. I don't agree with the premise at all personally. It is a premise that is being argued across this board for the past few days.
3) I can see from numerous responses that my first sentence was rhetorically stupid. I apologize for that and ask only that you consider the post as if I didn't write it.

[HughMoran]

36. I actually edited

...because I missed the rhetorical nature of your questions - carry on :hi:

[treestar]

39. When the Repukes did that, we know it was dishonest

Because they are never for the rights of women. If it came from a Democrat, we would be within our rights to judge it differently.

But if would never be the first cause for Afghanistan. We all know it is the Taliban we were after, because of Al Qaeda, or more cynically, oil. That's why Bush started the war.

But I do remember wanting to bomb Nigeria when there was a case of a woman being stoned to death. Maybe not so as to actually support that. But for an initial reaction. Same with Saudi Arabia and some of the horror stories from there.

[shadesofgray]

42. I think everyone involved should, not just Hillary - but they won't.. I don't consider this

question flamebait, either. I think it is a valid question about the administratin and war. Unfortunately, Hillary, for all her talent as a politician, is nothing if not cynically pragmatic. This is the same woman who used her own humiliation by her own husband as a springboard into a political career of her own. I think she is fully capable of using anything and everything to advance herself.

But Hillary willl be just a cog in a wheel that seems to be inexorably rolling towards a cliff when it comes to Afghanistan.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. So you don't think Secretary Clinton actually cares about the rights of women

relative to her own advancement?

I'd have to disagree with that.

[shadesofgray]

45. I didn't say she didn't CARE. The question is what she cares about MOST. Them, or her career.

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Apparently, you didn't read the whole sentence

Especially the "relative to her own advancement" part.

[shadesofgray]

103. Yes, I did. And I don't know what your f ucking problem is but I'm putting you on "ignore."

Not worth the bizarre haranguing.

[Enrique]

46. i don't think she'd object to that

she's among the most hawkish members of the administration and I think she'd support any way of arguing for the surge. And I don't see her as especially un-cynical. I think her support of the Iraq war was cynical.

[hayu_lol]

48. Hillary has worked her entire life for women and women's causes...

only by staying in the position of SOS can she continue to work for the rights of Muslim women...and American women presently abused in our military.

She can do more with the power of her position to affect Obama's position, and dealing with the Muslim governments she is in close contact with.

No outsider is going to make spectacular changes in the treatment of women...but the American SOS can at least get at least some leaders to revise their thinking and modify their behavior.

Colin Powell was just a shill lying for his boss.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. So, on balance, even if women's rights are used cynically to ramp up the Afghanistan War

Secretary Clinton should bite the bullet and continue on?

[girl_interrupted]

62. And Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act

He led the fight to criminalize violence against women and to hold batterers truly accountable by writing the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act.

So I'd say both have a dog in the same fight. Thank God.

I agree, it would devastating for her to resign, a real step backwards for women's rights. The position of S0S gives her a great opportunity to influence Muslims governments and how they treat women. More so than the average advocate.

And I wouldn't want to lose Biden either, I favor his solution in Afghanistan more than I do Obama's.

Think we are lucky to have the both of them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. So, even if the women's rights argument is being used cynically

The good they can both do elsewhere argues against their resigning in protest? Is that the correct reading of your posts here?

[karynnj]

102. It is extremely hard to believe they could do more elsewhere

Not to mention, in Clinton's case she believes in the full McChrystal COIN because of her commitment to changing the society there to be more woman friendly.

This is a very serious comment. The fact is that it does kind of seem non- idealist to argue that you can not successfully change another country's society. It is because we do really strongly that our values are right, that it is very very hard to realize that they may not be universal and we might be only able to change the worst instances internationally. Pure counterterrorism or even the more light footed COIN will not have that as a goal.

[David Zephyr]

49. Since it was my OP that originally posed this question, I'd like to respond.

My OP, which, this morning after watching ABC's 'This Week', seem somewhat prescient now, was a fair questioning of what I said I "hoped" President Obama would not do.

I also hope that over this weekend and Monday night that an eraser (or the delete key) might be employed should one of his speechwriters want to keep such a cynical ploy, unworthy of this President, in his final draft to the nation as he calls for an escalation of some 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. You should hope the same thing.

