On Iran Deal: Bernie Sanders Storms The Senate And Calls Out GOP Warmongers

[Fawke Em]

Those who have spoken out against this agreement, including many in this chamber, and those who have made every effort to thwart the diplomatic process, are many of the same people who spoke out forcefully and irresponsibly about the need to go to war with Iraq – one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the modern history of our country.

Sadly, people like former vice president Dick Cheney and many of the other neo-cons who pushed us to war Iraq were not only tragically wrong then; they are wrong now. Unfortunately, these individuals have learned nothing from the results of that disastrous policy and how it destabilized the entire region.

I fear that many of my Republican colleagues do not understand that war must be a last resort, not the first resort. It is easy to go to war, it not so easy to comprehend the unintended consequences of that war.

As the former Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I have talked to veterans from WWII to Iraq, and I have learned a little bit about what the cost of war entails. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost 6,700 brave men and women, and many others have come home without legs, without arms, without eyesight.

Let us not forget that 500,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came back to their families with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. The suicide rate of young veterans is appallingly high. The divorce rate is appallingly high, and the impact on children is appallingly high. God knows how many families have been devastated by these wars.

And we should not forget the many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who died in that war, and those whose lives who have been completely destabilized, including those who are fleeing their country today with only the clothes on their back as refugees. The cost of war is real.

Yes, the military option should always be on the table, but it should be the last option. We have got to do everything we can do to reach an agreement to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon without having to go to war.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/09/bernie-sanders-marches-senate-floor-calls-republican-war-mongers-wrong.html

Quite a bit different than another candidate's sabre-rattling speech at the Brookings Institute, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

1. Indeed.

Way to go, Bernie, give em hell.

[AtomicKitten]

2. There it is.

[mindwalker_i]

3. The Iraq was was a success

... from the point of view of those making money off of it. Iran is the next war they can plan to keep the cash flowing to the contractors, then back as campaign contributions. Plus, keeping a threat out there is necessary in order to keep the American people paying money in to the military/campaign finance complex.

[bananas]

9. Oh, they'll make plenty of money off this.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article1557090.ece

http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-arabia-white-house-visit-growing-military-regional-security-concerns-could-mean-2082028

[raouldukelives]

105. Yes and many are shareholders.

Even some who self identify as "liberal".

The more we war, the more they make. The more they invest, the less democracy, the less safety, for all people.

There are those who recognize and warn of the signs of fascism and there are those who expand its powers and flourish because of it.

[cali]

4. their respective rhetoric is night and day.

[cantbeserious]

5. No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[SonderWoman]

6. Actually, no. Not much different at all.

Diplomacy first? Check.
Military option on the table? Check.
Supports Iran deal? Check.

[cali]

7. absolute bull. their rhetoric could scarcely be more different.

[SonderWoman]

8. Which parts were different?

Military option? Check.
Unwavering support for Israel? Check.
Supports Iran deal? Check.

Be honest, you didn't listen to a word of HRCs speech. I mean, why would you, you're obviously not voting for her.

[Fawke Em]

16. We all just read it in another thread.

So, no, I can't say that I "listened" to it, but I read it.

Hell, I didn't "listen" to Bernie say what I just posted. I read it.

[cali]

19. her emphasis was on threats and how this was only one aspect of what

her approach toward iran would be. His was on the terrible human costs of war. Huge difference

Hilly.is a neocon warmonger

[SonderWoman]

28. You are so deluded:

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

...this course is fraught with danger.

...a unilateral attack...on the present facts is not a good option.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
...

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort"

WARMONGER! LOL. You have like thismuch credibility left. Try not to be so blatant.

[cali]

39. yes, she is a warmonger. And, no I'm not deluded

Her record of supporting military interventions is clearly documented

[jeff47]

43. "Distrust but verify."

This has been the Neocon talking point for years on the Iran deal. Said by luminaries like Eric Cantor, Paul Wolfowitz and basically everyone who speaks before AIPAC. Because Reagan was not enough of a warmonger, they made his "trust but verify" worse.

And Clinton said it in her speech today.

[SonderWoman]

48. And Bernie agree's completely.

You think Bernie trusts Iran? You think Bernie foesn't have unwavering support for Israel? You think Bernie doesn't want to verify?

I think some of you believe the myth of Bernie Sanders and not the reality.

