2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBIG: Bernie Admits Hillary NOT Accountable for Iraq Deaths, Attacking Her Is ‘Tit for Tat’
We see it everyday here on Democraicunderground--thread after thread--the calling out of Hillary on the Irag vote and name-calling and holding her personally responsible for Iraq. It is shameful--and so is Sanders for calling it a Iit for tat. Shameful--He is your 'leader" and you follow this foul crap.
BIG: Bernie Admits Hillary NOT Accountable for Iraq Deaths, Attacking Her Is ‘Tit for Tat’
http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-admits-hillary-not-accountable-for-iraq-deaths/
Peter Daou
April 9, 2016
One of Bernie’s central contrast points with Hillary is her 2002 AUMF vote, which gave George W. Bush authority to use military force in Iraq. Bernie’s surrogates and supporters have implicitly and explicitly used that vote to blame Hillary for the death and destruction in Iraq. His campaign manager went so far as to blame her for the creation of ISIS. Now comes a critical admission from Bernie that Hillary “doesn’t bear responsibility.”
In an interview with Charlie Rose, Bernie was confronted with his assertion that Hillary “should apologize for Iraq war deaths.”
When asked by Rose if he really blames her, Bernie conceded that he was simply engaging in a “tit for tat” (quite stunning on an issue of such gravity), and said the following:
“Of course she doesn’t bear responsibility… Do I hold her accountable? No.”
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this statement in the context of the 2016 election. Not a day goes by without Hillary’s detractors directly accusing her of being personally responsible for the carnage in Iraq. With this Charlie Rose interview, Bernie has obliterated that insidious and pervasive talking point.
Those who vigorously protested the Iraq invasion (including many of us at BNR), strongly opposed Hillary’s Iraq Resolution vote and the votes of many of her Democratic colleagues, including John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid. But like Bernie, we know that the decision to go to war was Bush’s alone.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Brock nation review is a propaganda outlet, their "journalists" are more Baghdad Bob than Walter Cronkite.
WhiteTara
(31,260 posts)he's so far under the bus.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WhiteTara
(31,260 posts)wasn't he the author of the article? The bus may have rolled over the other two by now.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WhiteTara
(31,260 posts)go back and forth if it makes you happy!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
berningman
(144 posts)
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)the more weight the better in regards to that "man" 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
*note to jury: I am not advocating violence, no rodent breeders were harmed in the creation of this post. Thank you for serving.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)
...still not sure if we will fit them all in though
FloridaBlues
(4,669 posts)One of the worst interviews I've seen in along time. Bern was petty and old in his answers.
I would hope he doesn't treat heads of state this way. Looked old and flat in his answers
frylock
(34,825 posts)Apt description.
revbones
(3,660 posts)It's owned by her super-PAC. Peter Daou the Joseph Goebbels for her Pravda-style propaganda outlet owned by Correct the Record, which is ran by admitted liar David Brock who previously smeared Anita Hill and the Clintons - until getting on the Clinton gravy train...
Squinch
(59,522 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)So take from that what you will. Show me some other non propaganda site source and then we can talk. Until then, it's just another BNR piece of propaganda.
SANDERS: Do I bear responsibility for the tragedy and the horrors of Sandy Hook? So, you know, let's get off of that. Of course she doesn't bear responsibility. She voted for the war in Iraq. That was a very bad vote, in my view. Do I hold her accountable? No.
And I'm sure you will say that CBS is a propaganda site source, so here are some more:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/charlie-rose-bernie-sanders-why-143438595.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/04/09/1512898/-Bernie-admits-he-lied-about-Hillary-being-responsible-for-Iraq-War-deaths-Charlie-Rose-asks-WTF
http://www.businessinsider.com/charlie-rose-bernie-sanders-hillary-qualified-2016-4?op=1
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-charlie-rose-qualified-221705
But really, we don't need to talk about this. It just is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Now you need to show why Bernie is responsible in some way for Sandy Hook.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Who would believe such a thing?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)they don't allow us to disagree with Sanders on whether Hillary should be held accountable? Who is projecting hero worship now?
Of course, Hillary is partly responsible for the Iraq War! It's a no-brainer. I don't need Sanders permission to think that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Of course she's responsible, just like everyone else who voted for war.
