Hillary Clinton: Those kicked out of military for being gay should get honorable discharges

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Saturday that military records be amended to upgrade dishonorable discharges imposed on gay, lesbian and transgender military veterans.

People drummed out of the armed services in years past for being gay should be able to get their records changed to reflect an honorable discharge, Clinton said.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell is over, but that doesn't change the fact that more than 14,000 men and women were forced out of the military for being gay, some long before Don't Ask, Don't Tell even existed," Clinton said, referring to the 1993 law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military if they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

"They were given less than honorable discharges," Hillary Clinton said. "I can't think of a better way to thank those men and women for their service than by upgrading their service records."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/03/hillary-clinton-backs-honorable-discharges-for-those-kicked-out-of-military-for-being-gay/

[yeoman6987]

1. This is why she will be president

She always looks after the ones discriminated. She is amazing. We are a very lucky country to have her in leadership for the next 8 years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Hillary Clinton will get things done.

She might not be leader our nation deserves but she's the leader our nation needs.

[reddread]

30. dont ask dont tell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

[beam me up scottie]

3. Are you joking?

She always looks after the ones discriminated.

Who was she looking out for in 2004?

[jwirr]

4. Exactly. Don't ask, don't tell destroyed a lot of careers that

cannot be restored even if the paperwork is changed. I do agree that it needs to be changed but what was done then cannot be undone that easily.

Not any easier than the tough on crimes laws she supported can undo the damage by saying "I am sorry."

[m-lekktor]

89. people also try to claim DADT was better but things were no different.

I was gay in the navy back then. They still asked. I believe discharges even went up if I remember the reports from Service Members Legal Defense during the 90's.

[moobu2]

38. What has Bernie Sanders ever done besides talk?

Nobody every did anything more for LGBT related issues than the State Department did under Hillary Clinton. Bernie talked about stuff, Hillary did stuff, lots of stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Glad you asked, moobu2, glad you asked:

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.

Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.

“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”

...

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

On LGBT Rights, Bernie Leads and Hillary Follows

Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.

On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.

But she isn't the only option.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.

Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html

Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.

Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

...

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.

Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.

“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.

“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.

...

But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.

Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders' Views On Gay Marriage Show He's Been A Supporter For A Long Time

Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).

In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.

On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage, Sanders issued a statement on his website reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry.

Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. It’s time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time

Is Bernie Sanders the Most LGBT-Friendly Candidate?

Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving independent member of Congress, is officially seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, the Vermont senator announced in an email to supporters this morning.

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the Associated Press in an interview that broke the news of his candidacy Wednesday night. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

The self-described "Democratic socialist" wants to challenge the business-as-usual trend of big money in politics that he says dominates the current candidates — including Hillary Clinton.

The thrust of Sanders's campaign thus far — like his political career as the mayor of Burlington, Vt., 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the past seven in the U.S. Senate — has focused on supporting working-class Americans through elevated taxes on the wealthy and correcting income inequality "which is now reaching obscene levels," he told the AP.

But Sanders has also been a steadfast and reliable supporter of LGBT equality, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it passed the Senate in 2013 and even calling on President Obama to evolve already and support marriage equality in 2011. He's a cosponsor of the federal LGBT-inclusive Student Non-Discrimination Act and has consistently voted against bills seeking to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, while cosponsoring a bill that would repeal the remaining portions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Sanders has a perfect score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's latest Congressional Equality Index.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate

You're welcome!

[Doctor_J]

70. oops. looks like bmus caught you in another lie

You should avoid arguing with people who have facts, especially when all you have is a crush.

[moobu2]

76. It isn't even worth it.

Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democratic Party nominee call people names and post a bunch of irrelevant crap all you want. He's still not going to be the nominee.

[Fearless]

81. LGBT rights IS worth it actually. This is 2015.

My rights are NOT "irrelevant crap".

Sorry.

But not sorry.

[dsc]

63. she voted against the amendment

I frankly couldn't care less what words she uttered while doing so.

[beam me up scottie]

65. I'm just here to post the facts, you don't have to like them.

[dsc]

68. I didn't dispute what you posted

she voted against the amendment. I couldn't care less what she said while doing so. Bottom line, her actions that day helped gay rights and in the end that is what matters.

