Peacelover Hillary voted for an insane war that killed hundreds of thousands, but Bernie

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:17 AM - Edit history (1)

is a crazed gun humper with a D- rating from the NRA, and a virulent racist (as are his supporters!) who organized marches for civil rights and got arrested in the process.

This inversion of logic is some of the stupidest, most desperate @#$& I have ever heard in my life. It is vile filth, and not the stuff of decent people.

Look, if the only way to make your preferred candidate seem palatable is to make up insane nonsense about their competition... I suggest that it's better to preserve your dignity by preferring a different candidate. Lying, no matter how clever the language used, does not make our world a better place. Lying makes our world a worse place, and it singes your soul.

Pick up your head, open your eyes, and look around. There's a real world out there, with real people experiencing real misery because a small group of sociopathic oligarchs always want more stuff no matter how much stuff they already have. Unless we all pull together to fight the good fight, the honest fight, we are done for.

[cali]

1. it's newsspeak. And k&r

[Metric System]

2. This is funny because of the lack of self-awareness on display.

[cali]

3. yes, on display by du Hillary supporters.

[Metric System]

5. Right. I guess the parade of nasty Hillary threads are all in my imagination. I'm sure one of your

fellow Sanders supporters is about to post another article from a Right-Winger any moment. Who will it be this time? Coulter again? Maybe Peggy Noonan for a change? Or why not Rush Limbaugh? Hell, Vince Foster, Benghazi and other RW bullshit have already been posted by Sanders supporters so clearly nothing is off-limits when it comes to pushing your candidate.

[jeff47]

8. Here, maybe you can help the Hillary supporters in this thread

find the massive documentation that Sanders is funded by the NRA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251548722

They claim it exists, yet just can't quite manage to pull up any of it. Weird, huh? Perhaps you can help them find it.

[Metric System]

11. I never made that claim and I never heard of it. It's not my job to back up the claims made by a

fellow Hillary supporter.

[jeff47]

15. You don't seem to hold Sanders supporters to that same standard

in that you're here complaining about a "parade of nasty Hillary threads" that were not started by the OP or the person you replied to.

After all, that is the thread Manny is obliquely referring to.

[RoccoR5955]

147. Don'tcha know?

IOKIYSHC!

[beam me up scottie]

23. Yet you expect us to do the same thing with Bernie's supporters.

[Metric System]

51. No I don't. Where did I call on Sanders supporters to police each other?

[beam me up scottie]

52. My bad, you just referred to "nasty" threads made by them while ignoring the ones from HC supporters

It's the hypocrisy.

Neither side can claim the high ground.

[jeff47]

55. Well, you're complaining about nasty threads to people who did not make them...

what exactly was the point of complaining to people who did not create those threads that upset you?

[artislife]

71. No..just to point and deflect...

[MoveIt]

133. Right because "Anything that Sticks" is your motto

Why police your fellow supporters, or even shun them, heck why not just give their flame bait a little kick and rec right?

Lies make DU suck. People who aid and abet liars make DU suck.

[morningfog]

143. What is your job?

[zeemike]

61. Wow that was a remarkable piece of crap.

I missed it so thanks for pointing it out...not that it was a good thing to read.
The air is full of desperation...cynical desperation.

[beam me up scottie]

76. And 19 people rec'd it.

But most HC supporters don't applaud exploiting victims for political gain.

[Hiraeth]

229. 29 now.

[beam me up scottie]

230. If I was a HC supporter I wouldn't want a thread like that on the greatest.

They might think it makes Bernie look bad but it just reflects poorly on some of HC's supporters.

[Hiraeth]

235. agree -- *sigh* -- it is already such a long campaign season.

[merrily]

278. Even an OP that was hidden for blatant anti-Semitism got a rec.

[beam me up scottie]

280. Yep. Anti-Semitism is perfectly acceptable to some people on DU.

Especially now.

[George II]

32. Not to mention those with links to blatantly snipped/altered videos of her!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251548950

[beam me up scottie]

38. How do you feel about calling Bernie a racist and using the Yiddish n-word?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251506371

HC supporters lowered the bar as far as it could go, that thread trumps everything.

[BeanMusical]

87. That OP reeks of antisemitism.

[beam me up scottie]

88. They should have been banned, imo.

Good jury that time.

[BeanMusical]

90. I totally agree.

But it takes a hell of a lot for the admins to ban an HRC supporter and apparently this wasn't awful enough.

[beam me up scottie]

91. If a Bernie supporter had used a racist slur do you think they'd still be here?

HC supporters would have alerted 24/7 until they were tombstoned.

[BeanMusical]

94. Absolutely, they would be gone in a blink of an eye.

[AnAzulTexas]

41. yap yap yap

yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap.

get a hold of reality. HRC has voted for many wrong things. she, simply put, has blood on her hands.

You just cannot say the same thing about Sanders, and it drives you people insane. Insane to the point that you reach all the way back to vince foster.

[Demeter]

204. Somebody called her Lady MacBeth in a headband

Recent revelations justify the appellation.

[Maedhros]

42. I have seen no posts from any of those people.

Are you talking about the email issue? That's coming from Obama's Justice Department.

If not, then you are really confusing me.

[Metric System]

49. Probably because they've been locked

[Maedhros]

59. Probably because they don't exist, and you're just making shit up. [n/t]

[Metric System]

75. Gee, thanks. But I have truth on my side.

[Maedhros]

78. If you had any evidence of your assertion, you would have provided it.

"Hillary partisan claims everyone is mean to Hillary" is not very compelling on its own.

[Metric System]

137. Here's the evidence you asked for...

Ann Coulter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=522817

Right-Wing video mentioning Vince Foster, Benghazi and all the other GOP Greatest Hits (the OP self-deleted):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=543189

John R. Schindler:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=545258

[Maedhros]

148. Here's my take...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=522817

Coulter: I wish Fox News would go a little easier on Hillary Clinton. She’s the one we want to run against. Could you guys just back off? Because I feel like I’m living through this, I feel like this is déjà vu again. We used to say, ‘Oh, the next president isn’t going to be a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.’ Our next president could be Sen. Bernie Sanders, if you people keep this up.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/08/coulter-repeats-what-is-becoming-obvious-to-the-gop-they-dont-want-to-run-against-bernie/

This post was excerpted from Ring of Fire Radio, hosted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder, who were analyzing and speculating upon the GOP. The comment was about what the GOP is thinking and not about Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=543189

This message was self-deleted by its author (Playinghardball) on Mon Aug 24, 2015, 11:33 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

Hard to comment on this, since it was deleted. Can't really count this as evidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=545258

Why Clinton's email problem won't go away

If you don't like what Schindler says, then refute his arguments.

You originally posted this:

I'm sure one of your fellow Sanders supporters is about to post another article from a Right-Winger any moment. Who will it be this time? Coulter again? Maybe Peggy Noonan for a change? Or why not Rush Limbaugh? Hell, Vince Foster, Benghazi and other RW bullshit have already been posted by Sanders supporters so clearly nothing is off-limits when it comes to pushing your candidate.

As I've shown above, the post you think is from Ann Coulter was from Ring of Fire. Nothing from the others you mentioned. This makes me think that you are not posting in good faith - essentially, you're making things up with which to insult us, simply to insult us.

Based upon that, I'm putting you on the ignore list.

[Metric System]

162. Typical Sanders supporter wanting an echo chamber. If I put everyone who makes stuff up about

Hillary on ignore I wouldn't be talking to many people. For the record, I don't have anyone on ignore.

[L0oniX]

80. ^^^this^^^

[BeanMusical]

89. +1000

[busterbrown]

97. Nice Job..

I like both Hillary and Bernie....But Hillary in my mind is the best bet in a General!

Plus. Freaking Hillary is evolving. I know anti-Hillary people can’t stand that word. But screw em...It’s real..

[Fuddnik]

104. That's the thing about evolving.

It takes thousands of years, and you never quite know what you're gonna get.

Well, maybe in Jan. 2017.

[eridani]

117. So why is she the best bet in the general, with zero appeal to the 63%? n/t

[busterbrown]

119. Tell me....Please

What Poll is that?

[eridani]

121. Unfortunately, no one cares to poll disaffected voters--the 63% of those eligible--

--that did not vote in 2014. (Just about all focus on 'likely voters.') There are plenty of people totally new to politics getting involved in the Sanders campaign. Only a small and much older minority of the South Seattle Sanders group are even Democrats--they are mostly young and disaffected. Given no real stats, can you come up with even one anecdote about someone who has never been involved in politics who has become involved by joining the Clinton campaign?

[busterbrown]

140. I thought so..

People who don’t vote are usually ill informed... Blame govt as a whole for their misery and discontent...rather than understanding the specifics...If you think Bernie Sanders can fight the fight better than Hillary, well I disagree.. I watched “Game Changer” last night and the words “Socialist Commie" came up frequently every time McCain mentioned Obama at stump speeches. I don’t think Bernie can overcome the ignorance of our electorate..That’s as simple as I can get..

[merrily]

152. You're not helping yourself. FYI: McCain lost to Obama.

Apparently, throwing around the S word is not as effective as it was in 1955.

Among young voters, socialism polls better than capitalism.

[busterbrown]

159. Link Please..

Are you accusing me of throwing around the S word? I wish Bernie could be our next President.. Simply I feel that Hillary has the better chance..and right now all the stuff that you are throwing people like me, is not working.. In fact it is beginning to piss me off..

[merrily]

163. Deflect much?

[busterbrown]

180. Is that all you got? n/t

[eridani]

272. The disaffected voters self-organizing to support Sanders USED TO BE ignorant

They are educating themselves, and also starting to realize that they need us old farts as guides to the caucus process.

Still waiting to hear about anyone who has been turned off becoming turned on by participating in Clinton's campaign.

[merrily]

279. That's rich from the poster who changed the subject. Flail much?

[sabrina 1]

286. The polls, see the latest PPP poll, are now showing that Sanders is doing better against Repubs,

including Trump, than Hillary. I think the reason for this is that people are no longer saying 'I prefer this candidate (fill in the blank) but I am afraid s/he can't beat the Repubs. That's what we DID for a long time, but now those same people, or a whole lot of them, are saying 'if I want this candidate, I need to support him/her, or all I'm doing is making sure we do not get the candidate WE want'.

And because the thinking on this has changed, people ARE supporting the candidate they feel best represents them regardless of the usual 'well, yes, but the country is more conservative than liberal' etc which we know is not true.

That thinking cost us some pretty good candidates, and people are not going to do it anymore.

[merrily]

150. That's hilarious.

[JoeyT]

206. So how much evolving is allowed?

Politicians are allowed to evolve after voting for something that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were innocent? After opposing a treaty to ban a weapon that's pretty much known for killing civilians?

Apparently Muslim lives don't matter.

[busterbrown]

213. Let me respond to you by asking..

Your sentence ending with “many whom were innocent” What Iraqi wasn’t innocent? Gives me a clue, that there might be some things which you didn’t understand concerning the war as well...

[JoeyT]

256. Or we could just do it this way:

We *know* innocents were killed. In a war Hillary voted for. We *know* the cluster bombs she defended kill a ton of random civilians.

If you're ok with that, go ahead and say "I'm ok with killing innocent Muslims, even children.".

