Will Bernie Sanders engage in demagoguery against Hillary Clinton re Iraq War Resolution

[stevenleser]

Last edited Tue Oct 13, 2015, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2015/10/will-bernie-sanders-demagogue-hillary.html

Will Bernie Sanders engage in Demagoguery against Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War Resolution during 1st Democratic debate?

Before I even start, since Sanders supporters tend to accuse people who support Hillary Clinton of duplicity to distract from whatever points they are making, note the two links to previous articles of mine at the bottom of this page where I make the same points back in 2006 and 2009.

In the lead up to today’s first Presidential debate of the 2016 Democratic primary, indications have come from the Sanders camp that Bernie intends to bring up Hillary Clinton’s 2002 vote on the Iraq War Resolution to try to hurt her during the debate.

There is so much revisionist history pushed regarding that vote that I bet most folks don’t even know they are engaging in revisionism.

The Iraq War Resolution vote, like UN Security CouncilResolution 1441 that occurred within a few weeks of each other were efforts to pressure Iraq to allow UN Weapons Inspectors back into the country. Allowing UN Weapons Inspectors into the country for a continuous inspection regime was part of a deal that Iraq struck in order for a cease fire to be put into effect at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. This deal was enshrined in several UN Security Council Resolutions and were imposed on Iraq because Iraq had engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression against Kuwait and attempted to annex that small country.

In case anyone is unaware, engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime.

So the Iraq War Resolution and UN Security Council 1441 were part of enforcing international law against a dictator and country that had engaged in a serious war crime.

There are literally hundreds of media articles backing up what I am saying here. Practically all you heard from June 2002 until December of 2003 in the media were articles and TV segments about efforts to force Iraq and Saddam Hussein to readmit the UN Weapons Inspectors.

Shortly after the Iraq War Resolution and UN Security Council 1441 were passed, Iraq did just that under the pressure of both of those measures. Iraq agreed to start obeying international law. Being that this is the case, I am alternatively amused and galled by the efforts of some to demagogue the vote on the Iraq War Resolution. It accomplished what it was designed to do.

That President George W. Bush misused the Iraq War Resolution several months later and invaded Iraq without justification for doing so doesn’t make the IWR vote bad, it makes George W. Bush a criminal. Congress cannot be afraid to act to support the effort to have countries obey international law because of concerns the President might do something bad one day. The President alone is responsible for Presidential bad acts.

I’d love to hear Hillary Clinton respond to any question about her vote by asking Bernie Sanders, why didn’t you vote to put pressure on Iraq to start obeying international law as it had agreed to do at the end of the first gulf war. What would Sanders have been willing to do to uphold international law in this situation?

Let's turn this around a bit to make this even more clear. If the Iraq War Resolution vote was never held, or had it failed, Iraq would not have allowed weapons inspectors back into the country. That alone would have been justification for war per existing UN Resolutions. The ceasefire terms of the various 1991 UN Resolutions would have been violated by Iraq and thus the ceasefire would no longer exist.

My previous articles on the subject that I mentioned earlier are linked below and provide additional background. It’s time for folks to stop engaging in revisionist history on this subject, and that includes Bernie Sanders and his surrogates.

12-19-2006: Iraq War - When the Wrong Path Was Taken and What to Do Now http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_061219_iraq_war__96_when_the_.htm

3-4-2009: Iraq War - Six Year Anniversary of what Should have Prevented it http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. So Hillary is wrong for saying her vote was wrong?

And Bernie - and most other Congressional Democrats - were wrong for voting against it?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

91. Maybe Steve should manplain all of this to Hillary...

Then mansplain why she must recant her regret for her vote. He can mansplain, "No, Hillary! Don't apologize! You made the right vote!!" Then, I guess after it's mansplained to Hillary, she'll say, "Yeah, you know Steve, I was right after all! No apologies!"

[Sheepshank]

119. did you find a cute new word in your lexicon?

totally adorable how you figured to use that in a couple of sentences already.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

134. If I didn't say mansplain, no one would have responded

Steve dung himself a nice hole!

[Warren DeMontague]

142. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT WORD

ONLY HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE ALLOWED TO USE THAT WORD

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Men are allowed to mansplain when they are given appropriate pre-authorization, huh?

Sort of like how Bush was allowed to invade Iraq.