[uponit7771]

91. You need to twist reality a little more so Hillary ends up being the bad person and they'll

.. accept that a lot more

[Report1212]

13. "She always looks after the ones discriminated."

Except if fox news says not to?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-same-sex-passports_560c68e6e4b076812700bf06

[Doctor_J]

66. you forgot the sarcasm thing

She's even more of a wind sock than the president. Never has a person with less leadership skill been a contender for president

[Indepatriot]

5. Her courage knows no boundries.....

once it's politically expedient....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I will never stop grieving for those who do not know the true Hillary, she of boundless empathy.

eom

[last1standing]

9. I'll never stop grieving for the 224,000 she sentenced to death with her IWR vote.

There's some empathy for you.

But you keep on grieving that I don't know the true Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I will never stop grieving for the grievous injuries suffered by Jim Brady in spite of the craven...

I will never stop grieving for the grievous injuries suffered by Jim Brady in spite of the craven vote by the congressperson who voted repeatedly against the bill that carries his name.

[last1standing]

11. Versus the craven need to look tough on TV that led Hillary to vote for the slaughter of 224,000.

Do you think Hillary ever lies awake at night wishing she hadn't done that?



Neither do i.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Do you think the congresspeople who voted against the Brady Bill...

Do you think the congresspersons who voted against the Brady Bill look at all the death, destruction, and despair caused by gun violence and wished they voted for it and even more gun control?

I do.

[last1standing]

15. Of course you know that Sanders voted for a version of the Brady Bill.

But that won't stop you and your friends from spreading smears to try and deceive others.

Now tell me how many wars against brown people has Hillary not supported over the years? IWR, Afghanistan, Libya.... Of course she now tells us that she'll get tough with Iran and want's a no-fly zone over Syria. The fun never ends with Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton.

They say once you get the taste for blood, you never lose it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You injected color into a conversation and gratuitously so to camouflage a bad vote.

Where is the honor in that?

[last1standing]

17. You wanted people to know the "true Hillary" so I helped you out with that.

It's not my fault that the true Hillary is an unrepentant warhawk.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. At least in war there is a good chance your opponents are armed.

Not so in the case of most shooters.

[last1standing]

20. So our conversation isn't over?

I guess you still have some untruths to spread, since I'm sure you know that Bernie voted for a version of the Brady Bill, while Hillary never voted against a war on brown people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I resent you calling me a liar but the ad hominem is always the last refuge of a scoundrel...

I resent you calling me a liar but the ad hominem is always the last refuge of a scoundrel on the losing side of an argument...

Even fricking Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html


How could he not? He saw part of his friend's head shot off.

[last1standing]

23. I resent you saying I called you a liar when I didn't.

I said you were spreading untruths, which you are. That doesn't mean I think you're a liar, only that you are spreading untruths.

I would resent you calling me a scoundrel if I had much respect in your opinions.

Fortunately, I don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Now,now, now...

Semantics is a thin reed to hide behind. The opposite of truth is a ---...


I will throw you a lifeline...If I were in your shoes I would rather discuss anything than why a candidate I support opposed the Brady Bill to placate the "folks back home."

[last1standing]

25. If you tell a lie, that necessarily doesn't make you a liar, unless you're admitting you are.

If you want to be defined by the untruths you've told, that's on you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I read that a certain candidate voted against the Brady Bill in several iterations.

I read that a certain candidate voted against the Brady Bill in several iterations.


Whom should I believe, some random internet poster or my lying eyes?

[last1standing]

27. You could beleive a roll call from a government website.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:hamdt390:

But you won't because it doesn't fit in with your narrative. As usual, you'll gloss over this and spread the same untruths in the next thread.

And you'll continue to ignore the quarter of a million lives stolen by the vote Hillary cast for war. Endless war without purpose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I won't accuse you of being a liar but I will accuse you of being an obscurantist.

The Brady Bill went through several iterations and he voted against the final bill...All the sophistry, casuistry, and obscurantism you can muster can not change that simple fact:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams

So let's stipulate he voted against the Brady Bill and move on.

What is your opinion on bringing guns on trains?

