HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » THE HARD CHOICE

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:12 AM

 

THE HARD CHOICE

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

In 2001 our country was attacked and the Republicons were using the attack and the fear they helped generate to implement their economic and neoconic agendas.

This is when we needed the other political party to stand up and provide the balance of power that our democracy so desperately needed.

Fueled by the fear propaganda of the Right Wing, much of the public wanted revenge and Cheney knew just how to get it. Let's invade Iraq. The intelligence (?) they brought forward was so pathetic our major allies were shaking their heads and publicly debunking it all. Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq didn't have the capability to attack us, Iraq wasn't sponsoring or harboring terrorists. The terrorists that attacked us weren't from Iraq and weren't trained in Iraq, but Cheney, thru his puppet, George Bush (Goofy) continued to push for invasion.

Faced with the hard choice of standing up to Cheney and Bush and a great deal of public opinion (influenced by the Corp-Media), the true Democrats voted against the war.

Hillary Clinton instead, didn't oppose the War, she didn't make the hard choice of doing the right thing. She not only didn't oppose the War, fully aware of the consequences, she actually helped Cheney sell the War, giving a speech with wording almost identical to a speech given by Cheney's puppet George. She would later say that Bush fooled her, that she “trusted” him, when many were screaming that he couldn't be trusted. She didn't think he would invade. And after the invasion, was she upset that she was fooled? Nope, she defended the decision to go to war for almost 12 years. At one point stating that it provided a great business opportunity, and the Iraqi's should appreciate that we were bringing them freedom.

After about 12 years she decided to change her tune and revise her story. In her book, ironically titled, “Hard Choices” he said:

I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/


Really? She thought she acted in good faith? She won't even say she acted in good faith, because she hadn't acted in good faith any more than Dick Cheney acted in good faith. And she admits she got it wrong. Be interesting to find out what she thinks she got wrong.

Some of her faithful want to forgive this “mistake”, to forget the mistake. The devotion is so great they don't seem to care that she might make a similar mistake in the future. The level of loyalty boggles my mind. Her followers don't care that it was the worst “mistake” made by our country in decades maybe a century. The mistake cost as many as a million lives, ruined five times that. The mistake arguably cost us what little we had left of freedom and liberty by accepting the Patriot Act, domestic spying, torture and indefinite detention and setting precedence for preemptive invasions. Trillions of dollars moved from the 99% to the 1% that Clinton and her huuge wealth, is such a major part of. War for profits is now part of the business model of the Corptocracy we now live in.

Those of us that value freedom, liberty, peace, and an equitable distribution of wealth don't have a hard choice in this primary. I hope we don't have a hard choice in the General.

114 replies, 7146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply THE HARD CHOICE (Original post)
rhett o rick Jun 2016 OP
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #1
Scuba Jun 2016 #2
AlbertCat Jun 2016 #13
treestar Jun 2016 #64
Scuba Jun 2016 #66
fbc Jun 2016 #5
cannabis_flower Jun 2016 #27
mudstump Jun 2016 #35
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2016 #52
ReRe Jun 2016 #70
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #73
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #71
ish of the hammer Jun 2016 #10
jmowreader Jun 2016 #46
ish of the hammer Jun 2016 #62
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #76
jmowreader Jun 2016 #86
larkrake Jun 2016 #89
ish of the hammer Jun 2016 #97
ReRe Jun 2016 #72
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #11
denvine Jun 2016 #20
abelenkpe Jun 2016 #33
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2016 #53
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #78
ReRe Jun 2016 #54
klook Jun 2016 #57
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #79
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #77
larkrake Jun 2016 #23
Scalded Nun Jun 2016 #37
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2016 #74
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #80
japple Jun 2016 #100
Phlem Jun 2016 #41
bearssoapbox Jun 2016 #51
ReRe Jun 2016 #68
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #82
larkrake Jun 2016 #88
pnwmom Jun 2016 #91
murielm99 Jun 2016 #104
basselope Jun 2016 #47
tk2kewl Jun 2016 #58
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #81
Ichingcarpenter Jun 2016 #3
OnyxCollie Jun 2016 #59
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #84
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #101
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #83
MissDeeds Jun 2016 #4
Hoppy Jun 2016 #6
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #17
larkrake Jun 2016 #25
Hoppy Jun 2016 #75
larkrake Jun 2016 #87
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #56
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #106
libodem Jun 2016 #7
marble falls Jun 2016 #8
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #15
marble falls Jun 2016 #18
Phlem Jun 2016 #43
KPN Jun 2016 #9
zalinda Jun 2016 #12
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #16
Iwillnevergiveup Jun 2016 #14
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #22
MisterP Jun 2016 #19
MH1 Jun 2016 #21
maddiemom Jun 2016 #24
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #30
Phlem Jun 2016 #44
MH1 Jun 2016 #113
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #114
lmbradford Jun 2016 #112
retrowire Jun 2016 #26
Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #28
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #108
msanthrope Jun 2016 #29
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #34
democrank Jun 2016 #38
msanthrope Jun 2016 #55
GeorgeGist Jun 2016 #110
LibDemAlways Jun 2016 #31
MisterP Jun 2016 #36
LibDemAlways Jun 2016 #40
MisterP Jun 2016 #42
LibDemAlways Jun 2016 #48
MisterP Jun 2016 #49
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #107
Uncle Joe Jun 2016 #32
NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #39
Phlem Jun 2016 #45
felix_numinous Jun 2016 #50
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #85
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #60
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #61
treestar Jun 2016 #65
larkrake Jun 2016 #90
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #93
larkrake Jun 2016 #96
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #99
larkrake Jun 2016 #92
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #94
larkrake Jun 2016 #95
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #98
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #105
Amimnoch Jun 2016 #109
Babel_17 Jun 2016 #63
ReRe Jun 2016 #67
Enthusiast Jun 2016 #69
Rockyj Jun 2016 #102
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #103
GeorgeGist Jun 2016 #111

Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:18 AM

1. Because you can't accept her admission about being wrong, doesn't diminish the fact that she said it

 

While you are on the subject, when is Bernie going to admit to being wrong about supporting communist and socialist regimes? the GOP would have afield day with hi over that. Just because you weren't around when the world faced communism everyday, does not diminish the fact that people over 55 did and remember it quite well. Oh, "equitable distribution of wealth" is an odd term for free college tuition and free healthcare. Work for it like the rest of us have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:34 AM

2. Best case is she was wrong. That means she has terrible judgement. That's her best case.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:40 PM

13. That means she has terrible judgement. That's her best case.

 

terrible judgement:

championing DOMA and NAFTA before "evolving"

TTIP
$12 dollars /hr
private email server




the beat goes on.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:51 PM

64. Then so do all the other Senators on the list

So Kerry - we should not have voted for him in 2004 by that logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:58 PM

66. Agreed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:59 AM

5. People over 55 remember lies

 

How long do the rest of us have to pay for the gullibility of people who are now over 55?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fbc (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:16 PM

27. It wasn't all of us.

I'm over 55 and I wasn't fooled. I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, the Patriot Act. In fact, I voted for Al Gore in 2000, Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 primary and Kerry in the general and Obama in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:43 PM

35. I'm over 55 too and didn't fall for the lies. I've always voted dem.

As the build-up to the Iraq war was coming to a head I was deeply disappointed in most of the democratic leadership. As always it seems, they were weak and exhibited little backbone. Their weakness and the utter pathetic strategy of the DNC has cost us the mid-terms twice. This is a no-brainer. Democratic ideals are popular and the dems just can't seem to find a way to tout those ideals and accomplishments....instead they adopt right-wing talking points about cutting social security, medicare, deficit reduction and more. Heck, the dems should use what these republican governor's policies have done to states like Kansas as perfect examples of how republicans have failed miserably at governing. They should drive the point home until everyone equates republican governance with failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mudstump (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:31 PM

52. I'm 74 and remember millions of people marching worldwide

against the invasion of Iraq, but our Senators and Congressmen didn't listen, they were blinded by red, white and blue and all the profits that war would bring.

After the elections the fight will continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:22 PM

70. And I was one of the marchers!

On a cold cold cold January day in 2003 in Washington D.C. Somewhere I physically should not have been. But I was there. I would not have missed that opportunity to march against that atrocity that HRC voted in favor of. I remember Colin Powell swinging that vial of Cream of Tarter at the UN. I knew he was lying through his teeth. I knew all of them were lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:28 PM

73. And our Senators and Congressmen now enjoy a nine% approval rating.

Yet they don't even seem in the least bit shamed. They should be apologizing to the nation every day for being so inept and corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:25 PM

71. Me too. On all counts. Except for Dennis. But only because Dennis was already eliminated before the

Ohio primary rolled around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:26 PM

10. before Reagan, college was free in Cali. thanks for endorsing Reagan.

the red scare was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, Tailgunner Joe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:33 PM

46. The world has changed since then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:44 PM

62. yes, you are right, the rich are getting even more rich, the MIC commands even more of our

resources, what used to be provided by the government is now fee based because the rich are not taxed as much
as they were. but Tailgunner Joe was a bloviating drunk then and nothing has come along to redeem his memory, and
Reagan still imposed tuition at California colleges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:03 PM

76. Massive plus one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:39 PM

86. AND the jobs for the future are getting more expensive to train people to do

If you want better-than-European social services, you need to be prepared for higher-than-European taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #86)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:10 PM

89. no, you need to lower or eliminate education costs, you need single payer health

 

and higher wages, wait... am I echoing someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #86)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:49 PM

97. I'd be happy with "as good as". which we do not have,

thanks to the tax loopholes for the rich and the corporations they own; tax cuts and loopholes supported by both repubs and dems.
if you're not a millionaire, why vote like one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:26 PM

72. What does that mean, jmowreader?

Do you think the world has changed for the good? Or that it has changed for the bad and we might as well get used to it? What do you MEAN by that statement? What? Please explain that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:27 PM

11. I'm 73. Tuition was low and health care insurance was mostly non-profit and thus cheaper when I was

young. I did not have to borrow the equivalent of $30,000 to $50,000 to go to college, and jobs for students were plentiful and paid a decent minimum wage.

None of that is true today.

And for-profit health insurance is very expensive. Even with Obamacare, the co-pays can be prohibitive for many families.