What I don't get are the folks who blame Bernie for the Iraq war too, the lack of critical thinking is unbelievable.
Voting against war means he supported war?
Squinch
(59,522 posts)show that Sanders is not just as responsible for deaths in Iraq as Hillary, given that he voted for regime change in Iraq twice (beginning before Hillary even got to the Senate,) and he voted for the weapons systems that were used to kill all those people in Iraq.
I personally don't think Sanders IS responsible for Sandy Hook. I think that is just as stupid as saying that Hillary is responsible for the war in Iraq. Which, let's face it, is wicked stupid.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)
Not total bullshit, just logic. You can't have it both ways. Just like Bernie Sanders says.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts) JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)calling your posts exactly what they are.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)
riversedge
(80,810 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He warned us not to go into Iraq, voting against war does not equal voting for war.
Logic, ur doin it wrong.
PatV
(71 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But I do for her part in getting up before everyone and promoting it, and repeating all the lies.
And the reason why I do, is because I wasn't a senator who knew a lot about politics, but I saw enough information on the web to convince me that the Iraq war was a lie and a planned lie. And if I could see that, so could Hillary, yet she still bought into the lies, or supported it in spite of the lies, because she was for the war and regime change.
Also many of you are totally missing the point in Bernie's answers to Rose.
ROSE: I'm asking where the tenor of this campaign is going. And is that going too far to say she bears responsibility for Iraqi war deaths?
SANDERS: Do I bear responsibility for the tragedy and the horrors of Sandy Hook? So, you know, let's get off of that. Of course she doesn't bear responsibility. She voted for the war in Iraq. That was a very bad vote, in my view. Do I hold her accountable? No.
He is saying while he does not hold her accountable for the deaths in Iraq, he does hold her accountable for that very bad vote (and support) and that is bad decision making and is one of the reasons he now says (rightfully) that she is not "qualified" to be President of this country.
I know there is a lot of controversy over this "he said she's not qualified"...well as he said in this interview, it's tit for tat. She has set out to destroy his credibility as being qualified for the job (she recently admitted this publicly), so he's going to do the same thing. But, not by telling lies. He's not telling lies when he says she made poor decisions about the Iraq war, that might be repeated if she is President and is the one responsible for making that final decision.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
shenmue
(38,598 posts)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)can run from his own words, but they can't hide.
"Tit for tat", indeed. He's totally out of his league.
riversedge
(80,810 posts)riversedge
(80,810 posts)berningman
(144 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)Either you are responsible for any deaths that result from any of your votes or you are not.
So I guess he's dripping too.
berningman
(144 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)this might be an opportune time to let you know that non sequitur doesn't have a hyphen.
Just since you decided to bring it up and all.
PatV
(71 posts)riversedge
(80,810 posts)PatV
(71 posts)I win.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Never seen this level of denial before.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)riversedge
(80,810 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)I got a hide 2 days ago, for posting a video that had Hillary herself saying she was under sniper fire when she wasn't. It was hidden by Hillary followers because they claimed it was by a right-wing source.
So I agree, I've never seen this level of denial before either.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"Of course she doesn't bear responsibility..."
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)faux rage?
basselope
(2,565 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)And you think that Sanders is responsible for all the deaths that resulted from the weapons programs that he voted to fund?
basselope
(2,565 posts)However, the vote to equip the soldiers is different from sending them to war.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Now don't you feel a little foolish?
basselope
(2,565 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)still not a vote for war... so false.
Sorry it didnt work out for you.
JudyM
(29,785 posts)available, how many lives would still be here with us today?
She is admitting it was poor judgment-- she is NOT saying there was ample intel to justify the decision!! 
Squinch
(59,522 posts)gotten the memo on that one.
And for once, I agree with Sanders: of course she does not bear responsibility. Any more than Kerry or Biden or Pelosi or Schumer or any of the hundreds of others I could name who did the same as she did.
She bears no more responsibility than Sanders does for all the people who died from the weapons that were made with funds he voted for.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)It was a done deal once Hillary and others endorsed Bush's invasion. Abandoning the troops once they were there would have been tragic.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)
Your certificate is in the mail!
okasha
(11,573 posts)the best way to do it consistent with opposition to the war is to bring them home. Pull the budget out from under the war except for what's needed to withdraw the troops.