[reformist2]

137. No. Hillary can say she was wrong. It's only wrong for OTHER PEOPLE to point it out!

[Major Hogwash]

2. Why don't you ask the 5000 dead American soldiers who fought and died in that war?

They're screaming from their graves, as we speak . . . please, don't ever do this again!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess 5000 dead American soldiers isn't enough.

[stevenleser]

3. Who would have died anyway if the IWR hadnt passed because Iraq would have been in breach of

UN Resolutions regarding the ceasefire and that would have given Bush a real justification for war.

Your assumptions regarding all of this are wrong.

[Major Hogwash]

5. You've spent as much time in the military as Donald Trump!!!

So, your opinion has as much value as his.

[stevenleser]

6. Your assumption is incorrect. I'm former active duty USAF. nt

[Major Hogwash]

7. Sure you are, Steve.

I believe anything and everything you say.

[stevenleser]

11. What you believe is not at issue and doesn't matter. nt

[arcane1]

47. "What you believe is not at issue and doesn't matter"

The irony

Hey, at least you scored some clicks!

[Sheepshank]

43. OMG really....you are publically calling Steve a liar on this?

you should be ashamed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. ^^This is the sure sign of an alert being sent^^

Just in case anyone wasn't aware.

[Sheepshank]

107. If it hasn't been alerted on yet, it certainly deserves it

or are you supporting the ridiculous statement of the fellow Bernie supporter?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

115. You can do better than that.

[Sheepshank]

117. in what way, Charlie?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

118. I believe it was "...in what respect, Charlie?"

[Sheepshank]

120. so you agree with the sentiment that

the poster made, calling Steve a liar? You have gone through great pains to avoid the topic and change the trajectory of the discussion. Don't you find it interesting that the poster hasn't taken one moment to defend themselves, but you've gone to all this effort?

got it. you and that poster have determined your self worth. your posts are no longer of any value...none of them.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. Keep trying. And good luck.

[stevenleser]

122. Yep. This is the kind of discourse you get from a lot of these folks. But they are quick

to try and point to any time someone else has changed their mind and shout:

"J-accuse!!!!!"

It's like I said, this level of discourse requires a call to Roto-Rooter to fix.

[bvf]

150. So said the "writer"

unaware of the difference between a hyphen and an apostrophe.

Going for the intellectual look doesn't really suit you, Steve. You're looking phonier with each faux-intellectual post you commit.

[stevenleser]

160. Lol, let me know when you have something interesting or relevant to say.

In other words, never.

[bvf]

169. When you've demonstrated a basic mastery

of English, we can talk.

So far, all you seem capable of is reliance upon the ignorance of anyone eager to agree with you.

Signs and wonders, as the man said.

[NCTraveler]

19. I can't believe the "you didn't serve" card was just pulled out on you on a progressive site. nt.

[stevenleser]

22. The quality of debate we get from Sanders supporters here is abysmal.

It's so bad that to fix it, I feel like we need to call Roto-Rooter.

[William769]

38. Have a team standing by!

No job is to big, they like a challenge!

[stevenleser]

87. You're really pointing the finger at Hillary supporters regarding teaming up?

[William769]

95. Berned.

[stevenleser]

101. LOL, Berned-out!

[KamaAina]

130. Now just a cotton-pickin' minute there!

Look to your left. Who do you see?

I'm almost wondering if the trolls' latest trick is to pretend to be Bernie supporters!

[KamaAina]

112. Capt. Nelson Muntz calls the major into his office to say

[stevenleser]

127. ;-)

[reformist2]

139. Wow. I didn't think even Republicans believed that load anymore! Give it up already.

The best Hillary can hope to do with respect to her war votes is to deflect and distract.

[workinclasszero]

9. How many americans died from unrestricted gun insanity right here at home

since Bernie gave the big gun companies cover from lawsuits??

[retrowire]

77. because if only we could sue the manufacturers

all those shootings would never have happened.

no... logic and reality don't work that way.

[kenfrequed]

83. Uhm

Your analogy is absurd.

Sanders has supported actual gun regulations at times. Are you going to balance the notional lives that may have been saved by those regulations that he did support?

I will give credit to Hillary for all the conflicts she didn't support.

[Snotcicles]

100. While Hillary was quietly raking in profits from gun sales sitting on the BOD and as a shareholder

of this country's largest firearms and ammo retailer? Those Americans? That insanity?

[workinclasszero]

111. Hillary's views on guns are well known

Bernie is flip flopping on his views right before the debate.

I guess he was scared of taking heat over his pro Big Gun votes so he evolved.