Right now we have extreme disparity in wealth. We did not have that when you and I were young, when we were growing up.

If you don't like the idea of "equitable distribution of wealth" what would you suggest in order to cure the extreme disparity of wealth that we have now.

Of course, people who live in small towns in the Midwest or even most cities in the Midwest do not know how extreme the disparity of wealth really is. So maybe that is why this seems irrelevant to some.

Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the extreme disparity of wealth in our country if not through the rather mild redistribution of wealth programs that Bernie is suggesting? Should we just let the disparity of wealth increase until we have a feudal system? Have you read about Thomas Piiketty's research?

https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=Thomas+piketty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:54 PM

20. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:34 PM

33. + 1001 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:36 PM

53. We have lost so much, so sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:07 PM

78. And the military actions have only enriched the few already wealthy while destabilizing

an entire region and making the nation poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:47 PM

54. +1,002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:01 PM

57. Anything other than laissez-faire dog-eat-dog unfettered capitalism

is "communism" in the American vernacular. Meanwhile the world's largest communist nation owns over $1 trillion of U.S. Debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klook (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:08 PM

79. Right on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:05 PM

77. +1 a whole bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:12 PM

23. She didnt sound sincere in the least

 

I do remember the cold war . Socialism did go extreme into communism, and all that remains is the suppression of Russia, China and N Korea. The Socialist countries have found the common good/ democratic mix that is the envy of the world. I assure you the US has fallen in the eyes of the world, now in the grips of vulture capitalism, ugly and in decay. We are a young country going thru puberty, making big mistakes that effect world peace and like Bernie, who experimented with followings like all young men do, we move on, beliefs changing, but a mixture of ones experiences.

It is not a risk to follow Bernie's policies, as they have been proven to work in many other countries.

If we open our eyes, you will see that capitalism, taken to the extreme has huge give-aways, free stuff, only to the 1%, corporations, and banks. They dont pay taxes, laws are made to ease their burdens and obstacles, and they sit around the table playing war games with our kids, our wealth and our dark side.

This is my objection to both Clintons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:02 PM

37. That is one of my biggest problems with her

She never sounds sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:39 PM

74. Of course it's not a risk to follow Bernie's policies

This country was following a lot of them in the fifties, affordable tuition, strong unions veteran benefits and taxing the rich to name a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:10 PM

80. You pretty much nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:07 PM

100. That is one of the things that has always seemed apparent to me, but

so many of HRC followers never notice or won't admit to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:15 PM

41. Where the hell are you guys coming from? April 2016 and 800+ posts?

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:45 PM - Edit history (2)

This place is crawling with unfounded ignorant babble and apparently there was a big fucking dump in April and May.

"when is Bernie going to admit to being wrong about supporting communist and socialist regimes?"


You're going with that? Mkay, well up to this point I havn't heard a fucking mouse whisker from the GOP about Bernie being Communist and he actually has GOP support, more importantly without compromising his principles.

Clue: If you equate Bernie's socialism to communism your biased ignorant rhetoric is showing. Not even fucking close.

You don't know the 1st thing. So getting the rich to pay an equal share, getting corporation to pay their fair share and shutting down corporate tax loopholes, fighting against the TPP, having a stronger chance against TRUMP, and the fucking list goes on and on,...........those are all bad socialist things?

Really?

So your for 1% and corporate socialism but not for people because according to you we're all not doing this:
"Work for it like the rest of us have."


What an absolutely thoughtless comment and how very Republican of you.

The rightwing nerve, you understand that you have no fucking idea what other people are going through, right?

you know the GOP is famous for calling people lazy even when they're living on the streets. And if your not starving and living on the streets, you have all the means at your disposal to help yourself and everyone around you because it's just that black and white?

Are you a fucking Mind reading, all knowing, mystic?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:24 PM

51. Well said!

I don't usually answer those type of replies because it doesn't do any good since they can't, or won't, differentiate the differences.

It's gotten old explaining it to people for the past 20-30-40 yrs.

So I want to THANK YOU for taking the time and effort to do it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:15 PM

68. Hear, hear, hear, hear and Hear!!!! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:12 PM

82. Huge +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:06 PM

88. Thank you Phlem

 

red baiting shows ignorance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:23 PM

91. You haven't heard anything from the GOP about Bernie being a

socialist/commie/hippie/pinko because they're hoping against hope that he will be the nominee.

And then they will have their field day. Till then, they are just biting their tongues and crossing their fingers and praying that Bernie beats Hillary so they won't have to face her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #91)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:56 PM

104. That's only part of it.

They don't bother to vet him because they know he is unimportant. They don't need to spend the time and money on oppo research for someone who will not be the nominee.

Also, he is doing their work for them, bashing Hillary and unleashing his gremlins on social media and at campaign events. The more time he and his minions spend doing this, the more time the repubbies have to unite and work against us.

Go Bernie! Yes, go back to Vermont and back to your back bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:39 PM

47. The world NEVER faced "communism everyday"

 

There were a lot of paranoid people who feared communism the same way some lemmings fear "Islam"

Further, most people who have it didn't "work for it." MOST of them have it given to them.