This is a fairly simple concept. Why assume that the only way to support the troops is to keep them fighting and dying while shoving trillions of dollars into the hands of the MIC?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You know that one Senator cannot bring home the troops.
okasha
(11,573 posts)One Senator can, however put a budget item--or an amendment: remember, Bernie is the Amendment King--before Congress to cease purchase and deployment of any materiel not necessary for the safe withdrawal of the troops.
But that wouldn't be friendly to Lockheed-Martin, now, would it? They might not build a research facility in Vermont if he did that.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You are proving that you too are rocklike in your inability to post anything of substance.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)It gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq. Those of us who were paying attention and protesting knew that.
Your pathetic attempt to equate that with later funding to support the troops who were already in the thick of it only works for committed Hillary partisans.
okasha
(11,573 posts)of us who protested the Viet Nam war till it ended. The idea that there could be no effective protest once the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed would have been grotesquely stupid.
Nor did we have the luxury and safety of protesting from behind a keyboard. All we had were our creaky mimeographs and our bodies to put on the line.
We stopped that war. How are you Bernie fans getting along with stopping the one in Iraq?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Nixon got elected and continued it for years. What stopped the war was the rest of the American people finally realizing that it was a complete clusterfuck.
You can count on Hillary to get us into a similar situation with her need to prove how tough she is.
As reckless as George W. Bush: Hillary Clinton helped create disorder in Iraq, Libya, Syria — and, scarier, doesn’t seem to understand how
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/as_reckless_as_george_w_bush_hillary_clinton_helped_create_disorder_in_iraq_libya_syria_and_scarier_doesnt_seem_to_understand_how/
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)she seems to have to apologize quite often, but the damage is already done and impossible to repair...
Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake'
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109#ixzz45SYqrACi
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It is clear, however, 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
In March 2003 she fully endorsed the invasion:
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.
She even claimed that what we did to Iraq was a gift:
Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:
"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."
There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.
"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice try, history is hard.
She helped break it, she owns part of it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Change, though, can you?
I notice how you skipped over that bit.
And he did that before Hillary got to the Hill--that's all on HIM.
Not once--TWICE.
TWICE he voted for Saddam to be taken down, with extreme prejudice.
Ummmm hmmmmm. He helped break it. He owns part of it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Voting for peaceful democratic regime change to get rid of a ruthless dictator requires an explanation?
No wonder you can't see the difference between that and using military force to illegally invade a foreign country.
Tsk.
Listen to his speech, Bernie tried to warn us not to go there, I'm shocked you were unaware of this.
Tsk tsk.
Trying to prevent war with Iraq =/= supporting war with Iraq.
We've discussed this before and you still don't understand so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it over and over again.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And he was not IN Afghanistan for but a minute--he hustled over the border to the hinterlands of Pakistan quick as a wink.
How soon people forget! Or rewrite history!
You keep AVOIDING that "regime change" vote, I see. And that OTHER "regime change" vote, too.
Ah, those inconvenient truths!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)He basically gave POTUS authority to put a noose around Saddam's neck. Twice.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not voting for war =/= voting for war.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What's next, some inside intel from the Socialist Worker? A breakdown on how he's "No True Socialist"? How he's a war monger? How he thirsts for blood?
No wonder you're confused, it all makes sense now. You really should be a little more careful where you get your info, you should see what they say about Hillary!
From 1993 to 2001, Alexander Cockburn and I wrote dozens of articles on the political corruption of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their cronies in DC and Arkansas. In many ways, those years represented the golden age of political journalism, with a fresh scandal ripening each month. As Hillary cruises toward the Democratic nomination, if not the White House, it’s time to dig into the Clinton Files and resurrect the stories of sleaze, malfeasance and transgression from that feculent decade. — JSC
In the spring of 1996, Hillary Clinton faced a situation unique in American history: the possible criminal indictment of a president’s wife. For two years a federal grand jury had been sitting in Little Rock, Arkansas, reviewing the Clintons’ financial dealings from 1978 through 1992. The episodes submitted to their scrutiny by independent counsel Kenneth Starr included the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater Development Corp.; HRC’s legal representation of James McDougal’s failing Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan; Madison’s possible financing of Clinton campaigns; HRC’s role in illegal real estate transactions in the Castle Grande development; the Clintons’ fraudulent financial statements submitted in loan applications in the 1980s; and more generally, the political cronyism and favoritism the Clintons took part in during their sojourn in the governor’s mansion in Little Rock.
