"Oh, the Iraq war. Are you still stuck on that topic?"

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 12:57 AM - Edit history (2)

That's the gist of a post just aimed at me.

Yes.

Yes, I'm still stuck on that. Millions of casualties, hundreds of thousands killed, and a key contributor to the horror of ISIS. I think it was an unbelievable disaster, spurred purely by low politics. And those responsible have more of a place in The Hague than in high political office.

Rigid thinking on my part, I know.

Sorry.

Oh, Hell, no I'm not sorry.

[guillaumeb]

1. but if we ignore history

we can act surprised again when the next American war blows up in our faces and wonder why THEY hate US.

[Beartracks]

28. I thought WHY they hate us was made clear last time time around.

We were constantly informed that they hate us for our FREEDOMS, of course.



=========================

[sabrina 1]

202. They don't have to hate us any more then. n/t

[malokvale77]

216. That was my thought. (nt)

[marym625]

2. Bravo!

K&R!




But mostly, I vote for PEACE

[LittleBlue]

3. Thx for saying what needs to be said. The families of those killed are definitely still stuck on it

Shocking that a statement like that would be made on a progressive forum.

K&R

[mahina]

71. and will be for generations

As unseen wounds manifest and lives continue to be changed by them, as ours were, and still are

[bootsontheground]

4. Depends how you look at it.

Bush approved of the invasion = BAD

Hillary approved of the invasion = NOT SO BAD

[el_bryanto]

6. Welcome to DU

As a new comer to this website you might not be aware that many people here strongly disagree with Hillary Clinton's approach to foreign policy, while other support it.

By the same token many are upset at Obama's continuation of some of these conflicts.

I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest that everybody at DU was a fan of Clintons - some are, and some aren't.

Bryant

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Hillary approved of the invasion = VERY BAD, SHOWING EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT, IN FACT, IT'S A DEAL BREAKER.

[cantbeserious]

57. To The Third Way - DLCers - War Is A Profit Making Opportunity - Corporations Must Be Served

eom

[merrily]

83. Yep. DLC, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, New Labels, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

[Zorra]

211. They are exactly the same as republicans and other right wingers in that respect. nt

[pnwmom]

174. Ted Kennedy didn't think it was poor judgement, even though he had voted against the IWR.

He said that he voted no because, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he had access to information from confidential military briefings. Other Senators, including Hillary Clinton, had to rely on the lies and distortions from the Administration.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

177. Shhh...

Facts and context aren't allowed on Hillary hate threads.

[pocoloco]

183. Good God!! Were you fooled also??

[MannyGoldstein]

190. So why did *most* Democrats vote *against* war?

Did they vote wrong?.

[pnwmom]

203. *Most* Democratic Senators voted *FOR* the IWR,

based on the lies they were being told by the Bush administration.

28 voted YES, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Harry Reid.

21 voted NO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

204. Including Representatives, a majority voted *against* it.

Interestingly, many of the Senators who voted for it were running for President. Probably a coincidence, you think?

[RoccoR5955]

215. That's funny, because

My congressman, Maurice Hinchey, as well as Dennis Kucinich had the foresight to see through the bovine fecal material that the Bush Crime Syndicate was pushing. Apparently people like Hillary, and others did NO homework when it came to this bill.
Of the few who voted against this war, not so many had the access that Kennedy did, yet because they did their homework, they voted against it.

[malokvale77]

217. She could have taken a cue from Ted Kennedy, no? (nt)

[onyourleft]

39. As far as...

...I am concerned, her vote was just as bad. Please don't lump everyone on this board together as the rifts here can be quite large. Many of us do not support Ms. Clinton because of that vote.

[DanTex]

75. Bush didn't "approve" the invasion. He (and his team) concocted it, lied and fabricated evidence to

pressure congress into supporting it, and then totally botched the execution of it. To compare this to a "yes" vote in the senate is absurd. Especially since her vote wouldn't have changed anything at all.

What could have stopped the Iraq War is if Bush had not become president. For example, if people hadn't bought into the "Bush and Gore are the same" line that Nader was pushing.

The ironic thing is that the Iraq War, which stands as a glowing example of the monumental differences between Republicans and Democrats, is actually being used once again to argue that there's no difference between the two.

[duhneece]

99. And that is a HUGE difference nt

[Martin Eden]

131. That's a legitimate and important distinction

Bush, Cheney, and others in his administration responsible for the lies and the commission of war crimes deserve to be prosecuted.

Hillary Clinton and others who voted for the IWR merely deserve to be voted out of public office.

[DanTex]

132. So personal vengeance against Hillary is more important than preventing another IWR. Hmm.

[Martin Eden]

134. That makes no sense whatsoever

I'm not interested in "personal vengeance."

I want justice, good policy, and public servants who represent the interestes of the American people -- which includes keeping us out of disastrous wars with huge costs in blood & treasure that serve to perpetuate terror and the profits of the military industrial complex.

Hillary Clinton and others failed miserably in the most important foreign policy vote they ever took as members of Congress. The American people -- and the world, for that matter -- desperately needed strong principled leaders in the Democratic Party to stand up and call out the lies and the folly of this war before it was launched.

If Hillary Clinton was fooled by the propaganda she is unqualified to be POTUS. If she wasn't fooled she is complicit, and that is even worse.

This is not about "vengeance." This is about the course our nation will take going forward. I'm looking at the actual record of the leading candidate, and I don't think it's unreasonable to use that as criteria in assessing qualifications and what to expect in the future.

Will you defend her IWR vote and explain why that should not be a factor in deciding who should be president?

[DanTex]

136. You said Hillary "deserves to be voted out of office".

What you neglect to mention is that, if Hillary is the Dem nominee (which is highly likely), voting Hillary out of office means voting a Republican into office.

If you are in favor of that, you are in favor of a Republican in office. And why? To punish her for a vote she made that she has acknowledged was a mistake.

You're not interested in good policy at all. If you were, you'd care about things like, I dunno, global warming, minimum wage, social security, healthcare, tax policy, freedom of choice, gay rights, or any other possible issue. On every one of these Hillary is much better than even the mildest Republican.

Yes, it's about the course our nation takes going forward. It's about whether we go back to a Republican, the party that actually concocted and lied the nation into the Iraq War, or the Democrats who not only didn't do that, but are also better than the Republicans on every single issue.

[Martin Eden]

156. You make a bunch of incorrect assumptions and flunk Logic 101

A ludicrous twisting of logic is required to think that opposition to those who voted for and supported invading Iraq equates to favoring the Republicans who were almost unanimous in their support for the war. On the contrary, it equates to favoring Democrats who did not fail the most critically important test of judgment and leadership they ever faced while in Congress.

Again, you simply make no sense whatsoever.

It's a total non-sequitur to assert that someone who doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president is not interested in good policy and doen't care about the environment, gay rights, etc. We are not limited at this time to a choice between Hillary Clinton or a Republican. Last time I checked, the primary is next year.

Nance Greggs posted the DO NOT BE FOOLED!!! thread to ridicule nonsensical arguments against Hillary. After reading your posts here, I think a thread is needed to ridicule the nonsensical arguments defending her.

[DanTex]

157. The primary is a different thing. Knock yourself out.

I'm only referring to people who are planning to sit out of the GE because of Hillary's IWR vote, something we can both agree is both idiotic and counterproductive to the very goal of preventing more such wars.

[Martin Eden]

159. I will vote for the Democratic nominee ...

... and I urge all Democrats to select a nominee better than Hillary Clinton.

[pocoloco]

184. The Democrats have the same blood on their hands!

Stupid dumb fucks that trusted the repug asswipes!

[pnwmom]

180. Most of the Democratic Senators would be voted out of office then because

most of them voted for it, including Biden and Reid.

Ted Kennedy explained that the reason he voted no was because, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, he had access to special military briefings so he knew that the Administration was distorting the truth. But the rest of the Senate had to rely on the information provided to them by the Administration.

In a Democracy, the branches of government have to rely on the honesty and good faith of the other branches. The Bush administration's behavior was inexcusable, but that wasn't Hillary Clinton's fault.

[Martin Eden]

181. Most of the D Senators (21 of 50) and nearly ALL of the Rep Senators (48 of 49) ...

... deserved to be voted out of office.

It was obvious at the time that Bushco was deliberately misrepresenting Iraq's alleged WMD and ties to al Qaeda. If you were here at DU in 2002, you should know that. There was no excuse for being fooled by the propaganda. Hillary Clinton's vote is Hillary Clinton's fault. Same goes for John Kerry, Joe Biden, et al. Bushco is primarily to blame for the war, but those who voted for it are incompetent and/or complicit.

I believe the IWR vote was the biggest test of judgment and leadership any of them ever faced as members of Congress.

When assessing those qualities in a candidate and discerning whether they are hawks or champions of peace, the IWR vote is a critically important criteria.