Finally, her admission that she was wrong is meaningless since she made the exact same mistake in Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:08 PM

58. she "thought" she acted in good faith

 

Just like she "tries" to tell the truth

https://m.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:11 PM

81. work for it like the rest of us....

 

You are rather callous and lacking empathy.
If you can't afford college, you can't get a good job with health benefits, and without good health benefits your are literally doomed. So who among us do you think is undeserving of free healthcare because, in your view, they didn't "work for it"? Seriously, you really don't have to be this mean. People die from lack of healthcare in America, is that ok with you?
And so you know where I am coming from I am well over 55.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:47 AM

3. ""I thought I had' acted' in good faith''



ACTING!!!!!!








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:18 PM

59. Everyone acts in good faith...

 

-WASHINGTON, May 17 — Paul D. Wolfowitz, ending a furor over favoritism that blew up into a global fight over American leadership, announced his resignation as president of the World Bank Thursday evening after the bank’s board accepted his claim that his mistakes at the bank were made in good faith.

In the carefully negotiated statement, the bank board praised Mr. Wolfowitz for his two years of service, particularly for his work in arranging debt relief and pressing for more assistance to poor countries, especially in Africa. They also cited Mr. Wolfowitz’s work in combating corruption, his signature issue.

Mr. Bush surprised them by selecting Mr. Wolfowitz, then a deputy secretary of defense and an architect of the Iraq war. Leaders of Germany and France objected but decided not to make a fight over the choice and risk reopening wounds from their opposition to the war two years earlier.

Mr. Wolfowitz’s after-tax salary was $391,440 beginning July 1, 2005. (Weisman, 2007)


Letter from Ashcroft, Goldsmith, Comey, and Philbin to Sens. Pat Leahy and Arlen Spector
ashcroft_goldsmith_comey_and_philbin_to_pjl1
October 29, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510


Protecting carriers who allegedly responded to the government's call for assistance in the wake of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001 and during the continuing threat of further attacks is simply the right thing to do. When corporations are asked to assist the intelligence community based on a program authorized by the President himself and based on assurances that the program has been determined to be lawful at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, they should be able to rely on those representations and accept the determinations of the Government as to the legality of their actions. The common law has long recognized immunity for private citizens who respond to a call for assistance from a public officer in the course of his duty. The salutary purpose of such a rule is to recognize that private persons should be encouraged to offer assistance to a public officer in a crisis and should not be held accountable if it later turns out that the public officer made a mistake. That principle surely applies here, especially given the limited nature of the immunity contemplated in the bill, which would apply only where carriers were told that a program was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

Failing to provide immunity to the carriers will produce perverse incentives that risk damage to our national security. If carriers now named in lawsuits are not protected for any actions they allegedly may have taken in good faith reliance on representations from the Government, both telecommunications carriers and other corporations in the future will think twice before assisting any agency of the intelligence community seeking information. In the fight against terrorism, information private companies have - particularly in the telecommunications field - is a vital resource to the Nation. If immunity is not provided, it is likely that, in the future, the private sector will not provide assistance swiftly and willingly, and critical time in obtaining information will be lost. We wholeheartedly agree with the assessment of the report accompanying the bill from SSCI: "The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation." S. Rep. 110-209, at 11.


Mike Duncan
Chairman
Republican National Committee
3 10 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

April 18, 2007

To date, the Committee has received none of the information referenced above. Although staff met with RNC counsel and has communicated with RNC counsel by phone and email, the RNC still has not identified the "roughly 50" White House officials who held RNC accounts. And despite several requests, the RNC has not provided any details about the number of RNC e-mails sent or received by White House officials. This is elementary information that should already have been provided to the Committee.

Instead of providing this information, the RNC counsel has proposed to limit the Committee's request by using narrow "search terms" to identify e-mails relevant to the Committee's investigation. On Monday, RNC counsel proposed eight search terms, such as "political briefing," "Hatch Act," and "2008." While the "search term" approach was offered in good faith by the RNC counsel, it presents some serious problems. For example, the search terms proposed by the RNC would not have located a January 19,2007, e-mail from an official in Karl Rove's office to an official at the General Services Administration transmitting a copy of Powerpoint slides prepared by the White House that list the top 20 Democratic targets in 2008. That e-mail read: "Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we're not supposed to be emailing it around."'

Using search terms to limit the number of documents to be produced risks overlooking potentially responsive documents. The volume of e-mails involved may make resort to search terms necessary. But before the Committee can assess whether a search-term approach is required in this case - and whether it is required for every White House official or only some of them - the Committee needs basic facts about the scope and nature of the e-mails preserved on RNC servers. The Committee staff reasonably requested a meeting tomorrow to discuss these issues, but this request was unreasonably rejected. In fact, the RNC counsel stated that no meeting would occur until the Committee agreed to limiting search terms. This is not an acceptable proposal.

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman


’The Nacchio materials suggest that the NSA had sought telco cooperation even before 9/11 undermines the primary argument for letting the phone companies off the hook, which is the claim that they were simply acting in good faith after 9/11,’ said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.” (Vuong, 2007).


Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."


Here's Bybee's legal opinion:

Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside of the United States {to} commit or attempt to commit torture." Section 2340(1) defines torture as:

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.


