I continue to be utterly mystified.

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

That anybody - particularly people who call themselves "Democrats" - categorize shilling in Congress for the Iraq War as an oopsie.

Sorry, it's not an oopsie or an owie. Rather it's bad judgement on a scale so epic that I can't even begin to wrap my brain around it. It's the Grand Canyon of awful.

And some want to enable more of it? Holy @#$&.

Wake up, folks. Real decisions killed real people by the hundreds of thousands.

[Dem2]

1. A lot of Democrats supported the IWR

I still blame Bush and company for lying us into the war. If Hillary wasn't apologetic for it I would consider that a no go, however.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. She hasn't apologized.

And most elected Democrats voted against it.

Fewer still made speeches exhorting others to vote for the thing.

[Dem2]

8. Senate Democratic 29 for 21 against

The Senate is the more significant chamber on these sorts of votes and 58% of Democratic Senators voted for the bill. "Regret", "mistake" and "wrong" work as 'apologetic' for me. If you want to split hairs, then you're right on that point.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. The folks who wanted to run for President

The most horrific of political calculations.

House Democrats overwhelmingly voted the right way.

[Dem2]

23. yep, 5 or 6 have including our current VP (Biden) and our 2004 candidate (Kerry) and Hillary

Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Do you REALLY want to associate Hillary with Lieberman?

[Dem2]

37. I hate Lieberman's guts

Nice try though.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

184. Perhaps it's not the wisest tactic to use the "they did it too so it must be okay" excuse....

And then use a list of people who are either Red State Dems defending their seat or hawks.

Let's not forget that the Republicans were on the tube claiming Democrats were traitors that were working with the terrorists at the time.

[roguevalley]

190. so what. not mitigation at all

[Spitfire of ATJ]

192. The media was being stenographers for Rove and was driving the narrative....

It was having a big influence on poll results.

Funny though how polls that support Liberal ideas are ignored.

[merrily]

45. Every Democratic Senator* who later ran for President voted for it. That is no coincidence.

And it doesn't show that it was good judgment.

However, thank heaven, we now have a chance to vote for someone who did not help sell the war to Americans, did not vote for and who presciently said it would de-stabilize the entire Middle East. Also unlike Hillary, he also voted against the "surge" in Afghanistan.

Apologies don't bring back the dead or heal limbs or minds. A war vote is something you need to get right at the time. All else is useless. However, speaking of apologies, Hillary wrote in her book of becoming more and more convinced, with each condolence letter she wrote, that the war was a mistake. Still, she never spoke up publicly, until she wrote that book, clearly as a prelude to her 2016 run. And she still has not apologized, though, as I said, those words would be empty and might only make survivors feel worse. Then again, I suppose hearing the war was a mistake makes them feel awful, too.

On edit *except Graham

[Dem2]

63. Graham ran in '04 and Chafee, who ran this year (was a Republican back then) both voted against it

It's amazing how many Senators run for President.

[merrily]

65. I should have specified Democrats.

[Dem2]

69. True, but was providing info

I assume since you didn't mention Bob Graham that you're "arguing" we me for some reason?

Edit: this response is to the previous post before it was edited.

[merrily]

77. From an omission you're going to assume an argument?

I assume since you didn't mention Bob Graham that you're "arguing" we me for some reason?

I give up. I really do.

[Dem2]

82. Well, OK

Nice having a discussion with you

[merrily]

83. Thanks for your replies to my post 45.

[Dem2]

95. Yes, I see the edits to your posts

I think the subthread will get confusing if I edit my previous posts?

[merrily]

110. No edit changed meaning except the edit to Reply 45 that I clearly identified as an edit.

And all edit history is available to anyone who wants to check it, as it always is on DU. What's your point?

BTW, what you considered "discussion" of Reply 45 spoke volumes.

[Dem2]

124. I would have replied differently

...you had previously mentioned Chafee but not Graham, who is also a Democrat, so I made a note of that - I didn't think it was all that provocative to note that. After the edit, my post looks like I'm being unfair, but it made sense previously.

[merrily]

126. Please.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. I'm sorry, that's next door. This is abuse.

[redwitch]

293. LOL!

Every thread should have a Monty Python reference! I would be in a better mood and my ignore list might not be quite so large.

[hatrack]

318. "Flying Fox of The Yard!??!?"

[Warren DeMontague]

188. Every Democrat who voted for it and ran for President, lost.

Something to think about.

[jfern]

27. Enough Democrats voted no in the House that most Democrats in Congress voted no

[roguevalley]

189. apologetic. if that's what it takes to make her palatable then count me out. People died because she

put her political future over the truth. That cannot be minimized nor mitigated. she was a coward to vote for that war.

[Kokonoe]

311. actually, if the media is controlled, then it is mitigated.

But she is still a coward.

Wanting to be president takes sacrifice.

[PatrickforO]

336. This is part of a bigger issue, that of the US Congress, particularly

the Senate, abrogating their war powers in favor of the executive branch.

Maddow wrote a book called Drift about this very thing, and she's right. Our founders deliberately put war powers with the Congress because they knew then that any war would require serious debate. They didn't want a president just to be able to say 'go' and have it happen.

But that's what we got. And this war powers act that Clinton voted on authorizing Bush to pull the trigger (literally and figuratively) on invading Iraq was a part of that. The problem is that those in the US Senate with the exception of 21 Dems were too cowardly at that time to have the debate and just voted to allow Bush/Cheney and the neocons to start a war.

Now, Clinton was the Senator for NY at the time, and Wall Street feels war is good business - certainly the forever war has made Halliburton, Cheney's old company MASSIVE profits. Nonetheless, it was poor judgement as Manny says 'on an epic scale' for any Dem who voted to give Bush that power.

As many people on here are saying, this is a vote you've got to get right the first time because people's lives depend on it.

[KingCharlemagne]

361. She was trying to buff up her national security credentials

For a 2008 run.

sort of like Bill flying back to Arkansas in a 1992 to preside over the execution of a cognitively disabled convict to prove he was tough on crime.

One giant UGH!

[Demeter]

194. The War supporters, the Blue Dog Democrats, are mostly gone, in case you hadn't noticed

The People are throwing them out of the Senate because they are DINOs and don't support the principles of the Democratic Party. Like not starting illegal wars, war crimes, etc.

[Oilwellian]

216. What was the Democratic House vote?

Isn't it true an overwhelming number of Democrats combined, voted against the resolution? Nice way to manipulate the appearance of Democratic support there buddy.

[bvar22]

239. Here is the list:

(apologies for the loss of formatting in the last 1/2)

[font size=4]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]

These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.
They voted "NO" on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.
Bush was unable to "fool" them.
They had the intelligence and integrity to see through the Republican Lies,
and were unafraid to take a STAND.


United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[Scuba]

81. Not true. A handful in Congress did, but those of us in the rank-and-file knew better.

[rhett o rick]

177. Well then consider it a no go. She said her vote was a mistake. She needs to apologize

to the Iraqi people, our troops and their families, all Americans in the 99% that will be forever paying off the debt.

Yes Bush and Cheney did lie and some of us recognized it immediately BECAUSE THEIR FRACKING LIPS WERE MOVING. But Clinton not only supported the lies, she gave a speech to convince others to believe the lies. She feels bad now because it's coming back to haunt her, but she has never apologized. Maybe the lost lives were just political collateral.

[bvar22]

322. Most Democrats (and Bernie) voted AGAINST the IWR.

Hillary voted with the REPUBLICANS to support a Republican President's illegal and immoral WAR.

[Sheepshank]

331. The picture is for Afghanistan war vet

you are buying a false narrative...one that Bernie voted for and is responsible

[NanceGreggs]

3. I wish I was mystified ...

... as to why some people keep regurgitating the same old/same old shit.

But I am not mystified at all., as the purpose is so blatantly obvious.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. So we'll put you down for an 'oopsie'

Got it.

[Hydra]

14. I think you can put it down as a free pass for enabling the Bush Admin

Which used to be considered a crime here, not a virtue.

[roguevalley]

191. anyone who can try and mitigate her vote after the image posted to this thread needs to sit down

and look for their conscience. Nothing that Clinton can do will undo what that poor girl is living with because she was a coward who voted for a war that killed the soldier she is mourning. If you can't understand that, then you are edging into cultism

[NanceGreggs]

51. Actually, you can put me down for a "got it".

HRC's Iraq vote has been the subject of literally thousands of posts on DU. It has been hashed, rehashed, dissected, sliced, diced and julienned. It is not news to anyone, and no one's mind is changed about how they view it.

So nowadays, when I see someone posting yet another OP about it, it tells me that Hillary's campaign is doing extremely well, her poll numbers are on the rise, and/or she just landed another major endorsement.

It's proving to be an excellent barometer of how well things are going for Hillary - so thanks for the latest update!

[sheshe2]

73. Excellent barometer,

you are right, who needs polls when we have.....never mind.

[Fawke Em]

84. Or maybe you can read this.

https://www.facebook.com/conservativefreaks/posts/390302954415963

Not a new update, but something you used to rail against.

[NanceGreggs]

287. Awww, so bored with DU ...

... you have to talk about other sites instead?

The irony is calling any other site a "hate site" after what gets posted right here, day in/day out, for the past seven years.

[randys1]

280. What happens if Bernie isnt the nominee? Which candidate will best represent

you as to the never ending aggression and meddling in the Middle East?

What if Hillary is the nominee and her position is barely distinguishable with that of the GOP candidate, which is pretty likely.

What then?

[reddread]

16. stuck in our craws, values.

[DianeK]

18. rand paul is right..

Hillary is a neocon for Wall Street

[JTFrog]

30. Fuck Rand Paul. n/t

[darkangel218]

38. I agree, but he was right on that one.

[geardaddy]

233. +1 million

[RoccoR5955]

50. Rand Paul is a shill for the corporations! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

54. Yeah, Rand Paul ...

... is also my go-to guy for opinion and insight - not to mention worn-out cliches.




<<< Somehow I think this is probably necessary.

[Codeine]

79. Rand Paul can suck my dick.

It's completely mind-boggling that he would be treated like someone who has an opinion fit for anything other than absolute and unalloyed scorn here at DU.

[msanthrope]

198. I think he'd be horribly inept at it, myself. He doesn't seem to be a very

generous or giving person. He's the kind of guy, to paraphrase a loveable Gunny Sargeant, who would refuse one the courtesy of a reacharound whilst penetrating one's anus.

[randys1]

281. Eww, i feel dirty, hearing anyone here use Rand Paul as a viable person to quote

[AlbertCat]

28. the same old/same old shit.

That people are still getting killed for and is still costing us trillions.

Meh... who cares. She's got that familiar name!

[randys1]

283. I care, my family cares. We been thru it because of that prick W. But if it turns out

that the dem and repub candidates for the WH have similar views on the ME, which is likely if Hillary is the candidate.

What then?

[AlbertCat]

304. I didn't need the sarcasm thingie did I?

Really?

[randys1]

313. Shows you how twisted things are around here, sorry.

[darkangel218]

40. The Iraq war and the destruction it did, is not "the same old/same old shit".

We can't bring those dead back to life. We can't undo the destruction. We can't heal those whos lives have been shattered by it!!

I can't believe you just said this :'(

[Art_from_Ark]

89. And she calls Bernie supporters "cultists"

[darkangel218]

94. They always project, thats what they do.

It's sick.

[zeemike]

113. And it is not over by any means.

That war is still going on despite what we hear said.
The killing continues the destruction continues and so does the cost.