You can obfuscate all you like, but you're defending the murder of innocents because their lives are inconvenient to a politician you like.

[AgingAmerican]

168. Um...

Right-wing media and the origins of the Bernie "doesn't care about minorities" meme

[rhett o rick]

217. But, but H. Clinton did turn her back on Democrats and not only supported the I-War,

she helped sell the lies of the need to invade Iraq. Seriously, how can you forgive her participation? She hasn't even apologized for her part in a disaster that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

That is not an "attack" it's telling what actually happened.

[Metric System]

221. I've seen far too many Sanders supporters say they'd happily support Biden, even though he too voted

for the IWR. Hypocrites. Also, it's hilarious that a Sanders supporter accuses Hillary of turning her back on Democrats when they're supporting a candidate who refuses to actually join the party.

[rhett o rick]

225. I doubt you've seen many Sanders supporters say they will support Biden. I won't.

Sanders failure to join the party doesn't come close to Clinton's responsibility for promoting a war that brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children. George Bush was the worst president in the history of the USofA and she believed his lies about the need to kill Iraqi's and steal our money. She doubled down with the Patriot Act. And she supports the domestic spying of the NSA/CIA Black Security State.

We need a president with integrity. Being buddy-buddy with George Bush isn't very Democratic.

[sibelian]

323. The parade of nasty Hillary threads is rather amply populated with

records of things she has actually done.

Not so much with the nasty Bernie threads.

[MaggieD]

30. Amazing lack of awareness at that

[LuvLoogie]

283. There was a new guy/gal who just got MIRTED

for slicing and dicing some of the myopia around here. He/she actually posted the entire text of Hillary Clinton's floor speech before her Iraq vote, and pretty succinctly illustrated how FUD gets generated and perpetuated.

Someone else said he was a R/W troll. All he did was hold up a mirror.

[randys1]

301. Dont know about you but i cant WAIT for President Walker, lets see how many he wants

to kill in Iran...

[sibelian]

324. The charge is not contrarianism.

The charge is dishonesty.

[Bonobo]

4. The inversion of logic is stupid, but even more so...

it is cynically intentional filth from people that don't actually give a fucking shit.

It's just points on a darts scorecard with 2 competing players: "R" and "D".

It doesn't even matter to them who is throwing the darts.

[Metric System]

6. All I see is dart-throwing at Democrats.

[Bonobo]

13. You are in GD: P where posts about Republican candidates are not allowed.

What did you expect?

[daleanime]

17. Yes, I've noticed that....

and I do feel sorry for you. Have a great night.

[rhett o rick]

226. That's because you think that those that supported the Republicans are actually Democrats.

They are turncoats. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. How can you justify that?

[dsc]

7. His vote to make gun manufacturers virtually immune from lawsuits

coupled with the fact that the government won't act in any way, let alone any meaningful way, to clamp down on guns means that tens of thousands of black and brown kids and adults will die each year. Blacks in this country have a death rate from guns that is about the same as countries in which none of us would want to live and frankly Bernie did help build that.

[jeff47]

14. They already were immune.

They have no liability when the product they sell is not defective, and sold to licensed dealers.

There was a plan to have families of victims file SLAPP lawsuits against gun manufacturers. These lawsuits would fail, but the theory was they would be so burdensome as to get the multi-billion dollar gun industry to give up and nobody would ever make guns ever again and we'd all live happily ever after.

Aside from the badly-written fairy tale aspect, there was no real plan to pay for these suits or any judgements from counter-suits. Meaning we'd get lots of cases like the family of an Aurora shooting victim who now get to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to two ammunition manufacturers. 'Cause nothing says compassion like exploiting grieving relatives and then leaving them in massive debt.

The bill Sanders voted for stopped these lawsuits before they further wrecked lives that were already in shambles. Gun manufacturers are not immune if the gun is defective, or if they sell to someone other than a licensed dealer. They still face civil and criminal liability in those situations. Even after the bill passed.

[dsc]

18. right they spent millions of dollars to get immunity from suits that they already were immune from

Here is some of the conduct that Sanders immunized. In parts of Indiana that are near Chicago there are huge gun stores that sell literally more guns than any other gun stores in Indiana with nearly all of them being used to kill black and brown kids in Chicago, Sanders said, go ahead and do it, no big deal to me. In Virginia, people were going to gun stores from all over the east coast, buying literally hundreds of guns at a time, and selling them for massive profits in Baltimore, DC. Philadelphia, and NY. When VA finally decided to crack down on this by limiting purchases to one gun a month, the manufacturers sued. Bernie's response, go ahead and sell, no problem for me. The gun manufacturers are no different at all morally from bankers who spend tons of money to weaken laws, and weaken enforcement agencies, and then make consumers agree to arbitration instead of suing. The fact is that immunity has literally killed kids in Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NY, and Boston among other places.

[jeff47]

25. They'd still be a pain in the ass, even though they'd win 100% of them.

Here is some of the conduct that Sanders immunized. In parts of Indiana that are near Chicago there are huge gun stores that sell literally more guns than any other gun stores in Indiana

Nope! They aren't gun manufacturers.

In Virginia, people were going to gun stores from all over the east coast, buying literally hundreds of guns at a time, and selling them for massive profits in Baltimore, DC. Philadelphia, and NY.

Nope! They aren't gun manufacturers.

Gun dealers are not gun manufacturers. You can tell the difference because it's already against federal law for a gun manufacturer to directly sell a gun to a consumer. They are required to sell to a federally-licensed gun dealer first.

We need to get rid of guns. Destroying grieving families is not the way to do it.

[dsc]

28. Of course the manufacturers had nothing to do with this

they had no earthly idea that their products were being used that way. They thought the VA people were collectors of rare Saturday night specials. Give me an ever loving break. They did what the tobacco companies did until they were sued. They did what the coal companies are doing now. Heck they do not did. If this were any other company people like you would be screaming for their heads but instead, since it is guns, and the people being killed don't look like you, you don't give a rats ass.

[jeff47]

50. If you want to stop the dealers, go after the dealers.

Perhaps a law requiring the dealers to only sell to people who reside in their state.

They did what the tobacco companies did until they were sued.

Pssst...Tobacco companies are still in business. You can buy plenty of cigarettes everywhere.

If this were any other company people like you would be screaming for their heads but instead, since it is guns, and the people being killed don't look like you, you don't give a rats ass.

You are literally supporting sending grieving families into bankruptcy on a campaign that can not possibly succeed in actually getting rid of all of the guns.

You want to ruin their lives a second time so that you feel better. Because that is all that would happen from these lawsuits. There is no possible way these lawsuits could put every gun manufacturer on the planet out of business.

Get off you fucking high horse and look at the people you want to devastate again.

Then get to work helping those of us trying to actually change the fucking laws, so something happens that can actually work.

[BeanMusical]

93. +1

[dsc]

122. Newsflash the tobacco company paid billions

and they did so because they systematically flouted laws, lied to their customers, and marketed their product in irresponsible ways, just like the gun manufacturers do. They know damn well exactly and precisely who is buying their guns and why they are being bought. When they send thousands and thousands and thousands of cheap hand guns to podunk Indiana which happens to be a half hour outside of Chicago they know where those guns are going and what those guns are being used for. And they are every bit as responsible for the results as Phillip Morris was for the results of their reprehensible practices. Black and brown people may as well live in Rwanda in terms of gun violence thanks to this. And the immunity bestowed upon the manufacturers helped build that.

[jeff47]

127. And that brought all their victims back to life and sent them out of business!!!

Oh wait, it didn't. They're still in business, and still making billions and still killing people.

Let's repeat that model! Its utter and complete failure will totally justify further destroying the lives of grieving families. Sure, it adds financial devastation to their lives, but DSC will feel better when the price of a handgun goes up by $10.

[dsc]

178. Smoking has declined immensely since those lawsuits

and death will start declining as the cohort that grew up post lawsuit gets older and older. I live in eastern NC where tobacco was quite literally king and even here, tobacco is a relatively small part of the economy and smoking is banned in most public places. The money tobacco companies are making is largely coming from the third world.

[jeff47]

193. No, that decline started before people found the evidence to win those lawsuits.

Remember, they didn't have a case until they found proof that the companies knew they were lying and covering up the danger.

Again, SLAPP lawsuits are bad. They are bad when they are used to shut down abortion clinics, and they are bad when they are used to shut down gun manufacturers.

Especially because the latter have giant piles of money and thus won't be shut down by them.

We need changes in the law, not an ineffective end-run that will only hurt victims a second time.

[passiveporcupine]

27. Sanders votes for rational bills, not pie in the sky bills

Or bills that don't really make sense.

Hillary supporters, who keep attacking him on this, don't seem to understand, is that he has no more power to change this than anyone else. One person will not make a difference. He's already voted to ban assault weapons. What do you want him to do now during campaign season?

If we decide as a country that we want to fight the 2Aers to limit guns in this country, it's going to get ugly really fast. Are we really ready to go there in the middle of primary season? I'll be the first to say I was wrong when I see Hillary stand up and offer a proposal to take people's guns away. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

[L0oniX]

82. The fact that a lot of Dems own guns is not part of the equation ...I guess.

A couple of years ago I ran a DU poll on gun ownership and a slight majority checked yes. Now that was "owners" and the gun or guns they owned could be any kind of gun.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Sanders voted for background checks and an assault weapons ban:

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

[merrily]

153. His ratings from the NRA have ranged from D- to F.

Meanwhile, this is the same group that has been mocking the "purity" of the left for years. And supporting the candidate who advocated for the Iraq War, ffs.

I call bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

201. Now they're trying to say she HAD to vote for the Iraq war.

Because NYers wanted vengeance for 9/11.

Of course everyone knew Iraq wasn't responsible but who cares?

I remember when DUers were incensed about that war, my how things have changed.

[madville]

34. Every level of government buys their guns

From these same manufacturers. They can't have them sued out of existence when they are buying hundreds of thousands if not millions of firearms from them every year. That's really why that was passed, to protect the government's supply of weapons and ammunition.

[jeff47]

62. It's moronic to believe they would not be replaced by other manufacturers

There's way too much money both for the government purchases and civilian purchases for someone to not take over if you manage to get Colt to give up.

Besides, in the fantasy world where these SLAPP lawsuits got Colt to stop selling in the civilian market, they can still sell to the government.

[merrily]

155. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the OP is about the Iraq War, not some gun bill.

Note the deflection.

[jeff47]

158. Yep, I'm aware. I'm also pointing out their deflection is pants-on-fire lying. (nt)

[merrily]

164. IOW, just like the rare non-deflection.

[dsc]

179. yeah black and brown lives just a deflection

and you all wonder why people think the supporters of Bernie don't think black lives matter.

[LondonReign2]

294. Right, because if you can insert "balck and brown lives" into any topic, why then it proves

Bernie is racist! Presto chango.

BTW, how many black and brown lives were lost as a result of the war in Iraq?

[Armstead]

129. I disagree with Sanders vote on that, but in the larger scheme of things....

it's a distraction.

Sanders supports most gun-control measures that Clinton and other Democrats do. Period.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[okasha]

10. ....but Bernie

votes to continue that war every time he votes for a military appropriations bill, and he does it knowing that Bush lied.

