2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders hits Hillary Clinton on Iraq war support
Eric DuVall
UPI
"I agree with Secretary Clinton that Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are incredibly reckless and irresponsible," Sanders said in a statement on Thursday. "But when it comes to foreign policy, we cannot forget that Secretary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American history, and that she has been a proponent of regime change, as in Libya, without thinking through the consequences."
Sanders, highlighting his opposition to the Iraq war, said he would continue to avoid foreign quagmires if elected.
"We need a foreign policy based on building coalitions and making certain that the brave American men and women in our military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. That's what I will fight for as president."
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Bernie has provided plenty of ammo.
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Truth is they call every single Dem a communist. Whoopdeedo!
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Seriously, nobody gives a shit anymore.
basselope
(2,565 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)LizetteWest
(42 posts)We as democrats should never try to suppress the facts because then we are no longer democrats.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)It was going to pass anyway. Kerry Voted for it. Edward voted for it. Biden voted for it.
9/11 happened in her state. She had to support it. It was wrong, but that wasn't totally clear at the time. The truth is that you will never vote for Hillary. In fact you probably aren't even a Democrat. Just so we know where you stand with me.
LizetteWest
(42 posts)Real dems do not suppress the facts, we leave that to republicans.
If our candidate has done bad things that dems should not do, then that candidate should be outed and discarded.
Response to LizetteWest (Reply #7)
Gomez163 This message was self-deleted by its author.
LizetteWest
(42 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)I didn't see Kerry blamed much when he ran. This is obviously a sexist thing.
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Why does he get a pass on this kind of stuff? Not just a pass, he's celebrated as a thousand times better than Clinton -the guy who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Sorry but there is a disconnect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If not, please explain why he gets a pass but Clinton does not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
frylock
(34,825 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I don't recall her speech being that compelling. She didn't sway anyone's opinion. Most of them voted in favor of giving the President the authority. It was not a declaration of war.
And she's not my candidate. I don't make politics personal. But she's clearly the next President of our country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
frylock
(34,825 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)He's just a 'little' warmonger at the State Department. My point stands, though. If Clinton was 'swayed' by Bush (and I don't believe she was, her vote was just a political calculation), then Kerry is doubly gullible for being 'swayed' by Clinton.
But I don't believe that of either of them. In politics, you try to avoid being on the losing side of a vote. Standing up for principle sounds good but in the rarefied confines of Congress, you make the calculation as to when those principles won't make a difference. And you swallow hard and vote for the inevitable.
That's what I think happened with the Iraq Resolution.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
frylock
(34,825 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Even Sanders, to a certain extent, because he couldn't come out of his 'shell' or whatever to 'press the flesh' with his colleagues, get them on his side before he dove into the Primary.
Seems like he missed the most fundamental step in the process: gather your troops before you press forward.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
frylock
(34,825 posts)I got shit to do. Bye.
LizetteWest
(42 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)pengu
(462 posts)Bob Graham was begging them to read the intel. She didn't even bother. .
basselope
(2,565 posts)It only "passed" because the senators you listed were weak. They all wanted to run for president and feared looking weak.
This is complete utter nonsense:
"9/11 happened in her state. She had to support it. It was wrong, but that wasn't totally clear at the time."
What on earth did Iraq have to do with 9/11? It WAS totally clear at the time. 100% crystal clear. There was 0 connection. ZERO. The BEST they were able to dredge up was that someone who may have been affiliated with the the 9/11 hijackers MAY have gone into Iraq at SOME POINT to meet with SOMEONE. There was 0 evidence of any involvement.
Not totally clear??!?!
The IWR is WHY Kerry lost in 2004. It's WHY I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012 b/c he chose Biden as his VP.. it showed me that all his speaking out against the war was meaningless, b/c he was willing to put a war voter a heartbeat from the presidency.
There is as much chance of me voting for Clinton as there was that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)She is the only one currently running to be president, despite how unfit and unqualified she is for the job.
tandot
(6,671 posts)With all his anti-Clinton rhetoric, I can't see how he'll get himself and his supporters to join our fight against Trump. I hope he changes his mind soon.