18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). As we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of 2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the act inflicted severe pain or suffering.

Section 2340 is pain that is difficult for the individual to endure and is of an intensity akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury.

We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2). Those predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U,S.C. § 2340(2XA}-{D), As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive, See Section 2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support a charge under Section 2340A based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. See id. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requirement, the prohibition has not been violated. See id.

Specific Intent. To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. As we previously opined, to have the required specific intent, an individual must expressly intend to cause such severe pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3 citing Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 267 (2000). We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent. See id. at 4 citing South Atl. Lmtd. Ptrshp. of Tenn. v. Reise, 218 F.3d 518, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering. See id. citing Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991). Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is a reasonable basis for it. See id. at 5. Good faith may be established by, among other things, the reliance of the advice of experts. See id at 8.

Furthermore, no specific intent to cause severe mental pain or suffering appears to be present. As we explained in our recent opinion, an individual must have the specific intent to cause prolonged mental harm in order to have the specific intent to inflict severe mental pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3. Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of a sustained duration, e.g~ harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner. As we indicated above, a good faith belief can negate this element. Accordingly, if an individual conducting the interrogation has a good faith belief that the procedures he will apply, separately or together, would not result in prolonged mental harm, that individual lacks the requisite specific intent. This conclusion concerning specific intent is further bolstered by the due diligence that has been conducted concerning the effects of these interrogation procedures.


Kristol Calls On Bush To Pardon Torturers And Wiretappers, Reward Them With Medal Of Freedom
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/11/29/32970/kristol-medal-torture/

In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches “reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror.” Kristol dreams, “Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.”

After urging Bush to fight the incoming administration’s desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.


...except unlawful enemy combatants.

Military Law Review
Winter, 2007
194 Mil. L. Rev. 66

A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE AND SECURITY: PROSECUTING SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED IN U.S. DETENTION FACILITIES ABROAD

MAJOR PATRICK D. PFLAUM

~snip~

In addition to the considerations set out in the Geneva Conventions, AR 190-8, and the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), there are three {*85} other important factors in determining an appropriate disposition of offenses. First, in the case of unlawful enemy combatants, one of the arguments for leniency--that misconduct is often driven by "honorable motives"--may not apply. n123 A number of those detained are alleged to have participated in some part of the War on Terror as unlawful combatants, and may be seeking to continue their unlawful activities. n124 A detainee's escape and subsequent reunion with hostile forces may have more consequence, considering the nature of the War on Terror. There are several documented cases of released detainees continuing hostile activities against U.S. or coalition forces. n125 Second, the leniency rationale for escape attempts does not necessarily apply either. n126 Considering that he was detained for conduct that is considered illegal under international law, an alien unlawful enemy combatant escaping from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is more akin to a prisoner escaping from a federal penitentiary, rather than a POW escaping from a POW camp. Again, a detainee's escape and continued aggression as an unlawful combatant may be of more consequence, considering the unconventional nature of the War on Terror. Third, it is logical that a disciplinary punishment, like the loss of a comfort item or a privilege, may have more of an impact on a detainee facing indefinite detention or serving a lengthy military commission sentence, rather than continued {*86} confinement adjudged as a judicial punishment. In deciding which punishment is appropriate, many considerations may often conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:19 PM

84. Fucking sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:31 PM

101. I doubt if the conservative Democrats would even read what you posted. Their life is simple,

 

blindly follow and attack those that refuse to "sit down and shut up" and join the followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:13 PM

83. Perfect!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:58 AM

4. Excellent post

 

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:08 PM

6. Well, fuck me. Hillary paid her dues, working for the party... Debbie, Nancy and all the loyal party

 

corporatists.

If you don't like it, why don't you join the Socialist Worker's Party?


















Ferchrissakes, Martha, it's sarcasm (except for the part about Hillary and the corporatists).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:46 PM

17. She paid her dues? WTF?

 

back at yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:14 PM

25. yes, to join THAT club, you have to sell your soul

 

reminds me of sally fields crying " You like me, you really like me!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:58 PM

75. Obama quote - 2008, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #75)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:01 PM

87. always the gentleman, that Obama

 

I will always adore him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:57 PM

56. Many people who do not like Hillary also paid their dues.

Many have been active in the Democratic Party. Don't assume things, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:45 AM

106. I think he was being sarcastic. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:12 PM

7. Hat tip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:17 PM

8. She still doesn't explain her "hard" choices. She just flicks them away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:43 PM

15. She says she made a mistake, but what was the mistake? Putting corp profits before

 

human lives? Maybe letting her imperialistic agenda get the best of her?

She didn't mistakenly trust George and Cheney. She didn't mistakenly believe the embarrassingly bogus intelligence.

I don't believe she thinks she made a mistake. It was a business decision and those corporations that profited have been very generous to her personal fortune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:47 PM

18. Or putting her time in to run for the inevitable run for the Oval?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:22 PM

43. "mistake" = not haveing to accept responsiblilty

kids often apologize after doing something wrong even with being told prior, as they get older it becomes technique for doing shit your not supposed to.

Also an old political trick mostly used by the GOP.