[sabrina 1]

186. 'the IWR vote was the biggest test of judgement and leadership any of them ever faced as members of

Congress' ....

Yes, it was and so many of them failed that test. And would most likely fail it again.

[Martin Eden]

195. "And would most likely fail it again"

And THAT is the biggest reason why they should not be put into a position to make that kind of decision, again.

[sabrina 1]

199. Exactly!

[jeff47]

151. If her vote wouldn't have stopped it, that makes her "yes" even worse.

The only consequences of her voting "no" would be the loss of political expediency. And she decided to vote "yes".

[DanTex]

154. Of course not. If the consequences of a "yes" vote were nothing, that means that the yes vote was

shall we say, inconsequential. If she actually could have stopped the war with her vote, that would be different.

[jeff47]

158. The consequences of a "no" vote were also nothing.

That's the point - she had free license to vote her conscience because her vote would not change the result.

[DanTex]

160. That makes it, like I said, "inconsequential".

She calculated that politically it would be beneficial to support. So did the rest of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. They calculated wrong.

She's since changed her mind. Unlike the Republicans who concocted the idea and lied the nation into it. Their actions were very consequential. And yet people are arguing there's no difference between the two. Mind-boggling, huh?

[Martin Eden]

163. Let's put that logic to the test:

Suppose a bill came before Congress that would gut Social Security & Medicare, and it was bound to pass due to Republican control of Congress and the White House. Would you have no problem with Democrats who voted for the bill because their votes wouldn't have altered the outcome?

The same principle applies to the IWR vote; a Dem who voted for it can't be exonerated on the basis of whether that vote would have changed the outcome.

The difference (other than the specific policy being used as an example) is that a solid Democratic vote would have blocked passage of the IWR.

Asserting that Bush would have invaded anyway is just that -- an assertion that cannot be proven.

But if he did, the Democrats would have been in a much better position when WMD proved to be based on falsehoods and the occupation turned into a disaster. Impeachment was "off the table" because the Dems were complicit, and John Kerry was at a severe disadvantage in the 2004 general election because he had to run against a colossal blunder he voted for.

And make no mistake -- that it was a blunder based on lies was evident before October 2002.

I have yet to see a reasonable defense of the IWR vote. Of course Hillary had to later admit it was a "mistake" -- what else could she say?

[DanTex]

166. I would have a problem with it, but I would have a much bigger problem with the Republicans who

pushed the bill. Especially if this hypothetical Democrat later admitted it was a mistake.

But you bring up a good point, which is that the Republicans want to gut Social Security and Medicare, whereas the Democrats want to protect them. Yet another in the long line of reasons that the "they are both the same" argument fails.

[Martin Eden]

167. "they are both the same" argument

That's not an argument I've made, and it's a strawman to the issue of HC's IWR vote.

[DanTex]

168. Then we have no disagreement.

Hillary's IWR vote was a huge mistake and even though she says she's changed her mind, it is still a part of her record and tells about her judgement and/or willingness to go along with the political winds of the time.

So far we agree.

Some people take this further, and say, therefore, I can't vote for her, she's no better than a Republican, I'll sit out of the GE if she's the nomination.

Not you, apparently. But look around, those opinions are not uncommon.

[bvar22]

185. Where has Hillary apologized for that vote,

or even stated that she has changed her mind?

In 2008, she Double Downed on her vote and expressed no regrets.

If she has had regrets since then,
please post a link to where Hillary NOW says she has changed her mind
about her IWR vote.

Thanks.

[DanTex]

187. For example:

Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/

[bvar22]

188. Looks like she has learned from the failed 2008 campaign,

and has adopted the Edwards' "I was wrong" strategy.
Too bad it took until 2014 and the beginning of another run for Hillary.

[malokvale77]

219. Pure and simple...

It's called pandering.

Hillary sways with the political winds. She has no convictions.

[merrily]

77. Welcome to DU. Double standards are an issue with some, but not all, DUers.

[sabrina 1]

78. Anyone who approved of it = BAD!

[QC]

5. Needs more italics. n/t

[LondonReign2]

8. +1

And more derivative, strained, hackneyed attempts at satire.

[QC]

46. And a bit of faux folksy (fauxlksy?) never hurts,

dadblammit.

[Autumn]

169. There is derivative, strained, hackneyed attempts at satire and then there is Manny's satire.

which is actually satire

[LondonReign2]

170. Agree completely

One is funny.

The other is a failed, clichéd attempt at humor a la Fox's attempts to replicate the Daily Show. Conservatives just aren't very funny.

[Autumn]

171. Agree completely. I have never seen or met a funny conservative, or one that has a sense of humor.

That must be why there are so destructive. All those bad humors* have to go somewhere .

See what I did there? * medieval medicines

[WorseBeforeBetter]

51. You just don't get the brilliant wordsmithyness of it all! (n/t)

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Sorry, I'm only licensed as a "C-List" writer

Even my single italicization is a big risk.

[malokvale77]

220. The real trick is in the quotation marks...

To double quote or single quote, that is the question.

I'm not even sure about commas, colons, semi-colons or exclamation points anymore. It's been a long time since I took grammar.

I manage to get your points, though.

I love ya man.

[MannyGoldstein]

228. :)

[hrmjustin]

9. You can vote however you please.

I personally protested both my senators and congressmans vote in 2003. I love Hillary but went to her office to protest it. I still voted for her because I think she is a good person and qualified for the presidency.

I can't hold her vote against her when I voted for Kerry.

[malokvale77]

221. "You can vote feel however you please."

Excuse my ignorance. What does that mean?

[hrmjustin]

222. Lol one of my many typos.

[malokvale77]

224. LOL

What does it mean?

[hrmjustin]

225. That you can vote however you like.

[malokvale77]

226. Thanks for the clarification. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

227. YW and thanks for catching my typo. n/t.

[neverforget]

10. We fucked up the Middle East to an extreme degree and the world will be

paying for this monumental fuck up in blood and treasure for years.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. You mean decades, if not centuries. Epic fail and, yes, sorry to say, Hillary bears some of that responsibility.

[staggerleem]

161. I hope that doesn't mean ...

... that you think it wasn't fucked up BEFORE we went in. The Allies fucked it all up when they re-drew the map of the Middle East, without regard for regional/tribal loyalties, etc., at the end of WWII, and the World has been paying for THAT "monumental fuck up, in blood and treasure" ever since. And now the powers-that-be are all worried about maintaining the "territorial integrity" of territories whose integrity THEY (and yes, "THEY", in this case, includes "WE&quot compromised 70 years ago!

[malokvale77]

223. "monumental fuck up, in blood and treasure"

A fail from the beginning and only getting worse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. But, voting for it was just a faux pas, a need to look patriotic, a minor "mistake", a deception.

Or, an indication of "practical", "realistic", politics.

The thousands killed, maimed, and made homeless, are just the price paid to to enable "our" politicians to further their careers.

I'll have none of it.

[merrily]

79. Not "only" a vote. She spoke, advocating for the Iraq War with her fellow Senators.

If you knew and I knew and so many others without access to intel knew Bushco's story was trumped up, why didn't Hillary know?

Either she didn't know and therefore should not be President or she did know and therefore should not be President.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Yep. Either way, she's unfit for public office.

[Thespian2]

135. Yep

Out of her mouth, in this speech, she proved, beyond doubt, that she is unfit for any public office...and I am including dog-catcher.

[navarth]

201. + several million.

Do these posters mean to tell me that Hillary Clinton REALLY was deceived?? Like she couldn't see through that utter bullshit.

So she made a craven political decision, or she was as gullible as a 3-year-old.

I'm sorry but Secretary Clinton has some serious issues IMO. And I will certainly not make a gender-based decision when I vote. Sure I think it would be awesome to have a female president. But I think it would mostly be awesome if that president's name was Elizabeth.

Just sayin'.

[Oilwellian]

208. Remember when she spoke of nuking Iran during 2008 campaign?

She's a neocon, through and through.

[merrily]

260. Thanks. I either missed that or forgot. I appreciate the info.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Me, I'm still stuck on what NAFTA did to this area in a city in a Third World Country:

Well, it wasn't Third World in the 1970s and 1980s but, well...

[ND-Dem]

44. that's not detroit, though it's labeled as detroit.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/detroit.asp

and manila had shantytown slums in the 70s and 80s.

[Fumesucker]

13. It doesn't help that those who paid the highest price were women and children

I'm finding myself very much "stuck" on the Iraq war also, seeing someone who voted for it feted as some grand champion of women and children is indescribably saddening.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. I think Hillary owes people a reasonable explanation 4 her fatal error in backing her pseudo "brother in law" George Chimpster Bush in the Iraq War.

[Agschmid]

45. You've lost it.

I get your point, hell I even agree with some of it but your presentation leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

[onehandle]

14. A war that never ended.

It's still there. Still have boots on the ground in Iraq, and the war has spread out.