Meanwhile, a separate federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. listened to Starr’s presentation of other episodes, including: “Travelgate”; the removal of Whitewater documents from Vince Foster’s office; and the reappearance of HRC’s billing records involving her work on the Castle Grande project while at the Rose law firm. HRC had previously testified under oath in a federal investigation by the Resolution Trust Corporation that she had nothing to do with Castle Grande.
Pending the explosive impact of an actual indictment, the public view of Whitewater and related matters seems to derive from the consensus of the press outside of committed foes of the Clinton administration such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. In this view, Whitewater constitutes “a cover-up without a crime.” Hitched to this comfortable sentiment is the proposition that whatever the Clintons’ past peccadilloes, they occurred in the alien subculture of Arkansas, before Bill and Hillary stepped onto the stage of national history.
The most thorough survey of the Clintons’ dealings undertaken by a journalist–James B. Stewart’s Blood Sport: The President and His Adversaries–has elicited precisely this reaction. Discussing Stewart’s 500-page book, Maureen Dowd concluded in her New York Times column that there was nothing new, no smoking gun.
But armed with the details furnished by Stewart and the 1,000-page Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro report on Whitewater to the RTC, submitted on December 28, 1995, it is possible to lay out a simple narrative that’s devastating to the Clintons.
“Whitewater” represents a pervasive character trait of the Clintons: the exchange of money for political favors. It also represents a trait that caused an uproar when William Safire drew attention to it in 1995: namely, HRC’s untrammeled propensity to tell lies.
Whitewater began with a frantic appeal from the Clintons to their friend McDougal for money at a time when Bill Clinton was running for governor in 1978. McDougal duly located the Whitewater property outside the town of Flippen in the Ozarks and got the investment off the ground. Payback for McDougal was not long postponed. Elected governor three months later, Clinton appointed McDougal chief financial advisor in the new administration.
With even greater speed the Clintons and the McDougals reneged on commitments to make a 10 percent cash payment to a Flippen bank against 90 percent financing of their Whitewater purchase. Then they got another below-market-rate loan from a Little Rock bank, again in exchange of a marker against political favors. All these transactions breached Arkansas law, represented insider dealings beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, and constituted one more straw on the caving spine of the Savings & Loan industry. Frank Burge, a loan officer at the Citizens Bank and Trust Co. of Flippen, later told Stewart that when he presented the McDougal/Clinton deal to his board, he made the assumption–accepted by all present–that the plan was to have wealthy backers of Clinton “buy the lots at highly inflated prices as a clandestine means of funneling money into the governor’s pocket, thereby gaining influence.”
As matters turned out, a survey of the Whitewater property got delayed, and then Bill Clinton was rejected by the voters in 1980. Interest rates soared, killing the housing market. The balloon payments on both sets of loans began to wipe them out.
HRC began her notorious trading in the commodities futures market at the same time as the Whitewater purchase, made her $100,000 courtesy of Tyson’s Foods executives, and looked to Whitewater as a tax shelter for her gains, assuredly ill-gotten. In their federal income tax returns for the years 1978, 1979, and 1980, the Clintons deducted not merely interest payments on their Whitewater mortgages but also principal–$20,000 was the illegal portion of the deduction–thus helping offset her gain on the commodities scam. This was the reason the Clintons refused to release their tax returns for 1978 and 1979 during the presidential campaign and beyond, until 1994.
