I always knew that Hillary had it in her

[CoffeeCat]

I saw Hillary's Iraq-War vote for what it was--long ago. Hillary Clinton knew the neocons were lying when they pushed us into Bush's Iraq War. She knew because the same neocons, in 1998, begged her husband for an Iraq War when he was President.

They wrote him a letter, trying to "sell" him on invading Iraq. Here's a link to it:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

Fast forward to today--and we see that Hillary is in bed with the neocons. She asked Robert Kagan--the FOUNDER of the neocons--to be one of her foreign-policy advisers while she was Sec of State. Kagan endorsed her a few weeks ago.

Her neocon kow towing is record, but so is her willingness to corrupt our political system by allowing corporations to buy her and own her votes. Wall Street, the private-prison system, the energy companies and their fracking, defense contractors--the list goes on.

I've known she was a dirty bird for years now.

What I never knew is that there were so many sell outs and denial artists within our own party--who would cheerlead what we all once fought against. Democrats on DU were unified against the neocons and against corporate corruption. I always thought that it would be the Republicans and their followers who would lead us all into more wars and in the corporate takeover of our party.

I thought Democrats were the good guys. I thought Democrats were the grown ups. Truly, I thought we would win.

I never, ever saw this coming.

It's extraordinarily sad.

I'll never understand it.

[msongs]

1. ask bernie for an f35. he will do anything for the MIC if they will put an f35 in Vermont nt

[CoffeeCat]

3. I don't see Bernie helping the neocons decimate Libya

Bernie doesn't subscribe to the neocon agenda. He doesn't spearhead efforts to topple dictators in Libya and then hand Libya to the neocons on a silver platter.

You are aware that in 1996, the neocons outlined what countries they wanted, right?

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya.

Bernie is not a neocon. Hillary is.

You are an example of someone who plays games and justifies all of this. You are the problem.

[dragonfly301]

37. +1,000,000 eom

[Dawgs]

4. This is about Hillary being a neocon. Nothing else.

Care to comment on that?

[CoffeeCat]

10. That's why I will never understand it

If just one of them would explain it.

Tell me something. Anything.

"I've decided that murdering millions of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East is not such a bad idea."

OR

"Who is Robert Kagan? I never knew any of this. Are you SUUUURE? you're not mistaken?"

OR

"I like Hillary's student loan program and to me that is worth all of the bloodshed, dead children and the likelihood that we'll be at war with Iran if she is President."

It's a mystery! They won't explain why they allow this in OUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

[Punkingal]

20. They tell us all the time that we aren't real democrats.

I get very tired of hearing that.

[dchill]

26. Me too.

[Else You Are Mad]

7. Sorry...

But that is not what the post was about. Also, no matter how many times that an accusation is countered with a non-sequitur accusation, it doesn't negate the truth of what is being said.

Just because the person making the accusation did something less than good, it doesn't negate the truth of what is being said.

[Vattel]

14. You criticize him for not being dumb enough to

try and get the F35 program cancelled when it is ready to go into production? Neither Sanders nor Clinton are that stupid.

Given that the F35 was a done deal, Sanders wanted some to be built in Vermont. There is nothing wrong with that, but keep trying.

[grasswire]

36. precisely what did Bernie do for the MIC?

Do tell.

[rhett o rick]

94. Clinton's vote helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and you want to

make her president. The Clintons have amassed $150 million and looking for more. They care nothing about the dead Iraqi children, I hope you do. They care about money and power, power and money and their minions revere them as gods.

Clinton will increase the MIC budget and cut safety nets and you will applaud.

[R B Garr]

2. Ask Bernie why he didn't run for President 25 years ago and challenge Bill

if he's such a visionary. What was the hold up? Why did he wait?

[CoffeeCat]

5. I'm just glad that Bernie is running now.

Maybe there's still a chance to save our democracy.

[R B Garr]

47. Well, that figures. Plenty of irrational hatred

for the Clinton's with no realistic consideration for the past political climates, but when asked about Bernie's failure to act in those same polical climates, no analysis at all. Uh huh...

[pangaia]

55. What in fuck sake are you talking about?

[R B Garr]

63. LMAO, the Berniebro repertoire in its full glory!

I forgot this thread was about irrational Clinton hatred only! You have a great day...

[pdsimdars]

65. No, what you forgot was to read what the thread is about and respond to it.

But that is a typical GOP operation, deflect and attack the messenger., so you don't have to explain the issue.

[pangaia]

69. Thanks for the support.

One of my weaknesses is that I do not suffer fools lightly.

I also sometimes do not like useless, poorly timed traffic lights.

[Human101948]

126. Your weakness is a compulsion to parade your supposed superiority...

punctuated by Valley Girl emojis.