[last1standing]

29. No, let's stipulate that I was right and never tried to obsure anything.

As usual, you are wrong but want to hide that fact by moving the goal posts. I said he voted for a version of the Brady Bill and he did. You asked if you should believe me or your lying eyes. The answer is clear, but your lying eyes may not see that.

Now let's talk about the 224,000 slaughtered and millions pushed into poverty, slavery, homelessness, and deprivation because Hillary wanted war.

What are you're feelings on that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. He voted for a meaningless iteration of the bill

He voted for a meaningless iteration of the bill before finally voting against it and you are making lawyerly arguments to defend it:

The Brady Act mandated that everyone who wanted to buy a handgun had to wait five days while local law enforcement ran criminal background checks. (After 1998, the firearm dealers became responsible for conducting the checks.)

But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

http://tinyurl.com/pn3kxkm

This conversation is becoming Orwellian so let's stipulate he voted against the Brady Bill and move on.

When folks get on the Amtrak train is it right for these law abiding citizens to be concerned that some homocidal psychopath is going to pull a gun out of his or her backpack and shoot them to kingdom come?

[last1standing]

34. You were 100% wrong. Just admit it and let's move on to 224,000 killed by Hillary's vote for IWR.

If you can't admit you were wrong when everyone can see it with their own eyes, that hopefully don't lie to them as much as you claim yours do, it just make you look small, petty, and partisan.

So what do you think of those 224,000 slaughtered because Hillary wanted war?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. My friend is a lawyer. He always said to nail down questions to yes or no or either/or

My friend is a lawyer. He always says to nail down questions to yes or no or either/or. Did Senator Sanders vote for or against the final version of the Brady Bill?

Thank you in advance.

If some pawn shop owner sells a gun to a sociopath without a background check and said sociopath kills twenty first graders should that pawn shop owner have immunity from civil action?

[last1standing]

37. I am a lawyer and I believe in mutual discovery.

You made an assertion. I proved you wrong. I asked a question. You have repeatedly dodged it.

What do you think about those 224,000 innocent human beings Hillary sentenced to death with her IWR vote?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. So if you are a lawyer you possess the perspicacity to answer my question(s).

Did he or did he not vote for the final version of the Brady Bill?

Thank you in advance.

If some pawn shop owner sells a gun to some miscreant without a background check and he shoots me in the gut and I have to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of my life should I be able to bring a civil action against him?

Thank you in advance.

[last1standing]

51. So you refuse to even acknowledge that 224,000 people are dead because of Hillary's vote.

If you can't even admit a solid fact, anything you say is worse than suspect. It is presumed to be without merit.

[Ed Suspicious]

79. Yes or no! You can't even answer yes or no!

[beam me up scottie]

36. The bill was to allow guns in CHECKED baggage on trains.

Just like on airplanes.

When folks get on the Amtrak train is it right for these law abiding citizens to be concerned that some homocidal psychopath is going to pull a gun out of his or her backpack and shoot them to kingdom come?

Stop gaslighting DU.

[last1standing]

40. She's merely proving beyond all doubt that the truth doesn't matter. Only Hillary matters.

She's been proved wrong but won't stop spreading untruths.

She and Hillary are perfect for each other. They both only care about what's good for Hillary.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

It's not working.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I am a he but I am not disturbed nor embarrassed to be called a she.

She's merely proving beyond all doubt that the truth doesn't matter. Only Hillary matters.

I am a he but I am not disturbed nor embarrassed to be called a she. That being said, I am flummoxed by the thought process that leads to such a conclusion.

[last1standing]

47. Your refusal to acknowledge 224,000 innocent people slaughtered leads to such a conclusion.

You won't even admit that Hillary's vote led to 224,000 innocent human beings being killed. That's sad beyond words.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Please see Post 48.

Thank you in advance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I want to make sure I get this right because this thread is replete with chicanery

You:

She's merely proving beyond all doubt that the truth doesn't matter. Only Hillary matters.

She's been proved wrong but won't stop spreading untruths.

