Bernie Sanders' Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad

[ellenrr]

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders' hawkishness. While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel's assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have "overreacted", but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

[leftofcool]

1. Oh my!

This is probably not going to play well during the Bernie parade, but it is all true.

[cali]

3. how do you know it's all true?

Actually, some of it is factual, and some is not, and some is misleading. please read my post and educate yourself.

[cali]

2. I honestly don't know or remember enough about Kososvo

to take a position, but a lot of people I respect, thought it was a horror. that seems, really, to be the only example the author uses to make his case, aside from Bernie voting to fund military expenditures- and he's voted for funding war much less than most dems in Congress.

As for the reference to the town Hall in Cabot,VT, the author mischaracterizes what actually occurred, as anyone watching the video can see. Sanders didn't bark shut up until AFTER people started screaming and swearing at him and making oblique threats (like "get down here&quot . In fact, he listened patiently to the question/lecture at the beginning of the meeting. It was asked/delivered respectfully- and he didn't throw anyone out. He doesn't go to these forums with cops. He actually engages.

The fact remains that Bernie has voted against war more consistently than anyone in Congress. That includes not only the IRW, but Gulf Storm and other conflicts.

That's my take anyway.

[treestar]

36. After calling out so many people on adoration and worship of Obama or Hillary

This is interesting to see. So Bernie can do no wrong and excuses are made for him. How can he possibly be defended for saying shut up to anyone in his constituency? That's not even professional. At least Obama and Hillary have the discipline to be able to handle hecklers. Oh so poor Bernie was interrupted and shouted at? LOL.

And Hillary and Obama would be called warmongers for supporting any violence abroad in any fashion.

I see Bernie worship is hypocritically allowed.

[cali]

40. wow. could you possibly be LESS honest here? I clearly am criticizing him

and I've criticized him harshly and repeatedly on his vote to prohibit law suits against gun manufacturers except for defect of product- something I think was a truly atrocious vote and which he has yet to address and which he damn well should. I have criticized him on his support for the F-35 which I find really troubling.

So you are absolutely full of it with that claim about me.

I stand by my comments about the town hall garbage. He was sworn at and threatened.

And Hillary just has hecklers thrown out by armed big men.

Now continue making shit up.

[Jackpine Radical]

66. Hillary has lowlife people like Ray McGovern arrested

for turning their backs on her.

[cali]

69. I'm getting weary of the bold faced lies.

I have no problem with honest criticism of Sanders. And there are areas where he certainly can be criticized. And I don't mind being criticized as a supporter if I say something that's just bullshit like attempting to defend his vote on gun manufacturer law suits- something I haven't done, but the outright lies don't get a pass from me.

[Jackpine Radical]

70. Ya gotta be an idiot (or a Republican--but I repeat myself)

not to want to have the complete picture of any candidate you might consider supporting. That obviously includes the warts. Bernie's got warts, but he also comes closer than any politician since maybe George McGovern to representing my interests.

Whatever comes at him on a site like this is gonna be minor in comparison to what he'd face in a General election, and, as frustrated as we might become over the lies, distortions and half-truths, they are nothing compared to what will be coming from Hillary's or O'Malley's or Webb's campaign when they go into full-nasty mode.

Just think of this stuff as practice.

And bless you for being such a wonderful source of information. I think I've said something similar before, but your posts in this thread certainly give me grounds to say it again.

[Peregrine Took]

83. Ray Mcgovern is a lowlife? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

86. Sarcasm is not obvious?

[Number23]

103. Hells yeah. +a million

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6674465

[imnew]

98. It was a genocide happening

Bernie voted correct
I know people who were there.
They would have ended up killing every man ,woman and child

That was the goal

[randys1]

101. Our son was there also, this was a necessary operation, for sure.

Bernie once again did the right thing, a tough call but the right thing

my step son actually

[BainsBane]

4. The Bosnian Serbs were engaged in genocide

and the overwhelming majority of Americans supported Afghanistan. The aid package to the Ukraine was not military. While he is too favorable of Likud policies in Palestine, it's not reasonable to expect any Senator of the US to be 100 percent against all military involvement. We are an empire after all. Moreover, you aren't going to find another candidate for the Democratic party that is a total dove. They don't exist.

What you have demonstrated is that Sanders does have a pragmatic side, and that is a good thing.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. Plus 1000

As my dad used to say - 'ain't nobody perfect'.



What you have demonstrated is that Sanders does have a pragmatic side, and that is a good thing.