You want to stop the war? De-fund it.

[jeff47]

16. Yes, that is exactly the same as voting to invade.

[okasha]

19. Wrong. It's worse.

Every vote that supports continuing the war is cast in the knowledge that the premise for invading Iraq was fraudulent; that the war has probably killed over a million Iraqis; that torture and other atrocities were routinely committed.

Nobody's hands are clean on this one.

[truebrit71]

22. Yeah, no. It's a vote to keep paying the people that actually

... went to fight the war that Hillary voted for in the first place...

So actually NOT worse than voting to send them there in the first place...

[sheshe2]

24. +1000

[jeff47]

26. On what planet is feeding soldiers in a war zone worse than sending them there?

Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

That is some seriously screwed up moral relativism bullshit you are vomiting forth.

[beam me up scottie]

35. No kidding.

[DemByDefault]

37. Amen!

Talk about some twisted friggin logic...

[bvar22]

200. "twisted friggen logic"

Nailed it.

[hifiguy]

46. Ain't THAT the truth.

[okasha]

63. Do you really think that those bills

only appropriate lunch money? No weapons systems? No guns? No bullets? No jet fuel? No mechanics to maintain bombers and drones? No missiles?

Because if you do...oh, hell, I can't bring myself to take advantage of you earnest faith in the Sinless One. Go in peace to love and serve the Bern.

[jeff47]

66. Do you really think they didn't appropriate any lunch money?

And do you really think starving the troops or leaving them in Iraq without gas is going to win over anyone?

The time to stop the Iraq war was the AUMF vote. There was absolutely no reason to rush into that. Iraq wasn't going to suddenly run away. And more time means the inspectors finish their job and W loses his justification.

Once in Iraq, denying funding just means fucking over the poor soldiers you decided to send into a war. Boy, how compassionate.

Because if you do...oh, hell, I can't bring myself to take advantage of you earnest faith in the Sinless One

I'm afraid it isn't the Sanders supporters acting in blind faith. We know he has faults. We also know he does far more good.

[okasha]

69. Oh, bullshit.

The obvious alternative to "starving the troops" or "leaving them in Iraq without gas" is bringing them home.

[jeff47]

126. Yeah, because threatening starvation is the best way to make up for your candidate's lousy vote.

I know! Let's under-fund the VA! That'll totally keep Congress from sending any soldiers to war! Oh, we did that and started the Iraq war anyway?

Again, voting to slash funding for troops while they are in a war zone is barbaric. You are punishing the soldiers you sent into harm's way in order to score political points. It is craven, disgusting, and apparently right up your alley since you keep pushing for it.

[okasha]

172. Still bullshit.

Re-read the post you're replying to.

[jeff47]

194. "Nuh-uh!!!" does not change what you are doing.

Remember the sequester? Something so disastrous that of course the politicians would avoid it?

How'd that work out?

Now, you think they'll really pull the troops if they don't get funding for food?

[okasha]

238. You're flailing away at yourself.

No one has yattered on about "starving the troops" except you.

Stop emoting and think for 30 seconds: a Congress that would vote to end funding for the war would be a liberal Democratic Congress and would be doing it precisely in order to get out of Western/Central Asia. That would, of course, involve recalling the troops.

[Ed Suspicious]

118. Also, the MIC in this country has to be our greatest jobs program. You just don't pull the rug out

from under people. This is their livelihood. I hate military spending, but given we are where we are, we need a replacement for the jobs program before we start to defund the program. (I'm not even only talking about soldiers, I'm talking about the families in communities who manufacture the war goods and supply raw materials to the war machine.)

[dreamnightwind]

214. Wow, you're entitled to that opinion but

in my mind supporting MIC as a jobs program is about as wrong as it gets.

The real question here as I see it is, would Hillary support MIC less than Bernie? Of course not, she's one of the biggest hawks our party has. This line of attack on Bernie here in this thread is absurd. Hillary is for empire. Bernie can't end empire on his own but it's not his thing, and he will be better in that regard than any other major candidate.

[Ed Suspicious]

218. I'm not saying I like it. I'm just saying that there needs to be a plan to replace those jobs. You

can't just pull the rug out from under millions of people. We have over 2,500,000 people on active and reserve duty alone, we aren't even talking about the productive capacity yet. Major portions of the population will be unemployed including thousands in my own community of Oshkosh, WI where Oshkosh Truck brings in billions of dollars assembling trucks for the military. Oshkosh would take a major hit if we simply ended it. We need an infrastructure rebuilding program or something into which we can shift people as we start to work on decreasing the influence of the MIC.

[dreamnightwind]

224. OK I get it but defunding the MIC is an urgent priority to me

It, and its lobbyists, the industries that profit from it, are destroying everything I loved about this nation: our freedoms (patriot act from MIC blowback terrorist attacks), our environment (MIC is what props up extraction industries, also U.S. military is single biggest source of man-made polution on the planet), we are hated around the world because we are interfering in the affairs of most every country, the drones and surveillance state and police militarization are all entwined in the whole MIC overreach, we have no money for social programs due to MIC spending, for me there is no overstating the issue, MIC must be reigned in, it's global corporatists using U.S. taxpayer money to provide cheap unregulated access to natural resources and exploitable labor pools anywhere on the planet, while our planet is literally being killed by climate change which is massively increased by this whole resource extraction strong-arm regime.

We have plenty of work to do here, there can be jobs, there will be money if it is not given to the MIC. Retraining, infrastructure, my preference is spending on a radical retooling of our energy and transportation systems to avert the worst effects of climate change while it is still possible, there is no time to waste, the tipping points are here now. I don't want to wait until we have all of this in place to defund the MIC, it needs to happen, now.

I know of no better candidate on these issues than Bernie, so there is that.

[Ed Suspicious]

219. I don't support it as a jobs program. I'm saying it IS a jobs program whether we like it or not.

[kath]

85. And it keeps getting vomited forth over and over and over and over again.

The desperate recycling of these ridiculous memes is happening at an ever -more-rapid pace.

[merrily]

157. Baloney. Once the vote puts troops in harm's way, voting against funding is

reprehensible. Ask Kerry how his attempt to backpedal on voting to put Americans in harm's way by voting against funding on the the next go round worked out for him in 2004. Does "He was for the Iraq War before he was against it" ring a bell? How about the flip flops given out by the RNC as favors?

[sheshe2]

21. okasha.

KnR your post, I was going to post the same.

Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Hillary opposed limiting cluster bombs:

Senators eye curbs on cluster bombs, widening matter beyond Israel's use

Several Senate Democrats are renewing their push to curb the U.S. military’s use of weaponry responsible for civilian casualties in conflicts around the world — notably during the summer war between Israel and Lebanon — a proposal that has split the party’s presidential frontrunners.

Human rights groups long have lobbied to curtail the use of cluster bombs, which disperse “bomblets” over wide areas that can cause civilian deaths years after they are dropped. Democratic lawmakers joined the cause last fall amid growing controversy over Israel’s firing of older U.S.-supplied cluster bombs into Lebanon.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), opposed it – a vote that looms as potential attack ad fodder in a 2008 campaign that is kicking off and going negative especially early.

“For Jewish-American activists who are active because of their concerns about Israel, they are, generally speaking, not going to want to see additional restrictions placed on Israel’s use of U.S. weaponry,” a source close to the Obama camp said.

A Biden spokeswoman said the lawmaker will review the bill thoroughly before deciding how to approach it. Other sponsors of the cluster-weapons limits include Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/9233-senators-eye-curbs-on-cluster-bombs-widening-matter-beyond-israelquots-use

[okasha]

67. Deflection attempt. Fail.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Weren't we discussing war?

[okasha]

70. See post 63.

Sanders voted to buy those bombs.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Bernie voted against them, nice try.

[BeanMusical]

95. +1000

[frylock]

186. Better luck tomorrow.

[L0oniX]

84. LMFAO ...keep trying.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. Orwell was not only a great author but a regular prophet.

He took the realities around him and exaggerated them into great works of fiction. I don't think even he would believe some would use his work as instruction manuals.

[hifiguy]

45. "To see what is directly in front of

one's nose requires a constant struggle."

[Juicy_Bellows]

48. Nice!

"All finally traceable to a secret belief that one's political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality."

Not only can we keep our own diaries of thought here, we can check in on others for posterity.

Cheers!

[beam me up scottie]

20. Thank you, Manny.

I'm going to start referring them back to this thread, they need a wake up call.

[MaggieD]

29. Can you explain why peace loving Bernie supports..

.....the biggest boondoggle the MIC has ever dreamed up? A trillion bucks on a jet that doesn't work and never has? How about all his war funding votes? Can you explain those?

[djean111]

47. Can you explain why Hillary voted against an amendment which would have cut funding for those

cluster bombs that maim and kill children? She and Biden voted against that amendment, joining all the GOP.

[MaggieD]

58. I believe it was because....

The military did not have a plan to ensure compliance by other countries signing on to the treaty (the bill did not contain any plan for that, if I remember correctly). And they are rarely used by our military anyway. But that's just my best recollection from 8 years ago. I don't think she is a fan of using cluster bombs, do you?

Now, can you answer my question?

[beam me up scottie]

54. Can you explain why civil rights touting Hillary supports the death penalty?

[MaggieD]

64. She supporters restricting it

Require DNA testing for all federal executions.

Clinton co-sponsored the Innocence Protection Act:
Title: To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed.
Summary: Authorizes a person convicted of a Federal crime to apply for DNA testing to support a claim that the person did not commit:
the Federal crime of which the person was convicted; or
any other offense that a sentencing authority may have relied upon when it sentenced the person with respect to such crime.
Prohibits a State from denying an application for DNA testing made by a prisoner in State custody who is under sentence of death if specified conditions apply.
Provides grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.
Establishes the National Commission on Capital Representation.
Withholds funds from States not complying with standards for capital representation.
Provides for capital defense incentive grants and resource grants.
Increases compensation in Federal cases, and sets forth provisions regarding compensation in State cases, where an individual is unjustly sentenced to death.
Adds a certification requirement in Federal death penalty prosecutions.
Expresses the sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded.

[beam me up scottie]

65. She only supports killing certain prisoners. Wonderful.

[Armstead]

181. Goold old-fashioned Pork Barrel Politics

A big military project, with billions of spending and jobs being thrown around, and Bernie diverted a small portion of that spending to Vermont to help perk up the state economy.

It's what all politicians do.

But it's not like he created the damn thing. He was just practicing pragmatic politics.

Another case of the Catch 22 "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" double standard of some here.

On one hand, when he sticks to his principles, it's "Oh he never gets anything done, He's too much of a purist. He's a lousy politician and legislator."

But when he acts pragmatically, and does what politicians do -- represent the folks back home -- it's "ooooo,oooo he's such a hypocrite."

[a2liberal]

31. Why can't you be good and get with the program, like Third-Way Manny? (nt)

[Ed Suspicious]

40. ×1

[Tommy2Tone]

36. More Bernie good - Hillary bad

More of the same day in day out.

[pnwmom]

74. Right. Bernie supporters never repeat insane rightwing lies to support their candidate.

Not one of them has ever gleefully posted lies about her emails, for instance.

All the unfair attacks are on poor Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Did anyone actually say that or are you just making up shit?