She and Hillary are perfect for each other. They both only care about what's good for Hillary.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=645038

Me:

I am a he but I am not disturbed nor embarrassed to be called a she. That being said, I am flummoxed by the thought process that leads to such a conclusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=64503

You:

Your refusal to acknowledge 224,000 innocent people slaughtered leads to such a conclusion.

You won't even admit that Hillary's vote led to 224,000 innocent human beings being killed. That's sad beyond words.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=645038

I reject your conclusion about countenancing the death of innocents but why would you suggest that someone who would countenance the slaughter of 224,000 people is more likely to be female?

Thank you in advance.


It has the whiff, of well, misogyny.

[last1standing]

55. Asking you to acknowledge 224,000 innocents slaughtered by Hillary's vote is sexist?

How sad. How pathetically, cynically, stupidly, sad.

You're refusal to even acknowledged that Hillary's vote led to the deaths of 224,000 innocent victims in Iraq shows that you care more for Hillary's candidacy than all those hundreds of thousands of lives.

You may smell misogyny, but I smell something far worse, and inexcusable, coming from your direction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I laid out the posts with links...You suggested I was female and I asked you why,

I laid out the posts with links...Posters can click on them and see the sequence and decide for themselves. I asked you why you assumed I was a female and you tied it into countenancing the slaughter of innocents.

I will submit the evidence to any fair and dispassionate observer and let him or her decide.





Oh, your ad hominem attacks are sad:

How sad. How pathetically, cynically, stupidly, sad.

But any port in a storm I guess.

[last1standing]

57. Why don't you care about 224,000 killed by Hillary's vote?

I often use "she" when addressing people when I don't know their sex. Seems more sexist to go on about it like you are doing.

Even worse that you won't address Hillary's war vote that killed 224,000 innocent people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Of course I don't countenance the death of innocents.

Of course I don't countenance the death of innocents. I am hurt that you think I do.

[last1standing]

59. So what do think of Hillary's vote to slaughter 224,000 innocents?

n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. It was a bad vote. What do you think of Senator Sanders's votes on the Brady Bill and PLCAA?

I would add that Hillary was joined in her bad vote by 59% of her Senate Democratic colleagues including both members of the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket and the sitting vice president and Secretary Of state. Senator Sanders was virtually alone among liberals in opposing the Brady Bill...For chrissake even Reagan saw the morality and wisdom of it.

[last1standing]

61. It was far, far worse than just "a bad vote." It led to the slaughter fo 224,000 innocent people.

Why do you think Hillary voted for it? Why did she want to go to war when she had all the same information that Bernie did showing that the bush* administration was lying?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. She voted for it for the same reasons 59% of her Democratic Senate colleagues did.

Something occurred to me... I will stipulate that those who voted for the IWR were wrong and those who voted against it were right if you stipulate that those who voted for the Brady Bill and PLCAA were right and those who voted against the Brady Bill and PLCAA were wrong, fair?

[last1standing]

67. I agree with you on the Brady Bill, but not PLCAA.

I understand why Bernie voted against the Brady Bill but strongly disagree with him on it. I have no problem disagreeing with my candidate when I believe he's wrong. If I believe he's wrong on enough issues, I'll support someone else. So far, the Brady Bill is all anyone has been able to hit him with while Hillary has made bad decision after bad decision and made friends and allies with the worst people in American politics.

As for PLCAA, I would have voted for it, myself. Protecting manufacturers from frivolous suits while making safety locks mandatory on handguns was a good thing. I don't like gun makers but I don't want any company being sued for following the law, just as I wouldn't want wingnuts suing Planned Parenthood for providing legal abortions.

And yes, I read your earlier analogy about the pawn shop owner selling a gun without a background check. Before you continue on that vein, try reading the bill so you can see that the PLCAA doesn't protect dealers or manufacturers who break the law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. The PLCAA bill is eight pages long. I will read it in its entirety later.

eom

[last1standing]

73. That's fine but the gist is that you can't sue manufacurers for gun related deaths.

Unless the manufacturer has done something illegal or made a defective product. All companies are generally covered in that respect by common law but certain people wanted to bankrupt gun manufacturers by inundating them with lawsuits that they would have to defend. I'm all for restricting gun manufacturers but that is definitely not the way to do it. The PLCAA rightly blocked that from happening.

