Every Presidential Election Since The Iraq War Has Featured Candidates Who Supported It

"And this says so much about the state of the US political system today."
The most powerful government on earth has still yet to have a single presidential election that doesn’t feature a prominent candidate who supported one of the most evil things that government has ever done.
Yet there have been no consequences for it. No real changes of any kind were made to American military, governmental, political or media institutions to ensure that a similar atrocity never happens again,
The fact that every election for commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of civilization has featured at least one candidate who supported one of the most evil things ever done in the blood-soaked history of their nation is too insane to put into words.
The current Democratic presidential nominee is a particularly egregious example of this fact, having not just supported the Iraq invasion but played a leading role in pushing it through. Current Affairs explains:
Before @JoeBiden it was @HillaryClinton, who as a US senator not only voted in support of the Iraq war but emphatically promoted it on the Senate floor and then more than a year after the invasion said she had no regrets about doing so.
Their opponent Donald Trump was in no position to actively facilitate the Iraq invasion since he wasn’t in politics at the time, but in 2002 he was asked point-blank by Howard Stern “Are you for invading Iraq?” and he answered in the affirmative.
If Trump was unable to see Iraq clearly from the political sidelines at the time, there’s no reason to believe he’d have done any better than Biden and Clinton had he been a sitting US senator in 2002 with the immense pressures to conform from the Bush administration in 2002.
Before them it was Republican nominee @MittRomney in 2012, who had previously said in a 2008 Republican primary debate that “It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.”
Before that it was John McCain in 2008, who during his miserable psychopathic excuse for a life supported invading not just Iraq but damn near everyone else as well.
And in 2004 it was John Kerry running against the butcher himself George W Bush, who had just voted in support of Bush’s war in 2002.
The more you think about it, the more outrageous it becomes. The most powerful elected official in the most powerful government on earth with the most powerful military force the world has ever seen should not be prone to making horrifically evil decisions.
The way leftists and anti-imperialists are shamed as privileged and petty whenever they point out the record of a candidate on this crucial matter is disgusting. This is not some kind of pedantic quibble, it’s the bare minimum requirement for such an immensely powerful position.
The argument that the Iraq invasion was supported by most prominent politicians at the time is not a defense of those politicians, it’s an indictment of mainstream American politics.
Nobody who supported the Iraq invasion should be working in politics at all. They shouldn’t be able to find employment anywhere more prominent or influential than a cash register.
It’s entirely legitimate for any voter to reject anyone who supported the unforgivable invasion of Iraq, and indeed to reject the entire political system that gave rise to them.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Caitlin Johnstone ⏳

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @caitoz

10 Oct
How Did People Have Conversations Back Before Tech Oligarchs Were There To Police Them?

"Rollouts of corporate & state power collaborating to control speech are not a response to a threat to democracy, they’re a response to a threat to narrative control."
Twitter has announced the rollout of even more censorship policies in the lead-up to the November US presidential election. “Credible information” here means information from the same mass media outlets who’ve lied to us about every American war.
Thanks Twitter, the social media echo chamber we already had wasn't turning us into idiots fast enough.
Read 16 tweets
9 Oct
New social media platforms can't become large unless they collaborate with existing power structures. When they collaborate with existing power structures they begin censoring. The whole system is rigged to funnel human communication en masse into censorship by the powerful.
You hear free market types saying if people don't like big tech censorship they should just start their own social media corporation to compete with it. People have tried that, and always failed, because they don't collaborate with existing power structures. It doesn't work.
There is no free market solution to the problem of internet censorship, because monopolistic tech companies which funnel all online communication into themselves are much too valuable to the powerful. They're not going to let competitors just take away their most prized assets.
Read 4 tweets
8 Oct
There aren't many arguments for supporting Biden that I can respect, but his pledge to end US support for the mass atrocities in Yemen while Trump vetoes congressional attempts to do so is one of them.
Irrelevant. The one who says he'll stop facilitating the single worst mass atrocity in the world has an innately superior position in this area than the one who openly vetoes attempts to do so. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but he's better on Yemen.
At the very least it's hard to imagine Biden being WORSE than Trump on Yemen. I have a hard time imagining him vetoing a congressional attempt to end US backing for Saudi butchery there.
Read 4 tweets
8 Oct
‘Successful’ People Are Misery Super-Spreaders

Our society is set up to elevate the most miserable and dysfunctional people to the highest positions of influence, which results in their misery and dysfunction being efficiently spread around the world.
“We are led by the least among us — the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.”
~ Terence McKenna
The term “super-spreader” has been popping up a lot in mainstream news media in reference to President Trump and his habit of hosting of events without social distancing precautions.
Read 13 tweets
7 Oct
Free Assange

Free Assange,
because the world is growing darker
as the bastards flick the lights off
one by one.
Free Assange,
because the sky is filling with death machines
as mothers weep over small tattered bodies
and the news man talks about rude tweets.
Free Assange,
because they are taking everything from us
and we are becoming voiceless, mindless gear turners
who can only argue about who to bomb next.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!