Another straw man argument used against Bernie supporters from pnwmom who really doesn't support Hillary, no matter how it looks.

[L0oniX]

86. +1 "making shit up"

[jeff47]

128. She believes quoting the state department spokesman is lying. (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

211. Oy.

[hifiguy]

43. Jesus, Manny, there you go again!

Confusing everybody with the FACTS.

We're supposed to ignore the facts, STFU and guzzle the Kool-Aid. You ignore the memo that was circulated?



Right on, and bringin' the truth as usual.

[progree]

44. Amen. n/t

[pa28]

53. I've read here multiple times that Bernie is a "gun nut" and Hillary hates guns and gun violence.

However, the record shows when Hillary "calls for action on gun violence" the result is lots and lots of dead people in faraway lands.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Hillary supports the 2nd Amendment.

She's not anti-gun and Bernie isn't pro-gun.

It's not as black and white as some would have you believe.

[Armstead]

130. Donl;t conguse me with reality

[beam me up scottie]

202. Black and white thinking is easier than reality.

Obama, Hillary and Bernie all are pro-2A and pro-gun control.

All have commented on the difference between rural and urban gun use but only one of them is accused of using a racist dog whistle for doing so.

[snagglepuss]

57. Well said.

K and R

[jfern]

60. She also voted for war with Iran (Kyl-Lieberman)

[pnwmom]

72. "if the only way to make your preferred candidate seem palatable is to make up insane nonsense"

Right. Like about receiving "retroactively" classified emails?

To me, it seems that partisans on both sides like to push insane nonsense.

[Chicago1980]

79. Was there a point to this post?

It's snarky and sarcastic and hitting below the belt and for no other reason than to try and feel important.

[artislife]

81. It is after a thread like this

I go back to having a very difficult time imagining blackening the bubble next to her name on my absentee ballot.

[slipslidingaway]

83. Who cares about those hundreds of thousands or well over a million displaced people ...

they still believe in our dream of bringing democracy to their country.



And as Clinton said in her speech before the US Senate when voting for the IWR, she trusts Bush???

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. Waiting to hear Bernie is too much of a peacenik.

[SoapBox]

96. Plus a million Manny!

Look up is right...

[BeanMusical]

98. Kickin' and Reccin'

[Zorra]

99. Everyone, please, pay attention. This is one of the most important OPs ever on DU.

Please...please.

"Pick up your head, open your eyes, and look around. There's a real world out there, with real people experiencing real misery because a small group of sociopathic oligarchs always want more stuff no matter how much stuff they already have. Unless we all pull together to fight the good fight, the honest fight, we are done for."

It is way past time we evolved beyond the lies, the deception, the corruption, the greed, the destruction,...beyond hate, beyond war.

Join us. Please, help us stop the madness. We can do this. We really can. We need you, all of you, sisters and brothers.

Please.

[MissDeeds]

135. +1000

I'm with you, Zorra. We must move beyond the lies, deception, corruption...and war. It will take all of us.


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing". Edmund Burke

[hifiguy]

210. Damn tootin!!! nt

[SonderWoman]

100. 33,000 gun deaths a year.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Good thing all of the candidates are pro-gun control then, eh?

But trying to distract from the op tells me what you care more about.

[SonderWoman]

102. 33,000 gun deaths a year.

That's what I care about.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Not about the victims of the Iraq war - including the dead and maimed children?

Your attempt to distract from the op tells me you care more about scoring points for Hillary.

Many of us still haven't gotten over the war but we still care about gun deaths.

[SonderWoman]

106. Or are you just deflecting from 33,000 gun deaths a year?

Perspective.

[beam me up scottie]

107. You're bringing up guns in a thread about the victims of the Iraq war.

Just to try to smear Bernie, as if he's responsible for them.

What kind of person does that?

If someone is lying about Hillary by all means call them out, I would do the same but come on.

[SonderWoman]

108. Huh? Nothing in the op even mentions the Iraq War...

Except a sentence in the headline. 99.99% of this op has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War. Nice try at deflecting though. Who does that?

[beam me up scottie]

109. What war do you think they were talking about?

The IW is a sore spot with me.

Never mind, you have every right to defend your candidate.

Proceed.

[SonderWoman]

110. Haha! Please, just put me on ignore.

[beam me up scottie]

111. No.

I don't put people on ignore.

I'm here to discuss not participate in an echo chamber.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Who posts a Republican ad against Bernie calling him a pedophile protector?:

I'm just going to leave this here so that everyone can see who does that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251549982

[Capt. Obvious]

124. But don't you see?

That member's hand was forced by all of the attacks on Clinton.

[beam me up scottie]

199. Now she's trying to say it was just a news report, so what if they called him a pedophile?

She was just "concerned" how it would look if someone found out...

I wonder how many hours she spent digging up that slimy hit piece from the past.

[LondonReign2]

296. Isn't it time for you to post another pedophile smear against Bernie?

Or maybe another OP claiming he is too much of a hawk?

[Armstead]

132. And Bernie Sanders is in favor of that?

Why must you illustrate the point of the OP so perfectly?

[DanTex]

103. Bernie's no more of a gun humper than Hillary is a warmonger.

They both made some bad votes in the past, but I agree, rhetoric like that is excessive.

Now, as for this:

Look, if the only way to make your preferred candidate seem palatable is to make up insane nonsense about their competition...

That might be the single most hilariously hypocritical thing that a Hillary-basher has posted on this board. And that's a seriously high bar.

[tblue]

112. Kicked for Manny

I'm for Bernie but I refuse to post anything against Hillary or her supporters. I am assuming everyone here has good intentions and there's too much to be done to spend even a minute on friendly fire.

Onward, DU Soldiers!

GO BERNIE!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. Her vote for the killing was an act of either Monumental Stupidity or cold blooded expediency.

Either of which should make her bid for the presidency unacceptable.

[navarth]

131. it was 'expediency'

and this is the crux of my entire problem with Sec. Clinton.

That Iraq War Vote was pure craven political expediency IMO. It's enough to make her unacceptable except as a last resort to keep a Kasich or Trump or Bu$h from getting elected.

[Martin Eden]

139. 3rd Possibility:

She really was on board with the neocon agenda.

[Indepatriot]

170. That is indeed, the crux of the biscuit......

Both explanations make any rationalizations regarding her qualifications moot. She's either too stupid to be President, (I don't believe that for a moment), or she was willing to put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk to "bolster her cred" with the hawks on The Hill. I find the rational explanation even more revolting than the "she's naive/stupid" one....

[TheKentuckian]

276. I'm the opposite, the wicked can repent but you can't fix stupid.

[99th_Monkey]

115. Yes. nt

[marym625]

116. you know damn well that if Hillary rejected corporate funds

The same supporters saying you can't win without that money would be singing a different time. Just like so many did prior to her announcement.

[Live and Learn]

120. Well said and can't be said often or loud enough! + 1 million

[Babel_17]

123. Mostly this tactic isn't one that individuals just stumble on

Mostly this tactic isn't one that individuals just stumbled on, it's one that was devised and it constantly gets massaged. It's enlightening to see how low some will go to advance the ball for their faction.

But we can't hold grudges against those who've been duped. Eventually they'll be abandoned by those instigating the false narrative and their path forward shouldn't be made any harder by acrimony over the past. We need to reflect the history Senator Sanders has lived through. Part of building a coalition for progress is letting go of the irrelevant disputes of the past.

The false narrative has lost its traction and those who were pushing it are fine tuning the new talking points. It will be all about electability, the utility of money from those who devastated our economy, and lots of historical revisionism. That will be the new front.

The Sanders campaign unexpectedly prevailed, and exceeded even the optimistic expectations of supporters, in the first skirmishes for winning over voters, and that's a true narrative that's galling to those still pushing the inevitable candidacy of HRC meme. Too much was invested in that meme for it to decently evolve into a willingness to compete to win the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.

[PowerToThePeople]

125. Lying only makes it worse for those who care about truth

Those that only care about money and power couldn't give a shit less about truth.

[BlueCaliDem]

134. As the Senator of New York - the State hit hardest by 9/11 - it was her DUTY to vote

for the IWR. Had your State been targeted and attacked in 9/11 and you were State Senator, would you vote against the IWR a year later? Remember, this was a time when people were still horrified and devastated by the attacks and when U.S. M$M were propagating the lie that Iraq had something to do with it as they beat the drums of war.

Twenty of the thirty-one New York U.S. House Reps and both Senators of New York had voted for the IWR.

In light of the numbers above, Hillary Clinton, junior senator of New York, would have been seen as a weak Senator, one who didn't care about her New York constituents who were still reeling just a year after 9/11, and who were made convinced that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks.

Let's not forget that she's apologized for that vote and that it had already cost her the presidency in 2008. Honestly, don't you think it's time to bury that hatchet - preferably in the ground rather than in Hillary Clinton's back?

[Zorra]

138. So, like, hundreds of thousands of innocent people get slaughtered, but Clinton's

vote to go to war was necessary and justifiable, because if she didn't vote to go to war, it would have made her unpopular? Being popular is more important than doing the right thing?

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered in Iraq, and the country was blown to smithereens, leaving millions hpmeless. Does it not matter, because those who were genocided or dispossessed were just little brown skinned savages 7,000 miles away, who probably didn't even speak English anyway?


Time to bury the hatchet, because who cares about all those mothers with dead babies, and and all those babies with dead mothers anyway, right?

Face That Screamed War’s Pain Looks Back, 6 Hard Years Later
(warning: contains graphic image of a bloody, screaming five yr. old girl who just watched her innocent parents get murdered in cold blood)

My brother was sick, and we were taking him to the hospital and on the way back, this happened,” Samar said. “We just heard bullets.

“My mother and father were killed, just like that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/middleeast/07photo.html?_r=0

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[BlueCaliDem]

141. You're missing the point. As Senator of New York the vote WAS the right thing to do.

New York was hit HARD by 9/11. Her constituents demanded recompense as over three thousand were slaughtered, thousands more made ill, and the city was shattered.

American justice is nothing but retribution/revenge. It's "the American way" (hence the DP enjoying such high favorables). Although New York State banned the DP, it doesn't take away from the fact that New Yorkers were furious and devastated and they wanted retribution.

Do you think she wouldn't be tarred and feathered by HER CONSTITUENTS, ONE YEAR after 9/11 had she voted against a chance to "get those mofo's back"? If not, you're politically naive.

[Zorra]

144. Sadly, I'm not the one missing the point here.

I believe our little exchange here may clearly illustrate the wide chasm in personal and collective value systems between Bernie supporters and Clinton supporters.


Have a nice day.

[BlueCaliDem]

145. We'll agree to disagree.

I believe our little exchange here may clearly illustrate the difference in value systems between Bernie supporters and Clinton supporters.

Yes. The difference is, Clinton supporters appreciate and understand political realities. Bernie Sanders supporters have a more myopic and idealistic view.

Have a nice day, too.

[Zorra]

151. Thank you for a most enlightening discussion.

[BlueCaliDem]

156. You're welcome. eom

[LondonReign2]

297. "Policial realities" mean you have to vote to slaughter innocent people because otherwise you

might not be popular.