[darkangel218]

116. No, of course it's not anywhere near over.

But they just simply don't care.

[Andy823]

70. Could it be

Some here just like to stir things up and keep the board divided?

[NanceGreggs]

85. Oh, no, I can't believe that would be the case.

I'm sure it's just that some topics need to be posted about over and over and over and over and over. And the fact that the same things get said about those topics over and over and over and over does not in any way diminish the need to say them over and over and over and over.

(HRC must have had a really great day today!!!)

[Agony]

74. Yeah, same old shit.

Don't want anyone as a leader who followed that Fucker. Choice matters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002965677

[merrily]

143. Aided and abetted. Helped sell the war to Americans, much as did Colin Powell in his UN speech.

Her speech was not for her fellow Senators, any more than Powell's speech was for nation members of the UN.

Ambassadors to the UN do not come inwith an open mind about war until they hear what they think is the best speech and neither do Senators. Their decisions are made in other rooms, for reasons having nothing to do with televised speeches. Those speeches were for American viewing public many of whom are swayed by such things.

Colin Powell had just polled most trusted figure in the Bush Administration. Hillary was not just a Senator, but the First Lady of President that, bless his heart, always polled popular, even after impeachment. She was as close to the face of the Democratic Party as any individual member of Congress can possibly be.

First Lady and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech put the Democratic imprimatur on that vote and that war to help sell it to Americans.

[kath]

159. very good points. Thanks for this post.

[merrily]

161. You're most welcome. I've posted them before but not everyone sees every post.

[polly7]

270. Yes ........... this. ! nt.

[Kalidurga]

141. Did her vote stop being true?

If it's still true and she hasn't talked about how horrific a mistake it was then it's still a problem.

[NanceGreggs]

152. And posting about it on DU ...

... over and over and over again - what is that intended to change?

Is it intended to inform anyone here who doesn't know how she voted? Is it intended to spark fresh discussion - after literally thousands of posts on the same topic?

As I said, it's a great barometer. The minute I see yet another OP on the subject, I KNOW there must be some really good news about Hill's campaign that day and/or some bad news about BS's campaign.

It's like clockwork: another rise in the polls, another major endorsement = yet another OP about the Iraq vote, saying the exact same things as have been said in the previous thousands of posts.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

267. Yea, but did you know about this?

Hillary's IWR vote is still killing people, still has our nation bogged down into a quagmire, still has the Middle East fucked all to hell?

Did you know about this?

[polly7]

268. +1,000,000 nt.

[NanceGreggs]

271. Well, according to DU ...

... Hillary is solely responsible for the Iraq War and all that ensued from it. Apparently, she was the only one who voted the way she did - and had she voted differently, BushCo would have cancelled the Iraq invasion immediately.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

272. People are still dying, we're still paying for it and can't get out, and the ME is fucked. And...

...instead of fighting the bush admin, she sided with them.

Nothing you say will change that.

[rhett o rick]

178. And you think your post is substantive? Maybe some want to regurgitating the blatant

fact because apparently some are blinded by their authoritarian obsession.

Maybe if a Clinton supporter would tell us why fracking for oil profits in lieu of saving the drinking water of the masses is a good thing.

Or why we should tell our college students crushed by debt should "get a job" like she did when she was in college.

[A Simple Game]

203. I know what you mean, all the same old stupid arguments against Hillary.

Here's an idea, why don't you let us know all the arguments you used against Hillary back in '08 and we can use those arguments instead? They are still valid reasons, aren't they?

[merrily]

257. BOOM!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. 3 letter word = oil

and pipelines and money laundering... etc

[sheshe2]

180. 3 letter word

By Christopher P. Cavas 4:51 p.m. EST November 4, 2015

F35
Lockheed Gets Nod for $5B JSF Deal


WASHINGTON — With a preliminary agreement in hand, negotiations between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon for the Joint Strike Fighter Lot IX Joint Strike low-rate initial production contract continue, and a final agreement is expected next month, JSF Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said Wednesday.

Under an "undefinitized contractual action" (UCA) agreed on Tuesday, $625 million in fiscal year 2015 money is being moved to Lockheed to cover company expenses spent thus far on the Lot IX aircraft. The full contract is being negotiated under a not-to-exceed limit of $5.37 billion.

"The government's negotiating position is that the final number will be below that figure," DellaVedova said. "We're confident that the final terms of the contract will represent the best interests of the government and its partners."

Earlier, $698 million in advance procurement funding was awarded for Lot IX using fiscal 2014 money.

Read More http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/11/03/lockheed-gets-537b-55-f-35-fighters/75128086/

[beam me up scottie]

197. Two words: logical fallacy

Let's see if you can figure out which one you committed.

[merrily]

273. Only one?

[DanTex]

6. Well, assuming you voted Dem in '04, you already voted for someone voted for IWR.

All Dems with presidential ambitions voted for it. Basically for political reasons.

Regardless, Hillary is the best candidate in the race. Letting the GOP win the presidency won't reverse the Iraq War.

[Wilms]

9. Dean? n/t

[DonCoquixote]

24. Letting the GOP win the presidency

The best way to let the GOP win the presidency is NOT to challenge Hillary to backpedal on some stupid positions, like Keystone, Like the TPP, things that hurt the people who would vote for her.

There are two ways to Love Hillary, be the people who tell her only the good, allow her to do whatever she wants, or to be the people who try to get her to back away from the addictive, toxic stuff the GOP and their masters are trying to sell her as candy or medicine. The first type of love leads to dead rock stars, tragedies of wasted potential, the sort of people that made her lose in 2008 because neither Mark Penn or Bill Clinton would stop blowing the race whistles. The second type saves them from themselves, and as much as many people hate Bernie now, when the TPP and Keystone turn out to be revealed as the disasters they were, Hillary will know we pulled her away from those trainwrecks, same as we intend to pull her away from war with Syria.

PS. If Hillary reverses her stances on TPP and Keystone, how many of her fans will rejoice and say she was just trying to get past bernie?

[DanTex]

34. I don't think anyone hates Bernie here. Certainly not me or most Hillary supporters.

I think he's great. He's just not the right person to nominate and put up against the GOP.

To answer your questions. If she reverses her stance on Keystone, I will be unhappy about it. TPP I'm not too opposed to so it won't bother me so much.

What matters most to me is putting a Dem in the White House and winning as many congressional seats as possible. However she decides to campaign in the general, ultimately I'll be happy if it works and unhappy if it doesn't.

[DonCoquixote]

173. an honest answer

I will confess that even if O malley or Bernie lose, I will campaign like hell to get Hillary in, especially as two of the worst GOP happen to be Rubio and Bush, who I know well.

[merrily]

274. Sanders wins match up polls and, if the nominee, Hillary will have no coattails at all. Next!

[DanTex]

276. Yeah, I know the talking points, I just don't believe them.

[merrily]

277. Right back at you, DanTex.

[DanTex]

278. I guess that explains why we support different candidates.

[merrily]

285. I support Sanders because he has almost always been on the right side of history. Hill has not

--or she's gone there only after polls showed it was uber safe for a Democratic politician so to do.

To take only this thread as but one example, he made a speech urging against the disastrous invasion of Iraq, correctly predicting it would result in de-stablizing the entire Middle East, while Hillary helped sell Americans PNAC's/ Buscho's agenda, which PPI, a deceptively-named offshoot of the DLC, was also peddling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

In addition, I feel I can trust what he says because he is driven principles, rather than political expediency in the service of personal political ambition, are his compass.

Also, her electabiity in the general is a troublesome issue, given just how much and how long Republicans hate her, how much she is distrusted by the population as a whole and how a lot of the left may not vote for her, either.


I don't support Sanders because he wins some battle of dumbass talking points, though he does.

[DanTex]

288. I support Hillary because I like her platform, and I think she's got the best chance vs the GOP.

Different opinions and all.

[merrily]

290. Her platform is a mash up of ideas of Warren/Sanders, spoiled by triangulation and 1% deference.

Moreover, given her history and "evolutions," I have no faith that she will implement her platform, such as it is, anyway.

I'd take reliable real over unreliable bad fake any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

[DanTex]

294. I don't see it that way. Besides, my main concern is beating the GOP. Given GOP obstruction,

I don't see much practical difference between what the Democratic candidates would get done in office. If anything, Clinton would be the most effective in fighting the GOP.

[merrily]

296. Now, you've circled back to electability, which I've already covered, a sign of last wordism.

Will you even read this?

I don't see much practical difference between what the Democratic candidates would get done in office. If anything, Clinton would be the most effective in fighting the GOP.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Also, your perspective is all wrong, given the reality of Congress.

Republicans currently control both Houses. Projections are that, because of the 2010 redistricting, they will continue to control the House for years. Obama should have "fought" them 2009-2011, when he had strong majorities in both Houses. When Republicans are in control, fighting them is pissing in the wind and only makes a Democrat look weak. When they are in control, you have to work with them, not false bravado "fight" them for benefit of the fans in the bleachers.

Hillary has long berated Republicans in ad hom, applause line/cheap shot ways, sometimes making herself look foolish in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

She was disrespectful to, and openly contemptuous, of Republican members of the House during her "grilling," which, judging by the gifs in DU sig lines she and her DU fans apparently found Hillarious. However, I thought it extremely shortsighted for someone who was then simultaneously seeking the Presidency. She recently called them the enemy of which she is most proud. Say what you will, they are her fellow Americans and people with whom she hopes to work, beginning in January, 2017. To me, all this was not funny, but very poor judgment-- not nearly as bad as Hillary's Iraq War speech and vote, but bad.

Contradistinctively, Sanders has (mostly) berated Republican politicians on issues, something all politicians understand. They may not agree with him, but they like him personally and respect him (as someone with whom to work). http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251715777. Also, he is able to work with them so well that the veterans' bill he did with McCain not only passed, but became a case study in working across the aisle in the Brookings Institute. https://www.google.com/search?q=merrily+Sanders+Brookings+Institute&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

Despite all her boasts of getting things done better than Obama and Sanders could, Hillary's Senate record on passing bills or amendments that she wrote or co-wrote is pitiful. Sanders's record, even as an independent, is much better than hers--and with bills and amendments that were substantive, not re-naming a Post Office or celebrating the anniversary of the American Revolution.

[DanTex]

297. And I covered your coverage, by noting that I disagreed with your assessment.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Also, your perspective is all wrong, given the reality of Congress.

No, it's not surprising. Also not surprising is that I think your perspective is all wrong.

The Benghazi hearings are a great example of why I think Hillary would be more effective. She's simply a more skilled politician than Bernie. You're right, whoever gets elected will have to deal with Republicans controlling at least the House. And the Republicans aren't going to play nice. Hillary's got the chops to get things done in those conditions. Bernie, not so much.

[merrily]

300. No you did not. You're not covering my other points with anything but more conclusory claims,either.

Hillary's got the chops to get things done in those conditions. Bernie, not so much.

The post of mine to which you are supposedly replying gave analysis and links that say otherwise, based on their respective actual Senate records and performance. You've given nothing but unsupported boasts because her actual record of getting her bills and amendments passed while in the Senate is non-existent. Bluster, bloviation and bragging do not equal "chops." Neither does foolish, pointless posturing.

[DanTex]

301. Yes, I did. We simply have a difference of opinion. It happens all the time.

I don't see Bernie holding up under GOP attacks, and I don't see him fighting as effectively against a GOP controlled congress.

I get that you have your reasons, but I just don't find them the least bit persuasive.

[merrily]

302. You've made only unsupported claims, no analyis or links, then repeated them again and again.

That's the mark of "simply opinion." My posts to you were not just that, but you didn't even read them.