The morning after Bill Clinton’s re-election defeat in 1980, McDougal told Stewart he got a desperate call from HRC, saying, “You need to send us money. We need it right now, and we need all you can send.” McDougal remarked sourly to his wife Susan after the call that they had been subsidizing the Clintons’ share of the investment for the previous two years. The pattern continued. As Whitewater’s financial condition deteriorated, McDougal, fearing that a bankruptcy might tarnish Clinton’s political image, offered to buy the Clintons out of the deal. On four separate occasions Hillary adamantly refused, presumably because Whitewater was useful as a tax shelter, especially under HRC’s generous estimate of what constituted a legitimate deduction. At tax time, millions of middle class Americans thankfully review their banks’ reports of interest payments on mortgages. Very few of them–particularly not corporate lawyers giving tax advice to banks, as HRC was–confuse interest and principal as HRC later claimed she had.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/30/the-clinton-files-is-hillary-a-crook/
That's quite a source you have there! Who wouldn't believe everything he writes?
MADem
(135,425 posts)BTW, your post? TL/DR. gish gallop.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What's the matter, suddenly you don't like your unimpeachable source at Counterpunch?
Bottom line not voting for war with Iraq doesn't = voting for war with Iraq.
No matter what Jeffrey says.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't have to "like" anyone.
Bernie's votes are Bernie's votes--no matter WHO writes about them.
I'm not the one who is into a "Cult of Personality" here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know it's a tough concept but one more time: voting against the Iraq war isn't voting for the Iraq war!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Iraq--you remember how THAT ended, I assume?
And he voted to FUND that war, over and over again, that he ostensibly voted against.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)x2 for regime change as well as a TERRA AUMF that is still being used TO THIS VERY DAY to justify war!!
You'll be an "it getter" eventually, I'm sure, if you just think long and hard on it! "Simple, no?"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Jeffrey St. Clair and quite a few others are WAY out there in la la land! Imo, of course!
Woo woo!
MADem
(135,425 posts)of a bunch!! IMO, of course!
LOL!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some posts don't deserve anything more than snark. No hard feelings, though, eh? Friends?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Apparently you have nothing else to do except post on DU.
MADem
(135,425 posts)194. Well you are an intersting case...
View profile
Apparently you have nothing else to do except post on DU.
True to form, true to form....! No surprises there.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)do you really think that posting on DU is anything other than egos of the posters?
George II
(67,782 posts)....Sanders has voted many more times to fund wars than Clinton ever did.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)...before you type the ol' Sanders Defense refrain, "once the troops were there he voted to support them", the way it works is if the war wasn't funded the troops would have been brought home - maybe saving hundreds of lives and thousands from being maimed, not to mention all the Iraqis that perished.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Only a Hillary supporter thinks voting against the Iraq war and for omnibus bills is the same thing as voting for the Iraq war.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...anyone who voted for that war does bear some responsibility for it.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)I don't think she's responsible for every individual death, just as he's not responsible for all gun deaths for his votes. She IS responsible for the massive, horrible, cluster that was our actions in Iraq, though. I don't really think anyone could dispute that. Oh, and just to preempt it: Yes. Biden, Kerry and anyone else who voted for it bear that responsibility as well.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)And if you are going to assign the responsibility for the deaths in Iraq to her, you have to give Sanders that same responsibility for the fact that he voted for regime change in Iraq twice and he voted for weapons systems that he knew would be used to kill in Iraq.
Either they are both responsible, which is my belief, or neither is, which appears to be Sanders's belief. You can't have it both ways.
DemonGoddess
(5,127 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...I said I don't blame her for the individual deaths. But the military action we took is her burden.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)You are either responsible for what followed from votes you cast or you are not. One or the other. And they both cast votes that led to deaths in the Middle East.
...and I have no problem with people criticizing Sanders gun votes, either. I don't have the same problems with guns many other posters here do, though.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)I'm talking about all his votes to fund the war, to fund weapons systems used in the war, his votes in the years running up to the Iraq war that advocated regime change, his votes to increase troop levels in the war... I could go on.
I love Hillary as a candidate, but I was very disappointed in her Iraq vote when she was my Senator. She at least has acknowledged her mistake and given an explanation that I find believable.
Bernie, too, cast many votes that continued and increased the deaths in Iraq, but he acts like he is pure as the driven snow. He isn't. If she's culpable, then so is he.
Also, this issue NEVER came up when Kerry was the candidate. He was given a pass. She is regularly crucified for it. I find that disturbing.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...oh well. I asked the other person who responded to me, since I really don't know, but which other votes are you talking about? I know he voted for some funding for troops, but if the people are already there, I'd rather they have what they need. I guess I don't equate starting the war with supporting the troops forced to be there in negative terms.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)DemonGoddess
(5,127 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...his, too.