[Snotcicles]

113. I think you should quit pointing your finger at other candidates until you look at

how hypocritical your are about your own.

Edited for spelling error

[orpupilofnature57]

151. + 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

He's suspect because he did the right thing ?

[neverforget]

8. Bush misused the AUMF?

It was called The Authorization for the USE of MILITARY FORCE for a reason. Wtf is not clear about that?

No amount of spinning is going to change the fact that Hillary and other Democrats voted to give W a blank check for war.

But I do like your attempt to put some kind of blame on Bernie for not voting for it. I'll vote for the guy who was correct to not go to war, destroy a country and commit the biggest foreign policy disaster of the last 50 years.

[restorefreedom]

10. a freakin men. ^^^^this x 10000^^^^ nt

[stevenleser]

12. And that exactly what you are doing is engaging in demagoguery and revisionism.

There are thousands of media articles backing me up and talk about how IWR was for pressuring Iraq to readmit the weapons inspectors. Do you need me to post some?

[neverforget]

14. Oh for God's sake Steve. Everyone knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq. The inspectors was the excuse

so Bush and Cheney could get his war on. She cast the wrong vote. Deal with it.

[stevenleser]

15. Assuming for a moment that's true. Not voting for IWR would have given him justification.

If Iraq had not readmitted the UN Weapons Inspectors, they would have been in material breach of UN Resolutions regarding the ceasefire and it would have been within the rights of any UN member state to re-engage in hostilities based on that breach.

Not only would we still have had war, now Bush would have had justification for it based in international law.

[George II]

27. And once the inspectors were readmitted they reported to the UN and the world that there were no WMD

[stevenleser]

31. Exactly. That made the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression because there was no basis

in international law for it. There was no material breach of UN Resolutions and the UN Weapons inspectors reports prove it.

Those reports are online for everyone to see. They are linked in my articles.

[RobertEarl]

29. See here, Fred, or whoever

Thing is. There were no WMD in Iraq. We all knew it. The inspectors never found any. Except for some poison gas we sold them, no WMD were ever found in Iraq.

So, the vote giving bush permission to invade was based on lies. Hillary was lied to and she believed the lies. Half of the D congress voted against the invasion because they were not fooled by bush. Hillary was either fooled by bush or she was in on it.

Either way, She should be castigated for that from now until forever. Your making excuses for her just makes you look bad. You should stop.

[neverforget]

41. Do you remember all that cooking of intelligence? Stove-piping the intel?

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/20/neocons_stunning_iraq_revisionism_why_theyre_still_divorced_from_reality_partner/

As we know, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the other architects of the war did everything possible to intimidate and, when necessary, discredit those in the intelligence agencies who warned of the predictable consequences of war. Cheney and his deputies made repeated trips to Langley to challenge professional intelligence work and used pliant members of the media — including Robert Novak of the Washington Post and Judith Miller of the New York Times, among many, many others — to undermine the integrity of people like Joseph P. Wilson and Valerie Plame, lest the truth about the administration’s lies come out. Rather incredibly, they even went so far as to ignore the incredibly detailed planning documents, created over a period of a year at a cost of $5 million by the State Department, that had a chance of providing Iraq with a stable postwar environment. Instead, they insisted on creating an occupation that generated nothing but chaos, mass murder and the terrorist victories of today.

How the neo-cons and PNAC used 9/11 as their Pearl Harbor as an excuse to remake the Middle East?

And here's what Hillary had to say in her speech on the Senate floor:

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.

Trying to justify this vote is ridiculous.

[stevenleser]

54. Sure. But do you understand what the issue is here with international law?

Iraq had a laundry list of things they had to do to be in compliance with international law per agreements THEY SIGNED at the end of the first gulf war. One of those things was to allow a continuous inspection regime by the UN Weapons inspectors.

Failing to allow that put them in material breach of UN Resolutions regarding the cease fire and would have been justification all by itself for resuming hostilities against Iraq.

The IWR and UN Sec REs 1441 forcing Iraq to readmit the inspectors was actually what made the Iraq war a crime according to international law. If Iraq was materially in compliance with UN Resolutions from the cease fire, then the Iraq war was an unprovoked war of aggression.

[George II]

25. How did everyone "know bush wanted to invade Iraq"? I keep hearing that but no one..

...actually addresses that lie.

[stevenleser]

32. That's why I didn't address it other than to say "assuming that's true" because it requires us to

guess what what was in the minds of several people.