Yet a large part of the population can't wrap their grey matter around it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:19 PM

9. Great post.

Too bad so many are blinded by their blind faith and/or idolatry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:36 PM

12. Hard Choices

Take a look at her book where she changed 96 pages, going from hard cover to paperback.

Iraq, good faith? What was the reason she destroyed Libya?

Z

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zalinda (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:44 PM

16. Her decisions are not personal, they are just business. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:41 PM

14. HRC's Iraqi war vote

was unforgivable to me. But the fact that we now have a Presidential candidate under FBI investigation ????? Well....that's unthinkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:09 PM

22. But it's not just the "Iraqi war vote"

Honduras
Libya
Syria
?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:50 PM

19. there's a backstory to it that explains even her speech

But was it? The truth about how Clinton came to support Bush’s war (albeit with reservations), and how she has thought about it since, has always been shrouded in mystery. People assume that Clinton is playing politics, that she voted for the war to look tough or because Bush was popular and that she won’t apologize now for fear of looking like a flip-flopper. Political observers scour her daily statements--her head-nodding, even, in one recent New York Times article--for clues to her thinking. Or they speculate about what she might do in the future. But the key to understanding Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy lies in the past. And, as one probes her inner circle and reconstructs her record, an alternative reading emerges: What if the hawkish Hillary of 2002 wasn’t just motivated by political opportunism? What if she really believed in the war?

But, by 2002, some Clintonites seemed resigned to the inevitability of force as a solution. Iraq had been a persistent fly in the ointment during the latter years of the Clinton administration. Few things terrified the Clintonites more than the chemical and biological arsenal they were convinced Saddam possessed. Their phobia was illustrated in 1997, when Defense Secretary William Cohen appeared on television holding up a five-pound sack of sugar to illustrate how a small payload of Saddam’s anthrax could kill half of Washington. Late in his presidency, Bill Clinton told one interviewer that the thought of a crop-duster spraying biological agents over the National Mall literally “keeps me awake at night.” Thoughts like these led to an ever-more aggressive posture toward Saddam. In November 1998, the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making Saddam’s ouster a stated goal of U.S. policy for the first time; a few months later, Albright toured the Middle East explaining to Arab governments that the United States was serious about “regime change.” When Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors that year, Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a four-day campaign of bombing and cruise-missile strikes. “So long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world,” he explained at the time. “The credible threat to use force, and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression, and prevent another gulf war.”

More strikingly, Clinton even seemed to embrace the neocon notion that, by toppling Saddam, the United States might reshape the Middle East. “It’s going to take years to rebuild Iraq,” he said.”If we do this, we want it to be a secular democracy. We want it tobe a shared model for other Middle Eastern countries. We want to do what a lot of people in the administration honestly want, which is to have it shake the foundations of autocracy in the Middle East and promote more freedom and decency. You’ve got to spend money and work hard and send people there to work over a long period of time.” These could have been the words of Paul Wolfowitz. But, to Bill Clinton, this wasn’t a blinkered fantasy--it was a legitimate and realistic U.S. foreign policy objective.

https://newrepublic.com/article/64828/hillarys-war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:56 PM

21. Hooo-kay.

If you have to choose between Trump and Hillary in the general election, you'd consider that "a hard choice"?

As in "difficult decision?


Hint: vote straight Democrat. Then you don't have to actually push the button next to Hillary's name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:13 PM

24. Now THERE'S an idea (your hint)!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:23 PM

30. I want whatever your taking. Ah to just always vote Democrat and not at all be bothered by

 

the consequences. That's the life. Don't bother me with issues because I will always vote for every Democrat that the Powers That Be put before me. I don't care that the system is manipulated to keep the same people (the Powers That Be) in power as long as I can vote Democrat. I don't care that millions can't vote because our system is the worst election system in the modern world.

Is it the blue pill?

PS: For some the hard decision won't be Hillary vs. Trump, but whether to participate in a system that is rigged. The Powers That Be will see that their person is elected in spite of how we vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

44. +1 Spot on.

amen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:38 AM

113. When was the last time you saw a Republican presidential candidate

that was better for the country than the Democratic party presidential candidate?

If you can mention one in the last half-century, I definitely DON'T want whatever YOU'RE taking.

It's not a matter of not thinking about issues. (By the way, thanks for the insult, cowboy.) It's a matter of knowing when to fight which issues.

By the time you get to the GE it's too late to deal with all that other stuff you mention. In almost all cases, in the GE you have a binary choice. That's it. You want to work on that other stuff? (Which is important, by the way.) You have to work on that IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION. (And in other, non electoral ways ... but that's really hard work.)

Wake the eff up, smell the coffee, and figure out how the world works and how US elections work. If you want to be effective in making progressive change, you need to do that.

Or if you want to keep playing victim, then don't bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #113)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 10:40 AM

114. First of all we are still in the Primary. Second, I wonder if you've ever gotten

 

the hint that the Wealthy might just be manipulating us. Currently we have a political system that is supposed to be two viable parties that strengthen the system by having a strong debate between business interests and the People's interests. But one of the parties has been almost destroyed. So we really only have one choice and that's the corporate sponsored candidate. The progressives have been, not only left out entirely, but demonized. And for what? For wanting to help the People? Those that support the corporate agenda (Clinton) will try to mollify the Left by using pragmatism as their excuse to ignore those suffering. Now they will demand that they are not ignoring the 2.5 million homeless children, they will rationalize their support for Goldman-Sachs and the Koch Bros by saying that we must not ask for too much. They don't want the 2.5 million children to be homeless, they just won't go out of their way to help. Maybe the wealthy will send them some cake.