MADem
(135,425 posts)So, he's responsible for the deaths that occurred as a consequence of his AUMF/Terra vote?
He's responsible for the hanging of Saddam? he did vote for regime change in Iraq...twice.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...can you link me to those specific votes? I'd like the details.
MADem
(135,425 posts)More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq. In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” These measures gave congressional backing for the CIA’s covert plan to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad, as well as the tightening of an economic sanctions regime that may have killed as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. The resolution also gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day long bombing campaign striking 100 targets throughout Iraq. The operation featured more than 300 bombing sorties and 350 ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, several targeting Saddam Hussein himself.
Even Hillary belatedly admitted that her Iraq war vote was a mistake. Bernie, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam. On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being “almost unanimous.” I went back and checked the record. In fact, many members of the progressive caucus in the House, as well as a few libertarian anti-war Members of Congress, vote against the Iraq regime change measures. Here’s a list of the “no” votes on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
Abercrombie
Bartlett
Brown (CA)
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Doggett
Everett
Ewing
Ford
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
LaHood
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Mink
Paul
Payne
Pombo
Rivers
Rush
Sabo
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Stark
Towns
Vento
Walsh
Waters
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He takes a few facts and spins yarns, I would take anything he says with a huge block of salt, always investigate the source.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...I don't hold her responsible. Just for the war in general. I thought the issue here was "deaths in Iraq".
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I do hold her responsible for her IWR vote and its consequences.
But, I'll vote for him anyway.
MADem
(135,425 posts)he really should have said this MUCH, MUCH sooner.
But he didn't, and now, since he's on the ropes, he's trying to "make nice" hoping he can recover in the subsequent primaries.
But ya know what? it's #TooLateBernie.
His BernieBrigade of bullies is out there, name calling, insulting, using ugly, sexist, vitriolic verbiage, and he does not have the POWER or the AUTHORITY to call them back. People are sick of it. Enough.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And voting for peaceful democratic regime change does not = voting for the Iraq war.
Damn that Al Gore for inventing teh internets!
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)For Sanders apology on the Brady Bill (five times he voted against it) and giving one industry, the gun industry any immunity from law suits. We have around 80 people a day dying from gun deaths. He recently had the opportunity to apologize and he did not. Can't he ever admit he was wrong.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)in an accident, that family members of the victims have a right to sue Ford? Apparently so, because that's exactly what you are saying!
Bernie has no reason what so ever to apologize!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Will not be used as a hunting weapon, straw buyers, etc. Some of the weapons are weapons of war and should remain as weapons of war.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As always.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)This is NOT the behavior and temperament of someone who should be in a position of authority.
TM99
(8,352 posts)yells Hillary Clinton at a non-Sanders activist who works for GreenPeace.
So you were saying? 
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Loser in 2008
Still a disqualifier
THREAD FAIL
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She has admitted her IWR vote was a mistake. If you vote for war, you take some responsibility for the death, injury, destruction and misery that it causes.
Her record in the Senate and as SoS is rife with hawkish decisions. She backed the illegal coup in Honduras, many died there. And then there's Libya... right back into the stone age.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)Bush's decision alone? Get real.
Oh, yeah. The vote was just for practice, I suppose.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)No biggie. Maybe he's just being a gentleman and not saying what he really thinks. Who knows.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)This line of attack has been very nasty. Kudos to Sen Sanders for speaking out. Let's hope his supporters listen.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)said it.
George II
(67,782 posts).....ALL votes to continue the war, Sanders has voted many more times than Clinton has.
Also, what Sanders fans refuse to admit, or accept, is that Sanders DID vote for the first AUMF in 2001.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I do hold her and each and every person who voted yay for that illegal invasion fully accountable.
And I have no problems with my candidate defending himself from a bully. If she comes out swing again, I hope he metaphorically swings back even harder.
She brought it on herself with 'discredit & disqualify'.
riversedge
(80,810 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)That country is being destroyed by a regime she supported.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016151596
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)She IS accountable.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Stop using the appeal to emotion fallacy, especially when it comes to Iraq.