[neverforget]

49. Here you go

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory

The reports, virtually all false, of Iraqi weapons and terrorism ties emanated from an apparatus that began to gestate almost as soon as the Bush administration took power. In the very first meeting of the Bush national-security team, one day after President Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the issue of invading Iraq was raised, according to one of the participants in the meeting‚ -- and officials all the way down the line started to get the message, long before 9/11. Indeed, the Bush team at the Pentagon hadn't even been formally installed before Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, began putting together what would become the vanguard for regime change in Iraq.

Both Wolfowitz and Feith have deep roots in the neoconservative movement. One of the most influential Washington neo- conservatives in the foreign-policy establishment during the Republicans' wilderness years of the 1990s, Wolfowitz has long held that not taking Baghdad in 1991 was a grievous mistake. He and others now prominent in the administration said so repeatedly over the past decade in a slew of letters and policy papers from neoconservative groups like the Project for the New American Century and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Feith, a former aide to Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s and an activist in far-right Zionist circles, held the view that there was no difference between U.S. and Israeli security policy and that the best way to secure both countries' future was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem not by serving as a broker, but with the United States as a force for "regime change" in the region.

[George II]

55. I've seen all of that stuff, but it wasn't known until 2004 or even later.

A President's "National Security Team" doesn't publish minutes to their meetings.

[stevenleser]

58. Yep. This is a common aspect of the revisionism on this. People take things that happened on certain

dates and take them out of the timeline and lump them all together as if it all happened before or at the IWR vote day.

[neverforget]

82. The revisionism is with you.

The date for this article is September 4, 2002.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

[stevenleser]

85. I see your mistake. There is another interpretation here.

And it is that Rumsfeld asked them to start updating war plans against who he thought was the most likely antagonist who had struck them. Not knowing for sure who did but that he assumed these were the folks (Iraq).

There is nothing here that suggests that there was a conspiracy to do so. There is an important difference.

[neverforget]

88. LOL! Just the fact that they wanted to invade Iraq on 9/11 but had to make

the intelligence fit to justify invading Iraq. It took them 1.5 years to do it but they got their war based on intelligence that selectively chosen. And here you are justifying it so as to make Hillary's vote okay.

"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." Hillary Clinton Oct 10, 2002

[George II]

136. And you and the rest of us knew that before the legislation passed?

[neverforget]

161. Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

Notice the date George September 4, 2002 which is BEFORE the AUMF vote which was in October 2002

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

By JOEL ROBERTS CBS September 4, 2002, 4:10 PM

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

[George II]

164. No matter how many times you or others repeat that, it was a secret until a year or two AFTER...

...the AUMF was passed. And left to the bush administration, it would have remained a secret forever.

NO ONE except for a select few insiders knew anything about that until after the AUMF was passed.

Want to post it again now? It won't change reality.

[neverforget]

167. Except for this CBS news link from Sept 2002, no one knew about it.

Really? Is that what you're going with? Cheney, Bush Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith could be trusted?

[George II]

99. And on what date did the bush administration inform Congress and the rest of the country...

....about this. Or did they ever?

You're taking what happened at secret meetings that wasn't disclosed until a year or more after the invasion and acting like we ALL knew about that all along!!!

By pulling up this stuff you're admitting that you and very few other Americans did NOT know that bush was planning to invade Iraq when the vote for the authorization took place.

[Marr]

145. You can't seriously be making this argument.

This is such ridiculous, self-serving revisionism it isn't even worth addressing. Let's all live in the same world, at least, and not run off to our comfortable little bubble realities.

[neverforget]

81. It wasn't difficult to figure out that Bush and Cheney specifically had surrounded themselves

with advisers that were advocates of war. Once 9/11 happened, Rumsfeld was planning for Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/

[stevenleser]

86. You understand that Iraq was still in breach of international law at this time, right?

And that putting pressure on Iraq to obey international law was still appropriate.

[Caretha]

171. Yes

And it of course justified killing over 100,000 innocents according to you.

That's quite a bit of fucking pressure....btw, what did all that blood letting pressure relieve? The dissonance in your brain?

[jfern]

129. PNAC had called for war with Iraq before 9/11

They just said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to sway public opinion. Bush surrounded himself with PNAC members.

[Marr]

144. "Lie"? C'mon-- this is absurd. /nt

[jeff47]

53. So why wasn't there a trigger in the authorization?

Something like "you can start your war when you show us the inspectors were blocked".

Instead, Clinton and many others voted for a blank check with no trigger.

Are they idiots?