[pangaia]

127. I atually AM superior to most others.

[Human101948]

128. Your spelling could use a bit of work...

Remedial classes for you, my friend.

[pangaia]

129. Look at my sig.. :>)))

[Human101948]

131. Superior sloppiness!

You won!

[pangaia]

133. Eh, you're no fun at all.

[R B Garr]

112. Ah, yes, Democrats often refer to other Democrats as "dirty birds"

It's interesting you're okay with that, but my comment defending a Democrat you label as "a typical GOP operation." Uh huh.....

[Live and Learn]

111. And once again, you are reduced to name calling. Pathetic. nt

[R B Garr]

114. The Bernie bandwagon has made its own bed with regard to their online

reputation. That's reality.

[Live and Learn]

120. And you are certainly making yours. nt

[R B Garr]

121. Oh, You too. nt

[eridani]

96. The only way to change a political climate that you don't like is to fight back n/t

[Dawgs]

6. Are you a neocon and do you always support neocons?

Is your defense seriously, 'why didn't someone run against Bill'?

[R B Garr]

41. No, the response is that Bernie is just an

opportunist. Explain what was stopping him from running against Bill.

[DonCoquixote]

51. an answer

the fact is, before the internet, the chances to raise both the money and awareness were limited to a few insiders. Even bill only got in because the Mario Cumos of the world were too damned scared to run against Poppy Bush. Then again, I will assume yopu knew that already.

[R B Garr]

61. That's an excuse, not an answer, but

at least it takes into account some political realities. There were/are many more obvious ones. I'm assuming you know that, too.

[pdsimdars]

66. Is that all you people have? change the subject. GOD, it is so Rovian. A.D.D.

[R B Garr]

76. You too, and all always make it personal. Just look at

your own post. LOL.

[DonCoquixote]

79. pretzel logic

and I suppose the reason why Hillary did not run in 2004 is an answer as opposed to an excuse.

[Art_from_Ark]

90. In 1992, Bernie was only in his first term as a US Congressman.

With almost no experience at the national level, there's no way he would have had a chance. And there were already 2 liberal candidates running in the primary-- Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. Even Eugene McCarthy had dipped his foot in the primary race.

[arcane1]

13. Well that's a lame response n/t

[Hiraeth]

23. welcome to ignore.

[R B Garr]

44. Aw, but I did like your other screen name

Hope that matters....

[Trajan]

27. Psst ...

I hardly knew ya, but you are gone ...

[R B Garr]

42. Who cares.

Thats about all I've seen you post, anyway.

[dchill]

28. I won't put you on ignore...

because I feel I should know what you folks are thinking. Still, the temptation is great.

[R B Garr]

43. The little game of silencing Clinton supporters

appears to have run its course. When I dared to respond before, my posts were hidden while I was more polite than you. Maybe ignore would be good. Bye.

[DonCoquixote]

81. silencing

The cpaign with the megaphone made of media and money is accused of being muted, fun.

[pdsimdars]

67. You are kidding, right? Those "folks" don't do any thinking. Go ahead, put on ignore.

[dchill]

80. I think you may be right.

But I also think most of the stupid is deliberate, and I need to know how and why they do it.

[R B Garr]

107. The shared superiority complex of the Bernie supporters just cracks me up.

Bernie didn't even have a support group here until last May of 2015, but all of a sudden you all are the smartest people in the world since you joined the recent bandwagon. Where were you all before??

LMAO!

[KPN]

75. Ridiculous comment.

[R B Garr]

77. Right, only irrational Clinton hatred allowed...

and there's no timeline to it. Anything anti-Clinton, no context needed. If Bernie was such a visionary, he could have challenged Bill back when. So why didn't he?

[John Poet]

86. Opposition to war-mongering neoconservative foreign policies

is not "irrational".

Judging them by their results in Iraq and Libya,
support of them IS irrational.

Try, just TRY to answer the issue directly.

I fucking DARE you.

[libdem4life]

88. I'm sorry, this is absurd. No one reads anyone's mind. Rhetoric.

Silly context.

[R B Garr]

89. In the context of this nasty OP filled with irrational

retro Clinton hate, nothing wrong with bringing up the REALITY of the political climate the Clinton's faced. Apparently it was too overwhelming for Bernie to tackle. Much easier now...

[libdem4life]

130. Whatevs. n/t

[ladjf]

105. The question "why didn't Bernie run for President 25 years ago and challenge Bill" is a

stunningly shallow question.

1991 was prior to the worst political and military blunder in our history,the invasion of Iraq, with it's
catastrophic outcomes, the accelerated rate of financial inequity, the exponential devastation of environmental changes, 25 years of terrible obstructionism by Republicans.