[Dragonfli]

15. It's time to look forward, Bush and Clinton didn't mean any harm when they sold that war.

Just trying to help some contractors make some much needed dough, helping the war profiteers never hurt anybody, at least not anyone important.

So what's a couple hundred thousand civilian deaths compared to 3 trillion dollars?
You act as if they were real people and not just a bunch of brown mooslems.

GET OVER IT ALREADY and elect a candidate that loves people and who cares about all women except maybe some brown ones.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. It saddens me to read that, but your point is well taken...

No wonder Hillary's so popular with the military industrial complex and the corporate war machine crazies. These whack-jobs scare the livin shit outta me.

[ND-Dem]

47. yes, why can't people just get the fuck over it??? it's like they have some kind of mental illness

or something. they just can't let it go & move on. what the hell's wrong with them?

[Downwinder]

16. WE are still stuck in Iraq.

[DanTex]

17. So let's make sure the brother of the guy who started it doesn't become president.

I know, way to logical...

[Fumesucker]

18. By electing someone who voted for it and tried to talk others into doing the same

More logic..

[DanTex]

68. Presumably you're for the candidate who voted for Reagan and was a Republican until 96.

Actually, I think she's great too. What I don't get is when one person makes a mistake and then admits to it, that's all well and good, but when another person does that, it makes her just as bad as a Bush.

In fact, I'm not even sure Elizabeth Warren has actually admitted that being a Republican for all those years was a mistake.

[merrily]

85. Wow. That's some false equivalency.

A private citizen, voting Republican, versus a Senator and former First Lady, advocating and voting for a war. (Please see Reply 79.)

[DanTex]

91. No it's not. Two cases of extremely bad judgement.

Warren witnessed 8 years of Reaganomics, and liked it so much she voted for 4 more. Ouch.

The true false equivalency here is between Bush, who architected and lied us into war, and Democratic senators who voted to approve it. That's night and day. The Iraq War would never have happened if Bush wasn't in office. Hillary's vote wouldn't have changed anything.

[merrily]

104. Oh, yes it is an enormously false equivalency. Not all cases of bad judgment are in the same

universe.

If you can't get that, even after it's been pointed out to you, then you can't.

[DanTex]

119. True. Voting for Reagan twice and then Bush after that is such poor judgement that it

makes almost anything else pale in comparison, including the one vote for the IWR. I mean, more than half of Dems in the Senate voted for the IWR. I'm quite sure that they didn't all vote for Reagan twice.

Still, if Warren is the presidential candidate, I'm not going to let that mistake, bad as it may be, convince me to help get another Republican elected, thus bringing on more Iraq Wars. I care more about the future of the nation and the world than to let any petty desire for retribution get in the way of that.

[merrily]

150. Perhaps that is not the single worst post I've ever read, but it has to be close.

[DanTex]

153. I'll take that as a compliment, since you didn't even try to challenge the content.

[malokvale77]

229. There was no content to challenge. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

95. Why do you think that because a few people mention Hillary being a Republican EVERYONE

cares about that?

I, eg, don't care. What I care about is 'how are they on the important issues'.

My dislike for Hillary's policies is based on her record.

I don't want Warren to run for the WH. She is far better to remain where she is where already she has made an impact. AND we need more like her.

But if there WAS a chance that she would run, there is no question I would be supporting her rather than Hillary.

The reasons are pretty obvious. She is way more Independent that Hillary for one thing. She says what she thinks without waiting to hear from 'handlers' .

She lazer focuses on the issues she knows best and as a result she gets results.

The issue she is most well known for, is Wall St. She doesn't beat around any bushes, she speaks plainly. She asks outright why none of them are in jail. Imagine Hillary saying anything like that?

AND she's RIGHT. Some of them SHOULD be in jail. She demands, eg, that student loans have the same interest rates as Wall St gets.

She tells the people outright that the 'Game is Rigged'. She tells us what she knows about the TPP and that it is 'secret' her colleagues in Congress tell her 'because if the people knew what was in it they would oppose it'.

She is clear and direct when she is dealing with the issues.

Hillary remains silent on major issues and when she does have to address them, she waffles. See her response in 2008 on torture eg.

Anyhow, I don't care about their Republican backgrounds UNLESS they are still supporting Republican policies. Hillary is a Hawk and supports enthusiastically the neocon policies of forever war.

[DanTex]

118. It's Warren who used to be a Republican. And I know that the Hillary haters don't care about that.

That's my point. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. People hold past instances of very bad judgement against Hillary, so much so that they are willing to sit out the election and risk another Republican president, and another Iraq War, financial crisis etc. But somehow the bad judgement of voting for Republicans for decades doesn't bother them.

If you're saying that Warren is better on the issues than Hillary, then I agree with you. Although, I should point out that on a lot of issues the two are pretty close. But if you're saying that justifies sitting out the election because there's no difference between Hillary and a Republican then you've list your mind.

And Elizabeth Warren agrees with me on that.

[bvar22]

261. Hillary does not remain silent on the issues.

When she was the Senator from NY, she led the charge against video games and flag burning.

[LondonReign2]

176. Well, you see, Bush robbed the store but Hillary only drove the getaway car

So OF COURSE she should be Head of Security. Because the other guy is worse. Or something.

[840high]

22. Didn't Clinton vote for it?

[merrily]

86. The primary has not yet started.

You're talking as though Hillary and Jeb are nominees in a general election. Why?

[DanTex]

92. Well, they probably will be. But the point is, a lot of people here have in their minds to

sit out of the GE if Hillary is the candidate because they hate her so much.

And, of course, if they actually hold to their threats (I think they are mostly bluffing), they are inviting more disasters like the Iraq War. You'd think they'd learn...

[merrily]

105. Again, Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but advocated for it in the Senate.

Claiming the Iraq War distinguishes her from Jeb is not helping your position.

[DanTex]

115. Yes, we all know that. And she admitted it was a mistake.

Kind of like Elizabeth Warren admitting being a Republican for 2 decades (!) was a mistake. Personally, I think the Iraq War was a disaster, which is why it is so critical to prevent the Republicans from taking the White House again, to prevent something else like that from happening.

To me, millions of casualties and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are more important the spite and personal punishment. But that's just me.

[merrily]

117. Please see Reply 106 and, for that matter, all the replies on this thread.

[DanTex]

120. Is that the one where you explain why punishing Hillary is more important than preventing

a second Iraq War and financial crisis?

[malokvale77]

230. I appreciate your efforts...

but I think we are going to have to accept that some here on DU (of all places) are just deaf, dumb and blind.

Of course there is always the possibility that they may be trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

I'm going with the latter. No real Democrat would argue that shit.

[merrily]

258. Thanks. Very few may be deaf, dumb and blind. I have a different view of the others.

[L0oniX]

137. Be glad she didn't make a mistake in the middle of the night with that big red nuke button.

[DanTex]

139. Yes I am. Who would you rather next to the nuke button: Hillary or Jeb/Ted Cruz?

Or maybe you honestly don't think there's any difference.

[L0oniX]

142. Warren or Sanders. You got a small list there. Is Hillary all you got? Pathetic.

[DanTex]

143. That's the list of likely nominees for 2016.

You're right, I left out Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Rand Paul. Maybe you think one of them would be better than Hillary.

I'd be thrilled if Warren was president, but she's not running. And Sanders isn't going to win the nomination.

[L0oniX]

145. At least the repukes have a variety while you only have Hillary. Some pathetic choice that is.

[malokvale77]

231. Some how they don't see that as a problem.

Is that how narrow the Democratic field has become?

We are in deep shit!

[rhett o rick]

147. No very logical. But voting for the person that helped Bush sell the war isn't the only option.

Some here think that HRC is the only option. Now that's not logical.

A better candidate is one that unites the Democratic Wing and the DLC Wing of the party. That ain't HRC.

NOTE: DLC candidates don't win against the Bush Crime Family. Remember 2000.

[WillyT]

19. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[joanbarnes]

20. Agree 100%

[xocet]

21. K & R! n/t

[Scuba]

23. Kickety kick kick.

[fadedrose]

24. Cheney's sending you posts now?

If there's a real devil, Cheney would have to be his spawn...

[MannyGoldstein]

40. au contraire!

The Devil is Cheney's spawn.

[littlemissmartypants]

25. Me too MG.

I cried for Mesopotamia. Still crying. No sh*t.

~lmsp

[MannyGoldstein]

42. The cradle of civilization

Now the grave.

And for what?

[Initech]

26. The Iraq War is still going on!!!

And assholes like Bill O'Reilly aren't helping by calling for a "holy war" against Isis. That's only going to make things worse.

[Bonobo]

29. No politician should be forgiven for their role in that needless slaughter.

IF they were fooled, they are fools.

If they were not fooled, they are more akin to accomplices to murder.