Holy shit, I've heard some sick shit, but that takes the cake.

I'm going to stand up for Clinton supporters here; I imagine there are a whole lot of her backers unwilling to sign on to your disgusting view of "political realities".

[MoveIt]

215. It certainly achieves that

That chasm is awfully, and willfully wide.

[Babel_17]

197. I was a constituent and I knew better

It's an over generalization to say that we in NY supported the neocons desire to invade Iraq. We wondered how Bin Laden was still among the living but we were in no way unified in support of the IWR.

OK, she got deceived, I can move on from that but I'm really not happy with how long it took to hear from Clinton, and lots of other Democrats, any real criticism about how we were lied into a war. Not to mention the horrible management of it by the neocons.

[BlueCaliDem]

239. And you know you were in the minority, the minority who saw through the lies.

However, the majority of New Yorkers, indeed, the majority of Americans had been whipped up in a frenzy to get retribution, and they were fed a steady diet of "Saddam Hussein was behind it" by U.S. M$M. How would a Junior Senator, a Democrat, a Clinton and Dove appear to the voters of New York after those horrific attacks and didn't support doing something to ease the New Yorkers' pain?

She did what her constituents - the majority of her constituents - at that time wanted her to do. That's what Senators are supposed to do.

[Martin Eden]

149. It was her DUTY to vote AGANIST the IWR

Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Bin Laden and the al Qaeda base were in Afghanistan. Shifting focus & resources to Iraq allowed al Qaeda and the Taliban to grow stronger and regain ground in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq opened the door to al Qaeda in that country and gave rise to ISIS.

If the objective was to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11 and to protect/avenge the people of New York, the IWR vote was a disaster.

If Hillary Clinton really cared about her constituents in New York she would have exercised the courage and leadership that was desperately needed when Bushco was spinning lies and manipulating the people through fear to mislead us into a disastrous war the neocons were clamoring for prior to 9/11.

Instead, as you pointed out, she didn't want to be seen as a weak Senator -- which is a clear indication she cared more about her own image and political prospects than the interests of the people she was elected to represent.

Her vote for the IWR revealed a truly weak Senator who lacked the courage to do what was necessary and right. Even more damning, it revealed the kind of disastrously poor judgment that is totally unacceptable in our nation's Commander In Chief.

The hatchet has already been buried in the backs of thosands of American soldiers who were killed or maimed fighting an insane war based on lies which Hillary either knew to be lies or lacked the intellectual capacity to know what was obvious to so many of us here at DU at that time. The hatchet is also buried in the backs of all Americans who depend on strong leadership to keep our country out of such costly disasters.

Words are one thing; actions are another. The actual record matters. Real consequences to real people matter more than anything else.

The consequence to Hillary Clinton is that she lost the support of many people who are aware of what went on in the runup to that insane war and who care about the judgment and the qualifications of the person we entrust with leading our country forward to a better future.

Mrs. Clinton will continue to lead a very privileged life if she does not become president.

Compare that to all the people who paid real consequences as a result of the IWR vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

154. Wrong. Again, as Junior Senator of NEW YORK where the largest attack on American soil

in history has happened, where over three thousand Americans died, where thousands more American family members suffered the loss of loved ones, got ill, were completely devastated...it was her job to do as her constituents wanted - and they wanted retribution. Note that the IWR was keenly planned by warmongers just a year after 9/11.

Again, it's time to bury the hatchet - preferably not in HRC's back.

She paid for her vote. She lost the election in 2008. She apologized publicly. Enough already. Let it go.

By the way? Bernie Sanders, despite applying for Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War in order to get out from the draft, supports wars against terrorist in the M.E. and supports President Obama's drone program. Don't believe me? Hear it from his own lips here:

[Martin Eden]

169. "it was her job to do as her constituents wanted - and they wanted retribution"

If her constituents wanted retribution, THEN WHY IN HELL DID SHE VOTE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ???

Again, Iraq had ZERO ZILCH NADA to do with 9/11.

It would have made as much sense to attack Libya or Syria -- which is to say, no sense at all.

If her constituients believed the LIES being spun by Bushco, then it was her DUTY to dispell those lies and provide strong leadership to pursue a course of action that actually made sense and served the interests of her constutuents.

You are about as wrong and as misguided as you can possibly be on this -- which puts you right there with the former senator from New York.

[Zorra]

171. Nothing quite like sanctioning a wrongheaded genocidal lynch mob

in order to increase your political appeal, is there?


Well said, Martin.

[BlueCaliDem]

269. Well, Americans tend to see red and get blood thirsty when hit.

She voted the way her constituents wanted. Period.

in order to increase your political appeal,

She was elected to serve her constituents. And her constituents wanted retribution.

[LondonReign2]

295. Americans get blood thirsty? So the fuck what?

Somehow that justifies attacking a country and killing millions that had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT??

Wow.

[Oilwellian]

319. You mean these constituents?

[BlueCaliDem]

328. Nice picture. Are they really New Yorkers? Polls showed that the country wanted the invasion.

The United States public's opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval.[1] According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.[2] In May 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#October_2002

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#May_2003

Still horrifying, isn't it?

[BlueCaliDem]

262. "THEN WHY IN HELL DID SHE VOTE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ???"

Maybe you need to reread my post. The answer is there if you bothered.

[Martin Eden]

282. Your answer: New Yorkers wanted retribution for the atrocity of 9/11

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of retribution.

It should be against those who commited the act for which you seek retribution.

Are you saying Iraq was behind 9/11 or that Hillary Clinton believed Iraq was behind 9/11?

You noted in the post you're referring to "that the IWR was keenly planned by warmongers just a year after 9/11."

Yes, we knew that at the time. PNAC was no secret. Every US Senator should have known that too, which leaves 3 options about Hillary:
1) She didn't know, and was therefore a very incompetent Senator.
2) She knew, but voted for the IWR anyway so as not to look "weak" (as you stated earlier).
3) She was on board with the neocon agenda.

How are any of the above acceptable to Democratic voters?

[MoveIt]

285. I choose 3)

and unacceptable.

[BlueCaliDem]

312. Your response: "Perhaps you don't understand the concept of retribution."

But I do. I was in the minority at that time believing that there was no way that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

All the polls at that time showed that Americans believed that he was and they wanted their pound of flesh, whipped up by U.S. M$M before the days of the Internet and solely relying on the lies propagated by the news media that were collectively beating the drums of war.

Are you saying Iraq was behind 9/11 or that Hillary Clinton believed Iraq was behind 9/11?

No. I'm saying she voted as her constituents wanted her to.

You noted in the post you're referring to "that the IWR was keenly planned by warmongers just a year after 9/11."
Yes, we knew that at the time. PNAC was no secret. Every US Senator should have known that too,

I'm certain they were aware of PNAC, but their constituents weren't, and that's what mattered. You mistakenly believe that just because YOU knew about PNAC everyone else did, too. That wasn't the case at all. Only the politically astute knew about the PNAC. The few loud voices trying to pull attention to PNAC were drowned out by the louder drumbeats for war covered from coast to coast by U.S. M$M. He who holds the bullhorn, gets heard, and all that.

which leaves 3 options about Hillary:

Actually 4.

4) She voted as her constituents wanted.

[Martin Eden]

321. If so, then New Yorkers should be absolutely furious at Hillary Clinton

Imagine you had a loved one who was murdered, and someone lied to you about who did it. You and most of your relatives believed the lie and demanded retribution against the person wrongly accused. A trusted friend who was in a position of influence helped to carry out that retribution.

The retribution was very costly, and more loved ones died in the process.

Later, you learned it was a lie and that the trusted friend knew it was a lie all the time -- but did nothing to dispell the lie or to look out for your best interests. The real criminal was not apprehended for a long time, and more innocent people were murdered.

Can you say in all honesty you would not be furious at that trusted friend, and never trust her again?

The argument you put forward to defend Hillary's vote for the IWR is a very close corollary to that scenario. I'd like to hear Hillary explain this to her constituents and the American people -- I knew it was a lie but I decided to let you keep believing the lie and voted for a war that cost you dearly in blood and treasure while the real perpetrators grew stronger.

And I don't buy your assertion that new Yorkers wanted war in Iraq as retribution for 9/11. As I recall, New York City was the scene of huge anti-war rallies.

[BlueCaliDem]

325. And they were. Hence losing to Barack Obama.

And I don't buy your assertion that new Yorkers wanted war in Iraq as retribution for 9/11. As I recall, New York City was the scene of huge anti-war rallies.

Of course you don't. And I believe nothing will convince you. But the polls during that time were pretty clear: the majority of Americans supported an invasion. These polls were trumpeted over and over again like a scratched turntable vinyl all across the United States while Europe held their collective breaths.

The United States public's opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#October_2002

I recall that some polls during the time when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was being considered in Congress, polls showed an even higher percentage. I also recall feeling as if I were living in a parallel universe during that time.

I was proud that my junior Senator, Senator Barbara Boxer, did not vote for it, but it was a small and short period of solace since, unfortunately but predictably, Senator Dianne Feinstein voted in favor. No surprise there.

Look, I understand you'll never forgive Hillary Clinton for her vote on the IWR, and the last thing I'll do is try to justify that vote - for any Democratic politician, but I can understand it. Let's not forget that none of above would have happened had we unified behind Al Gore instead of pushing for a more liberal presidential candidate. The latter gave us G.W. Bush, 9/11, the war in Iraq and all the crap that flowed from that.

I just want us to keep things in perspective. You and I, and a few million others, saw the warmongering, but we're political junkies and it's easy for us. The vast majority of Americans are not as astute. That's why we cannot allow another Republican in the White House. We have to do our damnedest to give the White House to another Democrat or we'll be hearing the drumbeats if war again, this time for Syria and Iran should a Republican find his way into the White House in 2016.

[Martin Eden]

327. Support for the invasion was based on LIES.

Any politician who knew our country was being misled into a war based on LIES -- and did nothing to dispell those lies but instead jumped on the war wagon because polls indicated people believed the lies -- betrayed the trust placed in them by their constituents.

It's as simple as that.

If Hillary didn't realize the case for war was the product of lying warmongers then she's not as smart as she appears to be, and lacks the competency for high government office. But we both know she's not that dumb.

Therefore it was a betrayal of trust in the most critically important and consequential of decisions, as well as a failure of leadership when needed the most.

I do not forgive Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry or any politician for the IWR vote, because it is inherently and justifiably unforgiveable. None of them should occupy the Oval Office, ever.

You have been trying to justify (or excuse) Hillary's vote throughout this thread. Understanding the vote and excusing it are two very different things. I understand why Wall Street finances politicians who oppose regulations that would have prevented the fraud that crashed our economy; it's called greed. I understand why a politician would go along with a war based on lies; it's called political ambition and putting personal career above the good of the country.

If your understanding of Hillary's vote is as you described -- she knew it was a LIE but went along with the polls without making an effort to dispell the lies -- that is a very a damning accusation. What I find very difficult to understand is how any Democratic voter can come to that realization and still want that politician to be president.

Yes, the Republicans are worse. I have never forgiven John Kerry, but I nevertheless travelled to Ohio to GOTV for him in the 2004 general election because GW Bush had to be stopped.