Further, Bernie was the 49 years old compared to the current age of 74. It may come as a surprise to many, but most people acquire higher levels of analytical skills in the area of philosophy and psychology. My guess is that by 2015, Bernie had realized the accelerating unfavorable trends in American Politics and the incredible ineptness of the 2016 Republican candidates and that Clinton,
though a competent politician seemed to be more concerned about augmenting her considerable wealth than taking care of the American People and that large numbers of Americans were extremely unhappy with the current state of American Politics. For him, it was a case of now or never. He courageously decided to run based on his opinion that he could win the election and help ALL Americans.

[R B Garr]

108. Thanks for the polite response, but it's really not that shallow of a question

considering that this whole nasty OP is nothing but a retro condemnation of everything Clinton and takes no consideration into the political realities of what the Clintons had to undertake 25 years ago, but Bernie never bothered with. That was the point of my comment.

Common sense recollection of events show the Republicans had a stranglehold on the Family Values talking points that dominated the national dialogue. Right or wrong, that was reality. Liberal was a dirty word and the Clinton's had to tackle that as they undertook their campaigning. Socialist would have been an absolute joke at that time.

There were many other personal problems Bernie would have had if he considered running, some shared with Clinton, but Bill managed to push through that and prevail, i.e., draft dodger.

So it looks like Bernie is ultimately an opportunist. Al Gore has been talking about climate change for decades. Bernie is only now running with it and trying to take credit for that, too. Quite the opportunist!

[ladjf]

109. I appreciate your sharing more ideas that backed your initial post's position.

I have carefully read them but, I will stick with my assessment of why Bernie waited until
2016 to enter his name into the Presidential primary. And, I agree with his timing.

I don't doubt your sincerity one bit.

[R B Garr]

110. Oh, I presumed as much about your position. Of course my initial comment

invited speculation and we are all free to do that, so I total understand your position.

It's just that he had at least 11 (eleven) Presidential elections over the decades since he turned 35 to run for higher office, but the timing had to be just perfect for him, whereas the Clinton's just dove in and did it decades ago. And they got the job done. Interesting that Bernie's platform now is smearing the Clinton's and stealing Al Gore's ideas. LOL.

[ladjf]

113. I just viewed a clip of Bernie's interview with Cenk of the Young Turks.

I felt that it was the broadest and most introspective presentations of Bernie's philosophy and political
acumen I've ever seen. I believe that he is a true genius and that this tape reveals it.

I doubt that you want to see it, but, out of curiosity you might need to check it out.

[R B Garr]

115. I bet I've heard it all before. He's a broken record.

A lifelong career politician who has waited until the opportunity most favors him personally to run and then claims he's really for "the people" is not a compelling story for me. It's phony.

Thanks for the heads up, though.

[ladjf]

116. I've heard numerous speeches and interviews by Bernie and felt that

this one clearly showed how his political mind works and his vision for America.

I most definitely didn't feel that "I've heard it all before." We've probably carried this dialogue
as far as it can go.

[R B Garr]

118. Speeches don't mean action, and Bernie has taken none until it suited him

personally. Bill Clinton raised taxes on higher income brackets way back 20-something years ago. He took action where Bernie sat back and waited for the right opportunity in the twilight of his career. Not impressed with that at all.

Agreed, we'll move on now. Have a great day.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. LOL: "7 replies," and I can't see any of them.

[arcane1]

15. Indeed! DU is starting to feel like a site for grown-ups again.

It's about time!

[CoffeeCat]

16. Total lost cause

[IdaBriggs]

9. The problem is Bill got bored. He went from being one of the most

powerful people on the planet to the "retired guy". He started a foundation (like Jimmy Carter) then dabbled. Then he got more bored and started cutting deals for friends. The next thing you know, the Clinton Foundation is taking millions from governments that execute gay people, the Clintons are rich and powerful and angling back to the White House.

The Bush family corruption and influence peddling is near legendary - remember the bank scandals with the President's son? And how many of George Junior's companies went bankrupt, but he kept getting thousands of dollars from his dad's friends, who then had good things happen to them under daddy's regime?

The Clintons just jumped on the Washington payola bandwagon.

[BernieforPres2016]

24. I think the Clintons turned hard right much earlier than after the Clinton Presidency

Bill Clinton turned hard right after the Hillarycare debacle and the Democratic Party losing both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years in November, 1994. Hillary brought in Dick Morris and Bill moved to the right: Welfare reform, the Telecommunications Act, deregulation of the financial services industry, the Crime Bill, etc. Bill Clinton was a much bigger friend to Wall Street (with his economic advisors Bob Rubin and Larry Summers) than Ronald Reagan ever was. And Bill Clinton twice reappointed Ayn Rand disciple, Reagan appointee and deregulation advocate Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

I agree with you that the Clintons jumped on the Washington payola bandwagon after Bill left office, and they took it to a new level.