[KingCharlemagne]

164. Bravo! - nt

[zeemike]

34. And you did not even mention the money.

A trillion dollars for just that war and we are still spending on it today and will be spending on it for some time to come...with no end in sight.
But what the hell, only the little people pay taxes...the big people get the money in contracts for war and investment in it.

No I am not going to forget that, and not just about the money...but what it has done to us as a nation and a people. It turned us into a bunch of warmongering assholes.

[Skittles]

35. oh FUCK those apologists

WTF IS WRONG WITH THEM

[Hissyspit]

84. Seriously.

[L0oniX]

138. ^^^this^^^

[Zorra]

218. YOU WANT I SHOULD KICK SOME LAME WAR APOLOGIST ASS, SKITTLES?

[countryjake]

232. +1,000,000

[malokvale77]

234. Only if you tag team with Skittles. (nt)

[Autumn]

36. I'll be stuck on that past my grave.

I'm not sorry either. Lot of things I'm stuck on lately.

[hibbing]

37. I'm stuck on it too

Yet many of the architects and proponents of the fiasco offer advice and criticism of the current president and have no regrets at all and state flat out that they would make the same decisions today. To the Hague!

Peace

[sadoldgirl]

38. Why is everybody still upset about it?

We attacked a country, which did not fight us,
we destabilized the whole region,
we have from now on a perpetual war.

Why should we worry, the CIA, MIC etc will take
care that no inhabitant of the WH will be able to
change that.

Hey, that is American exceptualism at its best!

[L0oniX]

140. As long as it is over there & we don't see pictures of the innocent dead ...most are fine with it.

[onyourleft]

41. Thanks Manny.

There are many of us "stuck" on that topic right along with you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. Yes, and never forget Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote speech: http://youtu.be/DkS9y5t0tR0

[countryjake]

233. I'll never forget...

[kelliekat44]

43. You get my vote on this. nt

[joshcryer]

48. So will you be voting no in the general if she is the nominee?

Will you openly advocate for voting no in the general if she is the nominee?

Because anything short of that would be intellectually dishonest.

If you're going to make a stand, make one, don't half posture.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Who made you the arbiter of intellectual honesty?

Particularly given your posting history - variously claiming that I'm the owner of Conservative Cave, I'm not Jewish, claiming that Obama's Social Security proposal was quite different than it was, etc. - I'm not so sure it's the best position for you.

[joshcryer]

54. Saying people belong in The Hague.

And voting for someone you associate with that would be incredibly intellectually dishonest. How could you possibly vote for them or advocate for someone associated with people who should be in The Hague?

[MannyGoldstein]

55. So if Hillary were running against Stalin

I should sit it out?

You're going with that?

[joshcryer]

60. Oh, so it depends upon who she's running against now?

It doesn't matter that the SCOTUS is at stake, that the economy, that a potential war with Iran is at stake?

I say Hillary Clinton is better than any general ticket Republican, period.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Quelle surprise!

You're putting words in my mouth!

[joshcryer]

65. You mentioned Stalin.

I'm asking questions here.

I don't know what Stalin or The Hague have to do with anything regarding a vote for Clinton.

[malokvale77]

235. "I don't know what Stalin or The Hague have to do with anything regarding a vote for Clinton."

Count me surprised.



For the impaired

[joshcryer]

240. By all means, explain.

Why does an elected official of the United States' vote have to do the illegal actions of a President? Bush belongs in the Hague because he illegally contravened UN Resolution 1441. Not because Senators voted on legislation that Bush argued he didn't even require to invade (and thus was going to invade anyway).

[malokvale77]

247. OK?

"Not because Senators voted on legislation that Bush argued he didn't even require to invade (and thus was going to invade anyway)."

So go ahead and vote for it because he is going to do it any way?

That's some real twisted thinking you have going on there.

Please understand if my future responses to any of your posts are anything but sarcastic.

[joshcryer]

252. Yes, that is precisely what they did.

That's how twisted American politics are.

It was cowardly for Senators like Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton to vote for it.

It was murderous for Bush to illegally contravene UN Res 1441 and invade Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

165. Not to mention using the same old 'fear' tactics to 'woo' voters with. Same old same old,

But let's look at the SC. Ever since Dems swung to the Right a few decades ago, they've been losing elections, when they have won every single one considering how BAD the Republicans are.

We GAVE them the House and Senate, and they managed to LOSE both of them.

So now they are BLAMING THE VOTERS. It's laughable, at this point.

[merrily]

87. +1 "Love" demands for a loyalty oath (or a rebel oath).

Don't fall for them! Alert stalkers will get you.

[joshcryer]

182. I just think it's cowardly to hide intent.

Deceitful at minimum. If you don't intend to vote for the nominee and hide that fact you are a coward who pretends to have principles but doesn't make a stand.

[MannyGoldstein]

189. And you know my intent... how?

By putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head?

[joshcryer]

194. You could give a straight answer.

But that's obviously asking too much.

[MannyGoldstein]

196. I've answered again and again

And you ask again and again.

[joshcryer]

197. Yeah? Care to provide a link?

I do see a straight answer to "Will you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee."

All I see is cowardly dancing around.

[MannyGoldstein]

198. Sure. If you'll bet $100 on whether I can deliver. nt

[joshcryer]

200. I know you'll be voting for her.

And I know your OP is a distraction.

[MannyGoldstein]

205. Oh, come on! Bet the hundred!

Easy money, no?

[joshcryer]

207. I'll save it for after the primaries.

Just trying to get people to tell where they stand now, while everyone is open to shitting on a potential nominee.

Most will fall back to the two faced innuendo and won't go quite that far.

[MannyGoldstein]

209. Do me a solid?

Stop accusing me of made-up stuff?

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

213. Hey, you started the OP.

Which tried to place doubt in voting for Clinton.

Then you cowardly dodged the question, and demanded money to answer it, at that. Hilarious how we went from taking stances to this.

[MannyGoldstein]

214. Wow. nt

[malokvale77]

237. Disgusting

I don't think you understand anything about principles.

I seriously question who the real coward is here.

[joshcryer]

239. Someone who takes a stand.

Not someone who drops innuendo laden OPs and doesn't answer a simple question about their principles which would conflate with their OP if they were to answer the question (one way or another).

[malokvale77]

244. Well...

that sounded like the convoluted reasoning of every right winger I know.

I live in Texas. I've heard it all. Your stand is based on horseshit.

[joshcryer]

245. I stand for Democratic nominees.

Wow, how horrible of a stand to take, what a shitty thing to do, stand with the Democratic candidates in general elections, wow, what a piece of shit right winger I must be.

[malokvale77]

241. Principles...

Do you even know what that means?

What the hell does the nominee have to do with principles?

Cowardly... Do you even know what that means?

FFS, do even know what the hell you are spouting.

I'm surprised Manny has had the patience to respond to your horseshit.

Bring on the jury.

[joshcryer]

242. OP is about being principled about voting.

OP is not being principled when asked whether they will vote for the nominee or not.

In fact, OP asked for money before revealing whether they would or not.

I'm unsurprised you're not responding to my clearly made points here.

[MannyGoldstein]

246. The OP has answered that question on numerous occasions, and when

accused of evading it, he proposed a bet as to whether he'd answered it in the past. A bet you turned down.

So quit making stuff up. The OP didn't demand money, he was simply seeing if you truly believed he hadn't answered the question. Seems like you didn't have faith in your accusation, though.

[joshcryer]

249. You've answered that question to me?

Well I'll be shocked if I don't remember that, because I swear I would've remembered that.

I remember this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5076765

In which you reiterated "most likely" when asked a similar question by other principled DUers who actually take stances when it comes to fighting the Republicans.

[malokvale77]

248. What?

I guess your points weren't so clear. I read gibberish.

I have responded to many of your posts. You respond with more gibberish.

What would you have me do? Play dumb?

[joshcryer]

250. That's what you're doing apparently.

I mean you have not once answered one of my claims, not once, you've called me names, sure, but you haven't provided any substance here.

[malokvale77]

251. Oh wow

Where did I call you names?

Where did I not answer your claims?

Where did you provide substance?

[joshcryer]

253. This is pointless.

You even said "jury be damned" with your nasty screeds.

[malokvale77]

254. Pointless is the smartest thing you have said...

in this whole interchange.

"You even said "jury be damned" with your nasty screeds."

Do you always make up such shit?

[joshcryer]

255. Oh, sorry, you said "Bring on the jury."

Because you're such a kind individual.

I'm sorry that I think it's taking a stand and principled to say that I'll vote for the Democratic nominee.

I hope you agree with me on that.

[malokvale77]

256. Hah

The jury hasn't appeared yet. Go figure.

No, I do not agree to vote for the Democratic nominee.

I have principles.

[joshcryer]

257. Hey cool.

You took a stand. Now we'll see if the OP does.