[jeff47]

72. No, he doesn't. Find him saying that.

"Distrust but verify" is a dogwhistle just like "all lives matter". It has specific meaning. And it is nothing like refusing to rule out military action.

I think some of you believe the myth of Bernie Sanders and not the reality.

Project much?

[kenfrequed]

103. Uhm...

Hillary is calling for a "more muscular foreign policy" and has stated that "Iran is a subject in the treaty and not a partner in it."

I think there is a massive difference in tone between those positions and Bernie's. To me it sounds like she has learned nothing since the Iraq war and she is already looking for more opportunities for intervention.

[beam me up scottie]

47. She voted for the Iraq war, anyone who doesn't understand that is delusional.

She trusted that warmonger Bush, Jesus Christ how can anyone defend that?

[SonderWoman]

51. You mean the same Bush and Cheney that Bernie trusted?

When voting yes on Afghanistan war? http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

[beam me up scottie]

59. No, we're talking about the illegal war that wasn't a last resort: Iraq

And since you're fond of Michael Arria, let's hear what he had to say about Benghazi:

Serious Real Questions About Benghazi

The liberal refusal to investigate any of these issues transcends mere Obama deflection and is probably also influenced by the need to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2016. As Ajamu Baraka wrote, in a piece called "Why a Principled Left Should Support a Benghazi Inquiry," "Democrats already lined-up behind a Clinton campaign understand that no matter what comes out this inquiry, Benghazi has the potential to become a permanent yoke that wears down the Clinton candidacy. But in another bizarre display of political and ideological subordination to the Democrat Party and its rightist elite, elements of the left have also expressed opposition to this inquiry.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24281-serious-real-questions-about-benghazi#14418413174061&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

And about the Clinton Foundation:

New Report: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons From Hillary's State Department

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has another damaging report on her hands.

A new report by David Sirota and Andrew Perez at the International Business Times details how Clinton Foundation donors received weapons deals from Hillary Clinton's State Department. The IBT analysis shows that Clinton's State Department sold $165 billion worth of commercial arms to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation. The investigation also identifies $151 billion in separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 countries that donated money to the Clinton Foundation.

The story points out that, "under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions -- a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy." However, "nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers."

The IBT story comes after months of media criticism regarding the Clinton Foundation's donor list and its potential connection to the uproar over Clinton's "email scandal." The reporting introduces an additional layer of complexity to accumulating conflicts of interests. You can read the report here.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/new-report-clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-hillarys-state-department

[LondonReign2]

90. Hmmm, what could the difference have been between Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Demobrat]

130. I don't believe she trusted him.

I believe she was simply afraid of being called unpatriotic by Carl Rove, and didn't really care if we went to war or not.

[beam me up scottie]

131. I think that's even worse, honestly.

One DUer even tried to defend her vote by claiming she had to vote for the war because her constituents wanted blood for 9/11.



And in the end it doesn't even matter, the results are still the same.

[Demobrat]

132. I think it's absolutely despicable.

I was shocked and disappointed at the time, and will never forget. I honestly expected better from her. Silly me.

[rhett o rick]

84. I listened to her speech. I was counting on her and other Democrats to tell the lying Bush and

Cheney to go to hell. But she didn't do that. She said a bunch of rhetoric that you kindly posted above: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. " Nice words but her vote was just that.
She said, "it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort". She forgot pretty please I guess. She knew full well that she was giving the "awesome responsibility " to a nitwit and mr. Death. Was she fooled? Did George Bush fool her when most sensible people were screaming that it was all lies? No, she knew full well what she was doing. She betrayed her Party, the USofA, our troops, and the people of Iraq, but her friends made hundreds of millions off the war.

We need a change from the status quo that rewards the MIC with wars for profit.

[Scootaloo]

95. Hey. Are you gonna post more links from PressTV?

Think you could squish in a few from rense and ifamericansknew? That ought to round out your anti-Sanders portfolio.

[Armstead]

96. In other words, she trusted Bush -- That was a wise thing to do wasn't it?

And there's always the possibility that she agreed with Bush....Go in there and knock out Saddam, and the oil will flow into American coffers, and everyone in the Middle East will live happily ever after, eternally grateful to America.

And there's also the possibility that she stick her finger in the air, and decided that it was too politically risky to stand against the rush to war.

Whatever the reason, it was a bad decision and a bad move.