GOTV is the real key to winning elections, and the effort to GOTV will fail if we don't have a candidate who generates enthusiasm among voting demographics (like young people) who have a poor record of showing up at the polls. That's how Barack Obama won, and that is how Hillary Clinton will lose the general election in 2016. She generates far more antipathy (and motivation) on the right than enthusiasm on the left. Just spending some time in DU reveals many passionate progressives who will find it very difficult to hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil.

Keeping things in perspective, America can do better. America HAS to do better.

[BlueCaliDem]

329. Yes, it was. But it was sold as the truth and the country bought it.

And when that successfully happened, politicians are pushed to serve their constituents, even if they know better.

The United States public's opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval. According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake. In May 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#October_2002

I would like to add to the above, "as well as misinformation propagated by U.S. M$M."

AND...

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#May_2003

Americans wanted their pound of flesh and, damn it, they were gonna get it.

[Martin Eden]

330. "politicians are pushed to serve their constituents"

Hillary Clinton did not serve her constituents.

Her vote for the IWR was a profound disservice to them.

[frylock]

188. What part of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are you struggling to grasp?

[beam me up scottie]

212. Wow. So Hillary was seeking vengeance for NYers?

That's some twisted view of reality right there.

[Puglover]

288. This whole

exchange has been so illustrative to me. As Zorra said up thread the chasm separating various posters on the board is wide indeed.

One of the reasons I so rarely engage. It will never change. I can't think that it doesn't go far deeper then pure politics.

So disheartening.

[beam me up scottie]

289. I need to walk away more often.

It's very depressing.

At first I thought it was ignorance but boy was I wrong.

[Puglover]

292. Nope far from ignorance.

Tacit approval as far as I can see.

I/We are packing up, selling, tossing, donating 30 years of stuff prepping for a move to Ecuador on 10/13.

For awhile there DU was a great diversion from the unbelievable amount of work that needed to be done.

Honestly when I read stuff like this I'd rather be packing.

[beam me up scottie]

293. Take me with you.

Moving sucks but I hope you enjoy Ecuador, my father once considered moving there when he retired.

[Metric System]

222. Was it also VP Biden's duty? I'm asking because I've seen some Sanders supporters act less hostile

about his vote.

[Martin Eden]

249. Yes, and it was John Kerry's duty as well.

I refuse to support any of them in a Democratic primary.

I was extremely disappointed in John Kerry. He came to prominence as the leader of Vietnam Vets against the insane war of his youth. His leadership was needed to prevent another insane war.

If Joe Biden announces his candidacy, I will argue just as consistently against any attempt to justify his vote for the IWR -- especially when confronted with ridiculous arguments like the assertion it was a "duty" to vote for war in Iraq as "retribution" for 9/11. It just boggles my mind that anyone would make such an argument.

[Metric System]

253. At least you're consistent across candidates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

184. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[MannyGoldstein]

185. Half of New York's Congressional Democrats voted against war

Is it your claim that they did the wrong thing?

Also, I don't recall that Hiloary's apologized, not just voting for the thing, but for exhorting others to do so as well. She only acknowledged that it was wrong.

[BlueCaliDem]

263. And the other half voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution. Your point?

Is it your claim that they did the wrong thing?

Now you're grasping for straws, Manny. You darn well know I made NO such claim.

Also, I don't recall that Hiloary's apologized,

Hillary Clinton: “I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past…"

This is an apology, much like the one Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Dianne Feinstein have given - and they've been forgiven. Why should Hillary Clinton have to go that extra mile? What would you have her do, Manny? Go on television and flog herself as she begs for forgiveness? Would that make you happy?

Again. She was the Junior Senator from New York. New York was hit hardest by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The IWR was pushed by all U.S. Media and polling showed overwhelming support for G.W. Bush to do something about it. They used fearmongering and misled the American people. Take into account that the interwebs weren't as broadly used as it is today, so most people still got their news from corporate-owned, pro-war U.S. Media. Hillary Clinton didn't have much choice than to vote for the IWR, and she's paid for it more than any other U.S. politician. She was denied the presidency in 2008 because of her vote. Many Democrats running in the primaries had voted for the IWR, too, and yet they were forgiven.

By the way, did you know your preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders, agrees with and supports President Obama's drone program? I recall the flack you and other DUers here gave President Obama for it, and I hope you'll do the same with Bernie Sanders. Or will a double standard be used?

Did you also know that he's not at all opposed to war in the M.E. despite being, himself, a "conscientious objector" during the Vietnam war?

Don't take it from me...take it from the horse's mouth:

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton is perfect. I'm not looking for perfection. I live in the real world and understand political realities. What I'm looking for is a Democratic president who can actually get things done for the country, and in order to do so, they'll need Congress' cooperation. To date, Bernie Sanders has received ZERO Dem endorsements in either the House or Senate. He couldn't even get his own State's governor to endorse him. Governor Peter Shumlin has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

[frylock]

187. SPOILER ALERT: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

weak fucking sauce.

[BlueCaliDem]

267. SPOILER ALERT! Hindsight is 20/20.

The IWR vote happened around the first year anniversary of 9/11. People were still very upset and angry. Polls showed huge support for Dubya Bush. U.S. M$M were beating the drums of war, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, or had something to do with it. Only a few voices in the wind were able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and they were largely ignored.

In that environment and given that she had just been elected to the Senate just two years prior, she had no choice, especially since Chuck Schumer pushed for a 'Yea' vote instead of using his seniority to educate his constituents. But unlike Chuck Schumer who is headed for Senate Majority Leader in 2016, Hillary Clinton has paid for that vote in 2008 when she was denied the presidency. She's since apologized, but I'm certain no matter what she says, it'll never be enough for those who will never forgive her no matter what.

[frylock]

291. quit pissing on the graves of those who lost their lives by using 9/11 as an excuse..

to attack a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Just fucking STOP! A true LEADER would have seen through the bullshit, as many did. I don't care about Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer isn't being shoved in my face as the inevitable President.

[BlueCaliDem]

302. Naw. That's what you've been doing to excuse your support for a weak candidate by stepping

on the head then pissing on the strongest Democrat to date running for the White House; one who will beat any wannabes who have delusions of grandeur that they can take this from her. Pfft. And don't come back with "well, in 2008, HRC was inevitable, too, but look what happened". Again, delusions of grandeur. Bernie Sanders isn't even in the same league as Barack Hussein Obama. He can't even get the Black electorate to like him, let alone support him. Latinos aren't enamored by him, either.

Polls show Hillary Clinton has won 70-80% of the African-American vote and according to Univision's poll, she has 73% of the Latino vote. Without those two demographics, Bernie Sanders is toast.

So I return to you...Just. Fucking. STOP.

As an FYI? Your obnoxious attitude isn't doing Bernie Sanders any good. In a couple of years, people will say that Bernie Sanders supporters are the worst curse that ever befell Bernie Sanders and his campaign for president. As for me? I don't bet on or support losers. That's why I supported and continue to support President Obama, and that's why, should Joe Biden not enter the race, I will support Hillary Clinton for president.

[frylock]

303. You're making excuses for Clinton's terrible vote, but I'm a detriment to Sanders' campaign..

why? Because I drop a few fuck bombs having to deal with this nonsense? o-kayyyyyyy..... And nice misdirect on top of that. In any case, that "weak candidate" is closing ground every week, and Clinton's numbers will head south for the winter after the debates start. Bank it.

[BlueCaliDem]

305. Yes, Bernie Sanders supporters are particularly obnoxious and angry.

They're unpleasant to have any discussion with. They go on other message boards voting down any post that has the unmitigated gall to criticize their preferred candidate. It's a-okay to completely tear down the Democratic frontrunner, but people cross the line if they dare criticize Bernie Sanders or have misgivings about his ability to govern.

But his supporters are also intelligent people. They know darn well that their candidate is weak and can't possibly win - and I'm guessing that all that anger is born from inner frustration, which also blinds them) because they're aware of the weakness of their candidate. That weakness manifests through Sanders' failure to garner a single important endorsement from powerful Democrats; endorsements that are crucial for him to win and, should he by some fluke win, are vitally important in order to get things done.

To date, Sanders has gotten exactly ZERO endorsements. Even Martin O'Malley's gotten at least one. That's clear writing on the wall where his candidacy is heading.

Hillary Clinton's camp just reported that she has 440 super-delegates firmly on her side. She already has the endorsements of 94+ House Dems, 29 Senate Dems, and 7 State Governors - and among that 7 is none other than Bernie Sanders' home State Governor, Peter Shumlin.

So Sanders is gaining ground? I ask you, on what planet?

[frylock]

306. I'm shoked that establishment dems are supporting the establishment candidate..

nobody could've predicted that. And yeah, fuckin-a right I'm pissed, especially after reading crap on this so-called liberal board by so-called liberals rationalizing Clinton's piss poor decisions. If cursing and obnoxious behavior are upsetting your tender sensibilities, then perhaps you're not cut out for the internet.

[BlueCaliDem]

309. You shouldn't be. I could've told you as much in January that they'll stand with a

Democrat rather than an Independent in the Democratic primaries. But it should tell you how well liked Sanders is in Congress. He's not.

And yeah, fuckin-a right I'm pissed, especially after reading crap on this so-called liberal board by so-called liberals rationalizing Clinton's piss poor decisions.

And here I was under the mistaken assumption that Liberals - or those who claim to be Liberals - are far more open-minded, even-tempered, and understanding than Tea Partiers. My bad.

If cursing and obnoxious behavior are upsetting your tender sensibilities, then perhaps you're not cut out for the internet.

Not offended at all. Just making note that that type of behavior is not helping your candidate win people over. His supporters are doing the most damage to his chances of winning the primaries and the sad thing is, they don't even know it.

[frylock]

313. Remaining open-minded about supporting needless wars?

Are you fucking shitting me?! You want to talk about baggers, do you? Your comment about remaining open minded and understanding reminds me of when baggers whine about "libturds" being intolerant of their intolerance.

And I'm not here to win over supporters. There are very few people posting here that haven't decided on a candidate yet, and if their decision is swayed by the obnoxious behavior of a candidate's supporters rather than issues and policy positions, then that's on them. Not gonna lose any sleep over that.

[BlueCaliDem]

317. Being open-minded to variables that lead up to a decision, and trying to understand them

as opposed to using past mistakes as a club to bludgeon people over the head with is the Liberal way.

Are you fucking shitting me?! You want to talk about baggers, do you?

Nope. Not at all.

And I'm not here to win over supporters.

Good. Because I can tell you right now, you're not.

and if their decision is swayed by the obnoxious behavior of a candidate's supporters rather than issues and policy positions, then that's on them. Not gonna lose any sleep over that.

Not saying that people can be swayed, either way, by obnoxious behavior, but even you can't deny that it's an immediate turn-off. It's human nature to turn away from that kind of behavior. And we both know that, in politics, issues and policy don't always go hand in hand.

For example, the issue of affordable health care.

All reports and studies show that single-payer would be the best system, hands down. But policy is also dictated by budgets, and although Vermont was granted the 1332 State Innovation Waiver, and would receive 80-85% funding from ObamaCare in order to help pay for its implementation, the governor has already come out and said that it was still too expensive. I mean, if they can't even get single-payer going in the tiny State of Vermont, what hope is there for a President Sanders to get it implemented throughout the nation - especially without any allies in Congress? So this is a good example that issues and policy don't always go hand in hand and why we need to look at the candidate to gauge whether or not they have the experience and the help in Congress to get things done.