Your failure to address my points other than by repeating your unsupported opinions has been a very poor use of my time and yours. (Difference of opinion happen all the time? Seriously?)

As I posted above, repeating yourself after the point has been responded to, is a sure sign of some need for the last word. It's yours. I'm done.

[AlbertCat]

31. Hillary is the best candidate in the race.

At what? triangulation?

[DanTex]

35. At beating the GOP in the general.

[AlbertCat]

39. At beating the GOP in the general.

How so?

She's only won an election and re-election in a blue state. What are you basing this on? Bill?

Besides, the GOP have been gearing up to fight her for about a decade now.

[DanTex]

42. Well, Bernie's too far left, can't raise serious money, and is highly vulnerable to

GOP attacks on a number of fronts. Martin O'Malley might be a good candidate, but he's just not connecting with voters.

Hillary's not perfect, but she's the best we have, by a margin. The GOP has been attacking her constantly forever, and she's still standing strong.

[AlbertCat]

223. Well, Clinton's too far right, raises money form corporate master and is highly vulnerable.

She's not the best we have.

[eridani]

193. She has zero appeal for the 63% of alienated voters

How does that get her elected? Sanders is mobilizing them.

[merrily]

55. And? And, no Hillary is not the best candidate. The one who voted against the war is.

[reformist2]

7. She came, she voted, they died.

[840high]

138. ...+1

[Demeter]

195. Yeah, that little turn of phrase still grates in my gizzard, too

They should put it on her tombstone. Because IMO that's what killed her prospects.

[merrily]

269. Much more than just a vote--though the vote would have been bad enough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[Hepburn]

328. +1

[KingCharlemagne]

362. +Infinity - nt

[merrily]

368. +1

[babylonsister]

11. Drama, a la stirring the masses.

Who was shilling for war?

I have a lot of faith in people evolving, maybe only because history demands it. But they evolve.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Who?

Evolving?

Not so much, it seems.

[babylonsister]

21. I have a lot of faith in people evolving, maybe only because history demands it.

And maybe not. I'm dismayed you're tearing down Hillary.

I LOVE Bernie, but I

LOVE Hillary a helluva lot more than any republican.

This is politics: no one will ever give you what you desire, at least not when you think it should happen.

[sheshe2]

29. +1000

[RoccoR5955]

57. Personally, I would rather see them

starting a necessary revolution, thus revolting, rather than evolving. Evolution is a slow process, and we do not have the time.
Our environment is out of kilter, our military is WAY too big, and we need to take care of the regular people, and not the corporations. Corporations are NOT people.

Yeah, I appreciate some of the things that Clinton has done, but she needs too much time to evolve. I would rather have someone who is correct on issues in the first place, than someone who has to evolve into the correct side on issues, as Clinton has to do.

[merrily]

291. People who evolve because history demands it evolve way too late and are not leaders.

And then, there's the issue of whether they've actually evolved at all.

[Ned_Devine]

56. I've never seen that "we came, we saw..." clip before. That was disturbing

Liberals couldn't possibly get behind that way of thinking. It's pretty ghoulish

[dreamnightwind]

136. Yes it is creepy.

[merrily]

289. Oh, come on. It's Hillarious!

[Jarqui]

105. I do not completely fault her

A person in her position makes decisions based upon the facts they're provided. If you cannot trust the word of your country's own intelligence and military, whose word do you take?

To me, some war criminals were in the White House putting their fingers on the scales of intelligence providing these senators and the nation with faulty facts on which to base their decision on a vote.

Something like 72% of Americans supported war against Iraq ... because they were deceived by the war criminals in the White House. As much as I like Bernie better, I will not stick the blame for that vote entirely on Hillary. She was deceived like most Americans by Dick Cheney and Company. I do not think it's fair to expect the Vice President of the United States would lie about such a thing - most of us were thoroughly disgusted by their conduct.

Having said that, Obama and Sanders didn't get sucked in by the war criminals and they do deserve considerable credit for the position they took because it certainly wasn't a popular position to take at the time. And they both spoke out against the war at the time the decision was being made. And that is one of the reasons I like Bernie better.

[Art_from_Ark]

118. In 1998, Hillary complained about a "vast right-wing conspiracy"

In 2000, she saw that "vast right-wing conspiracy" steal an election from her husband's vice president.
In 2002, she not only voted to give that "vast right-wing conspiracy" the power to wage war on Iraq, she gave a speech proclaiming her commitment to that vote. Meanwhile, Bernie and the late Senator Robert Byrd gave impassioned speeches against the resolution.

Between 1991 and 2002, Iraq had been the most surveilled, the most sanctioned, the most bombed country in the world. It would have been impossible for them to have stockpiled an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Millions of people around the world knew that.

[babylonsister]

130. Nice that you

mentioned Senator Byrd: I loved him and I love Bernie.

[Art_from_Ark]

133. It was undoubtedly one of the finest speeches Sen. Byrd had ever given

Unfortunately, not enough influential people heeded his warning

[LiberalArkie]

148. This one?

[Art_from_Ark]

149. Yeah, that's the one

[passiveporcupine]

314. I had not heard that speech

Very sharp! Very accurate. And totally ignored by many blue-dog dems.

[LiberalArkie]

320. Hell of a man, I have been liberal/socialist but I still liked Byrd. A really fine speaker,

[Jarqui]

147. Roughly 216 million Americans (72%) didn't know that in early 2003

Roughly 36 million in the UK (60%) didn't know that either or see it that way. They both supported the war in March 2003 because they got duped.

It wasn't impossible to conceive Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Inspections had been on and off since 1998. Bush/Cheney spun in some stuff to create the possibility in people's minds and away they went. That was a part of the lie - producing so-called "evidence" that they were being produced clandestinely to trick folks into supporting the war. And it worked on millions - they majority in the US and UK.

Didn't work everywhere else but convince me that once Dick Cheney had the support of the US people, he wasn't going to try to kill as many Iraqis as he could.

And he did. That's what happened.

Then, after taking control of Iraq, when they couldn't produce evidence that justified the war ... that's when things started to get ugly. Millions of people started to figure out they were lied to.

[Art_from_Ark]

154. To a lot of us, it was too obvious

We saw them steal an election in broad daylight, and get away with it. We saw that they were up to no good from the get-go. This web site, which had just come on-line on January 20, 2001, was replete with news, every day, about terrible things that Bush was doing. And one of the first things that he did was start bombing Iraq (starting on February 6). And before that, Clinton had ordered bombing campaigns against Iraq. And all the while, Iraq was suffering under economic sanctions, which had been put in place in 1991. And most of the country was a no-fly zone to boot. Really, under those conditions there was nothing that Iraq could possibly have done to have developed weapons of mass destruction by the time the Iraq War Resolution was put to a vote.

[Jarqui]

209. To too many, it wasn't too obvious

The media has accepted some responsibility for it. They obviously collectively blew it.

Bernie and Senator Byrd spoke out. So did someone we all know now but most didn't know he existed in 2003
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

(I'm not sure I knew much about Sanders either at the time and wouldn't have given his opinion much weight back then because I didn't really know him)

Regardless, unless the intelligence reports (many of which no American outside of the WH administration will see for decades) are sitting in front of me, I can't really claim to know for sure in March 2003. I concede that I have to rely on others at the time because of that. Many who claim otherwise might look good to themselves in hindsight but you'd be hard pressed to produce the hard facts in March 2003 that it would take to convince me beyond political philosophical positions. Lots of stuff came out afterward - I'm talking about what was known at the time. 72% of Americans (supported the war) did not disregards the facts - they were misled on the facts by the poor media and the corrupt administration.

"Stealing an election" is not direct evidence one way or the other to justify going to war. Circumstantial at best. Two different acts.

At the time, my father had had a stroke and was dying of cancer. Like many, with jobs, families and duties, I didn't have a lot of time to roll up my sleeves and sort out the issues on the war - though I did discuss it online some (not here). And so at the time, I wasn't terribly against or for the war because I simply didn't know and had to rely on the media. The polls suggest a lot of people were in the same boat.

I don't give Hillary a complete pass on this either. Far from it. She was there. It was her job to dig deep and reflect like Obama, Sanders & Byrd. I just don't blame her entirely for her vote because deception came from an office where it shouldn't have been expected to come for much of my lifetime. She, Kerry & Biden (pretty good Dems & others) got sucked in.

All I'm saying is Hillary's wrong vote on this at the time was not 100% her fault. The folks who were lying to her deserve a hunk of the blame for misleading so many. Those who didn't get sucked in: Byrd, Obama, Sanders, etc deserve credit for that.

[Art_from_Ark]

220. It wasn't just "stealing an election"

although anyone who would go to the extremes that Bushco went to to steal the 2000 election certainly would not have altruism in mind.

And Hillary complained about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" 4 years before the IWR vote and 2 years before she saw that "vast right-wing conspiracy" steal the 2000 election in broad daylight, so she of all people should have been wary of any claims by Bushco about Iraqi military capabilities.

Bernie saw through it, Robert Byrd saw through it, even Obama saw through it-- as did millions and millions of people around the world, who together marched in the most coordinated global demonstrations since 1968. Heck, you should have heard the groans from opposition members in the Japanese parliament when then-prime minister Koizumi was rambling on about "taryo hakai heiki"-- "weapons of mass destruction". They knew it was bullshit. So, really, there is no justification whatsoever for not only voting for this horrible resolution, but actually shilling for it, knowing full well that it had to be bogus.

[Jarqui]

229. In the 60s, I was kind of independently minded.

At that time, I'm sure one might cite exceptions but generally, Republicans and Democrats were Americans first.

I haven't given it tons of thought but significant trust or faith in government was lost with Watergate and Nixon, Vietnam war, assassinations, etc. It kind of went downhill from there.

Now on many issues, I realize there's always the backdrop of which party is behind whatever stance and what their position is. We can't look at everything in a vacuum.

And when we look at any issue, we might consider the influence of "vast right-wing conspiracy". But when I look at climate change, I'm looking at sea levels, temperatures - scientific facts. I don't give a crap about "vast right-wing conspiracy". Same for the economy, gay marriage, social security, minimum wage, etc, etc, etc. As I look at those things for the facts and sound arguments, I have to cut through the smoke of "death panels","he's a Kenyan", etc, etc.

When the VP of the US reports and Colin Powell and others report stuff like the 9/11 terrorists meeting with Iraqis in Europe, allegations Iraq was funding the terrorists - stuff like that had 68% of Americans thinking Hussein was behind 9/11 (in part at least). Those reports cited were US intelligence = which to me equal the best facts available as we knew them. And there were no credible reports published at the time to contradict those meetings didn't take place for example (even though, as it turns out, Cheney already had the CIA memo that they were BS). Show me the hard evidence that was published for all Americans to see before the war that those reports were BS. You can't because it didn't exist in the media. That was a big part of the scam and why/how they duped 72% of the American public and media.

Now if we have to believe conspiracy theorists, then Obama is really a Kenyan imposter and the 9/11 truther wackos are right. I won't bite on that crap. I need evidence. The only key evidence I got leading up to the war was evidence that justified the war. "vast right-wing conspiracy" remains where to me it belongs: as hearsay - not something I can give much weight to one way or the other. In the wake of what happened, I have to consider it as a possibility more so than ever before because another layer of trust in the executive branch has been eroded. But like many Americans, it was not front and center in my mindset at the time.