I am not the victim but I know victims and see them every day. At our foodbank we can afford to give out each family enough food for 3 or 4 days. Many people mistakenly think we feed them. We give them 3 or 4 days worth of food. We also operate a emergency shelter in the winter for the homeless. Maybe those that support the profits for Goldman-Sachs should come and tell the people that they are just being "pragmatic".

If I sound bitter I am. Not as much at the Capitalists (Clinton) but at those that somehow buy the message that supporting the Wealthy 1% will somehow trickle down. As the wealth gap grows wider and wider, the middle and working class have a harder and harder time of helping those struggling.

You do know that Goldman-Sachs has their eye on privatizing Social Security. Well just remember who you supported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:35 PM

112. No

I get my vote and I won't vote for Trump or Clinton. Sorry, I have ethics and I won't have anything to apologize for later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:15 PM

26. knr nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:18 PM

28. I only just discovered this group.

 

If all its content is as good as yours, I might as well join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:48 AM

108. Thanks. I hope this Group is a place where Progressive can discuss issues with

 

out the attacks from the non-progressive. Please join and contribute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:19 PM

29. Like Skinner said, get it outta your system.....nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:40 PM

34. Yes and since he is the ruler of DU it's his way or the hiway. But how sad that you know so

 

little about the Left. They don't "get it out of their systems" and then kowtow, like those making suck demands. We are just getting this movement started. You can try to muffle us and censor us here but we won't sit down and shut up as long as the Big Money that you guys seem to revere so highly, has control of our government. I guess the Big Money makes you comfortable in spite of all the suffering they cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:05 PM

38. msanthrope....

"Get it outta your system" is a rather callous way to respond to those of us who are still upset about the Iraq War vote. It reminds me of George Bush`s "now watch this drive" comment immediately after discussing terrorists, which was equally as callous.

I don`t know about your personal military service....like how much combat you`ve participated in or how many limbs you`ve lost, but many of us either have been in combat or have/had loved ones who have. I`d like to see what would have happened if you had said that, face to face, to a combat vet.

~GET IT OUTTA YOUR SYSTEM~



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:51 PM

55. You seem to think "get it out of your system" is a reposnse to those who

 

are still upset by the Iraq War vote.

You would be incorrect. It is advice to those who pretend to give a shit about anybody who actually suffered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:06 AM

110. In fairness then, Skinner should change the name of this place to ...

Democratic Mainstream; at least until the election is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:29 PM

31. The PNACers were selling war in Iraq to Clinton in 1998. He

didn't bite. Hillary had to have been aware of their agenda.

I got into this with a guy on Facebook the other day who argued that "We were all lied to. Hillary too." Oh really? Anyone who knew anything about the neocons knew that once they were in power and had their "new Pearl Harbor," which would scare the shit out of the American people, they'd proceed to invade Iraq. It was never about "weapons of mass destruction." It was always from day one about oil and greed. Hell, the original name for the clusterfuck, Operation Iraqi Liberation, spelled it out. And Hillary went along.

Robert Kagan's current support for Hillary is telling. He must know she's a kindred spirit, sympathetic to the good old days of the New American Century. Trump is less predictable and all over the map.

Either way, it's shaping up to be a Sophie's Choice election. No good options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:52 PM

36. she repeated the 9-11 lies and there were 30 MILLION marching against it

presumably she thought they were all picnickers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:12 PM

40. The Hillary bought into the lies defense is the worst

argument imaginable. She trusted ghouls like Cheney and Rumsfeld to tell the truth? If so, her judgment flat out sucks, and I'd go so far as to question her sanity. If she knew the reasons given were pure bullshit and voted for it anyway, that says she's evil -- willing to destabilize a country and kill hundreds of thousands for profit. Either way, this is a woman who should never be trusted to intelligently direct US foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:18 PM

42. it's the Iran-Contra dilemma: if Reagan was complicit he should be removed, if he was uninvolved

he was too incompetent to be president

at least the GOP dumped him 1987-94, instead of running Nancy in 2004 ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:39 PM

48. Oh Jesus, Nancy....She'd have her

astrologist making policy decisions. Sad thing is the dumbasses who make up the bulk of the electorate would have voted for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:42 PM

49. almost every decision during the "Ronald" Reagan presidency was made through Joan Quigley

she even manipulated Reagan into warming up to Gorbachev while the other Birchers were running around yelling "Stalinist" and trying to invade Cuba

Nancy was CCed on everything important and nothing went past Ronnie's signature that I've read at the NARA part of the Library: Edith Wilson 2.0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #40)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:46 AM

107. She didn't "trust" them, she agreed with their agenda and has been aptly rewarded since. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:31 PM

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:06 PM

39. reform inside of the Democratic Party will be a slow process...

unless all the whiners stay home and don't vote - then the reshaping of everything by the Repubs will make it all the more difficult for reform, election or the advancement of progressive Democratic ideals and candidates...

whole lot of people here need to grow a pair...(excuse the vulgarity ladies)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:25 PM

45. K&R! Thank you for this excellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:14 PM

50. It's EASY to go with the status quo

and to back the most powerful and influential people, right or wrong.