When women are oppressed and murdered with government sanction in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait under the rule of religious male hierarchies, and when our nation's leaders welcome them as friends, then justifying an escalation of war in this spot of the world will be just as cynical if Obama does it as it was when Bush did it.

Let's not forget that the Taliban was oppressing and murdering women long before George W. Bush's Administration rewarded them with $43 Million. And President Obama has our armed forces currently working with that very same Taliban now, paying them bribes just as we are bribing Karzai and his drug-lord, brother. Which is it? Is the Taliban our mortal enemy that merits even more military action against them, or are they still our long-term employees?

If only American careers could last as long as the Taliban's careers have lasted with their American employer! Talk about a cushy U.S. Government job! These folks have been on and off our payroll since the 1980's. Twenty five years of employment. Not bad. American workers should be so lucky.

If Obama wants to make more war in Afghanistan, then he needs to instruct the American people honestly why he has chosen to do so. Why our young men and women will be giving their lives to prop up a corrupt government? Why are we going to spend billions more when Americans are broke, jobless, homeless and sick of paying for eight years of wars that have accomplished nothing. Nothing.

Let's hope that the cynical bullshit, the cheap emotional tug to win popular support for this very unpopular war, will not be part of President Obama's address to the nation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. So, for you, the cynicism is obvious and indisputable

Should Secretary Clinton resign in protest if it is deployed?

[girl_interrupted]

59. It isn't "mere" opposition Editorial boards have asked the same of Biden

And they have asked if he will resign, given his opposition to escalation. I think you make light of Joe Bidens expertise in foreign policy, and that's too bad. He has had years of experience and is very well respected for his opinion. He is more experienced in the logistics of war than either Obama or Hillary. If Obama were to use women's rights as an excuse for escalation, if anyone would see through that charade it would be Biden, more then anyone.

Lets not forget, when it comes to womens rights, It was Joe Biden who led the fight to criminalize violence against women and to hold batterers truly accountable by writing the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act. So when it comes to womens rights, Biden has a dog in that fight, same as Hillary.



Biden, also knows what happened to womens rights in Iraq after we invaded. The 1970 Iraqi constitution, gave Iraqi women equity and liberty unmatched in the Muslim World. Since the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women's rights have fallen to to the lowest level in Iraq’s history. Thanks to the introduction of Sharia Law into their new constitution. And Afghani women have not fared much better. Despite the fact the U.S. has backed Karzai, as late as August 2009 a law was passed in Afghanistan that permits men to withold food from their wives if they refuse sexual relations. Fathers still are permitted to sell their daughters, and other horrific abuses continue. The denial of women's rights hasn't changed since we invaded Afghanistan And this continues under a government we back.


Biden does not favor abandoning Afghanistan, he rejects the additional troops sought by Gen. McChrystal would and leave the American force in Afghanistan roughly the same, 68,000 troops. Rather than emphasize protecting the Afghan population, he would accelerate training of Afghans to take over the fight while hunting Al Qaeda in Pakistan using drones and special forces.

Given that and Bidens expertise in foreign policy, and his continued opposition to escalation in Afghanistan, of which he has made no secret of, it really leads me to wonder. Obama chose Joe as his VP. Doesn't Obama think enough of Biden's learned opinion to take him seriously? Yet despite the calls for Biden to resign, by some, he continues to support Obama, so far.


So I think that's a question you would have to ask Biden.


There are so many advocacy groups trying to insure rights for women all over the world. But the greatest stumbling block, they encounter, is the culture of a society. An Iraqi immigrant living in Arizona, recently ran over and killed his daughter because he felt she was becoming to westernized. How do you change that way of thinking? So far in 2009 there has been a total of 2,000 "honor killings" in Afghanistan, and this under Karzai. War hasn't changed that. The best women's rights advocates, like Hillary and others, can do is try and educate. Being SoS gives her the opportunity to use her position to further that cause. I think if she were to resign it would be devastating to the movement of women trying to empower themselves.

It seems to me Hillary & Joe are part of a team with Obama...he can take their opinions and do what he wants with them. I think they are both dedicated public servants & have a lot to offer and I would hate to see either of them go.