[polly7]

218. It was spelled out long before Bush got into office.

At the mere hint that it was even on the radar, every politician had the obligation to do the research and decide what the truth behind it was. They would have known before the vote came up with all the lies, and that those who stood up and gave speeches trying to talk them into it were full of shit.

[Art_from_Ark]

227. My boss in Japan at the time (RIP)

told me a little before the invasion, "It's all bluster, right? They're not really going to invade Iraq. Iraq is so weak, there's no way it's any kind of threat."
And I replied, "You don't know Bush and Cheney. They've been planning this for quite a while. And now they have official authorization to do it."

[polly7]

228. He was a smart man for being so incredulous.

I remember up here, those who I talked to about it just couldn't believe it either ..... and when it did happen we were just sick.

I was on another board then, and the amount of info that had come out pre the vote for it even - on all of it, PNAC, the oilfield maps, the Big Oil Meetings, the relationships between politicians and oil biggies, on and on and on. The years of killing sanctions (that 'we think were worth it'), Iraq being the most surveilled nation on earth, ........ long before even the vote for it and the weapons inspectors being thrown out - we fucking KNEW it was a sham. Sorry .. i still get angry.

[Art_from_Ark]

319. My boss was a really good man

He always wanted to see the best side of everybody.

He was born just after his father had been sent by the Japanese Imperial Army to the Philippines. The Americans captured him (the father), and held him for 3 years until they decided that he had not committed any war crimes, after which they let him return to Japan. Despite that, my boss held no malice against Americans (obviously). In fact, my boss tended to have a very good image of Americans, which is probably why he couldn't fathom the evils of the Bush-Cheney cabal.

I attended his funeral a little more than 5 years ago. When I approached his coffin, and someone put my hand on his cold corpse, my legs gave out from underneath me, I was so moved. I felt like I had lost so much when he died. Someone had to help me back to my seat.

[navarth]

349. very moving post, feeling it

So sorry you had to lose your friend.

I had a good friend from Japan who lived through the war. He was the same as your friend. No hatred of Americans at all.

People with that kind of heart are an inspiration. Sorry for your loss. Seems like the good ones go all too soon, while the assholes just keep hanging around.

Thanks for sharing, I feel your heart right now.

[Art_from_Ark]

364. Thank you for your kind words

I also had a co-worker who had been living in Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped. He was just a baby at the time, so he doesn't remember it. But according to what his mother and brother told him, his sister was playing outside at the time and was vaporized. His house, which was close to Ground Zero, collapsed, and neighbors had to dig him and his mother out of the rubble. His brother had been on a school trip and was not in Hiroshima at the time. Imagine coming home and finding out that your whole city had been obliterated! And by that time, my co-worker and his mother had been evacuated to the hills around Hiroshima, so the brother came home not only to see no home, but no family either! After several says of frantic searching, however, the brother was finally reunited with what remained of his family. I can't imagine having to go through that.

[merrily]

310. Funny thing: she coined that phrase to claim, on national TV, that the Lewinsky was a RW lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

[Cassiopeia]

165. Ummm

I watched publicly available news broadcasts and knew war in Iraq was not only stupid, but that Iraq was not our enemy.

Hillary didn't know or have all the facts is a really lame excuse.

[LibDemAlways]

183. In 1998 the criminals behind the Iraq War

wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton urging him to go to war with Iraq. Hillary knew damn well this was the plan all along. She could have called them out, but she didn't. Her vote was either political expediency or tacit agreement with the neo-con agenda. There is no other option.

[Demeter]

196. If after all the noisesome revelations about our spies, you STILL believe their "reports"

then nothing can help you. You have lost your mind and your ethics.

[Fumesucker]

204. She could have taken the word of the sitting Vice President

Cheney laid it all out in 1994 and it came to pass in 2004.

#t=0

[merrily]

309. She knew better. We lay Democrats even knew better. She did not even read the NIE, which was part

of the information with which she was provided by her country's own intelligence and military.

Her claim was that she did not have to because she questioned people. Ridiculous that you disregard the written version and act on the oral--which no one can trace.

Presumably, the written version is the one that is carefully thought out and supported with footnotes, etc. Also, she is a lawyer. As anyone who's even seen a few TV programs involving lawyers knows, you compare prior statements with the ones being made at the moment to see if there is any inconsistency. That's 101. Reading the NIE carefully would have enabled her to pick up any discrepancies between what the NIE said

As for Americans supporting the War, Hillary very much participated in bringing about that result.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

And the excuse for that is that she didn't any know better than to trust Bushco to the extent of pushing for Bushco's agenda? If so, that, too, is a disqualifier.

Either way....

[merrily]

275. Hillarious!

[Skittles]

19. EVOLVING?

from something they should have KNOWN was a DISASTER?

[mindwalker_i]

44. This, exactly

We here all had a pretty good idea that the war was a bad idea BEFORE it happened, and we knew not to trust Bush-n-Cheney. Hillary knew it as well, but she also knew there would be a short-term political price for opposing the war. Well guess what? She avoided the short term and now has to deal with the long term, which is people don't trust her. She made her choices.

The biggest issue the country faces is income inequality and it's force for subverting and destroying democracy. Hillary is definitely not the right person to deal with this issue.

[Skittles]

58. what kills me is

Hillary had history with repukes - she HAD to have known their intentions.....her vote was SICKENING

[mindwalker_i]

168. Yeah, I don't buy that she believed them

Believing them wasn't a factor in her vote. Political expediency was the only factor. So, as president, what would she do? Would she work for the 99%? Extremely unlikely, and as I said, that's the most important issue facing the country.

[babylonsister]

66. Outrage is great but too bad.

Yea, we're smart and seems evident, but?

[Skittles]

76. OMG WTF

*DONE HERE*

[babylonsister]

86. Ha! Bye. But I

now believe facts rule emotion, unless I don't. I get where you're at!

[Skittles]

104. nothing like soldiers and civilians dying FOR NO REASON to get my emotions up

SERIOUSLY out now

[babylonsister]

107. Just know I love you, and my intent wasn't to piss you off.

Nah, maybe it was. We are on the same team. Love you!

[sheshe2]

145. Why are F35s being embraced

and manufactured in Vermont? Bernie embraces them. It is money for his state.

nothing like soldiers and civilians dying FOR NO REASON to get my emotions up
SERIOUSLY out now

Good question. Ask your candidate. I thought Bernie hated war, why is his State embracing these deadly planes, Check the thread above. The planes are malfunctioning, crashing and burning and he still wants to appropriate funds for them.

[MannyGoldstein]

153. He voted for a bill to specifically fund the F35?

Really?

How about a link? You wouldn't want people to think you were making stuff up now, would you?

[sheshe2]

157. For the man that never has a link.

Give me a few minutes. I am composing one.

I have researched stuff I knew to give you a link.

Quiet please, their is a lady on stage.

[MannyGoldstein]

166. I don't post links, huh?

Like my responses to your request...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6120323

[Vattel]

156. Bernie is not against all war, nor is he against our having the best armed forces in the world.

He thinks the F35 was a mistake, but it's a done deal. It's gonna be built somewhere, so why not Vermont?

[840high]

140. xactly

[Old Codger]

20. I agree

But there is a vast difference between "evolving" and political expediency ..True beliefs usually do evolve to some extent and I have no problem with that idea at all... but pretty convenient when that "evolving" takes place in an election cycle..

[treestar]

286. The whole country did

Remembering back to 2003, plenty of people were all for it. As time went on, people became less for the idea. And so Obama won rather than McCain, who would have if everyone was still in 911 mode.

Never forget 911 when judging what people did in 2002-4.

[msongs]

12. are you including people who vote to approve military appropriations....like bernie sanders does? n

[MannyGoldstein]

13. You really consider voting for a horriffic and pointless war to be the same

as voting to not shut down our military?

I don't think you're that silly.

[randome]

72. "Not shut down our military"? So you're saying that political calculations are okay with you.

Funny, I thought Sanders voted to fund the Iraq war, not to shut down the military. Or was it a permissible political calculation in your opinion?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Ed Suspicious]

135. You think it's a political calculation to vote for funding to keep our soldiers in boots and body

armor? You simply don't defund the military when we have a ground war in progress. That's the problem with team Wet Thumb to the Wind. You all see everything as pawns in a political game.

[randome]

234. Say what you will, the fact remains that voting to fund a war is tantamount to supporting it.

As I said, it was a political calculation and I don't fault Sanders for making it. Neither do I fault Clinton for voting for the war in the face of overwhelming Congressional support. Her 'No' vote would have accomplished nothing. Neither would Sanders' 'No' vote on funding.

Politicians will behave like politicians. I would think we could agree on that much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

235. You sound just like this guy:

[randome]

252. My comment was about the politics.

Politicians avoid taking a losing stance whenever possible. It's the nature of the job. And look what occurred. It took years for the majority of the public to realize the entire enterprise was a sham. Years -long enough to ruin the careers of many politicians who might have taken a principled stand.

If Congress avoided funding the war, perhaps it would have been scaled back or even aborted. I doubt it but if taking a consistent (and losing) stand against the war is the measure of a politician, then Sanders was inconsistent. So was Clinton for voting in favor in the first place when she knew as well as anyone that there was nothing to be gained by invading Iraq.

Perhaps Sanders is a little bit less of a politician than Clinton. To me, that doesn't mean all that much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

256. Oh what a load.

The troops were THERE, they NEEDED funding. No-one had any intention of scaling back or bringing them home! To believe that, you'd have to believe the invasion itself - which necessitated the need for so many lies (that should be your first clue it wasn't just a litte get in, see how it goes thing) hadn't fully committed those troops to kill and be killed for PROVEN LIES for the goals they had. Nothing was going to end it until they got what they'd schemed and plotted for.

It's all in the LIES.

No-one had the ability to scale it back once it was allowed to proceed. Good grief.

Do some reading on the PNAC and notice what it says about Iraq, who pushed for it and who signed it. Also, the Downing Street Memos, the Wikipedia leaks - so many sources to learn just how badly Iraq was wanted. Then add in the Big Oil meetings pre-invasion, the map of Iraq's resources drawn up, and all the extremely well-plotted and planned lies it took .... do you REALLY believe anyone had the ability to 'scale it back' with a vote to not fund those troops sacrificed for this sham once they'd finally got their great opportunity?

[randome]

295. I know Iraq was planned. It was a horror-show. I'd say it was a war crime.

My only point, when you say no one had any intention of scaling back or bringing them home, is that this applies to Sanders, as well. He is a politician. So is Clinton. I don't see what's so controversial about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

299. He 'couldn't' scale back ANYTHING.

This invasion/war was not going to end with HIS vote and everyone, including him, knew it.

So he voted to fund and protect the troops already over there in the horror.


MUCH different than voting for the (yes, I agree with you) war crime and actually making a speech to persuade others to vote for it!

[Skittles]

17. people who can excuse the IWR vote make me sick

[darkangel218]

36. Same here.

[Hepburn]

329. Amen. n/t

[xocet]

22. It was a mere political calculation to further her career. Beautiful minds need not fret....n/t

[840high]

144. Of course it was.

[moondust]

25. And politics.

I suppose if you were a Senator entertaining "higher aspirations" and didn't want to be labeled "weak on defense" or "weak on terrorism," you wouldn't want to shy away from the bold use of military force. And yikes what if somebody actually found or planted some WMD over there after you had voted no? Your "aspirations" would really be screwed then.

Besides, there were those glossy presentations delivered to your committee. And Colin Powell had that little vial of anthrax. And some tapes of somebody speaking Arabic or something. Heck, that's good enough. Slam dunk.