What I don't 'get' - is why anyone would think Bernie Sanders would just be AWFUL as the President. I don't get that at all. He's has excellent ideas - if he is selected as the nominee - him doing the absolutely correct thing in regards to the Bosnian Serb genocide - was a good thing. He toed the line on Afghanistan, bang on with aid to Ukraine, and he's not going to ever be flawlessly against military intervention by the US on any matter.

Why are these bad things?

[Javaman]

46. I read this as nothing more than a hit piece on Sanders...

basically saying, "look, he's no better than the others!! they are all alike!!"

which is very far from the case.

while he has had his short comings, he has been consistently honest about his dealings.

[Go Vols]

49. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

61. Javaman - I'm totally not an

Out of the gate supporter of Sanders - and I read it EXACTLY the same way you did.

[pinboy3niner]

14. +2000

Good job BB!

[treestar]

37. But when it's Obama or someone else

They are expected to be against all military involvement. I remember posts on DU that "if Obama escalates in Afghanistan (which he'd said he'd do) he's lost my vote." And calling Obama a warmonger for anything he did, be it Libya, Syria, etc. So those same people had best condemn Bernie for this or they are hypocrites.

[Autumn]

44. Jan. 20, 2017 is going to be a sad sad day for you.

[treestar]

53. No it's not.

Care to respond to the point? You know what I said was true.

Now that you have someone to actually support, you will learn what that is like, which is a good thing I suppose. You will not like it any more than I have. Or you will be a hypocrite and say supporting Bernie is different. Very likely there was be a sad day in the summer of 2016 for you.

[Autumn]

57. Yes it will. I was a Hillary supporter till the very end, the proudest day in my life

was when I caucused for her in the primary because I thought and I still think she would have been a better President at that time. But her time has come and gone. Yes I hope Bernie wins, because I think he is the man who will be the President we need at this time. If he doesn't win and I'm lucky my life will go on. I just don't feel the need to hate on people who don't support him and don't like some of the things he does. I can't get that defensive about a person who would't know me from Adam if I bumped into them on the street.

Just to let you know, I heard the same things and even nastier posted about Hillary back then, by some of hers and Obamas current staunchest supporters. I was against those wars when Bush started them, I am against then when Obama continued them. And I will be against any war that any President starts against any country or any people that have not invaded and attacked my country.

[ieoeja]

79. Yes. There are pacifists on DU.

They are a small, but vocal, minority. They call the majority of DUers who opposed the Iraq War, but support Obama on the Afghan War "hypocrites". All that does is cement the pacifist reputation for idiocy. Because the two most common arguments against the Iraq War during its leadup were:

1. "It's a stupid fucking war."
2. "It takes troops away from Afghanistan."

Yes. The vast overwhelming majority of DUers supported Bush when he sent troops into Afghanistan.

Feel free to tell pacifist DUers that Sanders is not good enough for him. But don't fool yourself. Most of us supported Kosovo and Afghanistan and opposed Iraq. This thread only highlights more ways in which most of us agree with Sanders.

Please proceed.

[Jackpine Radical]

89. I'm no pacifist--I'd fight any invader of American soil, for example--

but I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan then & oppose it still.

And I would never say Iraq was "a stupid fucking war." Rather, it was a highly successful war that transferred a couple of trillion dollars from the undeserving populace of America to where it belonged, in the treasuries of the super-wealthy. And it damn well succeeded in keeping cheap Iraqi oil off the market, which was one of Cheney's main objectives.

It was instead one of the greatest crimes against humanity of the new century. So no. It wasn't stupid. It was evil. Evil on the Pol Pot scale.

[ieoeja]

93. Most DUers correctly predicted it would create sectarian strife in Iraq.

And that is why so many of us called it stupid. It was stupid. It gave rise to ISIS. As we predicted.

And I'm fairly certain the neo-con "masterminds" did not want to create ISIS. In fact, they had one correct prediction too. They predicted our activity in Iraq would cause uprisings throughout the Middle East. It did.

But it wasn't the "noble Arab cowboys of the desert"** overthrowing evil tyrants as they predicted. It was religious fanatics far worse than the tyrants they defeated.


[font size=1]**I know better, but here goes ... for decades Conservatives leaned in support of Arabs. Not too suprising. Republican Party has been a wholey owned subsidiary of the Gas & Oil Industry going back to the Teapot Dome^^ scandal. While Liberals leaned in support of Israel. Equally unsurprising. They were a liberal country, badly outnumbered and the country had been invaded repeatedly.

This -- plus the fact that the United States was pretty much the only country that came into the Middle East, did what we had to do, then left instead of staying on as conquerors@@ -- was why both sides of the conflict looked to the United States as arbitrator.