[leftupnorth]

57. Not at all. But they think we are.

And so does the OP, clearly.

[stevenleser]

62. There were arguments in congress for how much teeth to put in the trigger. Ultimately

The below in bold is what we got. And I have read these passages hundreds of times. Bush broke the law by going to war when there was no material breach of UN Resolutions and no threat to the US.

If Bush was going to make up the idea that Iraq was in non-compliance, he didn't need the IWR to go to war. The US would be back at war assuming any material breach and entitled to act in terms of international law.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

[jeff47]

65. So yes, you think they are idiots. (nt)

[stevenleser]

66. You are characterizing voting to support international law as being idiots? An interesting

interpretation. I of course do not agree.

[jeff47]

172. No, I'm characterizing a blank check as being idiots.

A resolution saying "you can go to war if you can show us he violated international law" would be a smart move.

But hey, that was a lovely strawman you constructed. Almost looked real.

[NobodyHere]

162. Wasn't that the Levin Amendment?

The one Clinton voted against?

[jfern]

125. Everyone knew Bush wanted to get his war on

We don't need apologists for people who voted for the Iraq war.

[jfern]

126. $250 million of US taxpayer dollars were funding that propaganda campaign

Traitors

[Vattel]

156. Iraq had already agreed unconditionaly in September to readmit the inspectors.

The Iraq War Resolution was in October. Granted, the inspectors didn't return until November, but it is not clear that the Iraq War Resolution was necessary to achieve that result.

[bvf]

13. Exactly.

The OP is just an ad for his blog. He'll say pretty much anything for clicks, even if it's on the backs of the war dead.

[stevenleser]

17. Assuming that's true, thank you for kicking my OP with a post!

[bvf]

131. Always happy to put the spotlight on

anyone assiduously at work polishing his own turds.

Not that the political world doesn't have its share of copromaniacs as it is, but disinfectant certainly is a good thing, especially when liberally applied.

[Sheepshank]

45. petty.....it's about as pathetic as a post can get on DU. n/t

[Snotcicles]

48. +1.nt

[stevenleser]

96. Exactly. See my #22 above. More Roto-Rooter posts.

That's what that crowd is about.

[George II]

37. Obviously you never read the document. "It was The Authorization for the use of Military Force"....

....IF certain demands and conditions were not met by Iraq.

The fact is bush ignored those conditions and invaded anyway.

[still_one]

105. the entire situation was manipulated, and the media were willing participants. Bernie voted against

the economic bailout, and from those who are experts on the great depression, if that had not been done, we would still be going through the second great depression.

Hillary, and most of the others who voted for that admit it was wrong. The only group that doesn't is the republicans.

Though some may like to misrepresent things, the facts are Hillary and Bernie voted the same way 93% of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate.

Here are a few of the issues they did NOT vote the same way:

March 15, 2007: Congress should not cut military funding if it would undermine troop safety or mission
Bernie voted NO, Hillary voted YES

Oct. 1, 2008 Approve U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal
Bernie voted NO, Hillary voted YES

Oct. 1, 2008 Approve comprehensive amendment to bank bailout bill
Bernie voted NO, Hillary voted YES

Oct. 1, 2008 Pass bank bailout bill Passed
Bernie voted NO, Hillary voted YES

Jan. 15, 2009 Continue TARP.
Bernie voted NO, Hillary voted YES

So if they decide to debate the past instead of what they would like to do, and actually can achieve, the debates will be an entire waste of everyones time

[Broward]

16. So, now her yes vote was the right vote?

I guess there is nothing that won't be spun or twisted.

[NCTraveler]

18. I think it should all be fair game tonight.

Not only should her vote be discussed, but there should be open discussion about Sanders greatest legislative accomplishment as well. People need to start vetting Sanders. His opposition to a path to citizenship for over ten million people in '07 for economic reasons alone needs to be examined and the story needs to be told. He joined forces with the most vile of republicans to ensure there would be no path to citizenship. It is the most blatant display that Sanders is completely behind the flawed thought process that economic justice is social justice. It really shows how flawed his thought process is in this area. He fought tooth and nail to deny citizenship to over ten million people because of visas.

Hillary voting for the IWR should be discussed. Sanders opposition to a path to citizenship for over ten million people in '07 should be discussed. We shouldn't be afraid for any of these issues to be debated.