I don't alert on nasty posts to me, they're a dime a dozen.

[malokvale77]

259. Do you think my posts were nasty?

I do not think they were any more nasty than your posts to me.

What does the OP have to do replies on their threads?

Really? Do you want me to kiss your booboo's.

Do you want DU to filter according to your hurt feelings?

Gosh josh, I will make it a point to never answer any of your asinine posts again.

Friends

[L0oniX]

141. Authoritarian party purity. Wow.

[malokvale77]

238. Kind of a sickness isn't it?

[dissentient]

49. Yep, anyone with an ounce of humanity would never try to minimize the many hundreds of thousands of

deaths and destruction that resulted.

I love how there is all the outrage about ISIS, but when it comes to our misdeeds, there is a huge blind spot with some people. The USA killed wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more people than ISIS ever has during the Iraq invasion. Yep, our bombs decapitated people just like ISIS does, and also burned people alive. Why some gung ho American's can't deal with that uncomfortable truth is sad and telling, in terms of hypocrisy.

[Rex]

50. Stuck!? No I am not stuck. But you know who is?

All those families missing a father or a mother...yeah they are stuck without a dad or mom or son or daughter. Whenever I hear DUers talk that way, I am reminded not all of us here are liberals or progressives. Some are Dems with very little interest in the social fabric.

They care far far more about their pony, than thousands of dead former family members. Just move on, those dead will stay dead and we need not think about it anymore. Oh that elections stuff in 2000, college pranks just blame the Green party candidate and move on. Global economic collapse? Just as long as the banks and Wall Street are safe and clear, everything else to them is MEH second.

Tell that to the families missing their loved ones...not me I am still alive and breathing. Dems should not look at people as human capital, but by their own words some do.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Chill.

These were mostly lower-income Americans, or brown people abroad.

They don't feel loss the same way that we do.

[Rex]

58. Tell it to the families missing their loved one. Look them in the eye and say 'move on'.

Just tell me before you do, so I can be there with my camera. You'll probably want a memento of an occasion you can't remember because they clocked you in the jaw.

So go ahead and move on, I think I will just sit right here and park it.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Can I do it over Skype?

Or have a Lumpenprole do it for me?

Doing these things in person is so brutish.

[Rex]

63. Good lord no! And soil your beautiful mind? Have someone else do it!

That was a joke! Wow, for a minute there...I thought I detected an ounce of moral clarity forming.


HMMM...NO GETTING AROUND IT. BRING ME THE MIND WORMS!

I'm sorry Manny, but this is for your own good. You will thank me when you resume consciousness.

[merrily]

89. Brown people abroad-over 100,000 displaced. We didn't even bother to count their dead.

I've read reports of some of them selling a child into slavery so that the rest of their kids can survive.

I've met some Iraqis who immigrated to the US before the war. (Lucky them.)

Turns out, they're human!

[JonLP24]

102. The Pentagon doesn't even keep track of TCN casualties

I don't know if anyone does, anyone that has never been to a US based in Southwest Asia probably doesn't know they exist even though they do most of the work. News organizations which I admire deeply for reporting human trafficking & slavery abuses of private defense contractors mentions all of the grunt work they do on bases but on supply transportation convoys they outnumber military vehicles about 25-20 to 10. 10 is consistent for military vehicles. 5 M915A2 truck & trailers, 2 bobtails, 3 gun truck humvee and 20-30 migrant workers operating fiberglass Mercedes Semi-trucks with no armor or weapon. Migrant workers have delivered most of the supplies to military bases in Iraq. We are waved through the Kuwait border but have to wait for Kuwaiti border agents to search their vehicles. All bases, they have stay in the truck staging yard (while two troops are picked to "watch the TCNs&quot except for Taji which has its own little TCN compound which contractors provide security so the "watch the TCNs" part is taken care of. Plus they like it, they can shower, socialize(Nova water bottle showers are often seen at truck staging yards), can sleep on a bed. This is also where soldiers interested in acquiring alcohol (which is banned which the military enforces as well as the pornography ban). TCNs can easily acquire alcohol in this compound which is roughly $60-$70 a water bottle (supply & demand) of some of the foulest tasting stuff out there. They don't risk it anywhere near Kuwait because if border agents find alcohol in their vehicle, they're on their own.

$300 US per month is what they were paid, the supervisor -- the one that usually understands the most English so he can relay instructions is paid $600 a month. 2006-07.

That said, does anyone keep track? Out of everything, this issue bugs me the most. They should be given awards & immigration rights but instead we take their passports when they arrive or send them back if they answer the "did you pay a recruiter" answer honestly.


Regarding your points, I have a lot of respect for Sweden taking in the most Iraq refugees of European countries outside however many may be migrating through Kosovo. Turkey has taken in a lot though with much of the fighting taking place in Syrian cities near the Turkish border many people fled directly to Turkey. Jordan has taken in the bulk of Anbar refugees, Kurdish territory has been operating safe refugee camps that are supported by the Kurds. (They also helped the highest elected Sunni official escape Al-Maliki political prosecutions (which obtained a death sentence in a trial that went on without him).

I agree with you though, I do concerns for displaced & addressing the humanitarian needs would go further in whatever war the US hopes to engage. I read a recent report where a Syrian child froze to death in a refugee camp.

[merrily]

106. Point is, it was no small "mistake" and it is an irremediable one.

Not that she even called her advocacy for the invasion a mistake until recently, but calling it a mistake does not reverse the carnage or other costs.

No mulligans on war votes. None. Especially that one. It was obvious to everyone I knew that Bushco was trying to "snow" the nation into war.

[JonLP24]

108. I agree

I often bring up human trafficking & slavery violations our private defense contractors -- those receiving the lion's share of US defense spending & accountability regarding this & other issues is a joke -- nonexistent.

[merrily]

109. Human trafficking is horrific. We'd rather believe that humans are not sold, bought or "owned."

[JonLP24]

110. I just came across a UCLA Law Review study that is the most detailed I found

even when it comes to the history & consistent with the claims posted somewhere on this thread that the "real" reason why Bush invaded in Iraq lies in 1990

B. Military Privatization in the Persian Gulf


Military privatization, however, is not simply an abstract process that unfolds
in the same way across space and time. Crucial to understanding the rise of
TCN labor in particular was the post-Cold War military’s shift to a new center of
gravity: the Persian Gulf. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait marked a major
shift in the global U.S. military posture, with the deployment of large ground
forces to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a counterbalance to both Iraq and Iran.
Since then, U.S. bases in the Gulf have been key staging areas for operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Unlike the major overseas hubs of the Cold
War military in Western Europe and East Asia, the Gulf economies were built in
large part on foreign migrant labor. Large numbers of noncitizens reside in Qatar
(86.5 percent of the population), the U.A.E. (70 percent), Kuwait (68.8 percent),
Bahrain (39.1 percent), and Saudi Arabia (27.8 percent).40 Indeed, the military
and police services of the Arab Gulf states themselves also make extensive use of
foreign labor, at both the rank-and-file and officer levels. The U.A.E. and Qatari
militaries employ large numbers of contractors from Pakistan, Egypt, and other

countries.41 Bahrain’s extensive reliance on Pakistanis and other foreigners has
attracted considerable attention since the 2011 uprising.42
The Gulf states’ migrant-driven economy converged with the changes in
U.S. military logistics: Companies specializing in recruiting migrant labor for
construction, logistics, and security in the petroleum and related industries were
well-poised to lend their services to the U.S. military. Over preceding decades,
Gulf regimes crushed budding labor movements that emerged around the oil industry43
and replaced them with large numbers of migrants, all while extending
state largesse to pacify and co-opt the citizenry. In contrast, contractors at the
major U.S. airbase at İncirlik, Turkey, were forced into arbitration with local unions
after major strikes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One U.S. military contractor
complained of the Turkish workers having a “home-field advantage”;44 in
countries such as Kuwait, such concerns did not exist. As a result, large U.S. military
contractors such as KBR, DynCorp, and Fluor can draw from a variety of
smaller multinational companies to recruit and transfer workers through the
Gulf. One Dubai-based company operating on bases in Afghanistan, Ecolog,
was founded by an ethnic Albanian entrepreneur providing services to NATO
peacekeepers in Kosovo.45 One of the leading recruiters of Ugandan security
guards for the U.S. military, Dreshak Group, is also based in Dubai but was
founded in Pakistan.46

C. Exploitation & Abuse

Human rights activists and journalists have done considerable work in exposing
the abuses faced by TCNs from poor countries, whose situation hasbeen likened to indentured servitude or slavery.47 While service members and
TCNs may work side by side on U.S. bases, a complex web of entities often
shields the U.S. government from responsibility for TCN workers. Prime contractors
hire subcontractors (often foreign companies) to fulfill specific task orders.
Subcontractors in turn use recruiting agencies to find and bring workers
from other locations. In practice, there may be even more subcontractors and
other intermediaries involved. Between the links in the contracting chain, responsibility
is often obscured or displaced, facilitating abuse and exploitation.