[pdsimdars]

68. Way before that. . . . start a list of all the HORRIBLE bills he signed that ruined the country

[dchill]

29. They were ALWAYS ready for the bandwagon.

Raison d'etre.

[AzDar]

11. K & R

[leftofcool]

12. Another anti-Democrat thread. We get it, you hate Hillary and really don't like Democrats.

[CoffeeCat]

17. On the contrary

I've been a Democrat my entire life. A volunteer. A delegate. I've been very active and involved in the party since I was a teenager.

The gist of my post, which clearly went over your head--was that I am gobsmacked by what has slithered into the Democratic party and taken up residence.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I don't know her. I've never met her. I hate her policies.

It didn't used to be this way.

Are you for these lie-based Middle East wars for profit?

Are you for corrupt corporations buying our democracy?

[pangaia]

56. I HAVE met Hillary Clinton.

I was not impressed.

[Carolina]

136. Likewise

I met her in 2003 at a book signing for Living History. Very cold and fake. I have since burned the book... it made for good winter time fire fodder.

I cannot believe what a staunch Clinton supporter I was during the nineties. Sadly, I learned that while we were distracted by the scandals and investigations, we were being screwed by Bill's assorted legacies: NAFTA, Telecommunications, Welfare Reform, Crime and the coup of coups ... reversal of FDR's Glass-Steagall Banking Reform Act.

I was happy when $hillary carpet-bagged her way to a NY Senate seat even though I recognized that she did so largely because she was FLOTUS, had a very weak opponent, and the populace was pissed about repuke investigations of Bill. It was a perfect storm for her, but her tenure in the Senate was marked by aye votes for IWR, Patriot Acts 1&2, and Bush's Bankruptcy Bill. WTF? That's when I was done with her.

I won't even bother with her SoS disasters. The fact remains, she has shown poor judgment and a neocon bent that is neither Democratic nor democratic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Obviously you "get" fuck-all.

It's taken a while (which is embarrassing), but I finally realize that the more fervent, hardcore Camp Weathervane folk really don't understand Bernie supporters even a little. Makes sense, I s'pose...I don't really understand them, either.

[Dawgs]

22. Care to comment on Hillary being a neocon?

Or is it always about attacking the messenger?

[IdaBriggs]

34. Personally, I love President Obama. I just can't stand Hillary.

I think she's a national embarrassment and a piss-poor excuse for a decent Democrat.

I think she's an excellent example of bad judgment, corruption and cronyism, none of which I associate with good Democratic values.

The logical problem you have is assuming "anti-Hillary" means "anti-Democrat" because the two are NOT the same.

[John Poet]

85. Why not try to answer the complaint about the rampant

neoconservative foreign policies so many in this party are now backing?

Because you can think of no way to justify it?
(clearly, because there IS no valid justification for it within a supposedly progressive party).

We have a problem with Democrats who are too goddamned comfortable, nay, even SUPPORT, the war-mongering neoconservative foreign policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

That includes Hillary.

That includes YOU if you support her!

[Jester Messiah]

104. Only since "Democrat" came to mean "the OTHER corporate suck-up warmongering party".

Thanks so much for that, third-way'ers.

[FlatBaroque]

18. We have entered The Great Awakening. Because internet.

A metamorphosis is taking place. That means something new is being born as the old thing dies. In that process we lose a lot of what we thought we liked. Then we get back a whole lot more of what we need. We are living in a transformational time where politicians have not yet figured out that everyone now knows, or can infer, what they actually do, not what they say they will do.

We are going to lose a lot of "friends". Friends who turned out not to be the people we thought (SEE: Howard Dean). Enjoy the ride and enjoy your new friends. I promise they will treat you a lot better than your old friends.

[CoffeeCat]

21. I sense that we are in the process of building something

meaningful and impactful that will make the world a better place.

For sure.

[FlatBaroque]

25. Better believe it.

As a middle aged man I can only hope I live long enough to see the true fruition of what has began in 2015 in Vermont.

[grasswire]

33. the dawning of the age of Aquarius?

I'm getting the vibe.

[FlatBaroque]

39. Absolutely!

The age of enlightenment is the Age of Aquarius.

[marions ghost]

35. It is a transformational time

and it's about time.

Finally--the emperors have no clothes--they are naked. Many people see.

[FlatBaroque]

40. No truth shall remain hidden in this time.

I believe we are ready to evolve into beings of pure love. Those who do not want that evolution to occur are whom we are up against.

[marions ghost]

45. Sounds good to me

we'd better evolve into a higher place or the planet is going to evolve without us in a direction we won't find fun. We will need to cooperate and have more compassion for each other.