[artislife]

20. Don't trust the source.

Trash the thread

[LondonReign2]

21. If he really wanted to demagogue he could pull out your quote

I don't think he is that desperate for attention though

[stevenleser]

23. That would be fantastic. I think you should call him up and tell him to do that. nt

[LondonReign2]

39. He wouldn't take that advice

See, Bernie is authentic. Sure, if he had said one thing in 2007 and now said something diametrically opposed in 2015 we could legitimately question his honesty and integrity, but he doesn't operate that way. Just like he won't take donations from big corporations in exchange for support he doesn't believe it, he wouldn't trash Clinton that way just to make a buck. He has ethics.

He means what he says, he doesn't just say something to try to be sensationalistic or draw attention to himself, like say Ann Coulter, or other "journalists".

[stevenleser]

24. p.s., thank you for kicking my OP! nt

[bvf]

135. Schlitzie himself would have probably given

up long ago on this predictable response of yours.

You've regurgitated the remains of this particular chewtoy of yours enough times to cement your legacy as his intellectual inferior, but we all look forward to the next instantiation, nonetheless.

[ibegurpard]

26. unbelievable

That we are now having people attempt to revisit the immorality of the Iraq War vote just to try to justify Clintons vote. Particularly someone who was attacking her far more viciously the last time she ran than anyone here currently is.

[stevenleser]

34. All my points are supported. Your beliefs on responsibility for the Iraq war are simply wrong

and are the product of continuous repetition of revisionist history.

[ibegurpard]

40. the revisionist history is coming from you

[stevenleser]

59. Nope, all my points are supported. The arguments on the other side are all emotional. nt

[virtualobserver]

50. Was Hillary fooled by Bush and Cheney or was it political cowardice that drove her decision?

Bernie and I weren't fooled.

[ibegurpard]

79. it was political expediency

And a huge miscalculation on her part.

[virtualobserver]

90. oops- fortunately we only experienced "modest and acceptable" casualties

extreme

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Like Vietnam, it was a war fought for PR. And, like Vietnam, we lost the war.

In both cases, politicians started it to prove their "tough on..." creds and spent lives to buy them.

It was shameful and those the started it should be held accountable.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Yawn x2

[George II]

33. "That President George W. Bush misused the Iraq War Resolution.....

........several months later and invaded Iraq without justification for doing so doesn’t make the IWR vote bad"

I've been saying that for more than 10 years. The "authorization for war" had all sorts of criteria and caveats that had to be met before a single shot could have been fired. bush never proved that any of the provisions of the UN resolutions or the Resolution were violated.

[virtualobserver]

46. Why could I see what a mistake it was from my couch, when Hillary couldn't see it from Washington?

Every step of the way I could see the headlong rush to war.


.....Bernie had the foresight to vote against it....and he was correct
I would have to be insane to vote for someone who couldn't see what I could see.

[reddread]

124. to think her very own husband was privy to daily CIA briefings

and she was still misled.

that took some tryin.

[jeff47]

56. So the people voting for the AUMF were idiots.

You know, the AUMF could have required some sort of trigger, like actually blocking weapons inspectors.

It didn't.

So, is everyone who voted for this an idiot?

[stevenleser]

64. Nope, they were voting to support international law that Iraq was violating at the time. nt

[jeff47]

73. Which could be accomplished without a blank check. So why pass a blank check

unless they either 1) wanted the war, or 2) are idiots.

Would you like door #1 or door #2?

[stevenleser]

75. It wouldn't have mattered.

Even if you look at the amendment folks like HOward Dean and others were for, the President still got to make the determination whether Iraq was in breach. And you get the same result.

[jeff47]

80. Then that would make it very easy to include a trigger.

Yet they still didn't.

So...idiots or warmongers?

[Vattel]

143. I wonder if he understands your point or is just choosing to ignore it.

Not only did the resolution not include a trigger, it didn't even require Bush to go to war for the sake of enforcing UN resolutions. It authorized Bush to make a determination of whether war was necessary because "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Notice the "or." He was indeed given a blank check.

[jeff47]

173. I think he understands but doesn't want to address it.

He's recently constructed an edifice around his support of Clinton that is the polar opposite of his position in 2008. For example, he literally called Clinton a liar in print.

Part of that edifice requires jettisoning a significant chunk of history. Looking at that history endangers the edifice.

[Z_California]

35. Birdcage lining

If Bernie points out he voted against war and she voted for it, that's "demagoguery".

Orwellian.

[stevenleser]

36. Yes, your response is birdcage lining. It doesnt address any points in the OP.

Probably because you can't address them.