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)... that you aren't interested in reading the posts you're replying to.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)When Sanders is the nominee he will go after Trump. Clinton hasn't put Sanders away yet. LOL.
LizetteWest
(42 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Says the guy who received fewer endorsements than Ted Cruz. What was he doing for the past 25 years? Living in a cubicle?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Funny you should ask. His Congressional colleagues were wondering as well.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Her foreign policy makes Richard Perle and the neocons proud and Kissinger also. Heaven help our troops and their families if Clinton should become CiC. She has something to prove. I think she said Iran was next.
randome
(34,845 posts)Isn't he a warmonger, too?
And it was Bush, Jr. and his little buddies who actually took us to war.
My point, however, is that Sanders did little to make himself known or to build coalitions among his colleagues. That's why he has so little support in the Senate. The meek do not inherit the Earth. Or the mantle of President. The man or woman who actually engages with others over a lifetime and builds bridges and actively socializes with the right partners is the one who gets that role.
I've heard that people didn't know Sanders at first and that's why his campaign didn't take off. Well, why wasn't he making himself known before he jumped onto the Democratic Party bandwagon? After 25 years, hardly anyone knew who he was? That's the man who thinks he's personable and dynamic enough to be President?
He's a nice man with great ideas. But not Presidential material, apparently.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treatment. He didn't in 2004 only because he didn't really have a challenger.
Bush Jr. took us to war with Hillary's blessing. For almost 12 years she stood behind that decision to go to war. She once said it was a great business opportunity and once said the Iraqi's should thank us for bringing them freedom. She likes the domination of waging war. Heaven help our troops and their families if she becomes president. She has made it clear she would like to invade Iran.
Sanders is better presidential material than a candidate that made a "mistake", her words, at a time when we needed her the most. She also can't stand still on a position on an issue. Where does she stand today on fracking? or The TPP or medical marijuana, or locking up minority people in prison?
From Black Lives Matter:
Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.
She said "make no mistake"
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe he finds it 'unpleasant' to be sociable with his colleagues? If so, he should have bitten the bullet and assembled a team to take on the Establishment instead of virtually going it alone.
A warmonger is a warmonger. You're saying that since it was prudent to support Kerry in 2004, his warmongering past didn't matter. That's a double standard, imo. Principle should be the only calculation in politics, right? Win or lose? I don't think the political world works that way, though.
Clinton is definitely not my idea of a perfect candidate. Far from it. But I'm not going to complain when it's clear she's our next President. I can't undo the voters who have pushed her ahead. Best to find ways to deal with her and move her further to the left.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Duval
(4,280 posts)Thanks, portlander23
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Clinton had touted the intervention in Libya as smart power at its best, Before the total shit came down and went to hell.
She made a point of talking up the nuclear deal and New START as part of her record, but these were the result of diplomatic initiatives that she grudgingly supported. Those agreements happened mostly because of the work of other diplomats, and it is unlikely that Clinton would have pursued the nuclear deal as Obama did if she had been in his position. Now that it has been negotiated and is starting to work, Clinton wants to take credit for something that was mostly Obama and Kerrys doing in spite of her reluctance. Notably, she said nothing about her support for deeper involvement in Syria
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)loses. Her mistakes have cost lives if that matters.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)When it comes to Trump, Hillary & Bernie should be a united front. Period. No 'buts'.
He could have said 'I know Sec. Clinton and I have had our differences but I agree with Secretary Clinton that Donald Trump's foreign policy ideas are incredibly reckless and irresponsible' and left it at that.
Now, Trump will use Sanders words against Hillary. And take what Sanders says we should be doing as his own.
I would say the same if the situation was reversed.
He brought her judgement into question again. He didn't have to praise what she said, but he didn't have to throw her to the wolves either.
The pukes are all going after her now, she doesn't need Bernie falling in line right along with them. I was disappointed when I read he'd said what he said.
peace13
(11,076 posts)DOn't kid yourself. The minute she is the nominee they will give it to her with flood gates open. You will see Iraq, Benghazi, Bill, unsecured servers and the Clinton foundation dropped on her like the bombs she dreams of. It will be on her not Bernie and not Trump. She owns it. The Dems had fair warning and will pay the price. All of us will!