ISIS was a result of the Iraq war, I think that is agreed to.

[upaloopa]

Yes Hillary voted for the IWR. I, like most of us, was against the Iraq war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I was against the Afghanistan war. I think we should have gone after the terrorists as a police action.
I now think we should go after ISIS as a police action with a world coalition involved.

The problem as I see it is that the western world does not take into account that there are ethic factions who have been fighting each other forever. And we need to see that that fundamentalist religions are a threat to the world no matter what the religion.

Calling for peace and calling for war in the terms that we have been using ever since WWII is not the answer in my mind and is not a valid argument here.


I think we need to build an international anti terrorist police force with specific goals and a specific mission to take out terrorist organizations and to protect innocent lives. This might be put together by the UN.

As to the history of our involvement in the Mid East since the Iraq war, I agree that it has been wrong headed. We can't take a side in a civil or religious war. And we can't make a democratic country out of a country with ethnic factions that would rather hate each other than build a country where they live together in peace and share power.

The West needs to protect itself from terrorism but the Mid East needs to solve it's problems it's own way. We can help in some ways but we can't take the leadership roll I think.

I hope to hear my ideas tonight in the debate.

I don't give a shit if you want to attack Hillary for whatever reason about past history. We need to solve our problems today and living in the past doesn't do that. The past can teach us lessons but we can't hope for a better past.

That's how I see it this morning.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. I would argue that ISIS is the result of a poorly executed Iraq War ...

I agree that we should not have been there in the first place; but, that is with the benefit of hind-sight. Given the intelligence that was offered at the time (despite, what we now know to have been a lie), the decision was a reasonable one.

I, also, agree that ISIS should be pursued as an international police/law enforcement action; but, that said ... it's a thin line between that and a state of war.

[AgingAmerican]

5. The Bush/Cheney decision to invade Iraq was a reasonable one?

It was based on pure lies.

War! War! War! War! War! War! War!

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Do you ever read what is written? ...

I said:

I agree that we should not have been there in the first place; but, that is with the benefit of hind-sight. Given the intelligence that was offered at the time (despite, what we now know to have been a lie), the decision {EYA: the vote} was a reasonable one.

One can only make decisions based on the information available ... and, looking back doesn't count.

[think]

18. 147 Democrats voted AGAINST the Iraq war resolution

That's a lot of Democrats that did not buy the lies Bush and Cheney were selling.

Hillary was in the minority of Democrats in Congress that chose to believe the lies Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing

Here's the 147 Democrats that voted NO:

Iraq War Vote in 2002: 156 Congress Members Who Voted NO
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members

By Deborah White
Liberal Politics Expert

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

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* 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)

~Snip~

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) 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) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)

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) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

Continued list of 133 members of the US House of Representatives who voted, on October 11, 2002, against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq
-------------------------
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan) Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin, retired from office) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

John LaFalce (D-New York) James Langevin (D-Rhode Island) Rick Larsen (D-Washington) John Larson (D-Connecticut) Jim Leach (R-Iowa) Barbara Lee (D-California) Sandy Levin (D-Michigan) John Lewis (D-Georgia) Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois,retired from office) Zoe Lofgren (D-California)

James Maloney (D-Connecticut, retired from office) The late Robert Matsui (D-California) Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri, retired from office) Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) Jim McDermott-D-Washington) Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) Carrie Meek (D-Florida, retired from office) Gregory Meeks (D-New York) Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California) George Miller (D-California) Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia) Jim Moran (D-Virginia) Connie Morella (D-Maryland)

Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) Grace Napolitano (D-California) Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota) David Obey (D-Wisconsin) John Olver (D-Massachusetts) Major Owens (D-New York)

Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey) Ed Pastor (D-Arizona) Ron Paul (R-Texas) Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) Nancy Pelosi (D-California) David Price (D-North Carolina) Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) Charles Rangel (D-New York) Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) Lynn Rivers (D-Michigan, retired from office) Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas, retired from office) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California) Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)

Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota) Loretta Sanchez (D-California) Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) Thomas Sawyer (D-Ohio) Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) Jose Serrano (D-New York) Louise Slaughter (D-New York) Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas) Hilda Solis (D-California) Pete Stark (D-California) Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) Burt Stupak (Michigan)

Mike Thompson (D-California) Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) John Tierney (D-Massachusetts) Edolphus Towns (D-New York) Mark Udall (D-Colorado) Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)

Nydia Velaquez (D-New York) Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana) Maxine Waters (D-California) Diane Watson (D-California) Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) Lynn Woolsey (D-California) David Wu (D-Oregon)

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote_3.htm

[angryvet]

27. LePage is

Governor of Maine not Baldacci.