[WillyT]

26. Yep...

Want More ???

[sheshe2]

46. How divisive and hypocritical.

You are blaming one woman's vote for all the images you just posted.

That is disgusting Willy, what do you have against women?

[Ned_Devine]

68. What does that have to do with women? Are you kidding? Every Dem that voted for that is...

...responsible for that. Hillary was one of those Dems and she's running for president right now and most of us see it as a disqualification. The same way I thought it was in 2004 when Kerry ran, but I voted for him because I was voting against Bush. I never voted for him in the primaries and I was never passionate about him or his message. We got stuck with him, and that's how it felt voting for him. I don't want to feel that way again.

[sheshe2]

101. Read the OP Ned about shilling'''

I am sure you are fully aware of the Ops that focus on Clinton

I continue to be utterly mystified.

That anybody - particularly people who call themselves "Democrats" - categorize shilling in Congress for the Iraq War as an oopsie.

Sorry, it's not an oopsie or an owie. Rather it's bad judgement on a scale so epic that I can't even begin to wrap my brain around it. It's the Grand Canyon of awful.

And some want to enable more of it? Holy @#$&.

Wake up, folks. Real decisions killed real people by hundreds of thousands.

They are blaming Hillary. They are blaming the woman.

So who is holding this man responsible,

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-

Look up his thoughts on drones and feet on the ground. Shocker

[MannyGoldstein]

108. Clearly, war-haters are misogynists

Could it be clearer?

[Ned_Devine]

111. Zactly

I made a point of saying that EVERY democrat that voted for that war is responsible. Hillary just happens to be running for president, which is likely why she voted for that catastrophe in the first place. NO democrat that voted for that war gets my vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

114. Time for us both to come clean

We both loved war until a WOMAN voted for it.

[Ned_Devine]

132. Hey man, that's top secret bro stuff. Don't let that cat out of the bag!

[sheshe2]

134. What is clear is you have no problem with F35's in Vermont.

Bernie loves them, it is money and jobs for his State. Drone's and feet on the ground when Bernie embraces it. You LOVE HIM!!!!! Yeah Bernie!!!!!111!

Hillarys Iraq vote#$%^&*(*&$%^YTRE$%^&*()_)(*&^%



Hmmmm, lol~ you use the term misogynists

[MannyGoldstein]

137. Really? That's all you got?

Bernie, who's repeatedly spoken out against the F-35, wanted already-budgeted positions placed in his state.

[sheshe2]

167. Well

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion


Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.

To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was “wasteful” in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.

snip//

Lockheed Martin, which draws 82 percent of all revenue from taxpayers (Lockheed’s information systems department gets 95 percent of its money from taxpayers), knows that by spreading out manufacturing as widely as possible, the program is more likely to be funded by politicians beholden to voters who draw their livelihood from the F-35. Lockheed spent $15.3 million on lobbying politicians in 2012, a year in which the company made $47 billion in revenue. That’s a return on investment in the thousands of percentage points. Lockheed gets paid, and politicians get re-elected. That’s how Washington runs.

More http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Question for you Manny...

1. The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime.

Hey Manny, ya showed me a pic. No clue what it was about.

Try reading the facts I posted.

If you are talking about war, then lets talk about the F35 and wasteful spending. It is a fact Manny. Bernie supports it.

[MannyGoldstein]

176. "the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful"

A rousing endorsement.

Perhaps you should read the material you post?

[sheshe2]

181. Yes I have read many articles about it

Obviously this it not enough for you. Hmmm not sure YOU ever read it or understand the repercussions,

You said this

"the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful"
A rousing endorsement. Perhaps you should read the material you post?

I said.



Under an “undefinitized contractual action” (UCA) agreed on Tuesday, $625 million in fiscal year 2015 money is being moved to Lockheed to cover company expenses spent thus far on the Lot IX aircraft. The full contract is being negotiated under a not-to-exceed limit of $5.37 billion.

My post~

Perhaps you should read what I post.

This is Vermont and Bernie that embraces them. Loockheed and the the n$$$$$$$$$$ they bring to that state.

[MannyGoldstein]

182. Your post is a non-sequitor

writ large.

[sheshe2]

185. No

[neverforget]

169. Yeah it's just Bernie voting for the F-35

Seems to be a lot of states/congressional districts that Lockheed Martin farmed the production of this POS out so as to make it a jobs programs in their districts. This is what MIC does. Makes programs too big to kill because of all the jobs involved. Maybe we should stop getting involved in wars so as to not need these weapons.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

[druidity33]

345. That's 16 states

where the monetary impact would have been greater than in VT. It seems like VT was the little fish... in the big pool. I can't possibly see Bernie's decision here as even in the same Universe as Clinton's vote for and promotion of the AUMF vote.



Really great and informative graphic, btw...

[WillyT]

71. I'm Blaming ALL OF US For Those Images

Don't pull that crap with me.

Those are REAL People, with REAL GRIEF !!!

But we look at them as objects in some asshole's passion play.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Possibly the most perfect statement ever made on DU

"Those are REAL People, with REAL GRIEF !!!

But we look at them as objects in some asshole's passion play. "

Thank you giving a @#$&, and for doing it with such grace.

[WillyT]

129. Thanks Manny...

[MannyGoldstein]

150. Yer Welcome!

[merrily]

246. One of the most fucking wrong posts I've ever seen on any board in 11 years of posting.

Fake cries of sexism do nothing but hurt women in real life and this is the most extreme I've seen yet.

[beerandjesus]

253. It's incredible to me that that post survived a jury

...as I discovered when I alerted on it.

Keep that in mind next time you hear the Swarm crying about how the juries are all stacked in favor of Bernie.

[merrily]

264. Oh, I know very well that the juries have not been stacked in favor of Bernie for some time now.

I've served on a lot of juries. For a minute and a half, the votes were unanimous or six one way, with the occasional five one way. That was not surprising, given that about 90% of the board was the "left of the left." What was surprising: suddenly votes got very close. 4 to 3 or 3 to 4. Yet, Bernie's supporters were still in the great majority. I would love to know the explanation, but I'm relatively certain I never will.

[beerandjesus]

251. What do you have against Jews?

Seems clear to me that that's your only issue with the F35 non-sequitur you keep bringing up.


Makes at LEAST as much sense as your baseless slander against Willy.

[polly7]

262. Yuck. nt.

[Douglas Carpenter]

373. So, with all the nasty posts lately - do you think it is just coincidence that the

the one long term poster who was banned happens to be a Jew? You seriously are going to claim that Manny Goldstein was not banned because of anti-Semitic motives?

No, I don't believe what I just wrote. That's utter bullshit and insulting to intelligence just like your post above.

[LiberalArkie]

47. Results: You scored a home run

On Thu Nov 12, 2015, 08:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yep...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=800904

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Direct TOS violation: Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 12, 2015, 09:00 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is or should be public knowledge freely available, distributed, and seen. War isn't pretty.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes you need shock
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's the matter, can't handle the truth? We need MORE of this! People need to see what goes on with the military. It is NOT over the top, it is under the radar. So much so that people don't want to acknowledge the harsh truth of these things going on in the military in their name.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ordinarily I would agree with the alerter but since these pictures were common on DU during the war I see no reason to hide them now. And they are relevant to the topic of the op.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

[Skittles]

60. OMG

not only do they excuse the IWR vote, they REALLY prefer not to see the results of that vote

[WillyT]

62. Yep Again...

[Skittles]

78. serious COWARDS

UGH

[beerandjesus]

284. But they're nothing at all like the Republicans, right?

[LovingA2andMI]

347. Right....

[MrMickeysMom]

67. Pay no attention to all the slaughter behind the war criminals' curtain!

Thank Gods the Jury system is transparent on this ridiculous alert!

[LiberalArkie]

75. I think they are to bag me soon. I post all the results I am on. And it doesn't look nice most of

the time.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Well, I got one of my posts hidden yesterday...

It was a 4/3 hide. Seems that The character of the Joker in a Batman movie can walk into a scene to claim, "This town needs an enema", but one cannot regard some of the venom I put on ignore in the same manner.

I did dump them, though. Put the ones I thought were the biggest trolls on "ignore". It was a two flusher...

[LiberalArkie]

91. I have been over on the Discusionist and have managed to make politics/bernie be the most

trending area

and naturally Arkansas following close.

[MrMickeysMom]

128. I'll have to join you there...

I've visited DI to find some banned folks here. Interesting in what trends wherever you are!

[LiberalArkie]

131. L0oNix was intrigued when I told him about the flies. The "one who shall not be named"

found it funny also.

[merrily]

164. Why can't he be named?

[840high]

146. Thank you jurors.

[WillyT]

354. The Thing That Is Ironic ???

Is that I had to wade through far more worse, to post what I did.

I tried to post the grief from all sides... wounded, dead, grieving... American/Iraqi.

Then I asked if anyone wanted more...

Thankfully, nobody did.

I wouldn't have posted it anyway...

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Some seem to be OK with the prospect of more.

Enough.

Enough.

Enough.

[WillyT]

121. Word...

[Scuba]

90. This is Hillary's legacy as much as Bush and Cheney.

[Catherina]

221. I'll never forgive this n/t

[darkangel218]

32. Well said, Manny.

Too bad some only care about money and getting richer, and less about the loss of human life, and the nightmare the survivors live in.



K&R.

[Owl]

52. I agree. Well said Manny.

[kelliekat44]

41. We really need to move on from this divisive crap about the Iraq war. Sure, Hillary voted for

it but she was not the only one. We make it sound here on DU like hers was the deciding vote to get us into that war. It was a BAD judgement call. But I will go out on a limb and say that there are not many people who have not made a serious bad judgement call...even as a candidate for the Presidency or even as President. But damn, put that history in context and blame the people who formed the bad intel, pushed the lies, and played on people's emotions and hurt from 9/11. Bernie has voted for every war support measure since then. Some of the people I have high regard for voted yes for the Iraq war. I didn't like it but I do not hold that against them and it is easy to just say I apologize whether you mean it or not. Having made one mistake doesn't mean you would make the same mistake and especially if you learned something from the first mistake.

Bush lied and people died. That should be our mantra. Nothing else...

[darkangel218]

48. She was not the only one, but she is running for POTUS!!!!

This is the reasons people are bringing it up, in regards to her vote! I was no politician or lawyer, but I DID KNOW THAT WAR WAS WRONG!!!! Myself and my friends protested against it on the streets of Miami!!! We fought for peace!! How come so many of us knew it was wrong, but she didn't??? Care to answer that???

[winter is coming]

53. Have our wounded vets "moved on"? What about the dead?

Bush lied, but he didn't carry out that war all by himself. Hillary's vote marks her as being either stupid, complicit, or craven. All three of those options make her unfit for office.

[Bread and Circus]

64. This is the problem I have with you people...

You want to make excuses if a Democrat does it, but if a Republican does it... we are supposed to be against it "that's should be our mantra".

I am sorry but I don't care what party started the War in Iraq, the Democrats were complicit in allowing it to happen, especially the most ambitious, those who cast the vote for War in Iraq so they could further their Presidential ambitions.

That makes their vote ESPECIALLY egregious, because it was done for personal gain.

Shouldn't Hillary pay the political price for this? I think so unless she had become fully repentant. But she has not become fully repentant. Rather she has sent numerous signals in this current campaign of how she would be more hawkish than Sanders and more hawkish than Obama. She has also sent signals during this campaign that she will take us further down the road of entrenchment of certain unjust actions in the Middle East.