Enough time has passed since the last Arab invasion of Isreal in 1973 that youner liberals have flipped the other way. They no longer see IP as a small part of IA. Viewed in that lense, the Palestinians are the minority facing an invader. So now a lot of younger liberals back Palestine. While most of us older liberals still view it through the old lens. Hence, all the liberal in-fighting.

While for Conservative rank-and-file everything changed on 9-11. The "noble cowboy of the desert" became the "sand n-----". But neo-con "masterminds" loyalty still lies with the oil. So they still view it through the old lens.


^^ The details of which they now repeat on a regular basis. But it is no longer a scandel. They legalised it.

@@Another reason the Iraq War was stupid. It ruined our reputation in the Middle East. The stupidity was big with that war.
[/font]

[Jackpine Radical]

94. It don't matter nun wot dem furriners think. We're speshl.

Even at the time, it was clear that we were entering under a false pretext. And it is obvious that many are hungering for more war with Iraq, with Russia, with whomever we can egg into a fight. For the sake of the fight--or, more correctly, for the sake of the money that goes flying into the coffers of the MIC, the oil companies, etc.

Wars, like depressions, are simply those times when money flows back to its natural owners, to paraphrase Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's Sec of Treasury in about 1931.

[BainsBane]

99. Obama ran on escalating the war in Afghanistan

That person obviously wasn't paying attention. There have been a number of comments like that, including the claim he promised single payer, when the fact is he made clear his health care plan would not be single payer. People here conveniently forget that the one politician who tried to implement single payer is Hillary Clinton, yet it proved to be untenable.

Seeing all this adoration of Sanders and his supporters insistence that any inquiry about his plans for the country is unacceptable, I know understand how they could feel so betrayed by Obama. They latch onto some pol, elevate him to a God like status and refuse to question anything about him. Meanwhile, the opposition is cast as the devil. That kind of approach to politics will always lead to disappointment. No one is ever going to fulfill all their wishes. Moreover, that's not a president's job, which is to represent all Americans, not just DUers. They aren't our friends or our salvation. They are elected to do a job. Certainly the system is broken and money perverts the whole thing, but the approach some voters have doesn't help the situation.

[TM99]

5. What I continue to observe

is one example of Sander's record that is not 'liberal' enough is trotted out to attempt to prove that he is either worse than other candidates (which right now only includes Clinton) or is not pure as the driven snow.

Sanders has one instance in his entire record of supporting an military action that on the surface seemed like the wrong idea. But for those of us aware of what was actually happening there, it was not. That hardly makes him 'hawkish'.

Cali has already addressed the Town Hall, and it was a non-starter a week ago. But hey let's throw it back out there again and see if the bullshit will stick this time.

The belief is somehow that progressives are equal to purists. That we demand a blemish free messiah to lead us into the promised land of New Deal liberal bliss. We are realists. When I compare Sanders voting record on war to Clinton's, it is factually obvious that Clinton is the hawk. I dare say she is neo-conservative even.

I will still take Sanders over Clinton any day.

[Jackpine Radical]

68. Yes, absolutely. (nt)

[ieoeja]

87. "The belief is somehow that progressives are equal to purists." They fall for their own propaganda.

I guess policy is not the only thing they have in common with Rightists.

[Bonobo]

6. Here is a 100% deception.

"After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel's actions, he told critics: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

[cali]

7. yeah, it's a flat out lie.

but it's all kind of amusing. Hillary supporters express righteous indignation over what hawk Bernie is, exclaiming that it's "all true" Ya gotta love that shit. Transparent as a newly washed window.

[OKNancy]

8. alternet - crappy slams against both Hillary and Sanders

Just as I dismiss alternet articles about Hillary, I also dismiss them when they attack Sanders... or anyone really.
Anyone can write for them.

As far as foreign policy is concerned:
Sanders is a realist, just like Hillary. They agree on most things.

ETA: the guy writes for counterpunch. No one is far enough left for the author of this article.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. I remain a staunch Hillary supporter.

And will be so until the Democratic nomination is decided. If it is someone other than Hillary, I will support that person in every way I can.

In the meantime, I will not "dis" Bernie ... or ANY Democratic candidate for President who pulls Hillary more to the left. I reserve my right to dump on any DINO, however, and I will.