The final analysis is this...this is Obama's call. The responsibility falls on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. Won't matter a damn if Hillary or Biden resign. He has heard from everyone in his administration. He has made his decision, nothing will change that. It's his war, now, and for better or worse, he will own it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. OK, fine...both of them

I'm asking your opinion. Given the premise proposed by many here that any attempt to tie escalation in Afghanistan to women's rights would be mere cynicism, should either or both of these people who have made women's rights their life's work resign in protest?

You talk around the question a lot. Do you have a position on it?

[girl_interrupted]

65. No neither of them

I have great admiration for the work both Hillary & Joe have done..so I wouldn't want to see either of them go.

If Obama decides to lie to the American public, using women's rights as his reason...he is going to war under false pretenses and he is the one that should be made to resign or be removed. We've been down that road with bush, and once is enough.

Thats my position.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Well, obviously you're going to continue to dodge the question because it puts you in a hard place

The hypothetical condition is that the Administration would use the rights of women as a dishonest tactic for the purpose of escalation. If we accept that hypothetical, we can't turn around and say that Obama would feel a pang of guilt and resign, anymore than Bush would, right? The question is on the moral choice facing Secretary Clinton. Suppose that Obama won't resign after having done so, and that impeachment doesn't seem likely either. Should Secretary Clinton resign her position in protest or not? You seem to say "No, she will do good work elsewhere." That's fine, as an answer. It is the same answer Colin Powell seems to have given. Is that a correct reading of your answer?

[girl_interrupted]

71. Dodge? I answered your question

Your logic is incredibly twisted.

Do I think she should resign? No. For reasons I have stated already.

Do I think Biden should resign as some Editorial Boards have suggested? No. For reasons I have stated already

And what's even more bogus about your question is that you seem to feel Biden doesn't figure into your equation...just Hillary....until I brought his name up.

This is what you fail to see...Escalation in Afghanistan isn't a "hypothetical", it's a reality.

Perhaps you can sit here, and make up all kinds of "hypotheticals" all day long, because you have nothing better to do or because it isn't a member of your family that is going to Afghanistan. How lucky for you.

Maybe you are looking for a way to take the responsibility off of Obama and put it on someone else? Sorry can't help you there.

He owns this.

So lets cut the crap...shall we?

You have my answer.

If Obama lies his way "into" war, you can bet your bottom dollar, whether he feels guilt or not, I'm going to be the first of many, to see him voted "out" of office.


Take that and put it in your hypothetical "hat"

Comprende?

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. So your answer is that Secretary Clinton shouldn't resign

Thanks.

As for the rest of it, I honestly can't make heads or tails of what the fuck you're talking about. You seem to be having a conversation with somebody else. The question here was simple.

[Lord Helmet]

52. LOL --- flame-baity thread

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. No answer, then?

:thumbsup:

[Lord Helmet]

55. LOL

this thead:

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. What's a thead?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

54. IMO, they are already duplicitious in rhetoric and action within both the USA and abroad.

[smalll]

57. I really don't understand this concern -- and yes, others have raised it before.

"If you believe the plight of Afghan women under Taliban rule would be used as a mere rhetorical device, do you also believe that Secretary Clinton should resign her position in protest?"

Well I guess the answer to that question -- if you believe, do you also believe -- the answer would have to be "yes."

But what about those of us who can't get past the true fact that the plight of Afghan women under Taliban rule was HORRENDOUS?

That yes, women and men in Afghanistan today suffer because a war is going on, but that if the war ends with the Taliban back in total control of the country, the plight of Afghan women will AGAIN become unrelievedly HORRENDOUS? Why do we have to ignore the obvious?

Is this one of many reasons why Obama might want to continue the fight in Afghanistan? Sure it is! Can he mention it in his speech? Whyever the hell not? :wtf:

[impik]

60. Mmmmm. Hillary wants to send MORE toops than Obama

[ZombieHorde]

72. No, Clinton is intelligent and I want an intelligent person in the position of SOS. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. I agree

The question isn't really whether she's intelligent - that's obvious, and it's also obvious that she's the best SoS possible right now. The question, rather, is whether a flagrant abuse of her foundational principles would cause her to leave her job.