Many want to compare gun manufacturers with the cigarette industry suits but they're not the same. Cigarette manufacturers were hiding studies that proved their products caused cancer and other illnesses, which is against the law. So far as we know, gun manufacturers aren't hiding information proving that their products are more dangerous than they're telling us. If they are, the PLCAA would not protect them from suit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Channeling the ghost of the late Frank Lautenberg:

" I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure."

-Senator Frank Lautenberg

I join with the late senator in stating that if you believe that having more guns in more places makes us safer there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[beam me up scottie]

44. You said you were worried about a "psychopath" pulling a gun out of their backpack.

How are they going to get the gun if it's in checked luggage?

[last1standing]

45. What a sad spectacle you're making in this thread.

You've been proved wrong and won't admit it. Worse, you refuse to acknowledge the 224,000 innocent human beings slaughtered by Hillary's cynical vote.

Why won't you even acknowledge all those senseless deaths? Oh yeah, Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Please see Post 49.

[LuvLoogie]

74. Here are Hillary's remarks before her vote:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, dated October 10, 2002:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

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. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, 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.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Video of Bernie opposing IWR:

[LuvLoogie]

82. Bernie's solution was to work through the UN and allow it to conduct thourough inspections.

From Hillary's remarks :

...In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left...

...Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal. ...

...So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations? ...

...While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998....

[beam me up scottie]

84. Stop defending her vote, she knew Bush wanted war and she helped him get it.

It took a lot of courage for Bernie and a few others to stand up and do the right thing.

Hillary either didn't have the guts to do the same or she didn't know it was wrong.

Doesn't matter which, I can't trust her.

[LuvLoogie]

86. I'm showing you what she actually said,

what you and others characterize as a cavalier vote from a war monger responsible for the deaths of a quarter million people.

Hillary can defend herself. But her entire remarks before her vote are there for you to read.

[beam me up scottie]

87. We all know what she said and it doesn't matter, she voted for the war and we paid for it.

[LuvLoogie]

90. This is what she said:

" This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections...

...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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. "

[reddread]

32. he died, she came, we saw

a skilled diplomat

[moobu2]

39. Hillary is a gifted politician with a long list of accomplishments

not a rigid ideolog who can't get anything done because it isn't perfect..

[beam me up scottie]

53. 206 bills sponsored and cosponsored by Bernie were signed into law.

a rigid ideolog who can't get anything done because it isn't perfect...

[m-lekktor]

88. exactly. nt

[oasis]

7. It's the decent thing to do.

Hill, you're right on time.

[BlueWaveDem]

8. A K and an R!

[jfern]

12. DADT was a ridiculous policy that Bernie voted against

[AtomicKitten]

19. This particular pandering takes a lot of chutzpah.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141223710#post6

[Fawke Em]

92. I was wondering when someone would post this again.

Chutzpah, squared.

[hrmjustin]

22. Good!

[workinclasszero]

31. It's the fair thing to do

WTG Hillary

I believe in Oregon now that MJ is legal they are going to get rid of past Marijuana convictions.

Same principle

[beam me up scottie]

41. Is Hillary for or against the decriminalization of marijuana?

And what is her position on medical marijuana?

[RKP5637]

52. K&R!!! n/t

[Doctor_J]

69. wasn't she co-president when dadt was signed?

Or is my memory fading?

[Ken Burch]

71. And a written letter of apology from her and Bill...

...since they signed off on letting gays keep getting kicked out when it really mattered (as opposed to condemning it now when such condemnations no longer mean anything).

This is like coming out against U.S. involvement in Vietnam...in 1995.

[cpompilo]

78. Hillary the apologist garners apologists as followers... makes sense.

[SidDithers]

75. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Fearless]

80. Little late to the fight there. Not that I'm surprised.

[JDPriestly]

83. I don't know how this could be accomplished. Is there some kind of pardon available?

But it should be done. The injustices should be corrected, and apologies should be extended to all who were dishonorably discharged based on homosexuality. This is elementary.

[dsc]

85. It currently is being done on a case by case basis

for those who wish to endure an appeals process. https://www.outserve-sldn.org/?page=discharge_upgrades