Kosovo was a difficult call in the circumstances. After we stood by while genocide occurred in Bosnia, I think that what we ultimately did in Kosovo was better than reliving a Bosnia situation. It was a Hobson's choice situation. As for the I-P situation generally, I still find almost every Dem candidate/potential candidate too anti-Palestinian - with a total refusal even to educate themselves on the facts. Neither Hillary nor Bernie is among the worst, IMO.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Plus 1000

Not a Hillary Supporter or a Bernie supporter - but I'm not going to knock down these folks. 2016 and then making sure it's a two term administration is too important - neither one is going to support an anti voting rights, anti woman, anti civil liberties/rights for ALL Americans to the SCOTUS. They just aren't.

[lovemydog]

25. Same here. I like them both.

I think their differences are more in style and rhetoric. They differ in policy desires in some cases but given what kind of Congress they will get I'm most interested in determining (by myself as an individual) how effective they may be in carrying out those policies. I think they are both good people and good candidates. I will probably grow to like other democratic candidates who enter the race too. Note that they don't personally attack or engage in histrionics about each other. That's admirable. Something from which we can all benefit, lol.

[Number23]

104. Another +100. What's most interesting about this thread is watching Bernie's most avid "supporters"

do everything to 'splain all of this and as has been noted over and over and over and over and over again, these same folks have bored this site half to death with OP after OP and post after post about how "blind allegiance" to a politician makes everyone blind or stupid or whatever they're blathering about.

There's another poster who spams every single pro-Obama thread with (to paraphrase my boy Joe Biden) "a noun, a verb and PROPAGANDA!!one1!" And yet, I have not ONCE seen this same individual spam a pro-Bernie thread.

So I think that wyldwolf's point is very well made. And I think yours is too - I have no interest in slamming either Bernie or Clinton and sure as shit don't have any interest in slamming Obama. And I think that threads like this show the really blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy of people who hold themselves out above all other humans as paragons of truth and justice when they ain't one damn bit more honest, informed or smarter than anyone else.

[Agschmid]

31. This.

[NuclearDem]

45. Yeah, that article stunk of CounterPunch bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

10. I happen to agree with each of his actions.

Kosovo? Check
Authorizing funds for conflicts we're already in? Check.
Israel protecting themselves? Check
Aid and sanctions against Putin? Check

Many Sanders supporters who otherwise would be against these actions will probably suddenly excuse them. But you'll get no criticism of Sanders from me on them.

[stevenleser]

51. Agreed on all counts. No criticism re: Sanders from me on those items

it's the hypocrisy of his supporters that is at issue here.

[ieoeja]

90. I would bet his supporters also agree with wyldwolf.

Most DUers probably favored Kosovo.

The vast majority supported going into Afghanistan.

The vast majority opposed going into Iraq.

I fail to see any hypocrisy here. Just the opposite. This OP points more ways in which Sanders and his DU supporters agree.

I loved this OP!


Except for the lie about him replying "shut up" to the questioner when he was actually telling a disruptor to shut up so he could answer the woman's question. That was pretty shitty of the OP.

[Jackpine Radical]

92. I disagree with him on Israel.

And I fully understand why his history leads him to where he is. His father was a sole family survivor of the Holocaust, and he spent some happy years in the socialist environment of a kibbutz.

But find me a politician who DOESN'T support Israel a bit too uncritically. It's a little bit of a stretch to single someone out for a flaw that is endemic in American politicians.

[leftofcool]

80. +1

[Romulox]

13. And how does this compare to Hillary Clinton? Oops! nt

[ucrdem]

15. Looks like they're about even

except for the gun issue. Clinton wins that point. There goes the moral high ground.

[Romulox]

16. Not hardly. You're pretending to forget Senator Clinton's shameful AUMF vote. nt

[ucrdem]

19. Distinction without a difference.

From the article:

While it's true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

Basically what Bernie has going for him is that he's not Hillary.

[Go Vols]

50. If that's all hes got,

maybe I should have run also as I am not Hillary either.

[cali]

20. hardly all of it either.

Hillary has a LONG history of supporting "muscular" pro-military intervention policy. Bernie does not. Doesn't mean he's perfect, but his record is very different from her's, on these issues.

Why do people make these transparent claims? I don't get it.

[ucrdem]

21. Evidently Bernie voted for Bill Clinton's little wars.

And guess what? Hillary didn't. Score.

[cali]

24. sorry, it's just embarrassing watching you push this lame line

his record on military use and military spending is among the best in Congress- if not the best. As I said, doesn't make his record without flaws, but the comparison to Hillary's voting record as her spoken record, makes it clear that she is a military hawk. She certainly doesn't deny it now and has emphasized it in the past.