[Demobrat]

129. Trusted Bush?

She was afraid of being called unpatriotic by Carl Rove. Trust had nothing to do with it.

[thesquanderer]

57. Yes, they are different.

Military option? Check.
Unwavering support for Israel? Check.
Supports Iran deal? Check.

Of course. Most dems would say yes to those things, put that way. The difference is in the details.

No one is going to take the military options off the table. That doesn't mean they are equally inclined to use them. Hillary's and Bernie's positions and votes in the past tell you something about their willingness/eagerness to use them. And you can even see the difference in tone in today's rhetoric.

Bernie: "Yes, the military option should always be on the table, but it should be the last option. We have got to do everything we can do to reach an agreement to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon without having to go to war."

Hillary: "The Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. So here's my message to Iran's leaders. The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon...I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."

As the article about Hillary's speech at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-foreign-policy_55f05c2ae4b002d5c07786b2 put it, "While Obama has always insisted that military action against Iran remained on the table, he generally avoided issuing what could be construed as an outright threat."

Even besides the tone, note the difference in the detail. Hillary will not hesitate to take military action if they even *attempt* to obtain a nuclear weapon. That doesn't sound like using the military as "the last option," as Bernie put it.

Of course they both support Israel. But Bernie refused to attend when Netanyahu recently addressed congress. He said "I am not a great fan of President Netanyahu" in an article subheaded "The Vermont senator is the lone presidential candidate to voice his displeasure with the Israeli government." (see http://www.salon.com/2015/06/16/bernie_sanders_im_not_a_great_fan_of_benjamin_netanyahu_partner/ )

OTOH, according to the same article mentioned above, Hillary said "that she’d invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the White House within her first month in office, noting that 'tough love' for the country is counterproductive because it invites other countries to delegitimize Israel." You may agree or disagree with Hillary's view, but it is not the same as Bernie's, even though they both support Israel.

Despite agreeing on the broad strokes, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that the two are identical in hawkishness or in how they would intend to deal with the current Israeli government.

[leftofcool]

10. Didn't you get the memo? Bernie is perfect no matter what he says or doesn't say.

And Hillary is evil even if she says the same thing Bernie does.

[SonderWoman]

12. "SHUT UP, YOU DON'T HAVE THE MICROPHONE!"

[cali]

21. lol. far more patient than hillykins.

[leftofcool]

23. LMAO!

[beam me up scottie]

30. Hillary Clinton laughs at possible war with Iran:

[maddiemom]

76. Oh, come on!

"Hillary laughs at..." I'm a Bernie supporter, but the implication is ridiculous. I'm certainly not going to stay home if she gets the nomination. Prefer ANY of the Repubs? Like Nader said in the 2,000 election: there's no real difference between Bush and Gore. If you liked those results, you'll love another Pres. Bush, or a Huckabee or....Trump. THAT I can't wait to see. Bernie refuses to get down into primary gutter politics, and Hillary---not so much, either.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Did you watch the video?

Her speech today proves she hasn't evolved at all.

[maddiemom]

80. Yeah, I did watch the video.

And Hillary did get pretty giddy. I just don't see it as her (by implication) finding such a war funny. A lot more going on.

[KoKo]

92. K&R!

[CountAllVotes]

104. +1,000 !!!

[Armstead]

83. You ever been to a New Egland town meeting? This is standard stuff

[cali]

15. why no, he's not perfect. she's still an interventionist with strong neocon impulses

[SonderWoman]

22. What? Bernie voted for more war and war funding than Hillary.

Did he vote to bomb Kosovo? Afghanistan? Fund all wars? And court lockheed martin?

[cali]

29. revisionist bullshit. unfuckingbelievable

[beam me up scottie]

33. She's been reading Paul Street.

Her sources also include Iranian news and Republican sleaze ads, I'm afraid of what's next.

FreeRepublic maybe?

[cali]

41. ignorance is bliss. or something.

[cali]

49. I explained the difference to you quite clearly. And you are the one that

is out of control, dear. Do try to get a grip on yourself, swoman.

[SonderWoman]

56. My post wasn't for you.

And there is no difference.

[1monster]

74. You sound a lot like my son does when he's been caught out

in a particular failure in logic... It's his favorite retort when he has no more substantive answer.

[SonderWoman]

44. Where am I wrong? Please enlighten us all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026763666#post5

[roguevalley]

53. she came on board 8-2015.

