Sanders upends foreign-policy critique by Clinton experts: 'I was right' on Iraq
Source: The Guardian
Bernie Sanders pushed back against global-affairs experts backing Hillary Clinton who questioned the Vermont senators grasp of foreign policy, touting his judgement over her experience as he surges in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
On the crucial foreign policy issue of our time, it turns out that Secretary Clinton with all of her experience was wrong and I was right, Sanders told the Guardian after a campaign event on Tuesday in Underwood, Iowa, freshly condemning his then-senate colleagues 2002 vote to approve the US invasion of Iraq.
While conceding that he has fewer foreign-policy credentials than the former secretary of state, Sanders said he maintains better judgement.
It is fair to say, in terms of experience, Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for four years and has a lot of experience, no debate about that, Sanders told the Guardian. But there is a difference between experience and judgement. Not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, I helped lead the opposition to that war.
Earlier on Tuesday, a group of 10 former senior US diplomats and national security officials who are supporting the former secretary of state released a letter calling Sanderss foreign policy agenda troubling and puzzling. The letter-writers characterized Sanderss strategy to defeat Isis as improbable and his plan to normalize relations with Iran as out of step with the current adminstration.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/19/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-experts-hillary-clinton
Adam Gabbatt in Underwood, Iowa and Lauren Gambino
Wednesday 20 January 2016 00.46 GMT
Reposted to LBN by request
Omaha Steve
(99,488 posts)Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Steve, that is the worst excuse I ever heard. (Granted I am Canadian)
Omaha Steve
(99,488 posts)I would have had preferred seating too.
A 6 lane highway that runs through the middle of Omaha was closed. Yada, yada,yada....
http://www.omaha.com/weather/afternoon-road-conditions-improving-after-difficult-morning-commute/article_8757e3fc-be90-11e5-a976-0f0efb5c1431.html
RYAN SODERLIN/THE WORLD-HERALD
An Omaha police officer directs traffic at 90th and Dodge Streets on Tuesday. Traffic was blocked going west on Dodge Street between 84th and 90th streets to give plows a chance to clear the snow-covered hill.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,488 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)Guess what? So was Bernie - and yet he had the foresight and plain common sense to know better.
That's the difference.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)That would look bad when I run for president.
24601
(3,955 posts)believed. The Democrats who pictured themselves as future presidential candidates probably opposed the authorization but supported it anyway precisely because they thought that position would keep them viable as candidates in 2004 or later. I doubt Mr. Sanders was thinking in those terms - and wasn't he 1 of 435 in the House (and in the minority) at the time while Leahy (D) & Jeffords (I) held Vermont's Senate seats?
But I'll disagree on a common theme I almost always read here: The Bush administration also believed the intelligence and there's just no credible evidence that they believed there was no threat but supported it anyway. They were wrong, but were true believers and that's the difference between lies and mistakes.
Just like when President Obama played down the ISIL threat and called them the "JV Team", there is no doubt in my mind he really believed it. So he didn't lie, he misjudged it. Did his pre-disposition on the issues contribute play a part? Almost certainly yes. But there is an art to Intelligence just as much as there is a science. Every day, two analyst look at the same data and reach different conclusions in complete good faith.
What's a member of Congress to do? Most rely on the committees; however, when it's an important issue, they can always slog over to the Capitol's secure facility and read the same intelligence that's going to the Executive Branch of government.
Final point, Democrats controlled the Senate during the Iraq AUMF vote. Had it been a party-line vote (and I don't favor that for matters of war & peace), it would not have passed.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)The Bush team not only didn't believe the intelligence, they pressured the CIA to come up with it. They had been told by the French that there was NO Yellow cake procured from Niger. The CIA even sent Joe Wilson to investigate:
Same with the "aluminum tubes" they said were for centrifuges, but in reality were for making rockets.
Lots of other lies to, if you google.
roody
(10,849 posts)Bernin
(311 posts)and yet even I knew Saddam's brother in law had escaped Iraq and confessed that Saddam had destroyed his WMD's.
Even this lowly plebe (me) knew it was a pack of lies.
So, either Hillary was inept; or, she wanted a war based on lies...
Lasher
(27,534 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Her and Bill Are BEST FRIENDS of the Bush family...that is a fact.
valerief
(53,235 posts)also had the foresight and plain common sense to know the war was just another racket. Anyone could see that. The only people who wanted the war were interested in the $$$ it would yield. At the expense of many, many lives, of course.
Javaman
(62,497 posts)anyone paying the very least bit of attention to George w. morons* rhetoric would have seen through it as what it was: complete and utter bullshit.
it's apparent that while Hillary has "experience"; she either has no bullshit meter to speak of or she went along to get along (due to future ambitions)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Ousting Assad might be a nice to do, but the US establishment just doesn't seem to have this regime change down to a science yet, so I'd rather they not try it.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)This man has always given a damn about world affairs.
Response to Eugene (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)He knows US politics.
Uncle Joe
(58,272 posts)Thanks for the thread, Eugene.
roody
(10,849 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And they also do the bidding of the top.00000001% families.
meforbernie
(38 posts)She was a bad Secretary of State that pushed intervention into, Libya and Syria, and discouraged the peace treaty with Iran . Hispanics would probably second guess their choice to vote for Hillary if they knew the things she did to help the right wing libertarian coup in Honduras. Not to mention that her state department intervened in Haiti to stop a minimum wage hike from 3 to 5 dollars A DAY! The latter would make blacks, and low wage workers think twice about voting for her.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Against it and she was wrong to vote for it. History has proved this in vivid color. There were rallies not just in the US but world wide against the invasion of Iraq. Yet she still voted for it...
zentrum
(9,865 posts)where it really counted.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Not about constant sabre rattling and being a War Hawk.
I'll stick with Bernie.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Bernin
(311 posts)elleng
(130,714 posts)Sure is.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)and Bernie didn't."
That's the same thing people said about Obama. "At least he didn't vote for the Iraq War."
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)(And experience without good judgement is just repeating old mistakes over and over).