It does feel like a time of transition now.

[KoKo]

54. Some have said we are revisiting the issues of the 1960's early 70's.

Movements begun then will be revisited and a new hopeful phase of tangible accomplishment will begin. The "Age of Aquarius" as suggested above. But, we will have to go through this tough transition to get there.

The top three candidates we have running for President have a strong connection to the 60's given their age range. Kind of "woo woo" isn't it?

[marions ghost]

57. It feels like round 2 all right

...a difficult birth, that Aquarius...

Looks like the Millennials are smart and demand something better. Coming together, using group power. Despite the media distortion, they see clearly what's going on thanks to the internet. But I also say good work, boomer parents. I have hope. Now don't get me all mystical but I'm feeling a change in the big picture dynamic. It's obvious that a lot of people are standing up to say This Sucks.

[FlatBaroque]

60. The epoch we are leaving is the Age of Pisces, The Fish. It began around the birth of the Christ

Symbol of fish is mark of Christianity. I'm sure you know, I just find this awareness fascinating.

[KoKo]

70. ...! I've learned to never discount...

in our "Age of Unreasonableness" what could be a Vision for Mankind's Future. Always reading and searching.

[thereismore]

30. That is the sad truth. She calls herself a Democrat but she is authoritarian neocon.

She already has a lot of bloody history on her record, Libya, Syria, Honduras. We don't need more.

[Waiting For Everyman]

31. Me too, CC. It's the year of the fallen icons.

I didn't know it was this bad either. What I see now is a very extensive web of corruption, which corrupts new people immediately with few exceptions.

What this election has also showed us is who those exceptions are. It's very enlightening. I'm donating in a small way to a few of them now, and I kntend to keep doing it as much as possible for the foreseeable future.

I hope, come what may, that Bernie will continue to be a hub around which they can form a new anti-corruption contingent, to be an alternative to the corrupt Establishment. He has shown a different path and mechanism that can work. I think that's very hopeful.

That's good, because the fallen icons are very depressing. It's a sad sight. If any of them had any real integrity, they would have come forward and blown the whistle on the "carrots and sticks" instead of giving in to it.

The article referred to in the video above:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067

The fiancing of the "carrots and sticks" (buying lots of people costs a lot):
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election

[grasswire]

32. yes, even some Dems who have nothing to gain by her candidacy...

...support her. Voting against their own self interest (unless they are arms dealers or military suppliers) seems so short sighted and, frankly, well....I won't say what I really think.

Why would any thinking liberal/progressive root for her? Why would any voter who values honesty and trustworthiness vote for her?

And why do they continually repress or quash the facts about the Clintons?

[snowy owl]

38. Exposing Hillary is not allowed

Hillary supporters are emotional voters. Loyal to the warring end.

[polly7]

46. Of course she knew. PNAC's agenda was well known to anyone in politics

and any one of them who said Iraq wasn't long-planned-for would be lying. Period.

[Bill USA]

48. another example of McCarthyism: unsupported charges & demonization of HRC and her suppporters

Blatant demagoguery. Wild accusations devoid of any substance.

her willingness to corrupt our political system by allowing corporations to buy her and own her votes.

More unsupported nonsense and branding anybody who supports her as being animated only by evil intentions... demagoguery usually identified with the GOP. This is why I've said in the past that it's hard to tell posts of Bernie supporters from the Rabid Right who are attacking Hillary to help Bernie get nominated so the GOP be victorious in the fall.."We'll win every state if Bernie's their nominee."

What I never knew is that there were so many sell outs and denial artists within our own party--who would cheerlead what we all once fought against. Democrats on DU were unified against the neocons and against corporate corruption. I always thought that it would be the Republicans and their followers who would lead us all into more wars and in the corporate takeover of our party.

Rhetoric undistinquishable from Rabid Right Demagoguery...

[eridani]

98. The Rabid Right is for single payer health care? On what planet?

Is the weather nice there? Do the unicorns bite?

[VulgarPoet]

123. Amusing, you bring up "McCarthyism"--

but I'm willing to bet you've red-baited about Bernie supporters being communists, haven't you?

/bye

[DanTex]

49. Bash Bash Bash Bash... The electorate isn't buying this nonsense.

[lagomorph777]

50. Don't be so sad - Bernie is catching up and is our best weapon against Donald Dump

Last night, he got 17 more delegates than Hillary.

[ViseGrip]

52. VOTE FOR BERNIE!

[asuhornets]

53. So why are

you voting for Bernie again? Do u even know why?

[pdsimdars]

71. Just like the GOP, all you Hillary supporters only seem to be here to counter everything

everything Bernie supporters say, all you do, EXACTLY like the GOP does to Obama, is say the opposite.