Wake up, please. Please wake up.

Hillary may not be as bad as Republicans but she is going to foster a permissiveness for further foreign military misadventures. She has the wrong people advising her and she is obviously very persuadable and succumbs to these bad advisers.

Do not be surprised in 3 or 4 years you are wondering where our foreign policy has gone and not liking the results.

[slipslidingaway]

163. + 100 n/t

[merrily]

307. Maybe the principles of Democratic voters went out of style when Bush left office?

It was heinous for Bush to propose this war vote to Congress, but not for Hillary to help Bushco sell it--especially to Democrats?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[onecaliberal]

98. Scott Ritter weapons inspector was all over teevee before the war saying there

Was NO WMD in Iraq. So yeah she knew. It was calculated so spare us.

[passiveporcupine]

120. Not this again

Bernie has voted for every war support measure since then.

You need to go look up the record yourself and quit believing what other people tell you.

[merrily]

348. You have a problem with divisive crap?

Interesting! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027341056

If someone made a heinously bad judgment call about going to war and someone else did not only made the right judgment call, but predicted invading Iraq would de-stablize the Middle East, why would I pick the first person to be the next CIC?

Bernie has voted for every war support measure since then.

You see no difference between wrongly sending troops into harms' way and a vote to keep them fed while they're there? Bernie did not vote for the Iraq Wor the Afghan surge. Hillary voted for every was and every escalation for which she was eligible To vote.

What evidence do you have that Hillary learned anything from Iraq? Her positions on Libya and Syria?

We should blame only Bush and pretend no Democrats aided and abetted him? Even one running for President right now? WOW!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[gordyfl]

43. Iraq War - Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy: “My vote against this misbegotten war (Iraq) is the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962.”

[kath]

158. Wow. Great quote.

if I had seen/heard it at the time, I've forgotten it.

[gordyfl]

170. If Only Hillary & George W Had More Sense

Ted was a progressive, who along with Bernie Sanders, wasn't afraid to "speak out" against George W. Bush's foolish plan to "shock and awe" Iraq. If only George W & Hillary used more sense.

[merrily]

327. I think they both knew at least as much as Kennedy, Sanders, Byrd, Chafee, et al.

[FlatBaroque]

179. nice

[Oilwellian]

232. Oh, wow!

Every single Democrat should have embraced his sentiments and voted against this criminal tragedy of a war. Teddy understood as did millions of others. We are still seeing blood and death as a result of Hillary's support and influence. This is why she was rejected in 2008 and it is the reason why she will be rejected again.

Great quote!

Great thread!

[Aerows]

59. It tears my heart out.

I can't fathom cheering to make another generation of mothers a widow. Or a generation of fathers, widowers.

I sure as hell cannot condone making a generation of children orphans.

[MrMickeysMom]

61. Hint: Today was brought to you by the sound bite...

"Same Old/Same Old Shit"

Prompted by, "Haven't we heard this?" and

And, ending with, "before?"

[Puglover]

214. Or spamming endlessly

that the TPP couldn't be "all that bad". Jesus

[Cosmic Kitten]

80. Hillary is still unrepentent about Iraq

Here's a video of her LAUGHING
about the prospect of war against Iran!

In the 1st debate she called Iran the "Enemy"

Hillary cannot be trusted at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Who laughs at this kind of thing?

Unbelievable.

[Cosmic Kitten]

109. Posting what I really think would end in a jury.

But it's what one might expect from a comic book villain.

[gordyfl]

174. George W. Bush & Hillary ---> "Bring it on".

Good video. She was mimicking George Bush's words "Bring 'em on". Shame on her.

[Divernan]

201. Laughing so hard, she's rolling back & forth in her chair.

Horrifying! Chilling! Indeed, terrifying!

[Ed Suspicious]

225. "And hopefully we won't get to that." she says as slyly smiling lips bolster firm apple cheekbones.

[Oilwellian]

236. So fucking disgusting n/t

[pa28]

335. Hahahaha! Hey, who doesn't enjoy a little "takeout" once in a while?

Even James Baker was treating as a serious issue. WTF.

[merrily]

337. More Hllarity! Like the "We came, we saw he died" video.

[LiberalArkie]

87. I could accept HRC's decision on the war if she said that it was just political expediency to do so.

I understand that, I have a hard time accepting her feeling that it was the right thing to do.

[merrily]

103. You could?

[LiberalArkie]

106. Politics. People vote on things that they may not want to. But she said that she supported it

and was proud of her vote.. I don't like people rooting for death and destruction. It should be the hardest decision to cast and not one for the "RAH RAH" effect.

[merrily]

112. You could accept I voted for unspeakable horrors, American and Iraqi, because I thought

it would help my political career? I cannot. Not to mention that, as Sanders predicted at the time, the entire Middle East de-stabilized as a result.

As for the timing of the rah rah, please see my Reply 45.

[darkangel218]

123. +1 million

I can't even wrap my mind around that.

[onecaliberal]

92. And just because your family or friends weren't killed doesn't mean it's

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Okay because it didn't affect you. More than a million Iraqi people were killed. Those people NEVER did anything to deserve that. What the hell kind of justification does one use to rectify that in your own mind. Would it be okay if that was your kid sacrificed for a fucking lie? Just because it wasn't damn sure doesn't make it okay. Very, Very poor judgment.

[Broward]

96. It's revolting, the Democratic Party has lost its way.

[Thinkingabout]

97. The same way Sanders claims to be Democratic after he voted against the Brady Bill five times and we

Have lost more lives to gun violence than in the Iraq war. He does not even regret his votes.

[blackspade]

99. What a heartbreaking picture.

I hope she finds some peace and solace.

[Live and Learn]

100. + a gazillion

[Renew Deal]

115. One of those "real decisions" was telling people there is no difference between the parties in 2000

Oopsie

[MannyGoldstein]

117. Is this more about Gore losing in 2000 because

he ran as a Third Wayer, Jeb! fucked with the elections in Florida, and the Supreme Court mooned the law?

[Renew Deal]

125. You're only saying that because it's the same thing you're saying in 2015

oopsie

[Fumesucker]

172. You wanna talk about "Oopsies"?

Here's a damn huge Ooopsie standing on the stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

[merrily]

350. As to Iraq, how much difference do you see between Bush's having done his best, given his office, to

bring it about and Hillary's having done her best, given her office, to bring it about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[Martin Eden]

127. Hillary voted for the Iraq war because New Yorkers wanted retribution for 9/11

Hillary's not stupid. She knew the case for war was bogus, but she dared not vote against the war or tell her constituents they were being lied to because it would have cost her re-election.

Think I'm nuts?

Well, that's not my argument. It was put forward by a DU Hillary supporter in the following post:

No, she's not stupid. Absolutely not. That's why she had to vote for both AUMF bills. She was Senator of New York State - the State hit by 9/11 the hardest. Do you think New Yorkers would've understood had she voted against the AUMF Against Terrorists and the AUMF Against Iraq when they believed that Saddam Hussein most likely had something to do with 9/11? Do you think they'd happily re-elect her? Or do you believe her political career would have ended? Think about it.

Hindsight is 20/20 and tanding on the moral high-ground is wonderfully noble, but that and $4 bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks as a politician in a time when Americans wanted retribution for those attacks. Hillary Clinton was elected by the majority of voting New Yorkers, tasked with representing ALL New Yorkers. They'd been the victims of the biggest attack on American soil in American history and they wanted recompense. Had she voted NO on either bills, she would have been seen as a traitor to New York and her constituents' needs.

And also in this post:

But high-strung and fearful New Yorkers and Americans - overall - made that argument through pollsters at the time. Being rational at the time was not an option - certainly not for politicians who want to be re-elected.

[MannyGoldstein]

175. Oddly, half of NY's Congressional delegation voted against war

Damned traitors.

[Martin Eden]

199. And New Yorkers filled the streets to protest the war before it was launched

More damned traitors!

[sabrina 1]

139. Mind boggling isn't it? How easy it is to dismiss all those lives. And then demand that the rest of

us do the same thing.

[Beacool]

142. I know, it's all Hillary's fault.

It's not Bush's or Cheney's fault. It's all on Hillary's shoulders.

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Did someone say that?

Where?

Or are you strawmanning?

[Beacool]

244. It's the endless war call for some, akin to "remember the Alamo".

Enough already......

[merrily]

333. Is the war over already? How about the damage it caused? Should we vote for more Iraqs?

[Warren DeMontague]

187. No, but she shouldn't have fucking voted for it.

[merrily]

241. It was not only the vote. Please see Reply 143.

[Beacool]

245. Maybe the fact that she was the senator from NY came into play.

Maybe also that more than 70% of her constituents agreed with the vote had something to do with it.

[merrily]

315. What if she had said publicly that that there was no connection between 911 and Iraq?

Her constituents did not have access to the NIE or classified reports. Her constituents have day jobs that prevent them from investigating. Her day job was to look into this. Her constituents could go only by what they saw and heard on TV. Bushco was lying, media was enabling Bushcho and Democrats, including Hillary, were not pushing back. To the contrary....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[Warren DeMontague]

324. and now she wants to be President of the entire US, so she's responsible for her vote.

If the people of NY somehow were not able to understand that Iraq didn't bring down the WTC, that's unfortunate- I usually give them more credit than that, but whatever. It was still a shit vote. And plenty of people knew it was shit at the time, including other Senators.

[merrily]

317. Damn! Is Bush running for President again right now? Is Cheney? I'm not voting for them either!

[ozone_man]

155. Holy Moly!

Democrats that do that are not Democrats in my book.

[Raster]

160. Iraq II wasn't an oopsie. It was a cold, calculated group of actions designed to herald in....

...the New Rome phase of America. EVERYONE WITH HALF A FUCKING BRAIN ON THIS PLANET KNEW IRAQ HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Not. A. One. And anyone with half a fucking brain that supported bush*, cheney*, rice*, rumsfeld*, wolfowitz*, perle*, et al, in their invasion of a sovereign nation that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, did so because they let their lack of courage and conviction AND THEIR COWARDICE overrule their better judgment and their sense of decency.

And further ANYONE, AND I DO MEAN ANYONE, including Hilary Clinton, that does not man-up or woman-up and admit their complicity in one of the most barbaric and illegal actions ever undertaken by the United States of America, has no business sitting in the Oval Office.

[Vattel]

162. Andmay I add that she has not evolved. She remains truly clueless when it comes to war.

She refuses to say that the bombing of Gaza was disproportionate. That view is not respectable.

[Scruffy1]

171. K&R NT

[Warren DeMontague]

186. Stop talking about meaningless nonsense. We need to discuss real issues, like why Sanders rallies

are full of young white dudes wearing purple gingham shirts

[Nonhlanhla]

200. It was a bad vote

I was terribly disappointed to see Congress voting for that war, and to see how the media was beating the drums of war made me sick. I supported Obama in 2007 largely because he opposed it and Hillary voted for it. In hindsight, though, I'm not sure that Obama would have voted against it if he had actually been in Congress at the time - who knows.

Regarding Hilary's vote, it seems that she got some edited intel from the administration and was also assured by people in the administration that they would let the UN inspectors do their job, and would use the power to go to war judiciously and only if needed. It is possible she voted for the war for cold political reasons, but somehow I don't think so: she's a Democrat and surely she knew that many Democrats would hold it against her. My sense is that her biggest mistake was actually trusting the people in the Bush administration. Hillary always strikes me as that nerdy girl who overthinks everything and does not work with simple equations. In this case that led her into a serious misreading of what was going on, because she assumed that the people in the administration would also think before they go ahead.