You want to keep pretending that Clinton and Sanders are largely alike re foreign policy and military intervention, have it, keep going with that fiction, but it's silly and obvious to most people, not just here at DU, but in the real world:

If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, she'll be the most hawkish Democratic nominee since the Iraq War began.

<snip>

If Clinton skates to victory, she will take a more aggressive approach to world politics, pulling the party in a new direction without much of a debate. And if she were to win the presidency, both the party and American foreign policy itself could change in a big way.

<snip>

In mid-2009, then–Secretary of State Clinton was one of the key forces in the Obama administration advocating for a "surge" of new troops to Afghanistan. At the time, Gallup found that 62 percent of Democrats opposed sending more troops to the country.

In March 2011, she argued strongly for intervening to stop Muammar Qaddafi's slaughter of rebels in Libya. At the time, 57 percent of Democrats told Pew the US had no responsibility to stop the killing in Libya.

In 2012, Clinton and General David Petraeus presented Obama with a plan for arming the Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime. Only a tiny minority of Americans — 11 percent — supported the idea, according to a June 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal. The poll didn't disclose an exact partisan breakdown, but Democrats and Republicans broadly agreed: "whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," Bill McInturff, one of the pollsters who conducted the poll, said.

Clinton doesn't regret these decisions today. In fact, she seems to think they've been vindicated. In her interview with Goldberg, she blamed the rise of ISIS partly on Obama's failure to arm the Syrian rebels in time. She defended the intervention in Libya. She compared the struggle against groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda to the Cold War.

<snip>

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8395917/hillary-clinton-hawk

[ucrdem]

26. He votes the way I'd expect a Vermont independent to vote.

And he campaigns like one too -- a little on the tacky side, nothing remotely special. Sorry, I've been trying to find a reason to be impressed by Bernie Sanders since 1992 and I'm still looking.

[cali]

29. lol you really aren't very good at this whole discussion/debate thing

but it's amusing to watch you try, dear ucr.

I have found things to be impressed by with Hillary: Her career, her support for women's rights and the work she's done on that globally.

Don't apologize for not finding anything worthwhile in Sanders. If you don't find his effective legislative advocacy for Veterans impressive, if you don't find his effective effort to fund CHCs (not that you'd know what that is) through the ACA legislation impressive, if you don't find his long focus on helping poor and middle class folks impressive, if you don't find his record on civil and human rights impressive, that's no surprise.

it's already clear that those issues are of no importance to you. You're a personality politics kind of person. That's cool, uc.

[ucrdem]

32. Actually I'm a Democrat kind of person and would prefer to avoid a disaster on Nov. 8 2016. nt

[cali]

34. sure you are. uh huh. yeppers.

and that's as silly as most of your other claims: The likelihood of Bernie winning the primary is tiny. put your beautiful mind at ease.

And frankly, I've long said- far before Bernie got into the mix- that I think the odds are good that she'll lose us the election.

[ucrdem]

35. I am, thanks. I suppose I should ask you the same question?

[kenfrequed]

30. Odd characterization.

"Tacky" is an strange way to describe one of the more honorable and consistent senators currently serving. I think we must be looking for different things in terms of positions and votes.

[cali]

33. I think it may be a (feeble) attempt to slam me

as a Vermonter who is indeed proud of this little state's contribution, both currently and historically.

I find it funny.

[ucrdem]

41. Sanders might be honorable but the campaign he's running isn't

in my view anyway:

(1) His characterizations of TPP as a secret document are ridiculous demagoguery, and

(2) tossing out garbage from Clinton Cash immediately after he announced was plain old tacky.

Links:

1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649703

2) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

[cali]

52. stop inventing shit. I've posted PROOF that the TPP negotiations

have been conducted with unprecedented secrecy and explained that congressional access to the draft is so limited that the "access" congresscritters have is virtually useless. Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown and many others have addressed this.

There is nothing remotely tacky, dahling, about his consistency in attacking the intersection between big money and politics- and that's precisely what the Clinton Foundation illustrates. He's been addressing this issue for years and it would have been cowardly of him to pretend it doesn't exist with the Foundation. What's tacky? Dishonest and misleading bullshit like your crap about the TPP and your denial re the Clinton Foundation, big money and politics.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/14/406675625/a-trade-deal-read-in-secret-by-only-few-or-maybe-none

On June 7, a panel of federal judges ruled that international trade deals can be exempted from federal disclosure laws. This decision, coupled with the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which kicks off the 18th round of negotiations in two weeks), strips the American people of their voice and overrides the principle that public support or opposition of such agreements should guide U.S. policy.