There are so many posts here about why we think Bernie is the best -- real concrete issues.

All I have seen from Hillary supporters is that she is "awesome" and "going to win" . . .as if these are reasons to elect someone.

Do you even know anything?

[asuhornets]

72. All I hear from

Bernie supporters is how awful Hillary is. Bernie won 2 states on Tuesday and you can not even enjoy that because of your hatred for Hillary Clinton. The majority of Democrats don't feel the way you do and you can not deal with that. Bernie Sanders does absolutely nothing for me. But I don't trash him.

[asuhornets]

117. Your words:

"Do you even know anything?" I know Hillary will be the next POTUS. And that pisses you off because your guy won't be. And speaking of the GOP you are more like them than I am. I 've been a Democrat all my life. Can you say the same? Outsiders will not choose the Democratic nominee.

[eridani]

99. For single payer health care, an end to the War on Some Drugs, for expanding Social Security

For financing public college tuition with a tax on financial transactions, and a number of other things.

[WDIM]

58. The Democrat leadership has been supporting neocons

since the IWR. Everyone in the establishment knew Iraq was not a threat and not involved in 9-11. But the Democrats rolled over and gave the Neocons what they wanted lead by Clinton.

Then as SOS Hillary quickly takes up the neocon cause and continues to destabilize the ME.

[VulgarPoet]

124. Especially when she was offered briefs on the situation... And ignored 'em. nt

[Voice for Peace]

59. Because the great god of our time is Fear, and too many people

are devout believers.
We sacrifice everything beautiful & possible on that account.

[KoKo]

64. ...! Every terrorist attack brings "Shock & Awe" and The People

are VERY AFRAID! Whip it up...and many of us know how that goes.

[Kotze]

62. Anti-war activism is simply not needed anymore

The OP mirrored how I feel so well that I had to re-register just to post this. I also remember the time when Democrats on DU were unified against the neocons. It was 10 years ago. I used to post here back then. But since we got a democrat in the white house the movement sort of became unfashionable.

In 2006 we used to call neocons nazis, but in 2016.. neoconservatism is just not that controversial anymore. Hillary and the Kagans (Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland) sort of made it respectable. In fact there's little reason to even use the word "neocon" anymore. Kagan put it quite nicely when he was describing Hillarys' policies "it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

But they are not going to call it anything.. because war is the new normal and geopolitics is not a "social justice" issue, so the millenials don't care. The new left is part of the empire. If anything, war is a simple refugee problem, nothing else..

It's a disgrace. But it is what it is.

[Wednesdays]

73. Thanks for your contribution!

And welcome to DU!

[BillZBubb]

82. Amen to that.

[BlueStateLib]

74. Some will never understand it because they don't get it and don't want too

Their were only 2 options on the table and the third option of doing nothing was not one of them

Liberal Magazine The Nation: "Antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution (1441) as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack"
http://www.thenation.com/article/half-victory-un/

In 1992 the Gulf War had 52-47 senate votes and in 2002 the Iraq War Resolution had 76-23. Don't you find it curious (in your view) why so many democrats would vote for war. But they did not vote for WAR, the Democrats traded a YES vote on A.U.M.F. for a Bush promise to go to U.N. which he kept. Bush got the U.N. to pass Res 1441 and Saddam gave in and allow weapons inspectors with unlimited inspection.

If Bush stopped and didn't invade Iraq and let and allowed the u.n. weapons inspectors to do their job, it would looked like a brilliant foreign policy move. Bush got greedy and lust for war overwhelmed him, he did not follow through on 2nd U.N. vote abandoning any hope for a large U.N. sponsored coalition. Bush also failed to get a promised 2nd vote from congress before invading Iraq.

30,000 US Troops Already In Iraq
September 16, 2002

Around 100 US/UK jet fighters 10 days ago bombed and destroyed airbases H-3 and al-Baghdadi in western Iraq, close to the Jordanian border. Earlier, on 5 August, the allied forces destroyed an air defense base in southwest Iraq, near the Saudi border. Reports indicate that the Iraqi forces have withdrawn from the air bases and the command and control centers that were bombed, and have been replaced by US forces which have started repairing the bases to use them later. Before that, US forces, supported by Turkish troops, penetrated northern Iraq and reached a distance of around 30km from Mosul and Kirkuk. The reports also indicate that the US and allied forces are a few kilometers away from Basra, and US and allied forces now occupy more than 15% of Iraqi territory.

Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002

On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2

2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today

3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·

Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations

[BillZBubb]

78. I am as dismayed and astounded as you are on this.

Even a decade ago, someone with Hillary's baggage would not have a chance to win the Democratic nomination.