[LexVegas]

42. Did more Americans die in Iraq or from gun violence since 2003? nt

[Bread and Circus]

44. Wait, it's now demagoguery to challenge people on their voting record? WTF!?

Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side.

Definitions of
demagoguery:

1 impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace

Synonyms:

demagogy

Types:
flag waving, jingoism
an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions

Type of:
appeal, entreaty, prayer
earnest or urgent request

[morningfog]

51. Hillary knew exactly what she was doing, she knew what Bush was gling to do. She supported him.

Talk about revisionist history.

You are now venturing into apologia for the million Iraqis killed. Shame on you, Steve.

[jeff47]

52. We'll ask you again in 8 years, when you will have the opposite conclusion. (nt)

[stevenleser]

60. Nope, I believed this 9 years ago. There is no other conclusion. This is supported by fact.

Almost a nice try.

[jeff47]

67. Whoooooooooooosh

Psst....reference to your change in position about Clinton. All "supported by fact", despite the opposite conclusion.

[stevenleser]

69. Nope, not wooosh. Giving you the opportunity to take the high road, and you chose the low one.

I am as entitled to change my mind as Bernie is on guns and on immigration and...

[jeff47]

71. I'm afraid it's the muck covering your body, not everyone around you.

You have a history. You wave it off when it becomes inconvenient.

And it means we know your opinion on any subject will change whenever it suits you. You've shown your positions are "what helps me the most right now". Which does make you a great fit with the Clinton campaign.

[stevenleser]

72. Yes, I know, no one is entitled to change their mind but Saint Bernard. Keep pushing that meme!

[jeff47]

74. Those that actually change their mind can explain the change.

Those that are only acting for expediency can't.

And you couldn't explain the change.

[stevenleser]

78. I explained the change. You are just desperate to hang onto the meme. That's how bad the arguments

for Sanders are. That folks like you have to resort to those kinds of arguments.

[TM99]

61. A discredited blogger and pundit with zero integrity

as shown on DU this past weekend now believes that we are going to take seriously any of the lies, spin, and bullshit that he writes?

Nope.

You might try that other forum where the other sycophants will heap praise upon you for your bold flip flopping and opportunism.

[stevenleser]

63. I didn't know you were a blogger and pundit. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. p.s...

thanks for kicking my OP!

[TM99]

68. If you are getting anything other than

ego strokes from the kick, perhaps Admin should be made aware of that. Unless of course, they already are?

[stevenleser]

70. Again, thank you for kicking my op! nt

[wendylaroux]

89. he probably is getting several strokes

from this. what a mewling little man.

[frylock]

104. I read these replies and have to remind myself that they're coming from a grown man and "journalist"

[840high]

94. ...^ that

[LondonReign2]

109. Integrity, honesty, shame

Who needs'em when there is a buck to be made?

[moondust]

92. Contortionists coming out of the woodwork.

War is peace.

[cpompilo]

97. A Fuk News contributor.

[PoliticAverse]

98. So Clinton is wrong when she says her Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake? n/t

[sadoldgirl]

102. I find all this very silly,

we all know that the point of Chaffee's candidacy is
to stop Hillary because of her vote for the war.

Bernie does not have to bring it up. Chaffee will do
it as often as he is allowed to do so.

[frylock]

103. Will Hillary Clinton be called to task for her poor decision making?

FIFY

[Truprogressive85]

108. Who would of thought in 2015 there would be people defending the invasion of Iraq

its really a sad day
Next HRC supporters will say that Saddam was behind 9/11 and we were justified in invading in Iraq.

[LondonReign2]

110. People defending the Iraq invasion calling themselves Democrats no less

If you have no central ethics you can talk yourself into supporting anything, especially if there is a buck to be made.

[reddread]

123. conservative profiteers who want both parties to themselves

they have their ethics.
and they suck.

[Truprogressive85]

157. Yup

This was my main reason not voting and not supporting HRC in 2008

She was one of the many who gave Bush the green light to commit the worst foreign policy action since Vietnam. Putting troops in harms way ,and the killing of scores of Iraqi civilians

[stevenleser]

128. No one is defending the invasion of Iraq. That is your straw man. nt

[ibegurpard]

152. stick to being a token "liberal" on Fox News.