Millions dead, maimed, orphaned, displaced, still suffering, because of that war.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sanders supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism. Sanders has supported Israel’s aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. Sanders supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. And Sanders has stated that he too would use drones.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)and supported president Obama's drawdown of forces because it was better than the alternative.
How was that a vote for the Iraq war?
Bernie voted for peaceful democratic regime change in Iraq, not military action.
How was that a vote for war?
He supports a two state solution and has been an outspoken critic of Israel.
How is that a vote for war?
He voted for HR 282:
How was that a vote for war?
And he supports the use of drones as long as they don't result in civilian casualties.
How is that a vote for war?
Bernie voted AGAINST the Iraq war, Hillary voted FOR the Iraq war, no amount of spin will change that simple fact.
This is the wrong issue to try to tar Bernie with, his opposition is on record.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
carburyme
(147 posts)Of course he's known this all along.
But Hillary being responsible for the casualties of war is a meme Bernie followers will hold on to continue on their Hillary hate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)totally irresponsible.
berningman
(144 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)he briefly stooped to her level, now he's back to normal, big deal.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)berningman
(144 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)I have to say, I started this election season with the attitude, "I don't care which of our candidates wins, I like them both." But every time I learned something new about Sanders, it pushed me away from him.
He says nice things but there is just no there there.
I would be terrified if he won the nomination. I'd vote for him, but he would lose in a landslide.
(And to pre-empt, yes I know the polls show him beating Republicans. And I know Bernie supporters don't believe this, but that's only because he hasn't been vetted. This week was a bad week for him, and it's just a toe in the water of what the Republicans would do to him.)
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)berningman
(144 posts)
Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)That point seems to be lost amid all the BS political rhetoric and partisan sniping between the two camps.
G_j
(40,569 posts)I believe every person who voted for the Iraq resolution is responsible. Shame on each and every one of them!
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)but Libya is her war 100% - it would never have happened without her relentless efforts to make it happen
she has the blood of countless innocents on her hands over that, and that's not the only such item on her resume
stone space
(6,498 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)There were people who knew better. I'm voting for one of those people.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)
betsuni
(29,078 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)That to me says she didn't read the intelligence at all.
There was no intelligence to support that, not even made-up or faulty intelligence.
She was on board with the whole war for profit scheme.
My question is was it part of a deal or just a commandment from on high, and the same people the Bush family works for.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)Cha
(319,076 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Here he goes again, backtracking on another of his egregious and disingenuous attacks.
The money quote:
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She had left the White House and its privileged access to the information without corporate media spin. Code Pink women who had visited Iraq plead with her to vote 'No.'
There was no excuse for her vote.
She is responsible as far as I'm concerned.
The decision to go to war was not Bush's alone. Without the Iraq War Resolution, Bush would have had a tough time going to war. Maybe he would not have done it. But if there had been no Iraq War Resolution, then you could say "that the decision to go to war was Bush's alone."
With it, I don't see how that can be said.
All those who voted for the IWR are responsible. Bush and Cheney are the most responsible of all.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)to disparage your character and this post that you made, but I decided against doing so.
I'm going to act like Bernie did when confronted by a person hurling anti-Semitic diatribe at him, and simply state, no.
Disparage Bernie's character, and mine, too, if you like.
By their fruits you will know them. I'm choosing to be fruit rather than thorn.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Martin Eden
(15,629 posts)The IWR vote was not meaningless. It very well may have been the most important vote every member in Congress at that time took during their entire political careers, because it was the most consequential. I don't think anyone in their right mind can deny the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have been catastrophic.
Then, more than ever, our country needed strong and courageous Democratic leadership to stand up in opposition to a war that was clearly based on lies and was fraught with potentially disastrous consequences.
Some, like Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, and independent Bernie Sanders, did stand up, and their words (especially Bernie's) have proven to be prescient.
Whether or not strong Democratic leadership could have tipped the vote and denied GW Bush the authority he sought for this war can never be known.
What I find incomprehensible is how anyone can defend a politician voting for the IWR and openly advocating for it on the basis that it would have passed anyway. If the R's controlled Congress and the White House and passed a bill privatizing Social Security, would you defend a Democrat who voted for and advocated it?