She really is a republican with republican values. Mind you she is not like the current, ultra rightist republican. They are insane. She's a 1950's republican--somewhat flexible on social issues but 100% supportive of the interests of business and the MIC.

How has the Democratic party come to this?

[John Poet]

83. A neocon is as a neocon votes.

A lot of denial going on in Camp Hillary-- but if you're voting to put a NEOCON into the White House, YOU are a NeoCon.

You ARE what you VOTE.


It appears that all the pushback against the neocon Bush-Cheney policies from our party, was just TALK. It was just politically motivated bullshit-- at least from those who are backing Hillary now. Half the party has been taken over by neocon war pigs, who LIKE everything that Hillary has done.

I am aghast at what the party has become.

[John Poet]

84. Let's just tell the truth, here...

[DJ13]

87. Many people arent taking this to the final possible outcome

Part of the Neocon bag of tricks is the traditional censorship always put into place by Fascist regimes around the world.

That means that should Hillary be the nominee and win in November, its very possible her administration would push to put government controls on the internet as a means of stifling dissent.

Forget any notion of challenging Hillary in 2020, that wont be allowed.

[JudyM]

91. I love this post because it touches a profound sadness that so many of us feel in our hearts. nt

[Avalon Sparks]

92. 100% agree with you Coffee!

I've taken an 7 year break from DU, been a Member since 2001, and it's like a bunch of somewhat kindler gentler Freeps became members. Did the teabaggers chase some former Repubs over here?
Did I miss the Dem memo that were all to be neoliberals now?

I don't watch TV or the news, maybe I just didn't drink the mass media propaganda kook-aid.

What I did see are a bunch of Hillary Drones that freak out when asked to justify Hillarys actions and record. "Stop attacking Hillary" is their only comeback.

Nothing demonizes Clinton more than her record.



~Ava~

[BainsBane]

93. Kagan didn't endorse her

He said he hated Trump so much he would even vote for Clinton over her. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511344327#post3
That's not an endorsement. Given that blatantly false claim in your OP, there is no reason to assume anything else is accurate. That you don't care is what is sad, but it is unfortunately par for the course.

You've misstated Clinton's policy positions and show a personal animus that has nothing to do with issues.

What vote did corporations buy from her? Did she vote for immunity for gun manufacturers? Did she vote for and continue to defend billions, what is now up to a trillion, for Lockheed-Martin for the F-35? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion (Talk about defense corporations). Or are you merely afraid that she might enact the sort of policy reflected in those votes that Sanders cast?

Oh, and Superpacs. Don't forget that Clinton "has a superpac" and Bernie "decided not to do one." Only that turns out not to be true at all. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

That and your notion of what the Democratic Party has been in the past is sheer fantasy. When was this period of great Democratic restraint in foreign policy? When did they stand up for the people so much more than today? During Jim Crow?

No concern for accuracy, no attempt to provide evidence for your claims. Just pure spite for a candidate supported by 2.6 million more votes than your guy. Apparently the Democratic Party you long for doesn't worry about trivialities like the outcome of elections. It understands that a self-entitled few are simply more important than everyone else and that they and they alone are fit to pick the president in violation of the popular will.

One person, one vote. Deal with it.

[ucrdem]

95. ^^ MOST RIGHTEOUS SMACKDOWN EVAH

It's easy to bash the Clintons because the RW Wurlitzer has been playing that tune for the decades and it feels sooooo good to get all those amens. It's much harder to defend them which is one reason many take the easy path including sad to say Senator Sanders.

[eridani]

100. Yay Wall Street. Yay war n/t

[CoffeeCat]

125. Kagan did endorse Hillary Clinton--He can't get enough of Hillary Clinton

Are you a comedian?

Here's the article from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

Kagan decries Trump (as you said), AND he states that he will vote for Hillary Clinton while encouraging others to do so, “For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

Kagan, the founder of the neocons--and the architect of the Iraq war--declares in the Washington Post that if it's Trump/Clinton, he'll vote for Clinton.

What is the point that you're trying to make? That Kagan doesn't really like Hillary or believe in her?

You must be unaware that these two love birds go waaaay back. Hillary Clinton picked Kagan to be one of her Middle East foreign-policy advisers, while she was Secretary of State. She chose Kagan the warmonger. Libya is one of the countries that the neocons have had on their wish list. Hillary handed it to them on a silver platter.

These two are beyond endorsements!

But please...make your case that this was a non-endorsement endorsement.

The internet is chock full of Kagan singing her praises and discussing how her foreign-policy is aligned with his thinking.

Obviously, you are one of her ardent cheerleaders who will go to the ends of the earth to justify all of this. I applaud you for trying and for laying your cards on the table. Most of the peanut gallery don't go near these posts.