[stevenleser]

158. Stick to using logical fallacies in your arguments. Nt

[Truprogressive85]

155. If you say so

[stevenleser]

159. I wrote it so yeah, I know what I wrote. If you want to talk about it try reading it. Nt

[Truprogressive85]

166. no thank you

no need to

thanks

[jfern]

114. Hillary knew exactly what she was doing

Don't try to pretend that your candidate was fooled. She thought the war would be popular.
And in 2007, she voted to allow Bush to start a war with Iran. Good thing they didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

116. I hope she is pummeled for that morally bankrupt vote.

[HassleCat]

132. I must be a revisionist

At the time the resolution came before congress, I said it amounted to a blank check for the Bush administration to carry out the wishes of the chickenhawks, as outlined in the PNAC white paper, "Rebuilding America's Aggressive War Machine." Not sure I got the title correct, there. Throughout the process, the UN weapon inspectors informed anybody who would listen that they had things well under control in Iraq. When Colin Powell appeared on TV and spoke about WMD, many people knew it was a phony deal from one end to the other, and we urged our congressional representatives to try to stop the invasion Bush so obviously wanted. Some did speak out against it, and some did not, so it's a legitimate question to ask various candidates for various offices what they did to oppose the phony invasion. I guess they can answer any way they want, including claiming voting for the blank check was the right way to get UN inspectors back into Iraq. Then we can evaluate the answers and figure for whom we want to vote, I that's an important issue to us. It is to me, because I'm upset that the chickenhawks and neocons has such an easy time duping congress, and so few members were smart enough to see what was really going on. Ask the question and let the chips fall where they may. Same for asking Sanders about gun control and why he voted for the liability exemption for the firearms industry. Ask tough questions and see how the candidates respond.

[Thinkingabout]

133. K & R, good article, Steve.

I am not sure many understand the IWR and what actions was taken which should not have happened. There was also the vote for the AUMF in 2001 which authorized military action.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. You mean her voting record as an elected official is supposed to be off limits?

Sure, we should keep the debates confined to legitimate topics of public interest, like who has the coveted beyonce/kardashian endorsements--- and whose "turn" it is.

[Motown_Johnny]

140. You are the one who misrepresented Bernie's stance on Assault Weapons.

Maybe you shouldn't be accusing others of duplicity or demagoguery.

[PowerToThePeople]

146. This is such bullshit.

How are you not banned?

[phleshdef]

147. Sorry Steven, gotta disagree with the notion that it would fit the definition of "demagoguery"...

...if he did so.

But to answer your question, I don't think Sanders is going to directly attack anyone on that stage. He may have to answer questions that puts him in a position of criticizing a vote or a stance on an issue that the other candidates have on their "resume" but he has shown many times throughout this election that he doesn't wants to keep it positive.

[mmonk]

148. Sure hope so. Truth is demagoguery to the promoters of the fictions that led to war.

[Vattel]

149. Your history is incomplete in certain crucial respects.

You say "So the Iraq War Resolution and UN Security Council 1441 were part of enforcing international law against a dictator and country that had engaged in a serious war crime."

That is true, but the problem is that the Iraq War Resolution did not authorize Bush merely to enforce UN resolutions. It also authorized him to go to war if he determined that doing so was needed to defend the US against the "threat" posed by Iraq. It basically gave Bush a blank check.

[U of M Dem]

154. Demagoguery?

What has Bernie said or done that indicates he would engage in demagoguery? Does pointing out differences in voting history or policy positions constitute demagoguery or "an attack?"

What a weak and slimy attempt at preemptive strike attack.

If Bernie or anyone else makes mention of HRC's support of the IWR, HRC will either have to burn time explaining exactly why her vote was allegedly justified or deflect and revert to some canned, unimpressive, stump response about defending the country against those darned terrorists.

Canned deflection is her likely choice and no matter what she says and I bet more people will be disappointed than anything else.

I know you know this and this is your motivation for a preemptive strike defense against the competition.

[ucrdem]

163. Iraq and Clinton Foundation donations. And TPP and probably NAFTA, artfully or otherwise.

He's sung that song for the last 23 years and it's the only one he knows

[John Poet]

165. Wrong question.

I'd love to hear Hillary explain why she didn't support impeachment for George W. Bush, and having him charged with his war crime. She had way more influence than Bernie Sanders did when these things went down.

[TheKentuckian]

168. Sounds like the interventionist wing is cooking up a rationale to start a war if they are stupidly

allowed power.

Possibly a bite at the Syrian apple.

[Marr]

170. You use the word "demagoguery" like Cheney used the word "do-gooders".

There's this underlying sneer at the idea anyone might dare point out the truth.