[cali]

65. it may be unfair to infer anything from that, but...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

86. Some very current Bernie views

In contrast, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) also gave a speech Wednesday during which he, too, threw his support behind the Iran deal, likening critics of it to those who supported the Iraq War in 2003.

"It is my firm belief that the test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner," he said in prepared remarks on the Senate floor. "I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military engagement—especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the region."

[Fawke Em]

32. Pish. He's not perfect.

He hunches too much and doesn't brush his hair enough.

But, on this topic, he's dead-on accurate.

[maddiemom]

82. I take that first sentence as sarcastic humor.

After all, posture and good grooming are all important for a potential POTUS. How could Mitt have possibly lost last time.

[still_one]

11. Exactly right. Hillary compared the GOP to terrorists in regard to women, and slammed them for

voting for the war. She also called out the GOP 2016 hopefuls who backed the republican letter to Iran

[jeff47]

24. Really. Which candidate said "distrust but verify" today?

When you're more of a warmonger than Reagan, you've got a problem.

[still_one]

27. actually, John Kerry said something very similar. When Bernie said he would never remove military

action from the table in regard to this issue, what do you think he meant?

[jeff47]

31. That it's still an option. If you don't get the vast gulf between "an option" and

being more of a warmonger than Reagan, you've got a problem.

[still_one]

36. sure

[arcane1]

63. Kerry said he would've also invaded Iraq if he had been president at the time.

So I'm not sure how credible his opinion is on this matter.

[still_one]

73. The fact that he was instrumental in making the Iran deal a reality, makes him credible. I suspect

if he looked back on the IWR, he would say he clearly made a mistake. Hell, Joe Biden, and we all know Hillary also voted for the Iraq war. We also know that the one candidate who didn't, was Bernie. That is history.

Some of the reasons they gave for voting for the IWR was because they thought it "was only a last resort" after all diplomatic efforts failed. Personally, that is a pretty pathetic reason to over turn the War Powers Act, and essentially give bush carte blanche.

It is perfectly valid for someone to use someones past actions as to which candidate they will support. It is also valid for someone to believe, rightly or wrongly, that lessons were learned, and it is where those candidates stand today what counts.

That is what elections are for

[arcane1]

89. Credit definitely where it is due on the Iran deal

[maddiemom]

79. Reference, please.

I'm not being snarky, just honestly curious.

[arcane1]

88. No snark perceived :) "Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq."

KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.

But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.
This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-kerry-debate-ii/

I interpret that as saying he would've still invaded, but just planned it in a different way. Criticizing the execution of the war, not the war itself.

[Logical]

114. You crack me up! Check! Nt

[JoePhilly]

125. Some didn't notice the "military option is on the table" statement.

If Obama says that, or Hillary says that ... it means they are hell bent on an invasion.

Bernie says it ... it's invisible.

The same folks who claim candidate Obama fooled them. They hear what they want to hear.

[JeffHead]

13. Here's the video

[Fawke Em]

18. Thanks!

I just posted I hadn't heard the speech and had only read it.

Now I can hear it, too!

[beam me up scottie]

20. I was looking for that, thanks for posting it!

I expected nothing less from Bernie.

[JDPriestly]

38. Bernie -- right as usual.

We don't give up anything with this deal that we really could have without it.

The embargo will not hold forever.

Iran is a ready trading partner with our allies.

We get an agreement for no nuclear weapons and with inspections.

We do not give up the ability to fight a war with Iran if necessary.

Why is anyone against this?

[KoKo]

93. Thanks for the Video!

[sadoldgirl]

14. This is the right way to address the issue. n/t

[FlatBaroque]

17. THIS is why Bernie need never attack Hillary

While he was making this statement on the floor of the Senate, Hilly was warmongering at a think tank. The contrast draws itself.

[cali]

26. it sure does, and yet some people have the unmitigated gall to claim

they're the same on the issue.

[still_one]

34. Which part of "the military option should always be on the table, but it should be the last option."

confuses you?

The only ones actually talking war as a first option are the republicans, and dick cheney.

The majority of the American people, wrongly I believe, are against the deal, because of the distortions presented through the MSM.

