Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Election 2016: A Suggested Presidential Litmus Test

This one is for the major parties.

If a candidate prospective presidential nominee for either party:

  • As a US Representative or US Senator, voted in favor of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq; or
  • As a holder of some other political office or government job, or as a public commentator, vocally supported the US invasion of Iraq at the time; or
  • As a candidate as of this time who wasn't asked back then indicates that, knowing what he or she knows now about circumstances as they were in 2003, he or she would have supported the US invasion of Iraq ...
... that candidate's party -- its national committee, its fundraising organs, its members, its voters -- should clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously reject that candidate as a prospective nominee. They should do this early and they should do this loudly.

If you supported the US invasion of Iraq, you are no more qualified to be president of the United States than Adolf Eichmann was to be president of Israel. Instead of reaching for that brass ring, you should just go the hell home, shut the fuck up, and, if you supported it from any position of authority, thank your lucky stars that you haven't received the Eichmann treatment. Yet.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Three Column Modification courtesy of The Blogger Guide
Some graphics and styles ported from a previous theme by Jenny Giannopoulou