<snip>

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to keep secret a document that revealed U.S. positions on international trade negotiations that impact public health and the environment. The court ruled that the document was "properly classified" in the interest of "national defense or foreign policy" and that these concerns superseded any public interest in the document. The court's decision has dangerous implications for Americans, as it means that the public loses the ability to effectively weigh in on public policy decisions with significant quality-of-life impacts.

The case dates back to 2001, when the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit public interest law organization, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for documents related to negotiations on investment provisions in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). FTAA was a proposed but abandoned agreement to extend NAFTA-type rules and eliminate trade barriers among all countries in the Americas except Cuba. The specific document in question includes U.S. positions on "most favored nation" and "national treatment," which grants foreign investors in countries that are parties to the agreement the same trade advantages as U.S. investors.

<snip>


The unprecedented secrecy surrounding the content of these agreements has resulted in campaigns across all the Trans-Pacific countries, including the United States, to educate the public about the potential impacts of this agreement and demand that governments release the working texts of the trade agreement. In addition, advocates have asked for the release of any documents negotiating countries signed to establish the restrictive classification.

In February 2012, over 20 public interest organizations wrote to President Obama, requesting that the administration fulfill its pledge to greater transparency and release draft negotiating texts. This followed an October 2011 public interest letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, asking for the creation of a joint website with other countries that would include all documents related to the negotiations, including contact information for key negotiating personnel.

<snip>
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/transparency-and-trade-agreements-if-public-would-not-like-it-do-not-sign-it


Why All the Secrecy?

The office of the United States Trade Representative has said that “negotiators need to communicate with each other with a high degree of candor, creativity and mutual trust. To create the conditions necessary to successfully reach agreements in complex trade and investment negotiations, governments routinely keep their proposals and communications with each other confidential.”

But previous trade agreements were shared more openly and despite the secrecy efforts, portions of the document have been leaking out, through WikiLeaks and other organizations.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal.html?_r=0


No other trade agreement has been classified as top secret for National security purposes. But this is setting precedent and it's the future.

[ucrdem]

56. Support is not "proof," and inconvenient is not "secret."

Did you ever have to go to a reserve desk to read something? Or a rare book room? Yes, you have to go to the library and leave your card at the desk, or for rare books, leave your stuff in a locker. No it's not as convenient as playing with your iPhone but guess what? It's the job they were elected to do. As for Clinton Cash he entered the swiftboat league with that crap and that's a lifetime achievement.

[cali]

58. a spurious comparison.

you really aren't worth trying to discuss anything with, ucr. Your propensity to make things up is more than an obstacle against honest discussion. What a heap of....

And sorry, but speaking about big money and politics is vital. That offends your delicate sensibilities. Too bad.

just return to your adoration, uc. you're good at that. it's your forte, uc.

bye bye, uc

[ucrdem]

59. Great. Now how about the question above? nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

105. Jury results

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Jumps into the conversation this person is having with another poster in order to lodge a series of personal attacks. "You aren't worth trying to discuss anything with" etc. are nothing but personal attacks on ucrdem. And they're kind of funny considering that the person interrupted ucrdem's conversation with another person in order to holler "you aren't worth trying to discuss anything with"

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 15, 2015, 08:16 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Too much thin skin in DU anymore.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Um, this is a discussion board. All are allowed to "jump in" whenever they please.
The discussion leading up to this point proves the poster's point, although the poster could have been more tactful about it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A little testy, but just part of a back-and-forth. Nothing special about this minor jab.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[ucrdem]

106. Thanks for posting that and thanks alerter!

[G_j]

62. He is the ONLY candidate that I know of who

dares address the ridiculously bloated military budget.

[cali]

17. lol. oh you mean Hillary voted against the IWR, the biggest fucking disaster

of a vote in the past 30 years? Wowzer. I didn't know that.

And sorry, his record on war and peace is much more geared toward peace than her's. Much. Why you feel the need to post such transparently false claims is beyond me, dear ucr.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. Laugh.

Yeah, if you totally ignore all of HRC's other bad stances, then sure, take a list of things they're even on and throw in one bad Bernie thing and HRC comes out ahead, heh.

[99Forever]

22. And the lame attempts at smear continue.

The Hillary Fan Club goes ugly, like always.

How utterly predictable.

Here's your sign:

FAIL

[davidpdx]

27. Goes...they've been on the attack since long before she announced

And smears like this get dismissed attacking Hillary Clinton is way worse.