[Dem2]

22. Seems you'll never get past the preconceived notion

That if you're not rigid and if you try to think pragmatically (since we can't change the past), that you won't be listened to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I know ... a character flaw. n/t

[upaloopa]

6. No not even! We did not need benefit of hindsight to know the Iraq invasion was the wrong thing to

do. We all knew the intelligence was cherry picked and made up. We have Richard Clark and many more who told us so at the time.

I hope we never accept the revisionist history you just posted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. NO we did not have Richard Clark and many more telling us so ...

we had Richard Clark and many more offering opinions, none of which was supported by the intelligence being released by the US or our European allies, at the time.

Revisionist history is pretending that we knew then, what we know now.

[upaloopa]

31. Well I will have to disagree with you

I don't know if we can dig up DU posts from before the war but I was here under a different name and we all knew Cheney made the intelligence what he wanted it to be.

[melman]

32. This is a truly incredible line of bullshit you're trying to sell here

Really just unbelievable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. You think so? n/t

[Justice]

14. A very valid point. Invasion based on lies, but why was it also executed so poorly?

as they do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. It was flawed from the start ...

bush the lesser had evil intent ... his plan (in opposition to General Powell's consultation) was to destroy the Iraqi political and military apparatus and replace it with DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!! (that wasn't democratic).

But that is not the point ... This narrative about HRC's (and a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate's) vote to go to war was based on after discovered lies.

To act as if it was anything else is pure, and Grade A, Biff Tannen (Back to the Future II) stuff.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. The majority of Democrats in the House voted No, so that's incorrect

81 yes, 126 No. In the Senate, a narrow majority of 29 Democrats voted yes with 21 far wiser Democrats voting No. This means that the majority of Democrats in Congress as a whole voted No.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. You are correct regarding the vote totals. n/t

[femmedem]

16. 10/7/2002 CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin informed Congress

that the threat of Saddam attacking with WMD was low unless attacked first.

On 10/8/2002, Knight Ridder reported: "[A] growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses…'Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity."

Congress voted to authorize the war a few days later, on 10/11.

It was public knowledge before the vote--if you wanted to know--that there was at least a strong possibility that Iraq didn't pose a threat to us and that the evidence was cooked. It shouldn't have required hindsight to at least vote no until you learned more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. ...

the threat of Saddam attacking with WMD was low unless attacked first.

Understand?

[femmedem]

29. Yes, I read that. But "unless attacked first" is important as well

because the rationale was a pre-emptive strike--but intelligence was saying Iraq wasn't likely to strike, hence there was nothing to pre-empt. Certainly no urgent need.

And if there was no urgent need to pre-emptively strike, then why vote for war when the newspapers are reporting that the intelligence or evidence is false or weak?

People who voted for that war either had bad judgment, or didn't take the time to study the evidence, or cynically voted to go to war even knowing Iraq wasn't a threat for political expediency.

[ismnotwasm]

19. I agree--it not only was a wrong war

It was an incompetent war. My oldest daughter went over to Afghanistan right after the marines were through, later, my son spent 18 months in Iraq (as an aside, of the two, my daughter was the more decorated soldier)

One of the things I remember my daughter telling me was the Taliban were all over the place in Afghanistan, AFTER the marines went in and kicked their ass. Support was diverted to Iraq. She also thought the idea of finding Bin Ladin in the cave-system over there was ridiculous "I've been in those caves--they go on forever"

[whatchamacallit]

26. I see... so although it was a bogus war, if we'd just have done a better job

kicking their innocent asses there'd be no ISIS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. yes ... That's exactly what I meant ...

[restorefreedom]

2. very well said

and i agree with you re afghanistan. i know that i am in a minority who wanted to send in small highly trained teams to get obl. occupying a country like afghanistan was not the way to go imo.

like you, i hope to see a reasonable discussion about this tonight. war is emotional, so a heated exchange or three is likely, but i hope everyone stays on point.

[benld74]

3. And please remember the original name for the Iraq war was

O peration
I raq
L iberation

[cantbeserious]

4. This One Looks Forward To The Debate When HRC Withdraws Referencing Her Role In Neocon Hegemony

eom

[upaloopa]

8. If we all learn from our mistakes and improve our actions we are better served.

I understand the need to keep the primary wars going. But we are in this thing with the terrorists together.