These problems are, of course, endemic to many situations of labor migration
around the world; for TCNs, however, the employer is ultimately the U.S. government.
The plaintiffs’ allegations in Adhikari v. Daoud, a lawsuit that has been
pending in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas since 2008,
illustrate some of the most egregious practices concerning TCNs. The plaintiffs
in Adhikari, mostly deceased and proceeding through kin, were Nepalis allegedly
promised jobs in luxury hotels in Jordan that paid $500 per month.48 They were
hired by a Nepali labor recruiter working on contract with a Jordanian job brokerage
company and transported by another Jordanian company to Amman, all at
the behest of Daoud and Partners, a Jordanian firm that was in turn subcontracted
by KBR.49 After each paying up to $3,500 in recruitment fees—paid for by
loans charging exorbitant interest—the plaintiffs arrived in Jordan only to have
their passports taken away.50 They were then put in an unprotected convoy
bound for Al Asad Air Force base in Ramadi, northern Iraq.51 Along the way,
Iraqi rebels seized a dozen of the Nepalis; they beheaded one and executed the
others with gunshots to the head.52

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-3.pdf

Dyncorp is Saudi Arabian subcontractor.

Regarding the claims in the last paragraph posted -- this received a lot of outrage from Westerners & Western media while CorpWatch & Al-Jazeera appear to be the only sources that paid attention long-term to migrant workers hired by US contractors, subcontracted with Saudi contractors

Death toll among Qatar’s 2022 World Cup workers revealed

Nepalese migrants building the infrastructure to host the 2022 World Cup have died at a rate of one every two days in 2014 – despite Qatar’s promises to improve their working conditions, the Guardian has learned.

The figure excludes deaths of Indian, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi workers, raising fears that if fatalities among all migrants were taken into account the toll would almost certainly be more than one a day.

Qatar had vowed to reform the industry after the Guardian exposed the desperate plight of many of its migrant workers last year. The government commissioned an investigation by the international law firm DLA Piper and promised to implement recommendations listed in a report published in May.

But human rights organisations have accused Qatar of dragging its feet on the modest reforms, saying not enough is being done to investigate the effect of working long hours in temperatures that regularly top 50C.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/qatar-nepal-workers-world-cup-2022-death-toll-doha

To show Qatar is using the same migrant worker system the US does

Tens of thousands of migrant workers like Soliman, called “third country nationals” in contractor’s parlance, or TCNs, travel from around the world for jobs with companies working under KBR and other major U.S.-funded contractors for work in Iraq.

Largely hailing from impoverished south Asian countries such as the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan, these laborers earn monthly salaries between $200 and $1,000. They work as truck drivers, construction workers, carpenters, warehousemen, laundry workers, cooks, accountants, beauticians and similar blue-collar jobs for the U.S. military.

Invisible and Indispensable Army of Low-Paid Workers

This mostly invisible, but indispensable army of low-paid workers has helped set new records for the largest civilian workforce ever hired in support of a U.S. war. They may be the most significant factor to the Pentagon’s argument that privatizing military support services is far more cost-efficient for the U.S. taxpayer than using its own troops to maintain camps and feed its ranks.

But American contractors returning home frequently share horrible tales of the working and living conditions that these TCNs endure on a daily basis.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12675

[merrily]

112. Good grief. The horror that is greed. Good for you for taking this as a cause.

[tomp]

121. thanks for a really interesting post.

...but what does TCN stand for?

[JonLP24]

124. Third-Country National

I was deployed so I'm so used to acronyms and everybody around me using the term TCNs & everything regarding information in how it relates to them was designated "TCNs". "Watch the TCNs" was the universal task description for the two soldier detail to sit at the truck staging yard.

From the abstract

Long-running debates over military privatization overlook one important fact: The U.S.
military’s post-2001 contractor workforce is composed largely of migrants imported
from impoverished countries. This Article argues that these Third Country National
(TCN) workers—so called because they are neither American nor local—are bereft of
the effective protections of American law, local regimes, or their home governments;
moreover, their vulnerability is a feature, not a flaw, in how the U.S. projects global
power today. TCN workers are an offshore captive labor force whose use allows the
government to keep politically sensitive troop numbers and casualty figures artificially
low while reducing dependence on local populations with suspect loyalties. Legislation
to combat human trafficking has done little to remedy exploitation and abuse of TCN
workers because of jurisdictional hurdles and the lack of robust labor rights protections.
Substantive reform efforts should address the deeper issue at stake, namely that the
government uses TCN workers to carry out a core state function—namely, the use of
force—without a clear relationship of responsibility to them. Unlike with soldiers, the
labor of TCN workers is not valorized as sacrifice and unlike mercenaries selling their

[JonLP24]

125. Not sure where to post this

I was researching private contractors & starting logging "Arif Jan" in searches, a scandal took place while I was stationed there though I can't say I heard about it. Whatever going on in Zone 1 was completely disconnected from us.

On December 11, 2006, Army Criminal Investigations Division paid Major Gloria Davis a visit at her workplace on Camp Victory, Iraq – adjacent to the Baghdad International Airport. Davis was an Army procurement officer, responsible for allocating a number of lucrative contracts for supplies and services for American troops in Iraq. She came to the CID’s notice after officials noticed she had opened two offshore bank accounts in her own name, which had received some $225,000 in transfers.

Within hours of being questioned, according to military investigators, Major Davis, 47, shot herself.

<snip>

Here’s how it worked:

Between the spring of 2004 and the fall of 2007, Hall was running a number of companies providing services to U.S. forces, including Freedom Consulting and Catering Co., and Total Government Allegiance. Combined, these two firms received over $20 million for services provided to U.S forces in the region – much of it for delivering bottled water.

According to Hall’s testimony, he paid over $3 million in bribes to U.S. Army contracting officials and procurement officers who were then stationed at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. Specifically, he stated he bribed Eddie Pressley, and former Army Majors Christopher Murray, Derrick Shoemake, James Momon and John Cockerham.

They started relatively small: Pressley went to Hall and demanded a $50,000 bribe before he would start routing orders for bottled water through Hall’s company. Hall told prosecutors that he transferred the money to a shell corporation, EGP Business Solutions, Inc., run by Eurica Pressley – Eddie’s wife.

Once they had Hall hooked, they tried to gaffe him under the gills: Pressley and Cockerham demanded another $1.6 million in bribes – $800,000 to each of them.

<snip>

Eventually, Pressley was transferred out of Kuwait. But the corruption didn’t leave with him: Hall also paid some $300,000 in bribes to James Momon after Pressley and Cockerham left the country. Momon then routed some $6.4 million in bottled water through Hall’s company.

http://www.militaryauthority.com/news/camp-arifjan-bribe-scheme-nets-17-convictions-and-three-soldier-suicides.html

It obviously has to do with Nova bottled water.

Stockpiles of bottled water with this label -- were absolutely everywhere. It appeared there was an endless supply of that stuff. I had no idea were it came from but running out of Nova water was never even thought that entered anyone's mind. Also seemed to be a somewhat more limited endless supply of Gatorades & Rip-Its (there were some "hoarding" issues regarding those beverages)

It became much worse

Court records do not make clear how far authorities believe the web spun beyond Major Cockerham. The Gulf Group, a Kuwait-based business, has sued the Army, claiming that its contracts were canceled for no reason. Major Cockerham and Major Davis were listed on the contract and cancellation documents. “My hunch is that my clients’ contracts were canceled because we would not play ball,” said Iliaura Hands, a lawyer for the Gulf Groups, “and another company, with a lot more money, did.”

The accusations against Major Cockerham depict a corrupt family enterprise. The criminal complaint filed in Texas says he arranged for representatives of companies awarded contracts to deliver payments to his wife or his sister Carolyn Blake.

Ms. Blake moved to Kuwait because Major Cockerham told her she could make more money there than she was making as a teacher in Dallas, according to the court papers. Mrs. Cockerham, who lived at the couple’s home at Fort Sam Houston, made at least two trips to Kuwait and Dubai, once taking her 7-year-old sons and 3-year-old daughter.

The company representatives would show up at her hotel room with bags of cash, then accompany her to put the money in safe deposit boxes, the records assert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/middleeast/24contractor.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3

From Queens to Kuwait, Where a Life Was Ended

In the space of three months last year, three members of the U.S. Army who had been part of a logistics group in Kuwait committed suicide. Two of them — a colonel and a major — had power over contract awards and had been accused of taking bribes just before they killed themselves.

<snip>

Then she took on what, for her, was a more dangerous assignment: a desk job at a procurement office in Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. In December 2005, Sergeant Lannaman was assigned to work with a logistics group that purchased millions of dollars in supplies.