I say that because initially the majority were for the deal

[beam me up scottie]

37. What part of going to war with Iraq wasn't the last option confuses you?

[still_one]

54. and all the Democratic candidates, except maybe Jim Webb are saying that. The only ones banging the

war drums are the republicans, a handful of democratic congress people, and Dick cheney

Hell, even the Iranian Ayatollah's have said that

It is a done deal. It is also going to be verifiable, that is part of the deal, and is a fact that has been agreed upon by all parties, and now the United States.

A big problem is our illustrious republican run media has been distorting the facts, and public opinion does not support the deal:

http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/

which also puts emphasis on the fact that the corporate take over of the media, by the communication act of 2000 was a disaster, not only for journalism, but honesty in the news.

It has been shown in other polls, how people view the Iran deal depended on how the question was asked.

Appreciate your come back scottie, and we can quibble over the semantics used between Hillary and Bernie, but the fact is
that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, and all of the Democratic candidates, except Jim Webb fully support the deal, but most importantly, the deal WILL happen

[beam me up scottie]

61. Your claim that there is little difference between the two speeches is pathetic.

This isn't about which Dems support the Iran deal, it's about which one is a war hawk, and Hillary's speech today proves that she hasn't evolved at all.

[still_one]

70. I disagree. A war hawk is everyone of the republican candidates, except just maybe, Rand Paul,

because most of them have said they would undo the deal if they became president, with one even saying he might bomb Iran on the first day if elected.

You can have the last word if you want, but I will leave it at, you don't agree with my assessment on this, and I don't agree with my assessment on this.

The good news is that it is a done deal, which I know we both agree on

[dorkzilla]

77. You lose points for calling Webb a Democrat!

[MisterP]

50. it's surprisingly easy to get at Clinton by attacking the Pubs, isn't it?

Sanders: "the GOP is astronomically wrong on X, Y, and Z, because of A, B, and C"
*Clinton then endorses X and Y and a lot of Z*

[still_one]

62. Not quite sure if I follow you, but verification is very much part of the deal, and every Democratic

candidate is FOR THE IRAN DEAL, except Jim Webb.

The only way the Iran deal will NOT be successful is if one of the republican candidates become president. They have all pretty much said they would back out of the deal, I imagine in a similar way to which bushco backed out of the ABM treaty.

Hopefully that will not happen

[SoapBox]

25. Go Bernie!

The speech from the Hill is with her newly "reset" campaign...anything prior to yesterday can be ignored.

That is until the Weathervane spins again.

[hifiguy]

40. Here ya go!

[libdem4life]

52. Uh oh, that's gonna sting.

[Plucketeer]

85. Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww......

The slightest breeze twiddles the whether vain!

[reddread]

35. the choice is clear

but it wont come easy.
the War Criminal Class is hardly one to lay down (or anything, really)
without a fight and dead bodies to show for it.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Fawke Em.

[Fawke Em]

45. You're very welcome.

Which Uncle Joe are you named after? Uncle Joe Biden. Uncle Joe on "Petticoat Junction" or are, you, yourself, an Uncle Joe?

[Uncle Joe]

58. I'm an Uncle Joe, never been a father.

Uncle Joe theme songs.

[Fawke Em]

69. Well, your nieces and/or nephews have a great role model!

[Uncle Joe]

71. I have both and thank you, Fawke Em, that means a lot to me.

Peace to you.

[hueymahl]

119. You have excellent taste in music!

I'm especially a fan of Jamey Johnson!

[BlueMTexpat]

55. Good for him!

Now let him also call out his Dem Senate colleagues: Schumer, Menendez, Cardin & Manchin.

[SouthernProgressive]

60. Love the sanity of our side.

We actually have adults speaking. Republicans are just looking like shit. I just watched what Cruz and Trump said about the deal at a Tea Party event. Truly frightening. We are in a really good position considering Obama has forced Republicans to hold positions that I don't even think they want to take. They have been forced into a corner and are reacting out of fear. It's great that this great success of Obamas is happening right now. We are the winners here. Don't get to say that often enough.

[randys1]

64. Actually Bernie and Hillary have the same position

[beam me up scottie]

67. Sure they do:

Atlantic's Steve Clemons: Hillary Clinton Gave A "Very Neoconservative" Speech.

Keep telling yourself that because only HC supporters are buying it.

[randys1]

68. Stick with facts, you show ME what SHE said that differs from Bernie.

go ahead...

Shouldnt be hard to do.