I don't like her vote, but to simply attribute naked ruthless ambition to her as the reason for the vote, makes no sense to me. It seems that she voted to give the president the power to act IF WMD were found in Iraq, thinking that a war resolution would force Saddam to cooperate and paradoxically avoid war. What she did not reckon with is the reality that BushCo. wanted to go to war no matter what. Her biggest mistake was trusting the Bush administration. How she could trust them baffles me, but I think it is rooted in her nerdy overly nuanced way of thinking. Ironically that same nuanced way of thinking would also make her a more thoughtful president. The biggest reason her vote backfired was because the president she voted to give authority to was not thoughtful and not honest (and neither were his advisers, the real movers and shakers).

Some quotes from her speech:
"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
...

it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

[Scuba]

206. In the best light, she trusted George Bush. Not exactly the quality I want in a leader.

[Nonhlanhla]

211. Yes, he was not trustworthy

I agree she should not have trusted him. But I suspect she might have seen him as a bumbling idiot (which is true enough), and might have thought that the real powers behind Bush would have been more thoughtful. In an interview with Tim Russert she said the following: "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job?' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do."

As I said, I don't like her vote, but I think as Democrats we are able to do nuance, and look at the whole picture, and given the whole picture, her vote was not simply a vote for war - indeed, it seems that it was paradoxically driven by the desire to avoid war by strongarming Saddam into giving up (potential) DMW. Her words: "The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences."

I am not inclined to think of Hillary Clinton as the Wicked Witch of the West. I do think that some are inclined to see her as such and to therefore simply assume that she is a bloodthirsty monster who enabled BushCo out of sheer naked personal ambition, and I think they do so because they are buying into smears of Hillary that actually originated with the Right Wing. This woman has been smeared by conservatives in this country ever since it became clear that she is not the traditional supporting cookie-baking submissive wife-of-the-politician. They have successfully built up an image of her as a mean, ruthless, cold-hearted b!*#ch precisely because she does not fit the stereotype of the traditional feminine. We should be cautious not to allow that Right Wing-fabricated image of Hillary to cloud our judgment.

[Scuba]

213. My personal opinion is that she's a neo-con Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

[merrily]

321. Somewhat. But, my personal opinion is that Dem Senators who had Presidential ambitions

thought their personal political ambition demanded a war vote. That is what I cannot get around. "If I vote against, I may never be President."

So, what they did was fiddle with wording to try to provide themselves with an alibi if the vote hit the fan. I remember watching one of the talking head shows not long after the invasion, when Biden was railing against Bushco for the war. The host pointed out that Democrats, including Biden, had voted for it. Biden immediately went into faux outrage mode, saying that they had worded it very carefully, but bad ole Bush had not abided by the careful wording.

Trouble was, most of them are lawyers and have lawyers. The wording authorized what Bush did and they knew it. (If they didn't know it, what the hell are they doing in Congress?) If they thought Bush had violated their careful wording, they should have been screaming as Bush was sending troops to Iraq, and not only after media and others started throwing their votes back in their faces when they railed against Bush.

In any event, I heard the "careful wording" bs a couple more times back then, then they dropped it because it was so frickin' easy to make them look ridiculous for claiming that.

If I thought they really believed in this vote, even out of neocon idea, I could abide it a bit more than thinking they did it to hedge their bets for a Presidential run. One is bad, but sincere judgment. I've been there. We all have. The other is incredibly cynical, callous and selfish, regardless of human cost. I've never been there.

[Scuba]

330. Morals and ethics are quaint notions that are no longer in vogue in Washington.

[merrily]

332. Vogue stinks. "Now, heaven knows, anything goes." I prefer classics, like, you know, principles.

[merrily]

351. Another one claiming criticizing Hillary for her war advocacy is sexism.

Does no one realize how harmful fake cries of sexism are to women in the real world who don't have a hundred million bucks and need the jobs and promotions they are seeking. Do you know how much equating criticism of advocating a war with sexism hurts them? Any clue at all? Do you care?

How about criticizing Bush for his war advocacy? Also sexism? How about Kerry and his vote? Sexism?

[Nonhlanhla]

353. What on earth are you talking about?

Perhaps you should read my post more carefully. I did not say that to criticize Hillary for her war vote is sexism. I said that there have been sexist attacks on Hillary for years that have fairly successfully created a public image of her as a cold hearted b!%#h, and that I refuse to interpret her vote (or anything else) with the assumption that she is cold hearted. Criticizing her vote is not the issue - I do so myself. Interpreting everything she does through the lens of the public image created about her by right wing smears, is a problem, however. I'm willing to look at her vote, look at the nuances, and to give her the benefit of the doubt by NOT assuming that she is the caricature that these right wing smears have made her out to be. That does not mean that I do not disagree with her. It just means that the LENS through which I am willing to criticize her is not the lens of these right wing smears. In other words, I am not going to attribute motivations to her that are based on a decades-old smear campaign against Hillary Clinton. I have criticized and will criticize her vote, although I have also been able to see more of the nuance of the vote, and I REFUSE to simply attribute meanness and evil intent to her.

Goodnight to you.

[merrily]

358. Your posts tie allegedly sexist criticism of Hillary to perception of her vote. Good night to you 2.

[Nonhlanhla]

359. Public image of Hillary HAS been shaped by right wing sexism, yes.

Yes, I tied the public image of Hillary as mean, cold hearted, ruthless woman who will kill people out of sheer ambition, to decades-old sexist attacks on Hillary. Do you really want to dispute that?

I then said that I refuse to buy into that image of her when I look at her war vote. I DO criticize her war vote, but I am not willing to simply assume certain nefarious motivations on her side, because I realize that any such assumptions I might make will probably be shaped by the public image of her as ruthless, which comes from decades of right wing smears. Therefore I am going to start with the assumption that she was thoughtful about the vote, even though I think she was wrong. Just as I'm going to assume that Bernie was thoughtful with regards to his votes on crime or guns, even though I think he's wrong, since I'm not going to start with the assumption that he is badly-motivated.

I therefore adopt a stance of neutrality with regards to both of our front runners, and am willing to give BOTH of them the benefit of the doubt with regards to motivation even when I disagree with their votes.

[MuseRider]

202. Agreed. 100% n/t

[cantbeserious]

205. Evolution - Such An Excuse - What Is Needed Is A Revolution

eom

[bread_and_roses]

207. It is literally deranged to turn this this into a gloat over HRC's #s ....

And I use the word in an attempt to be charitable. Because if it is not deranged it is literally depraved: corrupt/ wicked/ perverted.

We have our many thousands of those dead and injured fighting this war - and then there are the children. I remember a photo - many photos - the dead children, the children with limbs blown off, the children splattered with blood from their dead parents, killed before their eyes.

What sort of moral compass can turn that - the enduring horror over being party to THAT - into a gloat over HRC's poll numbers?

[Mike Nelson]

208. Hope everyone VOTES for the Democratic Nominee...

...no oopsie, I sat home... Hundreds of thousands more may die if a Republican gets in...

[marble falls]

210. You said it, Manny. I don't get it either. Oopses don't get to contain an element of....

predictable death and destruction. Wars do not get to be placed into the Oops category, ever.

[99Forever]

212. It wasn't a "mistake."

It was a coldly calculated move that makes the ones that did it, all accessories to mass murder. Every one of those that voted for the IWR.

[polly7]

219. No, it wasn't a mistake. nt.

[tex-wyo-dem]

237. No, it was not a mistake...

Planned from the moment Cheney/Bush entered office. Anybody remember Cheney's secret energy meeting with big oil execs? Discussing how Iraq's oil fields would be privatized, carved up and distributed to the different oil producers...the meeting took place BEFORE 911.

It took me a few hours of using my google machine to determine there was no justification for the IWR. Now, I'm sure Hillary and the rest of the Dems who voted in favor of the resolution had vastly more resources than I did...should have been easy to come to a conclusion that the justification for IWR just didn't exist and diplomacy should continue to be the strategy. Instead we get one of the worst, most devastating foreign policy decisions ever...not to mention, an international war crime.

[The_Commonist]

215. I have a friend who is related to Barbara Tuchman...

A great-grand niece, or something.
Ms. Tuchman's most famous book is "The Guns of August" which is about World War 1.

When I met my friend, and she somehow mentioned her relationship to Ms. Tuchman, I said "Oh, I loved her book 'The March of Folly!'" (I think she was expecting me to mention The Guns of August)

From Amazon:

"Barbara Tuchman defines folly as "Pursuit of Policy Contrary to Self-Interest." In THE MARCH OF FOLLY, Tuchman examines 4 conflicts: The Trojan Horse, The Protestant Secession, (King George's response to)The American Revolution, and The American War in Vietnam. In each example an alternative course of action was available, the actions were endorsed by a group, not just an individual leader, and the actions were perceived as counter productive in their own time..."

History will show the Iraq War to the 5th item for this list.

[Catherina]

217. Thank you. Excellent Op. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

226. And thank *you*.

[heaven05]

222. whichever and whoever

wins the primary, will get my vote.....all politicians in this country have their positives and negatives. After all this asinine wrangling, someone will win, someone will lose in the primaries. I done with all this silly shit, not worth the raising of blood pressure. May the 'better' candidate win.......

[Nitram]

224. Shilling?

Blaming Clinton for Iraq is like blaming Clinton for Benghazi.

[merrily]

323. No, nothing like it. Amusing how some people seem to view Benghazi as a shibboleth.

Gee, all we have to do is mention Benghazi and trying to hold Hillary responsible for her Iraq War speech and vote (or for anything, really) will automatically seem silly.

Sorry, no. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381

[Nitram]

360. On the contrary, merrily, the allusion is entirely appropriate here.

Accusing Clinton of being responsible for our invasion of Iraq for voting in favor of the resolution (given what we had all been told the evidence proved with a slam dunk) is fully as absurd as accusing her of responsibility for the deaths in Benghazi merely because she happened to be SOS at the time. Apparently the word is a shibboleth you use to justify ignoring your opponent's point.

[merrily]

363. Again, nothing like it. So far unlike it that I cannot even honestly post "nice try."

She is 100% responsible for this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381 and for her vote, as stated in my prior post.

[winter is coming]

230. Not just "killed". Are killing, and will be killing.

Because of ISIS/ISIL/whatever they're calling it this week. Yeah, invading Iraq sure made things a lot better in the ME.

[UglyGreed]

231. Just imagine the pain

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

of the Iraqi people, how many died in vain and lost loved ones because of the oopie.

[Buzz Clik]

238. How do you weigh in on gun control, Mannie?

Are on board with a full ban of personal ownership of firearms? We'd save tens of thousands of lives every year.

Just curious...

[Nye Bevan]

240. You could have said the same thing in 2004, but Kerry still trounced Dean in the primaries,

even though Kerry voted for the Iraq war and Dean opposed it.

Sometimes the voters in general have a different opinion from you on how important an issue is.

[merrily]

242. That was not about Iraq. The media did Dean in by portraying him as insane early on.

[pengu]

259. Kerry lost

[Nye Bevan]

260. Won the primary, though (nt)

[pengu]

263. Perhaps you should take a lesson in that

[Nye Bevan]

265. The guy who opposed the war from the start lost the primary.

The guy who voted for the war won the primary.

The guy who started and waged the war won the presidency.

If there's a lesson there I'm not sure that it's a good one.

[pengu]

266. The lesson is Iraq voting democrats don't win the general

You only get enough votes to win primaries, and turn off way too many peace voters (both left dems and indies).