“Superb performance,” Maj. Steven N. Carozza wrote in a recommendation for a commendation.

“Her assertiveness and dedication ensured government spending was monitored on all purchases,” he wrote. “Her oversight eliminated misuse of funds by 36 percent.”

Others, it seems, may have been intent on misusing the money. Sergeant Lannaman originally had been scheduled to leave her Kuwait assignment on Aug. 27, 2006. But 10 days earlier, the top logistics officer, Lt. Col. Marshall Gutierrez, was arrested outside a restaurant in Kuwait. He was accused of shaking down a laundry contractor for a $3,400 bribe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/nyregion/19about.html?pagewanted=all

If arrived there late July 2006.

[Maedhros]

56. Priorities, Manny.

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Priorities.

[Yorktown]

64. The Iraq war was incredibly stupid.

I hope that one day, the complete story will be out of why exactly a bunch of educated people could take such an obviously completely stupid decision. But then, the abysmal mistakes didn't stop there: debaathification, stupid; letting the Shias rule over the Sunnis, stupid. The whole thing deserves a comprehensive in-depth book to explain how a group of intellectuals and politicians could f** up so. Even if they had tried, it's hard to see how they could have done worse. Not one single major decision was not a gigantic blunder.

Totally amazing.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. You mean that each decision happened to dramatically increase money spent

on the MIC?

Who can say how that could happen?

[treestar]

67. so it is more important to punish people for that

than to care about whether anyone in the future is subjected to another such war (as Republicans President would surely start another).

Plus you are taking proximate cause way out there and judging everyone in 2003 as if they had knowledge of events up to and including 2014. And blaming I suppose every Senator who voted for attacking Iraq if it had WMD in 2003 personally for the millions of casualties, as if they knew the future at that time and intended personally for "innocents" to be killed. Just because they are mean nasty people, we are to think.

Ignoring all other issues that people in 2015 and the future care about. To punish someone for being wrong in 2003.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Do you agree that invading Iraq was a war crime? nt

[Yorktown]

243. More like stupidity beyond measure

Not sure people can be tried for being fatheaded idiots.

If it's possible, GW can start packing.

[sabrina 1]

76. They are to blame. Are you seriously calling the deaths of over one million human beings 'that'??

And thousands of our own soldiers who died there? And the thousands who have committed suicide because they were so traumatized by 'that' they could no longer bear to live? Not to mention either the thousands of soldiers who are maimed for life? How easy it is to dismiss all those human beings.

Not to mention the rapes and torture of untold numbers of innocent people?

Are you SERIOUS? There is no more SERIOUS decision an elected official can make than to send the military to war. Those who FAILED that test when they were in a position to the RIGHT thing, will fail again and should not be in positions where they have the power to make such SERIOUS decisions.

And that was the consensus on this forum until recently.

We know now that they DID have access to enough information, more than we did yet WE knew they were lying, thanks to Sen. Graham who documented the events leading up to that fateful vote.

And some of them, we are told, chose not to look at the Intelligence. Shameful and criminal.

[catchnrelease]

94. + 1 million!

Thank you!

[Hissyspit]

81. Oh, bullshit.

Disgusting rationalization.

YOU DID NOT need to have knowledge of events up to 2014 to see through the crap in 2003.

[neverforget]

93. Yeah that post is

[BeanMusical]

98. As soon as Chimpy was selected back in 2000 I knew that Iraq would be invaded.

The 2003 stupid bullshit to justify that carnage was unreal, anyone with two working brain cells couldn't have believed any of this nonsense.

[Art_from_Ark]

103. In early 2003, my boss here in Japan

told me that no way would the US start a war with Iraq. Even he knew that the reasons being given for an invasion were bullshit. I told him that bu$h surrounded himself with warmongers and that an invasion was just a matter of time. He couldn't wrap his mind around it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

236. You're 100% right - any one with half a brain, without an agenda, could see through that crap.

[JonLP24]

88. So many voted 'No' because they were afraid of being called cowards by the GOP

which they were anyway. I remember 2003 very, very well.

Bill O'Reilly was the leading information warrior rallying against Hollywood, "Have you forgotten" country side which was yet another frustrating 9/11 argument, Dixie Chicks, Moore booed at the Oscars, France -- freedom fries & how much the GOP loved to talk about how the French are cowards who we needed the US to bail them out, Robert Byrd "I weep for my country", no anti-war anchors on 24/7 news after Donahue, "support our troops" -- oh god, that one made me especially ill and I still feel that way even after my enlistment in 2005. I will say it is one thing for me not to be wrong in 2003 but sign up anyways in 2005.

[BeanMusical]

97. OFFS.

[TheKentuckian]

101. Punished? What punishment? Acknowledging poor judgment that has never been corrected

and is reinforced by subsequent poor judgement is common sense due diligence and generally not being a motherfucking fool.

This is the same wrong headed fool that crackles arrogantly in the aftermath of her shit judgment in Libya. The same fuck who's hands are dirty in South America. The same dummy wanting more arms and dumbassery in Syria.

The bellicose clod has shown the same judgment at every opportunity since and was still standing by it. What even suggests she would done anything different or would likely do any differently moving forward.

There is no punishment whatsoever and to assert such is to mock the millions that are being punished or are suffering.

No one is being deprived of life, limb, freedom, or property here and the comparison is stupid.

There are real people who made far smaller errors in judgment that are really being punished and for longer than any ten years. There are people who's best years have been taken away for selling drugs and bullshit and you are wringing your hands for a globetrotting millionaire?

[obxhead]

192. OFFS

it's not about PUNISHMENT!

It's about making sure we don't put another warmongering person in the WH.

It's not even just IWR,

Add Syria,
Add Isis,
Add BLIND support for anything Israel wants.

Hillary is willing to fight the entire ME, except our favorite oil partners, of course.

[sabrina 1]

69. Did someone on this Liberal forum actually say that??

I know they are hoping we will forget that massive crime, 'they' meaning the war criminals and their enablers. It must be very upsetting for them to see that no one is going to forget an historical crime like that until justice is done.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. Heck, just see post 67. nt

[merrily]

113. Jaw droppingly unbelievable.

[DanTex]

70. You'd think the idiots who thought Bush and Gore were the same would have learned something.

But alas...

[lild]

72. Yeah

Even us voters knew that vote was wrong!

[Hissyspit]

80. 1978: "Oh, the Vietnam War. Are you still stuck on that?"

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

114. Hell, I'm still stuck on Vietnam

Ongoing PTSD will do that to you.

[tomp]

122. I'm still stuck on the Spanish-American war. nt

[DeSwiss]

90. Don't be sorry for anything you do Manny.

Life's too short and we all fuck up eventually. But then we wouldn't learn anything if we allowed others opinion's to sway us on our journey.

- And it is our journey and no one else's......

K&R

[Enthusiast]

96. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

[deutsey]

100. That illegal war that millions of Americans and people around the world tried to stop?

Fahgeddabout it.

Literally, forget about it. It's been dropped down the memory hole.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[w8liftinglady]

107. I'm right there with you

I had a guy on the opinion pages tell me that i'm still blaming bush...Obama's in office now. I told him to go fck himself-Obama walked into a collapsing economy and 2 trillion dollar debt AND 2 wars.

And the fucking republicans sat on their hands for 6 years AND voted against veterans,including my son.

So,yeah,I'm still bringing it up,too.

[Victor_c3]

111. As a disabled veteran produced by that war, I'm stuck on that topic too n/t

[QC]

116. Oh please, like you've never had an overdue library book.

Or something.

[L0oniX]

144. LMFAO

[Capt. Obvious]

155. Bookman's on it

[bigtree]

123. what about voting to fund that occupation?

from March 22, 2007

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Obama's comments represent a direct response to attacks launched by aides to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who have pointed out that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.


Obama’s Votes for Troop Funding

Within four months of being sworn in as a U.S. senator, Obama – in lock-step with fellow Senate Democrats – began a string of votes in favor of war-funding bills.

2005: Obama voted for Senate passage (Vote 109, April 21) of an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which passed 99 to 0. He also voted for the final House-Senate compromise version of the same legislation (Vote 117, May 10), which passed 100 to 0.

Later that year additional war funds were contained in the regular Pentagon appropriations bill. Obama voted for the Senate version (Vote 254, Oct. 7), which passed 97 to 0 and also for the final compromise (Vote 366, Dec. 21), which passed 93 to 0.

2006: Obama supported another emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which included war funding and much else, voting for a cloture motion to end debate and schedule a vote (Vote 103, May 2). The measure passed 92 to 4, with four Democrats opposed for reasons other than war funding. He then voted for Senate passage (Vote 112, May 4). The bill was approved by a vote of 77 to 21, with only Republican opposed, and finally, Obama voted for the final House-Senate compromise version (Vote 117, June 15), which passed 98 to 1, with a single Republican voting against it.