If you could show me a big difference, or any, i might even pay attention to it, so far though, nothing

[beam me up scottie]

75. "Distrust but verify".

[SunSeeker]

99. Verification is the basis of this deal, which Bernie supports.

How can that be "sabre rattling" or "war mongering"?

For fuck's sake, Hillary initiated the Iran deal as Secretary of State. She wants this deal to work. She does not want to go to war with Iran.

Does Bernie trust Iran and think verification is not needed?

[beam me up scottie]

100. Google that phrase and take note of who uses it.

There's a reason Bernie won't say those words and why Hillary shouldn't either.

That she did and where she said them proves the point.

She's a war hawk and she knew her audience.

Despicable.

[SunSeeker]

101. Of course she knows her audience. She is trying to get them to support this deal.

She is trying to push back on the accusations that this is a giveaway to Iran. Those accusations in the media have caused support for the deal to drop recently.

She is trying to bolster support for the deal among those to the right of her and Sanders. What she is doing is advocating for diplomacy and preventing war. That is not "despicable."

You conspicuously did not answer my question. Does Bernie trust Iran? You know the answer is an emphatic no. His position is the same as Hillary's. They both distrust Iran and insist on verification.

The difference in the speeches is one of tone, not substance. Hillary is trying to build support for the deal, whereas Bernie is bashing the GOP to make his base happy. I think both speeches served their purpose.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Your question is a strawman and ignoring Hillary's dog whistle won't work.

Everyone else heard it and knows who she's pandering to.

Like I said, Bernie won't blow that whistle for a reason.

Sabre rattling is not "advocating for diplomacy".

It's too bad HC supporters choose to turn a blind eye to her tactics. Not surprising, just sad.

[SunSeeker]

108. It is not a "dog whistle" for war, for fuck's sake. "Distrust and verify" IS this deal.

"It's too bad HC supporters choose to turn a blind eye to her tactics. Not surprising, just sad."

Your line would make sense if you switched out "HC" for "BS."

I am not "turning a blind eye" to anything. I, and certainly Hillary's audience, can see that it is a riff on Reagan's old "trust but verify" line (which is actually a Russian proverb,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify ) which he used to sell the 1987 INF Treaty with the Soviet Union. She made it even stronger, "distrust and verify," to emphasize we are being even tougher than St. Ronnie and this is at least a good a deal as Reagan got. She is trying to bolster waning support for this deal:

Clinton stated, in a modification of Ronald Reagan’s famous line, that “My approach will be distrust and verify.” 
...
While President Obama has focused on building congressional support, Clinton will have to defend the nuclear agreement to the American people. That will not be easy. Just yesterday the respected Pew Research Center released a survey showing that popular support for the agreement—never robust—has fallen substantially during the past two months. In July, 33 percent of the people said they backed the deal, 45 percent opposed it, and 22 percent said they didn’t know. Now only 21 percent express approval (down 12 points since the previous survey), 49 percent stand opposed, and fully 30 percent say they don’t know. Obama may be winning the inside battle, but he is losing the outside war.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/09/09-hrc-iran-nuclear-agreement-galston

She is not "pandering" to the right. That would involve standing next to Trump, Palin and Cruz and calling for a renunciation of this deal. Her speech supports the deal and uses language the right of center folks can understand that reassures them this deal is good.

You should be applauding her for her efforts. Instead, you applaud Bernie preaching to the choir, like that is going to accomplish anything. Hillary is trying to keep us out of war. That an OP on a progressive board lies about that is what is sad.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Sure it is, denying it won't make it not true. And you guys call us dreamers?

Keep marching to that drumbeat!

Just don't expect the rest of us to fall in lockstep.

I've had enough of Clinton's war hawkishness to last me a lifetime.

Thanks but no thanks.

[SunSeeker]

110. The thoughtless reply I expected from you. nt

[beam me up scottie]

111. And the same level of denial and obligatory insults I've come to expect from you.

Why should I trust someone with her record?

[SunSeeker]

113. Because Hillary is the one that got the ball rolling on this deal. nt

[beam me up scottie]

117. And that makes her saber rattling okay how?

Does it erase her record?

Does it help the people who suffered and died because she voted to give Bush his war?

[SunSeeker]

126. If you contend her efforts to bolster the Iran deal is "sabre rattling,"

...there is no point in attempting to have a rational conversation with you.