[ZombieHorde]

77. I hope not. nt

[Cha]

74. There will be no cynical use of women from this admin..

They're only throwing that shit around because red herrings work so well for their de rigueur knee jerk bashing of the President.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. OK, but this particular experiment requires that we accept the premise

[IndianaGreen]

78. Does this mean that any bill containing Stupak amendment language will get vetoed?

What will you say Tuesday night if such an emotional appeal is made by Obama, that we must remain in Afghanistan to save the women from Emmanuel Goldstein?

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. I think you're great for this thread

Since you clearly assent to the premise. What do you think Secretary Clinton should do?

[IndianaGreen]

82. I think she should run for governor of New York

unfortunately, she has already indicated that she isn't interested in the job.

As to the OP, when you serve an Administration and you disagree on an issue of great importance, it is best to resign. Resign or hold your peace.

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. Do you think she would disagree with the Administration on this issue?

:shrug:

[Baltoman991]

86. No, she

wouldn't disagree with the administration. She was one of the ones who wanted a troop increase in Afghanistan.

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. I was hoping to get an answer from IndianaGreen

Since she's been fairly vocal claiming that any attempt to link escalation to the treatment of women under the Taliban would be pure cynicism and dishonesty. I wonder whether she thinks the SoS would agree with that sentiment.

[Cha]

88. Good luck with

that.

[IndianaGreen]

89. Sadly, Hillary was sent to Afghanistan to add credibility to Karzai's 'inauguration'

and Hillary is scheduled to attent the January Afghanistan summit in London. I don't think she will bat an eyelash!

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. So, according to you

1) Any attempt to connect the plight of women under the Taliban to increased troop deployments is cynical and dishonest.
2) Hillary Clinton won't "bat an eyelash" at such cynical and dishonest use of the rights of women.

Is that an accurate account of your position?

[Cha]

93. Hillary's not the only one who according to the

poster "won't be batting an eyelash" "at such cynical and dishonest use of the rights of women."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x24545

[IndianaGreen]

96. That's an accurate account of how I see it.

Of course, Hillary could leave to run for governor of New York, a face saving way (for the Obama Administration) of leaving without resigning.

[marlakay]

80. I heard Hillary is one of the people saying we should add

more troops. I don't agree with her but that would be the last reason she would quit.

[dionysus]

81. i think she's doing okay, no need to do that.

[bigwillq]

84. No, Hill is just as much of a hawk

as others in this administration.

[southernyankeebelle]

85. If we don't see what has happened to other countries that lost there than

we will end up just like the other countries. Russia has tried to tell us to get out. Our responsibility is to our country. Bush let Bin Landen off the hook because of his connection with his family. Do what Ronald Reagan did after the bombing in Libon. After 3 month he pulled the troops out. Obama needs to do the same. Get out while the getting is right.

[krawhitham]

90. as long as she resigns I do not care what reason she uses

[Life Long Dem]

95. Or the media wants to go in that direction.

Further conflict is right up MSM's alley.

[Hekate]

97. What, and be a quitter? No. I don't accept your pre-Obama-speech premise, either.

Hillary is intelligent and well-informed. Obama no doubt has give-and-take conversations with her, but he sets policy. I can't foresee Hillary deciding to quit what for her is the job of a lifetime so early into this presidency.

Hekate

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. It's not my premise

[woo me with science]

98. Ask the women in Afghanistan

if they think it is cynical. You can try to argue that women and children suffer more in war-torn areas, but polls consistently show that Afghans in groups that will suffer targeted retaliation by the Taliban (e.g., Hazara) very much want us to stay. And given our role in how they got where they are, there is an honest (not cynical...honest) argument to be made that we owe them at least an effort to withdraw in a way that will not result in widespread slaughter and retaliation against them.

It is interesting that there are so many threads right now trying to portray concerns about the fate of the women of Afghanistan as "cynical." It is as though they realize that human's rights/women's rights/children's rights is an extremely compelling argument, and they have to try to neutralize it even before it is made...

[WI_DEM]

104. What makes you think that Secretary Clinton disagrees with Obama's policies?

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. Nothing makes me think that

The conditional is hypothetical. IF Secretary Clinton believed that the rights of women were being used cynically...etc. The word "IF" is a conditional marker.