Later in 2006, Obama supported the regular Pentagon appropriations bill, which included $50 billion in "contingency funding" intended for the first six months of war funding. He voted for Senate passage of that bill (Vote 239, Sept. 7), which passed 98 to 0, and also for the House-Senate compromise version (Vote 261, Sept. 29) which passed 100 to 0.

2007: Obama’s final vote for troop funding (Vote 147, April 26) was for an emergency supplemental appropriation that also included a call for withdrawal from Iraq. Obama issued a news release at the time, saying: "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. … With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough." The measure passed 51 to 46 and was vetoed.

from Dec. 8, 2006:

Pelosi: 'We won't cut off funding' for Iraq - Congressional Democrats head for spring showdown on paying for war WASHINGTON - Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a message Tuesday for voters who elected a Democratic Congress last month hoping it would force President Bush to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. “We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said.

In a memo he passed out to Democratic members, Kucinich said, “The voters will not forget who let them down” if Congress chooses to keep funding the war.

“This war is not only the president’s,” he said. “This war belongs to Congress as well, to Democrats and Republican alike….”

He predicted that “Democrats will be held accountable in the 2008 primaries…. The war will not go away as an issue. The Democratic base will make sure of it.”

[Capt. Obvious]

126. That's fucking hilarious

that you'd go that route against the OP.

[bigtree]

128. I'm actually a fan of anti-Iraq war posts

...thought that was understood (and obvious).

It's a legitimate question and a legitimate argument that funding the occupation was as pernicious and damaging as any vote made for the IWR. As you know, vast majorities of Democrats, including many who voted against the resolution, nonetheless voted to fund the occupations. That funding is the most relevant and consequential lever Congress has at their disposal to prevent or dissuade a president from warring. I want to know how the op (and others) feels about votes (repeated votes totaling millions; billions if you count associated dollars spent on reconstruction and contracting) to fund the occupation. It's a reasonable question.

What responsibility do folks assess on those who couldn't find the political will or wisdom to vote against Iraq funding (as legislators like Kucinich, for example, did consistently)?

[McKim]

127. Still Stuck on This Massive Tragedy

The Evil unleashed by the Iraq War will live on and on. It was the end of this country for me. It marked the beginning of the opening of Pandora's Box of Horror, Greed, Murder and complete moral degradation of the USA. The lights went out and the soul cries out. If only we had immigrated with our friends!

[JonLP24]

130. More on the "real reasons"

Through his story you can see how America has routinely betrayed the very values of democratic governance that it hoped to export to Iraq. Look deeper and you can see how the wholesale corruption of government contracting sabotaged the crucial mission that might have enabled us to secure the country: the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, from electricity to hospitals. You can also see just why the heretofore press-shy Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater USA, staged a rapid-fire media blitz a week ago, sitting down with Charlie Rose, Lara Logan, Lisa Myers and Wolf Blitzer.

Mr. Prince wasn’t trying to save his employees from legal culpability in the deaths of 17 innocent Iraqis mowed down on Sept. 16 in Baghdad. He knows that the legal loopholes granted contractors by Mr. Bremer back in 2004 amount to a get-out-of-jail-free card. He knows that Americans will forget about another 17 Iraqi casualties as soon as Blackwater gets some wrist-slapping punishment.

Instead, Mr. Prince is moving on, salivating over the next payday. As he told The Wall Street Journal last week, Blackwater no longer cares much about its security business; it is expanding into a “full spectrum” defense contractor offering a “one-stop shop” for everything from remotely piloted blimps to armored trucks. The point of his P.R. offensive was to smooth his quest for more billions of Pentagon loot.

Which brings us back to Mr. Riechers. As it happens, he was only about three degrees of separation from Blackwater. His Pentagon job, managing a $30 billion Air Force procurement budget, had been previously held by an officer named Darleen Druyun, who in 2004 was sentenced to nine months in prison for securing jobs for herself, her daughter and her son-in-law at Boeing while favoring the company with billions of dollars of contracts. Ms. Druyun’s Pentagon post remained vacant until Mr. Riechers was appointed. He was brought in to clean up the corruption.

Yet the full story of the corruption during Ms. Druyun’s tenure is even now still unknown. The Bush-appointed Pentagon inspector general delivered a report to Congress full of holes in 2005. Specifically, black holes: dozens of the report’s passages were redacted, as were the names of many White House officials in the report’s e-mail evidence on the Boeing machinations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/opinion/21rich.html?_r=0

The probe quickly focused on contracting officer Major Gloria Davis. On December 11, 2006 CID agents questioned Davis at Camp Victory near the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) after $225,000 was discovered in offshore accounts under her name. According to investigators, the money came from bribes paid to Davis by Kuwait-based Lee Dynamics International, operated by an American contractor named George Lee. That night, after admitting that the money came from bribes, Davis committed suicide.[3][4]

Following up on leads discovered during the investigation on Davis, investigators' attention was drawn to contracting officer Major John Cockerham. That same month, investigators raided Cockerham's Fort Sam Houston home and discovered a ledger detailing $30 million in kickbacks that the officer expected to receive for steering contracts to certain companies.[5]

On July 22, 2007, Cockerham and his wife, Melissa, were arrested. Three days later, Cockerham's sister, Carolyn Blade, was arrested and charged with helping Cockerham collect $3.1 million in bribes. All three were indicted on August 22, 2007 for conspiracy to commit fraud and bribery, conspiracy to obstruct justice and money-laundering conspiracy. The following month investigators recovered $900,000 in bribe money that had been paid to Cockerham.[5]

Prosecutors stated that Melissa and Blake traveled to Kuwait to collect the bribe money and deposited the money into safety deposit boxes. Later, the money was moved into off-shore bank accounts. As of March 2009, not all of the money had been recovered. Prosecutors stated that it appeared that co-conspirators overseas or other Cockerham relatives in the US were hiding the money.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockerham_bribery_case#cite_note-contreras-5

Unlike private contractors Military personnel are held accountable which is what happened to some Army majors & colonels who wanted a slice of the action

Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

<snip>

The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.

<snip>

Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

[Fumesucker]

173. You posted some really interesting stuff in this thread but it's getting lost in the bickering

I would suggest an OP..

[rock]

133. "So, you appear to to be stuck on that old technique of changing the subject"

[marym625]

146. seems to be a running theme

Using my ignore list now. Sick of the phony Democrats already pushing for the lesser of two evils instead of actual Democrats. Really sucks!

[cheapdate]

148. Don't agree with HRC over AUMF. Will vote for Democratic Party nominee in the general election.

[sabrina 1]

193. And so the status quo will continue, with people telling them 'we don't like war crimes, but we'll

vote for you if you run anyhow'.

Well, not this Democrat. They have time to find a good Democrat who GOT IT RIGHT on that massive war crime.

But why should they if they know 'we'll vote for you anyhow'?

I won't enable War crimes. And I want them to understand that while they may view all those dead people, as something to 'get over' in their DC bubble, there are literally millions of people who still have a conscience in this country even though they are generally silenced with their 'retarded ideas'.

[cheapdate]

212. Be that as it may, I'll be supporting the Democratic Party, warts and all, in the next election.

I won't divide Democratic-leaning voters, or the country, into those "who still have a conscience" and those who don't. My considered judgement is that winning imperfectly matters more than principled losing.

[bread_and_roses]

149. I'm with you, Manny

I am still horrified by all of it - and Fallujah ranks with Katrina in my mind as an example of the depraved horror we can sink to ...

[merrily]

152. She's admitted (recently) that it was a mistake. Why can't you just moveon?

I bet it's all that blood and treasure, over a hundred thousand Iraqis displaced, the new terrorist groups and other irreversible damage.

You just can't get over it. Neither can the victims or the survivors.

[Glaisne]

162. Yes, and I'm also still stuck on

the 2000 stolen election
and NAFTA
and the Patriot Act
and the AUMF
and repeal of Glass Stegal
and all the disasters caused by conservatism!

[malthaussen]

175. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Come on Manny, anti-Iraq war is like so 2004-ish!

-- Mal

[obxhead]

178. Must have been a rabid Clinton supporter.

Only they can come up with such a comment.

[Octafish]

179. As long as you don't say: ''Bush lied America into war,'' you're not Hitler.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026204250#post5

[JoeyT]

191. You have to admit it's kind of funny watching people

who were furious at Bush suddenly reverse course to the degree that they're not only ok with stuff our guy does, but retroactively ok with what Bush did. Iraq war? What Iraq war?

Knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway to make your life easier isn't a defense, or even a mitigating circumstance. It makes you *worse* than the people that thought it was right in the first place.

[woo me with science]

206. Amen.

[NanceGreggs]

210. Okay, I'll bite.

Do you have a link to the exact post you're referring to?

I find "the gist of a post aimed at me" to be rather vague.