[cantbeserious]

9. Clearly One Has Not Listened - HRC Is Still A Neocon

eom

[ismnotwasm]

30. Knock knock

[bigtree]

7. the U.S. military invasion, overthrow, and occupation

...aggravated the forces and conditions which eventually spawned ISIS.

The dismantling of the Baathist regime and replacing it with a majority Shiite one was one of the most aggravating factors in their emergence. The U.S.-backed regime used our weapons and support to oppress the communities who's members now make up the terrorist group's following.

Moreover, the IWR didn't direct, mandate, or give exclusive authority for the actions Bush took (from invading, to overthrowing the regime, to occupying and consolidating power). The invasion was within his power, with or without the IWR, under the provisions of the War Powers Act which allows deployments for up to 90 days before Congress can weigh in.

In fact, the most decisive action by Congress was in the initial vote, and subsequent votes, to fund the occupation - much of that in separate appropriations from the general budget. Those funding votes are much more consequential than a resolution which Bush ultimately disregarded (in pulling inspectors and invading), and intended to ignore from the start if he didn't get his way.

[ismnotwasm]

21. +1000

[msongs]

12. the US effort in the middle east has been under new management the past 7 yrs. Bush is no longer the

boss, nor is cheney. Somebody else is calling the shots, making the decisions, and responsible for the outcomes

[riderinthestorm]

13. I'm looking for the candidate that will go after the funding sources

Whoever pledges that they'll do what it takes to find and destroy the money chain that's funding ISIS.

Starve the beast.

It's an inconvenient truth that it's our "allies" (cough) like the Saudis and the other Gulf States but it's long past time to break off this relationship, expose it to the disinfectant of sunshine and be done with it..

Whichever candidate says that will be the bravest one of the bunch and the one who truly is going to what needs doing to stop ISIS.

Furthermore, our boots on the ground are making matters worse. Fighting ISIS must be done by the regional countries. We can help - materiale, meds etc but we're only making things worse with our presence.

[jamzrockz]

15. Ihave heard this so many times but I actually dont see the connection

Can someone please draw the dots how the war in Iraq created the atmosphere for the Arab spring and maybe how that war brought weapons via Bengahzi to Syria that then fueled a civil war which weakened a govt to the point that ISIS was able to take advantage.

Can someone please connect the dots for me. Also by that reasoning, one could say that the years of sanctions and bombing under Bill Clinton's administration created a weak govt in Iraq that was then easily smashed by Bush's war which created ISIS or another way you can look at it. There was no ISIS until Obama and Russia got the Syrian govt to give up their chemical weapon stock. Maybe the chemical weapons prevented ISIS from invading and once removed, ISIS was created.

I think this is really simple, ISIS came about due to the whole democratic push by the people who supported regime change in Libya and Syria. They got the ball rolling and ISIS grew out of that fight. No need looking back 12-20 yrs in order to fight the cause.

[BainsBane]

24. It was not an inevitable result of the Iraq War

They arose from the Sunni purges that Malaki instituted. According to the information provided by Frontline, their rise is in part due to the benign neglect of the Obama administration starting in 2009. Obama was so anxious to cut ties to Iraq, he gave Malaki free reign, and Malaki systematically purged the Sunni from positions in the government, including the military. The most experienced Ba'athist Generals then took part in military arm of what became ISIS, and as a result their military acumen is far greater than that of the Iraqi army. They now control huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and really are more of a state than anything. If there is a connection with ISIS and the Paris attacks, I suspect it has more to do with local cells proclaiming allegiance than a direct planning operation out of Iraq.

[randome]

25. ISIS had its genesis in 1989.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-begin

The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[jfern]

34. Going forward, we need someone who doesn't think that the top

priority in Syria is removing Assad. Or someone who wants a no-fly zone where Russian planes are flying. There's plenty of crazy hawkishness from Hillary in 2015 without going back to her vote for the war that led to creation of ISIS.

[LWolf]

35. I agree with this:

"The West needs to protect itself from terrorism but the Mid East needs to solve it's problems it's own way. We can help in some ways but we can't take the leadership roll I think."

I think Sanders does, as well.

For the record:

While I grieve for the lost lives, I am not a fearful person. This attack does not have me battening down our own hatches. I think being cautious and prepared is wise. I think panicking, or responding with even more threat and aggression...is not.

I think that the U.S. can be one member of a coalition dealing with these kinds of problems...the UN.

I think that the UN should support nations' efforts to defend themselves and deal with their local problems...not come in with an army to "solve" it for them.

I think that addressing the sources of conflict is better than retroactive military response.

And I think the U.S. should abandon her efforts and empire and domination. That alone would decrease tensions in many places.