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden do.

[jeff47]

195. It was her duty to vote to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Honestly, don't you think it's time to bury that hatchet

Right after we bring a million Iraqis back to life.

[BlueCaliDem]

266. She didn't invade a country. And she didn't murder a million Iraqis.

Try to keep things in perspective.

[beam me up scottie]

274. No, her vote just made that possible.

I cannot believe you are trying to justify this.

How many American soldiers were killed or maimed, how many will never be the same?

You want to tell their families that sending them to fight an illegal war with Iraq was the right thing to do as well?

Jesus Christ.


We knew Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, your opinion that Hillary should have voted for it anyway because it was what a bunch of Islamophobes wanted is disgusting.

[jeff47]

290. No, she voted to send others to do so, and heavily lobbied

for other Senators to vote with her.

But you apparently think it was her duty to vote to kill a million Iraqis and around 4,000 US soldiers.

[BlueCaliDem]

304. Hyperbole much? So typical. Even without her vote, the IWR was poised to go through.

Did you really allow yourself to believe that wouldn't be the case? My god, how naive.

But you apparently think it was her duty to vote to kill a million Iraqis and around 4,000 US soldiers.

Oh? She did that? Single-handedly, too, right? More hyperbolic bullshit is what that is. And you apparently believe you're clairvoyant, too. You're not.

I was against the war in Iraq from the outset. In fact, I was against labeling Al Gore as "the same as Bush", and against wasting my vote on Nader who never held an elected office EVER, knowing that support for Nader was a vote for Bush and if Bush would win we'd most certainly go to war. It's a historical fact that when a Republican takes the White House we always, always go to war. That's why I was so pissed off at the irrational people on the far Left who decided to waste their vote on Nader. Now those same irrational people are all gung-ho for yet another candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades to win, and if he does, won't be able to get a single thing done without Congress where he has ZERO friends and allies, but can (not saying he will, but CAN) weaken Hillary Clinton in the process. Not being able to see the forest for the trees, apparently, isn't only an affliction that Tea Partiers suffer.

That said...

It's a fact that as Senator of 19 million New Yorkers who, again, were directly impacted by 9/11 attacks and were then made to believe (as the majority of Americans were misled to believe) that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks, her vote against retribution would appear like treason to the people she was elected to serve; a slap in their collective faces. If you refuse to understand that then you're beyond help and I have no further desire to debate with a black and white thinker. There are shades of gray, jeff. it's where the majority of Americans are, and Senator Clinton's vote for the IWR embodied it at that time. And she's paid dearly for that vote.

But you keep hacking with that unforgiving hatchet if you want. You'll only hurt yourself. Hillary Clinton, with already 440 superdelegates in her camp, and the endorsements of 94+ House Dems, 29 Senate Dems, and 7 Dem Governors - including Bernie Sanders' home State governor, Peter Shumlin who has endorsed her back in MAY - will beat your candidate in the primaries and go on to win the White House in 2016. Me? I'll just sit back and cross my arms with that "I told you so" smirk pasted on my face.

Adieu.

[MoveIt]

220. Wow that's some grade A bullshit, because she was junior she had to vote for war...

20/31 house reps were for it, 9 knew better.

Nobody, but nobody should buy this bullshit. Whether or not you think the IWR disqualifies HRC or not, nobody is buying this bullshit that she did not have a choice.

[BlueCaliDem]

265. Naw. It's called POLITICAL REALITY. I'm sorry you don't appear to understand

the concept.

[MoveIt]

284. If that's all you got is one liner about "political reality" then you've conceded

When all you can do is sneer and say (dahling), "it's called POLITICAL REALITY, oh you don't appear to understand the concept"

Nobody with a brain is buying this bullshit anymore. Nobody.

[BlueCaliDem]

307. And if "that's some grade A bullshit" is all you've got, then *you've* conceded.

When all you can do is sneer and say

Uh...pot calling the kettle black?

Nobody with a brain is buying this bullshit anymore. Nobody.

So the majority of Americans supporting Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, in polls and endorsements, don't have a brain? How conceited.

[MoveIt]

308. more name calling

how drol

[BlueCaliDem]

310. You misunderstand. It wasn't "name-calling".

It was pointing out the obvious.

I'm sorry truth is "drol" to you.

[MoveIt]

311. Do you post these witty replies with or without a monocle?

[BlueCaliDem]

314. Without. eom

[MoveIt]

316. Probably best

Bad optics..... status quo apologia is best delivered without a monocle.

[BlueCaliDem]

318. Actually, I have surprisingly great eye-sight. But common sense and rational thinking need no

visual aides, just an understanding of what's real and doable as opposed to what belongs in la-la-Land with the pretty unicorns and impudent leprechauns.

[neverforget]

259. this isn't the first time I've seen this excuse before and it's gotta be the worst one.

To sum it up: Senator Clinton voted to enable President Bush to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and to send New York's sons and daughters to war for political expediency and caused untold grief to those families of the service men and women killed in Iraq all so as to not look weak. Talk about poor judgement! She could have stood up to President Bush like other Democrats did but instead she decided to enable him.

[BlueCaliDem]

264. It's not an excuse. It's called reality at that time.

You'd understand that had you read my post with a fair mind rather than a prejudiced one.

[neverforget]

268. It's an excuse for poor judgement. And yes, I am prejudiced on this issue: Iraq was wrong

morally and ethically.

[TheFarS1de]

270. But more importantly ...

it was wrong geographically . They even targeted the wrong person , but hindsight and all that .... maybe it's time for a leader who actually THINKS of the long term game rather than the next political schedule .

[BlueCaliDem]

271. Nope. It was what her constituents wanted at that time, and she gave them what they wanted.

And hindsight being 20/20, I'm certain the people of New York now agree with you and I that the invasion of Iraq was morally and ethically wrong.

[TheFarS1de]

273. Yep

Like I said it may be time for someone to THINK before acting , something a lot of our "leaders" have been showing a distinct lack of lately .

[MissDeeds]

136. One of the best posts ever on DU

Thank you for this, Manny. I only hope people will read it and consider it with open minds.

K&R

[morningfog]

142. Hill's Shills have no decency.

[Zorra]

166. I now have a whole new perspective on what I could not bring myself

to believe prior to today.

It's sad, but good to have a better grasp of the reality of the general consciousness of what we are really up against.

[MoveIt]

216. A consciousness

bereft of conscience, or shame.

[LondonReign2]

298. Or integrity

[Gamecock Lefty]

146. Wow! Another anti-Hillary, pro-Bernie Thread! Who Knew?

Hillary voted for the war, Bernie has a D rating with the NRA. Another thread that is still NOT getting me to change my vote from Hillary.

Try, try again.

[merrily]

161. You're bragging about something that is nothing to brag about.

And I very much doubt Manny is trying to change your mind anyway.

[merrily]

160. I don't think I have ever read a post of yours that exhibits this much anger.

About time.

I suggest that it's better to preserve your dignity by preferring a different candidate. Lying, no matter how clever the language used, does not make our world a better place. Lying makes our world a worse place, and it singes your soul.

Great stuff, that. The USS Dignity weighed anchor long ago, though .


And, I must demur. Hillary did not merely vote for the war: she actively ADVOCATED for it. When I and every single Democrat I know KNEW Bush was lying. When Hillary did not read the NIE. Moreover, by Hillary's own words, as she wrote letters to the family of fallen New Yorkers, she knew her vote had been a "mistake" and she still said nothing--not until she did a book as a precursor to her 2016 Presidential run.

The post below was originally titled "Bush Clinton Clinton Bush, Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iraq." Think I'll subtitle it "One of the Many Problems with US Dynasties.

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[MannyGoldstein]

233. Correct, as always

I'm usually irritated but amused, but this @#$& has gotten ludicrous.

I read upthread that Hillary *had* to fight for war in Iraq because New Yorkers wanted revenge for 9/11. Incredible.

[merrily]

275. At what cost to American and Iraqi lives, limbs, minds and treasure does a LEADER

PRETEND Iraq had something to do with 911? At what cost does one give rise to Al Qaeda Iraq and God knows how many generations of Iraqis who will hate us? And not only Iraqis. Every Arab teen knew Saddam and Osama were enemies and Saddam would never take on the US. So invading Iraq gave credence to the belief that our war against Iraq was simply anti-Islam and/or anti-Arab.

Is that a profile in courage? Is that what we want as CIC? New York/America is mad, so let's pretend Iraq had something to do with this and damage two nations (at a minimum) greatly? Instead of just telling NY the truth? We'll get whoever was responsible, but neither Saddam nor the Iraqis had anything to do with this?

I'm usually irritated but amused, but this @#$& has gotten ludicrous.

Hmmm. I would have said that you've been irritated but nonetheless able to strive to amuse--and this shiite, which has been shameful since it started, has reached a point of no return.

But then, my use of language has never been as skillful or diplomatic as yours.

[n2doc]

165. This is the same strategy employed by the Republicans

Project your weaknesses upon your enemy. Remember how John Kerry was some sort of 'fake' soldier and 'fake purple heart' recipient when he ran against AWOL Bush? Or how the Democratic Party is somehow the party of racists because of Woodrow Wilson (OMG!). It is the same crap and one can hope people will see through it. But it really is beneath contempt.

[Puzzledtraveller]

167. k&r

[Thinkingabout]

173. While some are still so concerned about the Iraq war we still have war and gun violence in out

streets, people possessing guns which should never have guns in their possession and NOTHING is being done in Congress. Too many votes in favor of NRA and the Congressional members who are scared of NRA while 80% of our citizens wants sensible gun legislation.

[Zorra]

174. Strawman posts which are attempts to derail this thread will be noted, and will fail.

buh bye

[Thinkingabout]

176. Facts are facts, dwell on the history of gun violence.

[Armstead]

183. Sanders is in favor of gun control. Perhaps not as strict as some would want.

If that's a make or break issue, vote for someone else. (You are anyway, obviously.)

Next.

[Thinkingabout]

190. He voted against the Brady Bill for one.

[Armstead]

191. To repeat. If that's a make or break issue, there are other candidates.

Don't know how much clearer I can state that.

[Thinkingabout]

192. Yes there are other candidates, thanks for pointing this out, I am happy to

Have another candidate to support. The gun control issue plays large on my list of issues.

[Oilwellian]

320. Yet...

you support a candidate who brokered a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the same country that actually attacked us on 9/11.



Never thought I'd see the day where Democrats excuse Bush's immoral and illegal war with an innocent country.

[jeff47]

196. And he voted for the AWB and limits on magazine sizes and universal background checks and...

...oh wait, I forgot you don't give a shit about his actual record.

[Thinkingabout]

198. I give a shit about his voting record, who knows where he

Will be on the next gun control bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

208. Do you know where Hillary will be on the next war bill? nt

[Thinkingabout]

209. She will not reward based on an $18,000 donation to defeat ber opponent.

BTW, it wasn't just one vote, his record is more than one so maybe I can judge by the other votes also. After, I have not seen or heard an explanation or apology about the gun control bills.