I tell you what I find refreshing. That Bernie Sanders will never be endorsed by a neocon. That I will never have to try to explain why he's hob knobbing with the founder of the neocon movement. I'll never see a Washington Post article in which war engineers endorse Bernie over Trump. I'll never see Bernie furthering their war-for-profit schemes.

Bernie's campaign is funded by individual donors. His average campaign contribution is $27. To suggest that somehow Bernie is on par with Hillary running off to millionaires, billionaires and Wall Street every five days to grab another sack of money--is beyond ridiculous.

[TumbleAndJumble]

97. I do know Hillary has it in her to sell us all out in one term, It won't take two like it took Bill

[LibDemAlways]

101. PNAC = Pure Evil

Once they had the "New Pearl Harbor" of 9/11, they wasted little time launching their plan of US domination of the Middle East through military force.

That Hillary would align herself with these war criminals is reason enough that she should never get near the Oval Office.

[Sky Masterson]

103. She lost me with her Iraq vote

She has zero courage and if her last name wasn't Clinton she wouldn't be in the race at all.

[Uncle Joe]

106. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, CoffeeCat.

[Attorney in Texas]

119. This may be the election that redefines the parties. The Democrats may evolve into the party of the

status quo (this defensive efforts to conserve the status quo against change is called "conservatism" in political science class).

The Republicans may be evolving into the party that tells those who feel left out of the status quo economy "we going to radically change this broken system."

If we cannot stop Hillary in the primary, we are looking at the first election in my lifetime where

* the Democrat is the candidate using Citizens United to raise Super PAC funds from millionaires and billionaires while the Republican campaigns against a corrupt pay-to-play campaign finance system

* the Democrat is the candidate encouraging international trade agreements which have the effect of promoting the loss of American union jobs to foreign countries while the Republican campaigns on bringing those union jobs back to America

* the Democrat is the candidate who saber rattles about American boots on the ground in foreign conflicts while the Republican campaigns on the theme that the countries in the region should take the lead role and we should limit our in-forum involvement to bombing rather than American boots on the ground

* the Democrat is the candidate is defending the tax policy status quo while proposing minuscule tweaks at the edges of the policy while the Republican is arguing that the billionaires and corporations must pay a greater share of taxes

* the Democrat is the candidate saying "let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater" about Wall Street reforms while the Republican campaigns against corruption in the financial sector

Draw a horizontal line, and put the initials "FDR" at the left end of the line and write "George HW Bush" and the right end of the line. Now, write "Hillary" at some point on this line -- closer to FDR if you believe she will govern more like FDR or closer to Bush if you think she will govern more like him. Doesn't that process make you sad?

[islandmkl]

122. good post, CoffeeCat...you really energized the Third Way Response Team with this one...

I especially like the response, often used, that you 'have no proof...' concerning favorable 'work' for any big Wall Street/whoever 'donors'...err, speech sponsors...

well, I can't see air (non-smog variety) either...but I know it's there...

[Jitter65]

132. What a sick post. When Bill said not to Iraq, 9/11 had not happened.

After 9/11 everything changed...still some anti-any-war folks held onto their positions even some since Vietnam.
To make it seem like Hillary knowingly pushed for Iraq war when Bill did not in prior years is really sick. How low will people go?

[Carolina]

134. I thought Democrats were

the good guys as well. But I never thought $Hillary was good after her IWR vote and here's why:

Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona... should we have invaded and bombed those states?!). Bin Laden was also Saudi!

Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled

Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men questioned the timing and the rush but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.

Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. As you pointed out in the OP, Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote him seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS. And Kerry should have questioned pre-emptive war since he served in and then questioned Vietnam. He also should have questioned anything pushed by the Bushes because he had been part of the Senate investigation into Iran-Contra... about which the elder Bush as VP and former CIA chief claimed the big lie of having been "out of the loop."

Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 (remember the 8/6/2011 brief). They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack, but that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001, precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! And Bushco was there. So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W and his cabal

Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil

Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative because there were no WMDs, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN

Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't other Democratic 'leaders' like HRC listen to them rather than to Bush or Cheney? Through their aye votes, they gave Bush bipartisan cover and therefore, they have blood on their hands as well.

Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if a little old Jane Q Citizen like me (along with millions of other citizens) could see all this, why not Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and Kerry?! They all voted aye, they all ran for POTUS and they all lost. I held my nose and voted for Kerry-Edwards in 2004 because our ticket, our party, our guys they were better than Bush, but it was unnerving to watch and listen to Kerry's meandering justifications when he was called out on his aye vote.

So in 2008, there was no way I was going to support $hillary precisely because of her IWR vote. Votes have consequences as do the ghastly speeches justifying such awful votes. There is no apology large enough, no justification valid enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization! That women should never be president.