[99Forever]

28. Yeah, sure.

[pinboy3niner]

23. I'm uncommitted, but I lose respect for posters who bring crap like this here. nt

[sendero]

38. He can't be any worse..

... than HRC in that regard so - so fucking what?

[Renew Deal]

39. I think Kosovo and Afghanistan are a non-issue for him

And so are Ukraine and Israel. So that leaves nothing in what you posted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Those positions don't trouble me

http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/president-bernie-sanders.html

He did say the Israelis 'over-reacted' in Gaza, which I think is true. The positions listed by Juan Cole are close enough to what I'd like to see that I'd feel comfortable with him as President (not that I get to vote for him).

[DCBob]

43. Surprising a "real" progressive would be so pro-Israel.

He appears to be to the right of many Democrats on this including President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

[cali]

55. Please stop making stuff up. he is definitely not to the right of Clinton on Israel

Below, I PROVE your claim is FALSE. Not that I expect you to stop making stuff up.

He was the first dem to announce he wouldn't attend Netanyahu's speech. He offered at least mild criticism of last summer's Gaza incursion by saying Israel overreacted. Hillary offered NO criticism at all and her defense of Israel was far more vigorous than his. he's more closely linked with J Street than AIPAC, he has never, as Hillary has, taken any money from AIPAC affiliated sources. He has never, as Hillary has, endorsed the capitol being moved to Jerusalem- a position she held for years. In short, you are flat out wrong. I find making false claims to be shameful. You seem to have no problem doing just that.


http://jstreet.org/blog/post/twentyseven-senators-call-for-sustained-us-diplomatic-initiative-for-twostate-solution_1
http://www.juancole.com/2015/02/sanders-netanyahu-destroyed.html

Mitch McConnell did it, Harry Reid didn’t. Elizabeth Warren did it, Bernie Sanders didn’t. Al Franken did it, Tom Coburn didn’t.

I’m referring to the signing of the latest letter, crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and proffered by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), urging President Barak Obama to turn a cold shoulder to newly elected Iranian president Hassan Rouhani while pursuing a more confrontational and aggressive Iran policy. The Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann has already penned an important discussion of why this measure complicates efforts to reach a peaceful solution with Iran, which I highly recommend.

<snip>
http://www.lobelog.com/the-politics-of-aipacs-anti-iran-diplomacy-letters/

[DCBob]

72. I may be mistaken on Hillary but he does appear to be right of the President.

Regardless I would think any real progressive would not be so pro Isreal especially in regards to Palestine.

[cali]

73. I'd say he's almost exactly where the President is

but I think that President Obama is constrained by being President. I think he can do a lot of good by speaking out more post-Presidency.

As for "real" progressives, there isn't a solitary member of congress who isn't pro-Israel. Even Ellison has frequently stated that he's pro-Israel.

Are you suggesting that every Progressive in Congress isn't a "real" Progressive because they're pro-Israel? That seems like a rather desperate stretch on your part to cast Bernie as not being a "real" progressive. I suggest you give up that approach. It just looks silly. There are things to criticize Bernie about, but this isn't a good one.

Are you suggesting that every Progressive in Congress isn't a "real" Progressive because they're pro-Israel?

[DCBob]

74. From reading stuff here on DU I would assume near perfection is required to be a real progressive.

[ieoeja]

95. "near perfection is required to be a real progressive."

That has been the constant refrain by ThirdWays against Progressives. It's called "propaganda". You shouldn't fall for it.

Progressives are actually very pragmatic. Our goal is making life better for most Americans. To do that, we must convince people that we can do that. Since most of the issues we propose to achieve that goal are supported by 60% to 80% of the American public, we believe running on those issues will help us achieve our goal.

Third-Wayers are also very pragmatic. Their goal is making money. Those popular issues are opposed by the people with money. Since Republicans are already opposed to those issues, it doesn't hurt us to oppose those issues too. We can concentrate instead on other issues on which Americans are more evenly split. So we can pay higher wages to campaign consultants, DNC staff, lobbyists, etc.

[sufrommich]

47. This is dumb. There is no presidential candidate who's going to

pass the pacifist test.

[emulatorloo]

48. Ridiculous half-truth hit piece. Alternet needs better editors

[leftofcool]

82. Naw, they just need to go away!

[KittyWampus]

54. Kosovo was a moral imperative. Nothing like Iraq. Or Gaza.

[cali]

60. Just want to point out that the op has done a hit and run.

hard to have anything but disdain for that behavior.

[workinclasszero]

63. So Bernie gets a pass on guns and now war as well

Because.......?