[merrily]

357. The guy who opposed the war in 2002 won the primary against Hillary and he won the Presidency, too.

Maybe there's a lesson there?

America has never voted out a war time incumbent and that is what Bush was. As it was, he won the popular vote by only a tiniest of margins. Maybe there's a lesson there?

[avaistheone1]

243. K&R

[davidthegnome]

249. Hmm.

You make a point about accountability. This particular issue is one of the reasons why I'm not a strong Clinton supporter. It was also the biggest reason I supported Obama when he ran for President. Yeah, you're right, it's pretty damned awful. What I wonder though, is whether those who supported the Iraq war knew the truth - or whether they even cared to know. I mean... no weapons of mass destruction, no really capable military force (until we created one hell of an insurgency) a Nation that had been brought to it's knees (and was still on it's knees) by our bombs and our sanctions. Yet we invaded. The inspectors all but begged for more time, but all the shit about WMDs and being an immediate threat somehow convinced a whole lot of people to go to war.

It doesn't escape my notice that the people of influence who supported this invasion were also partly responsible for bringing it about. The thing is... it goes so far beyond Clinton, beyond even Bush, I think. We had a media that seemed dedicated to 24/7 war promotion, to the demonizing of the people of Iraq, of the middle east. We had a populace still grieving after 9/11. People were angry, hurt, wanting vengeance perhaps as much as (or more than) justice. Then there was an attempt to promote the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that he was somehow connected to Bin Laden. So many lies, that smart and informed people told us were lies to begin with. After so long, I still suspect that the primary motivation was greed - and that we will never know the whole story.

A lot of people failed in their responsibilities. They failed in their responsibilities to engage in military conflict only when truly necessary, to demonstrate a valid need for an invasion, to demonstrate even solid reasoning for why the hell a ground invasion was even a thought to begin with. We're talking about a land and a people that were already suffering a great deal - and not only did we make them suffer more, we inflicted suffering on our own people. Our soldiers, their families and friends.

None of it was necessary. None of it should ever have even been a serious thought in our heads - to launch a ground invasion of Iraq? It wasn't even sound militarily - not by a long-shot, as the years since have proven. A quick little war with a quick resolution. We would be hailed as saviors, blah blah blah.

The argument I still hear most frequently from those who supported (and still support) it, is that everything is better for us having been there. That we removed an evil dictator, helped bring about a democracy, etc. Truth is, we created the next generation of terrorism, of hatred for the west - and for America in particular. We brought about an age of reckless war mongering and military spending, of lies promoted as truth without challenge. Of false flag waving, fascism.

The question though, of who is truly responsible is what gets to me. Was it Clinton? Bush? Kerry? Cheney? Was it our elected officials (well, except Bush) or... was it the people who enabled them? Was it those of us who voted them into power, those of us who gave them the ability to bring about this war? Our tax dollars paid for it, our blood paid for it, rivers of Iraqi blood paid for it.

We are still paying now. We may never be able to make payment in full for this catastrophe, for this disaster, for this crime against humanity. It was - and is, a terrible crime.

We must keep in mind though, that none of these individuals accomplish these things alone. Our votes, our support, our money... enables it. So we share the responsibility. Whether we objected to the war or not, if we supported the people who promoted it, who sold it to our populace, then we too, I feel, must take some of the obligation.

There is also the matter of a key intelligence report that was available just prior to the authorization for war. Clinton did not read it. Obama did. We should take note of their votes - and of how they met (or failed to meet) their responsibilities.

I'll share the blame, because people I supported, supported the war. It is highly unlikely though, that any of those who did are going to gain my vote in the future. Not without some serious soul searching on their part. I've done my own, but I'm not a millionaire running for political office. They want my support... well, now they have to earn it.

[JoePhilly]

254. Oh, this OP again.

Running out of material?

[ibegurpard]

292. sorry you are inconvenienced

By your candidate's cravenly political vote that helped send thousands of Americans to their deaths for Bush's vanity (and oil) war. (Not to mention the untold Iraqi deaths and the unending turmoil we started in the region).

[JoePhilly]

305. Oh, this condescending response again.

Where a supposed liberal blames Democrats for a decision that Bush made.

[merrily]

355. and Democrats aided and abetted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=764383

Hence, examining her role in it now. His turn was 2004. Unfortunately, people voted for him anyway, though by a razor thin majority in the popular vote.

Let's not make that kind of mistake again in the Democratic primary.

[HassleCat]

258. A calculated decision

I would have said "calculated risk," but it wasn't seen as a risk at the time. Democrats figured they could look tough and patriotic by voting for revenge against the Mooze-Lims. If things went bad later on, they could blame Bush for mishandling the war. The "oopsie" part came in when people asked, "Who let him get away with it in the first place?" Then came all the stuff about bad intelligence, being duped by the administration, yadda, yadda, yadda. But too many people were paying attention when Colin Powell came on TV and showed us shots of fuzzy blobs in the desert, and too many people wrote their reps in congress and said, "We don't go to war over fuzzy blobs in the desert." Sure 70 percent of the bloodthirsty American public were all hot for it, but enough citizens were on the ball that we knew the score, and we knew Democratic votes for the Bush Blank Check were cynical calculations, and we have not forgotten as the years have passed, and the dead bodies piled up, and our treasury emptied.

So, what should we get from Democrats now? I don't want to hear any more of this "We were duped" crap. We all know that's a lie. I want to hear, "I voted for war because I was scared of looking weak." "I voted for war to secure the pro-Israel vote," would be true in some cases. So would, "I voted for war because I have big defense contractors giving me money." Even if they just shrug and say, "I voted for war because thought I could get away with it," that would piss me off, but at least it would be honest.

[pengu]

261. She didn't even bother to read the NIE Bob Graham was pushing his colleagues to read

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands"

[BainsBane]

279. Yes, but by the same standard

Bernie's votes for the crime bills are responsible for the incarceration of millions. If Clinton owns the war, Bernie owns the prison industrial complex. (As well as responsibility for those who will be killed with F-35s).

Fortunately some of his other votes weren't successful, like those against the Brady Bill and the Amber Alert program, or there would be many more souls on the tally sheet for which you've set the standard.

[merrily]

298. Hillary doesn't own the prison industrial complex? That's another Hillarious claim.

[beam me up scottie]

334. He did oppose it but voted for it because of the Violence Against Women act and assault weapons ban:

Sanders opposed the Violent Crime Prevention Act of 1991 during his first year in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"All over the industrialized world now, countries are saying, ‘let us put an end to state murder, let us stop capital punishment’," Sanders said in a 1991 speech on the House floor. "But here what we’re talking about is more and more capital punishment."

The bill, which included provisions to authorize the death penalty as appropriate punishment for crimes involving the murder of a law enforcement officer, terrorism and drug trafficking, never reached the desk of President George H.W. Bush.

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

You do realize that comparing Clinton's crime bill to Bush's war is pretzel logic, right?

[Faux pas]

282. Kicketty Kickin'

[cvoogt]

303. they can apologize if they want

but it was and remains unforgivable.

[Romulox]

306. Occam's Razor: said Democrats support war. nt

[MisterP]

308. "I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too

closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

it's a display of utter venality, of utter cravenness in the face of momentary expediency, of utter agreement with the WH that Manhattan's ashes are to be scooped up and blown into the eyes of Americans to make them tear a little

[Sheepshank]

312. pathetic use of someone's pain to politicize your losing candidate

and you had the nerve to questions me about my previously bug swatter sig line? Sick and pathetic.

[polly7]

316. That 'pain' is reality.

Suck it up.

[merrily]

338. A bug swatter gif is comparable to a photo of a woman lying face down on a grave grieving? Jaysus!

[Sheepshank]

339. it's not...but the OP seems to think a bug swatter is as horrid as the life of a soldier. n/t

[merrily]

340. No, the OP did not make the comparison. You did.

[Unknown Beatle]

325. Manny, no amount of reality based on anything and everything

Hillary has done, whether it be her Wall St. ties, Iraq/Afghanistan, the TPP, and Keystone Pipeline, plus a few other things that's been a negative on her record, will ever convince her die-hard fans that's she anything but perfect.

No amount of data, videos, articles, nor anything that tells the truth about Hillary will convince the die-hards that she's not the right choice for president. As a matter of fact, she would be a disaster for this country. And if she's elected president, her die-hards will eventually see that they made the wrong choice but by then it will be too late.

On another note, that photo of the young woman laying down by the tombstone of her loved one killed in war is heartbreaking. It's very obvious that he was her soul-mate and that she was madly in love with him, only to have his life cut short and for what, profits and more money going to the war machine. That photo is very powerful and it should shame us all that this was all based on lies. What really gets to me is that Hillary voted for the IWR while spouting right wing lies.

[PatrickforO]

326. I'm with you on this one, Manny.

And it's MORE than real decisions based on bad judgement. In my opinion the intelligence was lies from the get-go and so those who took us in there falsely are guilty of war crimes.

[sabrina 1]

341. I'm wondering why a photo of a victim of our forever, for-profit wars has suddenly become

objectionable?

I remember when we were asked to 'bear witness' to the tragedies by posting as many photos as we could of the victims of these horrible wars.

When did it become a problem to REMEMBER the victims?

Isn't that what the war mongers want, that we should not SEE the victims? I thought we Dems at least knew that, when the media refused to cover the carnage so support for these wars would not be affected by actually SEEING the reality of what they were supporting.

I promised myself back then I would NEVER FORGET. And no matter how many people try to MAKE us forget NOW, there is no way I could do that.

[sarge43]

342. I wonder if the usual suspects would tell that woman to her face

her picture is damaging to their candidate's campaign. I wonder what her answer would be.

Had the vote been the other way around (Sanders for, Clinton opposed), I wonder if Clinton supporters would hesitate to post pictures of the victims of that war. On second thought, I'm sure they would have.

[PBass]

343. Strawman much?

"Sorry, it's not an oopsie or an owie."

We could have an intelligent discussion about the IWR vote, but you don't seem capable, with this utterly clownish OP.

Also, Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist. I can only imagine the schedenfraude here if a hypothetical President Sanders were to take military action against anybody.

[merrily]

356. Many intelligent comments about the IWR are on this thread. You opted for insults. Oh, well.

Also, Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist.

Speaking of strawmanning, kindly show where that claim was made.

[LovingA2andMI]

346. Manny....

So True, So Right.... Thank You for Saying What Always need to be Said in Your Special Way!!!

[MADem]

352. Voting to fund it, getting into bed with the weapons systems manufacturers,

voting to fund it again....and again...and again...

Yeah, that's not an ooopsie. That's "epic" knowledge.

I suppose O'Malley has clean hands. Then again, he never served in Congress, did he?

[merrily]

365. This developed into a great thread. I've returned for links to posts and videos many times already.

And the idea that anything is wrong with using the image of a mourner, especially one whose face is not visible, is ludicrous. I remember when Democrats railed against Bushco and media for not publishing photos showing the devastation of the Iraq War. On the scale of 1000 of exploitative photos, the one in the OP doesn't register.


Thanks, Manny! You've "accidentally" provided us with a wealth of information and food for thought.

[MannyGoldstein]

366. I'm thinking of changing my name

to ChaunceyGardiner.

[merrily]

367. Eh. Take a chance, sow some seeds, see what happens

[bigwillq]

369. K and R

[Cheese Sandwich]

370. Some people don't care about this.

Utterly mystified is right.

[Electric Monk]

371. Farewell, Manny

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002

[WillyT]

372. Re-Kick !!!