Good judgment in crucially important matters of war and peace is perhaps the most important qualification for the presidency. Bernie Sanders demonstrated superior judgment in this matter. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton showed tragically poor judgment. For that reason, I have never supported any of them in a Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton is still a hawk, and has supported additional regime changes with horrible consequences.
No offhand remark by Bernie Sanders, no political rhetoric, and no twisted argument in an online forum like DU can change the reality of this.
Hillary Clinton and every member of Congress who voted in October 2002 to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq -- especially those who openly advocated for it -- bear a measure of responsibility for the consequences that followed.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I won't bother telling you what I believe is indicated about the character of Clinton supporters who know she is a serial liar, but I'll tell you it's not good, and I don't have the self-loathing required to get on that page.
Response to riversedge (Original post)
vspikes This message was self-deleted by its author.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)She unfortunately does bear shared responsibility and shared accountability for this tragic vote. That vote helped to contribute to thousands upon thousands of deaths, and vast sums of money lost, injured lives and veterans and their familes, destabilization in the region giving rise to ISIS.
Uh, yeah, despite what Bernie said, she does bear shared responsibility and accountabilty. Watch her speech and quick dismissal of the UN's ability to address the problem. Sh'es always been a military regime change hawk first and negotiator second.
I seriously beleive her tenure will result in significant military interventions and stalemates.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)10/15/2013 09:26 pm ET | Updated Jan 23, 2014
Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.
That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts.
The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown.
It also differs from some previous counts by spanning a longer period of time and by using randomized surveys of households across Iraq to project a nationwide death toll from 2003 to mid 2011.
Violence caused most of the deaths, but about a third were indirectly linked to the war, and these deaths have been left out of previous counts, said lead author Amy Hagopian, a public health researcher at the University of Washington.
OR THIS
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study
NEW YORK | BY DANIEL TROTTA
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
...
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
Or THIS
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis
Analysis: The former UK prime minister used to claim the 2003 invasion would undermine jihadis. The 12 years since have proved how wrong he was
...
In Baghdad on Sunday, Jihad Mohanned, a Sunni resident from the west of the city, said Blair’s acknowledgment was “so obvious it’s surprising he bothered to speak”.
He added: “It really isn’t possible to come to any other conclusion. Without the invasion, we would not have Isis. It’s crystal clear.”
Now Bernie may be kind enough to give her a pass on this.. It's just based on the above, I don't.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)who voted for funding for bombs, etc., if you want to widen the scope of those at fault to score political point.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)power to do whatever he wanted.
I don't blame those who kept troops safe via funding AFTER it was started. Yes, they could have stopped funding it leaving thousands of American soldiers vulnerable. That simply is not done.
It's the people who initiated the fiasco and those who went along with it and ignored the UN's reservations and warnings that it had found no WMD's.
Let's face it - either HRC was hoodwinked and duped by GW Bush of all people which doesn't speak well to her qualifications to be President, OR she was complicit with him, and was for military action in Iraq.
You can defend her on this vote all you want and lay ALL the blame on GW, but it's those congressmen who didn't have the guts to stand up to him that also are accessories to the crime.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Once a major military action is initiated, thousands of troops are deployed.
It is quite easy to get involved in a war, all you need is to dupe a few senators and you're there.
The difficult thing is getting out of it. you'll be bombarded with phrases like "cut and run," "you're not funding the troops," "you're putting them in harm's way", and the truth is you are if you don't fund them once deployed. THAT is precisely WHY it is imperative that going to war is a last resort AFTER you're 100% sure the cause is worth it.
HRC failed that test. She's already admitted it was a mistake, and she's accepted responsiblity for that. I respect her for that. I just believe the cost of that action alone is so egregious that it disqualifies ANY candidate to hold the highest office in the land. Obviously, you disagree. That vote is a show stopper for me. I know too many good souls who've paid as a result of that horrific vote.
Attempting to equate Sanders votes to fund the troops with HCR's vote to give Bush carte blanche to begin a fallacious war are so far apart that it can only be used by the Clinton campaign to lessen the relevance of her Authorization for War in Iraq vote.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts) 
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)That fact was well established with her IWR vote.