While Hillary gets raked over the coals by Bernie fans for the same thing, minus the gun love of course.

Why?

[cali]

65. Not at all. He doesn't get a pass on guns. Many of us

Sanders supporters have repeatedly criticized his record on gun control.

But his record on voting against wars, and his advocacy for cutting the military budget are simply facts.

He has, one of the best record on voting against military intervention of anyone in the Congress. Many Clinton supporters in this thread, as I'm sure you can see, are defending his vote on Clinton's bombing of Kosovo. I honestly don't know enough to criticize or praise this vote. I do think, however, that voting for funding once the US has committed forces, is justifiable, don't you?

No offense, but your whinging here looks foolish.

[OilemFirchen]

64. Michael Arria is, of course, a hack.

And Alternet is a bilge collector.

But he and it weren't a week and a half ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026630062

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Bernie is a politician just like Hillary, albeit to her left...

Newsflash


Bernie is a politician and a three dimensional human being just like Hillary, albeit to her left... He's not a cardboard saint...

[jeff47]

71. So...you think the good approach is once the vote to send troops passes

we shouldn't supply those troops when they get there.

Yeah....that's really a great plan.

You must be quite terrified of him in the primary.

[ieoeja]

76. Let me fix that for you.

After listening patiently to a woman's long diatribe and waiting for the question at the end of her speech, then being interupted almost immediately while trying to answer the question, he told the interloper: "Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

[Trajan]

78. You people are pitiful

Bottomfeeders ....

The more you post the polemical crap, the more I dislike your preferred candidate ...

[Maedhros]

81. Let's apply some Third Way logic to this situation.

Yes, Bernie may have authorized funds for military operations - but what are you gonna do? Elect Hillary, who is much, much worse?

[arcane1]

85. Sanders is certainly the "lesser of two evils", not Clinton.

[Maedhros]

88. I find it comical that those who sneer at us lefties for engaging in "purity" politics

are using a "purity" argument against Bernie.

[arcane1]

91. It's all they have.

Even more comical when he still comes across looking better than the other candidate.

[ieoeja]

96. They fell for their own propaganda.

They really do believe we are purists and will therefore reject Sanders for being unpure.

[Maedhros]

97. I think it's simpler than that.

They just don't care beyond electing their favorite personality. They'll use any pathetic argument along the way.

From "The American President":

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

They truly don't know the difference between leadership and a con job.

[arcane1]

84. Thank God we have an anti-war alternative in Clinton

[mike_c]

102. ding ding ding....

My I join you on the floor?

[tabasco]

100. We were justified to use force in Afghanistan and Kosovo

We had no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

Looks to me like Bernie's pretty fucking smart.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. I have to agree...

I'm with Bernie and Barack...I don't oppose all war only stupid ones...


Just as I don't walk around getting in fights I am going to use violence to protect a man or woman who is being mugged...

[cprise]

107. K&R

[nationalize the fed]

108. The Kosovo thing is THE most troubling thing about Bernie

Because the Kosovo bombing and invasion was a PNAC war. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.



http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

John Pilger (one of the few that knows what he's talking about when it comes to Kosovo) writes about it

Reminders of Kosovo
13 December 2004

Kosovo - the site of a genocide that never was - is now a violent "free market" in drugs and prostitution. What does this tell us about the likely outcome of the Iraq war?
http://johnpilger.com/articles/reminders-of-kosovo

Don't forget Yugoslavia
14 August 2008

The secrets of the crushing of Yugoslavia are emerging, telling us more about how the modern world is policed. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, this year published her memoir The Hunt: Me and War Criminals. Largely ignored in Britain, the book reveals unpalatable truths about the west's intervention in Kosovo, which has echoes in the Caucasus
http://johnpilger.com/articles/don-t-forget-yugoslavia

The Bernie/Kosovo thing is almost a deal breaker but Bernie is THE ONLY HOPE (so far) for the working man. That's why I'm volunteering for him. No candidate is perfect- as we all are reminded of daily by supporters of other candidates. And Hillary is much more of a warmonger than Bernie. She supposedly was instrumental in getting Bill to start bombing in the first place.

And you don't "help" people by dropping bombs on Chinese Embassies, Nursing homes, Marketplaces, Bridges, Trains or TV stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#Casualties

Even Henry Kissinger said the US "Provoked" the war and the Rambouillet accords (changed at the last minute) were something no nation could sign on to.

The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that any Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.
—Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, June 28, 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

I'm not in love with Bernie- if a better candidate comes along I'll dump him like a used kleenex.

We all need to start treating these people like employees instead of "leaders".