General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsbrooklynite
(94,517 posts)...Suffice to say that was 14 years ago, she's acknowledged her mistake, people had an opportunity to consider this in 2008, and it dind't have an impact in the campaign.
Additionally, Bernie Sander's better policies are irrelevant if a Republican gets elected instead.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Was there some other reason that she didn't see the truth that millions of everyday Americans saw and understood?
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,517 posts)...and that she, like most Democrats, though Bush would be far more responsible in applying the authority he was granted.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Most of us back home saw through the lies and knew not to trust the man who stole the Presidency.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)A significant majority of the population at the time believe military action was the right thing to do:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
I sure the Democratic percentage was lower, but the fact that you and people you know were opposed is not reflective of national opinion.
And in any event, it's irrelevant to the immediate question: do voters TODAY see the policy difference between Sanders and Clinton as relevant. I still contend that the answer is no, just as it wasn't in 2008.
think
(11,641 posts)Decisions when faced with sending our men & women into war.
Both Kerry & Clinton failed the American people. Thousands died and tens of thousands were severely injured. Over a trillion dollars was spent fighting a preemptive war based on totally fabricated bullshit.
That's no small policy blunder. It was a catastrophic fail that was epic in proportion.
Leaders are suppose to lead. Not follow...
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)...and think the 2008 Primary, where Clinton and Obama got virtually the same number of votes (and for that matter, the 2004 Primary, where Kerry got nominated), addresses how Democrats feel.
think
(11,641 posts)at that time. Sometimes it takes time for the truth to resonate and sink in. Years of war propaganda shaped the views of the American public. Now many can see how badly they were lied to.
In 2003 70% of Americans believed Saddam Husain was directly involved with 9/11. How did Americas leaders & free press fail them so badly? Seriously.
So yes, the Iraq war is still very relevant as it should be..
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)...but their vote counts were almost the same.
"many were still believing the lies" is a convenient excuse, but not supported by the data:
nor by the fact that the 2006 Election was a significant rejection of Bush Administration policies.
Again, feel free to press this issue (I don't think Sanders will): I think you'll end up being disappointed in the results.
think
(11,641 posts)But it will come up. It's a significant part of the whole picture.....
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)the fact it was important to have the appearance of a country being united behind the President, re: using force against the Hussein regime.
Don't get me wrong, I admire Bernie for the courage he showed in voicing opposition and sticking to his beliefs.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Because it seems very convenient of you to pick and choose.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)Just be sure it was an actual policy she had.
Most people seem to have forgotten that she voted against the Bush tax cuts, for example.
I'm just commenting on whether IWR is an issue the average voter will care about today.