[MannyGoldstein]

231. You owe me a new irony meter

But at least you supported my OP, so there's that.

[Thinkingabout]

232. Truth speaks for itself, records are kept for reasons, all Congressional members records are for

Each member. I do not desire to re-write the records nor should others, can I say you support the results of the Brady Bill vote by Bernie?

[otohara]

175. More American's Die From Guns vs All Wars Since 1968

Bernie stood by and voted against the most important laws put forth until the kids at Sandy Hook were massacred then he piped in....about fucking time.

He spewed the NRA "hammer" garbage to justify his pro-gun votes.

[Zorra]

177. Thanks for kicking thread with a strawman. nt

[Zorra]

182. Bernie supporters: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy

based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

This is the most common tactic employed by the Third Way on Democratic Underground. They use these bullshit arguments to derail threads that go against corporate interests. They have to use these types of arguments because they have little or nothing to support legitimate arguments with.

You will see several strawman posts in this thread. Please call strawman posts out whenever you see them, so that everyone else will immediately recognize them as attempts at deflection and deceit, and ignore them.

Thank you. Now we return to our featured OP,

Peacelover Hillary voted for an insane war that killed hundreds of thousands...

[Babel_17]

203. K&R (nt) :)

[NotHardly]

189. Chilling out a bit might keep everyone saner ... it is only August 2015 ...

The vitriol I see coming from so many (or a loud few) about Dem candidates really has to stop. Is there a penchant for killing and eating our own when the final flag is more than a year away???? Seriously. Chill.

[Persondem]

205. WOW. Another innane bit of red meat for the Bernie types.

YAWN.

You want REAL. Bernie is a REAL socialist. Americans would rather elect a Muslim or an atheist to the presidency. That's REAL.

[GitRDun]

207. Pick up your head, open your eyes, and look around.

You are one of the worst offenders.

If any person walked into a room and started calling people "stupid, desperate, @#$&, vile, filth, not decent people who make up insane nonsense and lie", they would soon find a security guard escorting them out of the building. What makes you think that kind of nonsense is OK here on DU? Haven't enough posters protested this kind of behavior for you?

There indeed is a real world out there full of people who find your choice of words appalling. You would NOT talk to them out there the way you communicate here in DU...wake up!

There is a way to make a point without verbally machine gunning people you don't agree with.

How about exercising a little humanity for the rest of our sake.

Jeez...

[DesertFlower]

223. i agree. i'm a bernie supporter, but

i refuse to bash hillary. if she is the nominee she will get my vote.

does bashing someone get anyone to change their mind? did anyone change their mind in '08 when this was going on?

[HassleCat]

227. Remember, Kerry got Swift Boated

The guy is a genuine war hero, and they figured out to make GW Bush look braver to the average voter. They pulled the same stunt on McCain during the 1980 primaries.

[Moonwalk]

228. THIS is the MOST important thing EVERYONE here should remember....

This race is for the primaries. Not the presidency. Silly, right? Why should I think you've forgotten that? And yet, it seems you have. Stop a moment and think. Let's take this thread for an example. Imagine that Sanders wins the primary. Hooray! But now he has to win the presidency. I know it seems like he'll do that easily. How could the majority possibly vote for his GOP opponent rather than him? He's got it in the bag....except you can't rely on that. Gore proved that to us. You can't take the chance. You have to campaign for him—big time. Bigger and harder and longer than you are now, because the GOP will do any dirty trick to keep democratic voters from voting.

Wouldn't it be nice if all those Hilary supporters shook your hand, said "We're sorry Hilary lost, but we congratulate you and we're here to help"? That would be nice, would't it. Exactly how many of the Hilary supporters here do you think are likely to do that given how you're treating her and them right now, in this thread?

That's the important point. Is what you're saying true? Yes. Is it a fact? Yes. Have you the freedom to trash Hilary on all her bad decisions and votes? Sure, just as Hilary supporters have the freedom to trash Sanders on his bad decisions and votes. But posts saying "Hilary voted for Iraq!" will just get you posts of "Bernie voted for guns!" And neither will make the other side back down or change their minds. So all you're doing is alienating fellow democrats. That doesn't sound real useful.

The presidential election is what matters. You know how HUGELY it matters. Supreme court justices, civil rights, women's rights, restoring the middle class, getting most of America out of this downward spiral to poverty. We have to think of what we all want, REALLY want in 2016...which is a democratic president.

So, I'm going to ask you all to try something. Next time you want to get into fight with someone from the other side, assume your candidate is going to win. You don't have to say one bad thing about the other candidate for this to happen. It's a given. Your candidate is going to be in the race for president. Just try it. Now try this as well: treat those on the other side as if they are going to gracefully accept defeat and help your candidate become president. Do you still want argue? This is a race is for the primaries. Not the presidency. Don't alienate your fellow democrats. You ARE going to need them in 2016.

[Persondem]

234. ^^^^^Great post^^^^^^ ... Thank you. nt.

[Babel_17]

236. The system is set up to favor the establishment's anointed candidate

David vs. Goliath, so David won't wait for Goliath to crush him.

If the party wants nicey-nice, bring on the debates and let the candidates words be the topic of conversation. But no, Goliath has that deck stacked.

Long story short, the Sanders campaign has come from very humble beginnings and has played it very straight. It's gotten where it is because of the candidate and the campaign's message. Some Sanders supporters are going to energetically contrast their candidate and his positions vs. that of his opponent HRC. For the HRC camp to complain, given their campaign's many advantages, is to risk sounding unreasonable and entitled.

Either we have a primary that isn't rigged or we don't. It's not supposed to be about mounting token opponents to a candidate that the establishment has settled on.

Secretary Clinton is still favored to win by the oddsmakers, but the gains Sanders has made by absorbing some of her support were not due to any kind of dirty pool. And I say that applies here at DU as well as it does to the world outside it.

I heartily agree that we need to be more polite to each other though. Eventually we'll all be working together.

[NanceGreggs]

237. I'm so glad you raised the topic ...

... of Hillary's "Iraq war" vote, because so many people here - and elsewhere - are completely unaware of it, despite the fact that it's been posted here at least 3,473,952 times.

Once this LBN gets out, she won't have a supporter left in the country!.

I think you should "edit to add" that Bernie marched with MLK - another news item that no one is aware of.

"If the only way to make your preferred candidate seem palatable is to make up insane nonsense about their competition, I suggest that it's better to preserve your dignity by preferring a different candidate."

The irony meter is now officially broken.

[MannyGoldstein]

240. I'm sorry.

For all of it.

[NanceGreggs]

242. No, you're not.

A REC is a REC - and if repeating the same old/same old a million times still gets RECs, the same old/same old shit will keep getting posted.

Did you know that Bernie marched with MLK? I just thought I'd mention that again - for those who aren't tired of hearing it while pretending that it's late-breaking news.

[beam me up scottie]

243. A REC is a REC? Looks like someone has REC envy.

Bernie marched with MLK?

[NanceGreggs]

245. Oh, yes, of course.

It's "REC envy".

But getting recs is like winning the lottery - chances are slim-to-none that you'll win if you don't buy a ticket. And chances of getting RECs are equally slim when you don't post OPs.

Maybe if I posted an OP about HRC's "Iraq War" vote, or Bernie marching with MLK, I could get a lot of attention in the Late Breaking News forum!

[beam me up scottie]

247. Do you want a lot of attention?

[Capt. Obvious]

277. Yes

and too many people give it to her.

[beam me up scottie]

281. Word.

[LondonReign2]

299. Bingo

I rather enjoy her righteous anger over posting about a candidate's actual, you know, votes.

[Andy823]

244. I agree with you Nance

And the really ironic thing is he has admitted that he voted for Kerry, even though Kerry also voted for the war, yet now it's one of his major "issues", one of many of course, against anyone voting for Hillary.

I bet a vast majority of his "followers" also voted for Kerry, but now claim they could NEVER vote for someone who voted for the Iraq war! Oh the irony of it all!

[MannyGoldstein]

246. I said I'd never vote for Hillary?

You might want to check that out before you claim it, sport.

[Andy823]

287. Hey sport

I said a vast number of your "followers" have said they won't vote for Hillary, and that my friend is a fact. I said you use the fact she voted for the war as an example of why we should not vote for her. You might check what is said before you claims something! I never said Manny will NOT vote for Hillary no matter what. Of course you can set the record straight right now. Will you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

[MannyGoldstein]

300. I think most people would understand your post

as implying I'd said I'd never vote for Hillary, based on the "irony" you write of. I'm not sure how else to reasonably interpret that sentence.

And, as I've said before, I'll probably vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

[Andy823]

322. No

The "irony" part is how you use her vote negatively against her and yet you yourself voted for Kerry, who also voted for the war. Get the irony there?

[MannyGoldstein]

326. Remind us... who was Kerry running against

in the general election when I voted for him?

I didn't vote for him in the primary, if that's what you're thinking.

[NanceGreggs]

250. The irony being displayed on DU of late ...

... is absolutely O'Henry-esque.

I, for one, am happy that HRC's "war vote" is being brought up for the millionth time. Apparently there are posters who believe that NO ONE on DU is aware of it - which, given the state of things here, could actually be true.

Watch for tomorrow's DU late-breaking news: Bernie marched with MLK!!! It's a little-known trivia fact that will come as a shock to many of the "political junkies" who purportedly post here.

[MannyGoldstein]

248. Seems like my attempt at rapprochement has failed.

Alas.

[marym625]

251. oh Manny!

Youyay idnday'tay eallyray inkthay ertaincay eoplepay ereway oinggay otay everyay oncedecay atthay eshay'say ayay armongerway, idday youyay? eeThray-ayday annyMay ouldway avehay ownknay.

[MannyGoldstein]

257. Iyay inkthay eshay'say onyay otay emay.

imeTay otay executeyay anplay erdNay alanceBay eetShay. Againyay, executeyay erdNay alanceBay eetShay. eyThay otgay usyay isthay imetay, utbay eway'llay ebay ackbay.

[marym625]

260. EXACTLY!

eWay'llay ebay ackbay andyay eway'llay inway.

[NanceGreggs]

252. It seems that your posting ...

... the same old shit over and over, day-in/day-out, never fails. And that speaks volumes about what this place has become.

Will there be another "Hillary's Iraq War Vote" OP again tomorrow - just for those who haven't heard about it yet?

[MannyGoldstein]

254. So your claim is that DU is filled with cretins,

basically little children who clap at the same episode of Teletubbies, over and over?

That's a little mean, don't you think? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[NanceGreggs]

255. My observation was that your posting ...

... of the same meme over and over never seems to get tiresome among the posters here.

[MannyGoldstein]

258. I believe that there was a bit more ornamentation hung on your claim.

No?

[NanceGreggs]

261. I "claimed" nothing.

I merely commented on the obvious.

[DerekG]

241. +1,000,000

Which, incidentally, corresponds to the number of Iraqi men, women, children and infants who died in that horror.

With her vote, Clinton proved herself either irreparably imbecilic or unfathomably corrupt.

Either way, she isn't fit for high office.

[One of the 99]

315. Just another POV

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/22/1386838/-Hillary-Clinton-Never-Supported-the-Bush-Cheney-Invasion-of-Iraq#