[beam me up scottie]

127. It's not just my contention you're denying.

But keep trying to ignore the reality, I find this fascinating.

Maybe you could bring up Bernie and guns again, that's always a good fallback.

[Logical]

116. Except bernie actually communicates his in public! Nt

[Fred Sanders]

66. "Tragically wrong then, wrong know". Identical words used by the White House yesterday.

[ion_theory]

81. Such a shame that so many people in this country..

are so used to hearing the drums of war and essentially the opposite of what Sen. Sanders says here. This is the type of president we need. Not "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Not "We came. We saw. He died." Not "We're gonna have such a strong military nobody is gonna mess with us. And we're gonna have to use it."

It should be. "Yes, the military option should always be on the table, but it should be the last option."

[raindaddy]

87. The difference is Hillary has dodged sniper fire in a war zone, Bernie has not!

She knows war from firsthand experience...

Can anyone imagine Bernie making up a preposterous story about having to duck live rounds and run for cover when in fact he walked leisurely to the plane smiling for photos while greeting a local schoolgirl? Then when the story is proven to be completely fabricated his excuse, "I was sleep deprived"....

[KoKo]

91. K&R!

[slipslidingaway]

94. "War should be the last option..." No corporate media coverage though ...

thanks for the post!

[Enthusiast]

97. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

We have had quite enough of these bullshit wars.

[turbinetree]

98. He should have also mentioned ...............................

in my opinion of the 47 senators that signed a letter (written by a traitor------ Cotton) to circumvent the "agreement" reached by the president and his team---------------which still is in my opinion a act of treason and against the Logan Act, and the public should be reminded of this and what the critics are traitors



Honk----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[Autumn]

106. How can this be true? The man who wanted Obama primaried and has never worked with Democrats

and has "spent most of his career dumping on the Democratic party"and "only stopped attacking Democrats when he decided that he needed the party infrastructure in order to become president." has Obamas back on this? One of the most important and greatest things that Obama IMO has done. I guess some posters are full of shit.

I stand with Bernie in his support for President Obama.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Ikr?

They'll be trying to spin this too, just give them some time.

I prefer calling out the GOP to pandering to them.

The holdouts were never going to come around.

[SunSeeker]

112. If he had gotten his way and primaried Obama, we wouldn't have this deal.

President Romney would be waging war with Iran instead.

Nice of him to come around though. Not that his preaching to the choir and GOP bashing is going to change any minds to support the deal. That is what Hillary is trying to do with her speech. Public support for the deal is plummeting because the GOP meme that this is a giveaway to Iran has gotten traction.

That is why Hillary spoke, trying to convince the center and right of center, using language they can relate to.

Clinton stated, in a modification of Ronald Reagan’s famous line, that “My approach will be distrust and verify.” 

...

While President Obama has focused on building congressional support, Clinton will have to defend the nuclear agreement to the American people. That will not be easy. Just yesterday the respected Pew Research Center released a survey showing that popular support for the agreement—never robust—has fallen substantially during the past two months. In July, 33 percent of the people said they backed the deal, 45 percent opposed it, and 22 percent said they didn’t know. Now only 21 percent express approval (down 12 points since the previous survey), 49 percent stand opposed, and fully 30 percent say they don’t know. Obama may be winning the inside battle, but he is losing the outside war.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/09/09-hrc-iran-nuclear-agreement-galston

[Autumn]

115. What if roses were skunks? eom

[beam me up scottie]

118. LOL!

Deflect!

Derail!

Squirrell!!!

[Autumn]

120. Yeah that's about the size of it. Word salads that are irrelevant to ones' post

are a waste of time, if that's what people thrive on they need to make the salads small and easier to get through.

[Autumn]

121. By the way, thanks for helping me out yesterday. It worked out great

[beam me up scottie]

122. You're welcome!

To teamwork and solidarity!

[Autumn]

123. You got it. To teamwork and solidarity!

If we work as a team there is nothing that can't be overcome.

[merrily]

124. Go, Bernie. So smart and sensible!

[pansypoo53219]

128. AND THEY PUT IT ON CREDIT.DID NOT PAY FOR IT. cut taxes. CUT TAXES! no war tax. NONE. war is NOT

FREE. fuck the rite.

[markpkessinger]

133. Hillary, meanwhile, promises a "more muscular" foreign policy . . .

Oy!