It is HARD to go against the MIC, the Pentagon and alphabet and private industries invested in war and armed to the teeth and the most powerful people in the WORLD. It is HARD to stand up for human rights when the status quo continually reduces the value of life overseas and domestically. It is HARD to attempt to turn the tsunami size tides against going to yet another war for profit. It is HARD to stand against the banks, the big families, the secret organizations, the prison industrial complex, Big Pharma, Monsanto, Big Oil and lobbyists who are too invested in our government policies. It is HARD to stand up against corruption that threatens all life.

It is HARD to face climate change and all the work this country should be doing to prepare for it, to rebuild our infrastructure and work toward healing our lands from the soil up so it holds the most water. It is HARD to clean up the pollution we have created, and it is hard to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the messes we have created.

HARD CHOICES are NOT going along with the status quo--it is a cop out. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:25 PM

85. Nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:19 PM

60. hypocrisy, obfuscation, and faux poutrage.

 



A politician that conforms to the will of the people. That is Hillary Clinton.

She was also not the rogue Democrat in the US Senate that conformed to the overwhelming will of the people (72-73% supported that war). She was a Senator from New York, the state that was still reeling from the effects of the tragedy of 9/11 and the ridiculous mania that followed it. The people she represented was eating up having our rights being restricted, and to this day there's still a large number of dumbasses who believe that Iraq actually had something to do with 9/11.

Look at this list:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

How many people, last year were hoping for Biden to jump in? Funny I don't recall anyone jumping on his vote.

I challenge anyone who has made claims that THIS is their main reason for not supporting Hillary to show me their post from 2004 when John Kerry was running for president condemning him for his Iraq war vote? Please do show me where I'm wrong.

Oh, 2004 is too long ago? How about any of you righteous crusaders of St. Bernard show me where your 2008 post condemning John Edwards vote is?

In 2003, 72-73% of Americans supported that fucking war, and 58% of sitting Democratic Party Senators were a "yes" on that vote. Yet Hillary is the only one anyone seems to have issue with... but sure, that's the "reason".

It's ridiculously touted that Bernie is some kind of righteous crusader for having voted against the war.. He was a representative of Vermont, he was no leader, and likely his own constituency supported his vote... Just like Hillary's supported hers. Had he been a Senator of New York at the time, and voted against the hugely popular measure at the time, THAT would have been revolutionary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:20 PM

61. On a side tangent regarding that chart..

 

How disgusting is it that 38% of Americans STILL believe that the war was the right decision?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:53 PM

65. Right! Kerry in 2004 and Biden in 2008/12

Not a word about bad judgment or being warmongers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:21 PM

90. Very few people supported the war in Iraq, we all knew it was a lie from the start, only a few

 

misguided "Patriots" and fox viewers were convinced Sadam worked with al queda supported the war, and kids who couldnt find a job joined.

I dont know where you got those numbers, but they are laughably wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:27 PM

93. You are wrong.

 

Gallop 2003:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Pew 2003-2008:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

Poll Reveals Americans supporter Iraq war in 2003 far more than they admit today:
http://reason.com/poll/2014/10/16/poll-reveals-americans-supported-iraq-wa

USA Today: "By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

Council on foreign relations:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americans-support-war-iraq-shows-new-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051

Just because the facts don't fit your narrative doesn't change the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:48 PM

96. I dont consider poles as fact

 

In fact, most are run by corporations. Everyone I knew were against it then and now. I would expect an immediate reactionary response, but shifting to Iraq from Afghanistan was not met well, unless half the population were Fox viewers, so we agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:52 PM

99. Climate deniers also decline to accept available evidence.

 

Fair enough, your opinion trumps overwhelming and varied evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:26 PM

92. In shock, many in Congress voted to go into Afghanistan

 

it is not her vote, it is the speech trumpeting the urgency to go into Iraq, echoing the neo-cons chants . She believed every lie they told her, she does not think for herself, never has and I suspect she will be easily manipulated by the neos in Washington in the future as she has in the past

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:36 PM

94. Orly? It's the speech is it?

 

Then perhaps you can show me your anti Kerry posts making the same calims during his campaign run? He also gave one hell of a floor speech supporting the resolution:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4398929/sen-kerry-iraq-war-authorization-speech-9oct02

Oh? Nothing from you condemning Kerry of 2004? How about Edwards of 2008? He also gave one strong case of a speech to support his yes vote:



So.. What was your argument again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #94)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:42 PM

95. Kerry is not in this primary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #95)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:50 PM

98. So.. You have nothing.

 

Your argument was wrong.
Your assertion was wrong.
Your "she made a speech" failed to make any exceptional statement that seperates opposition to her vs opposition to other, prior presidential candidates that have ran since this infamous vote, so oversimplify it to being just about "this" primary.

Yep, my original post in this subthread stands. Thank you for illustrating and reinforcing my original point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #98)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:33 AM

105. She was wrong. What does it matter how many others were wrong? She saw the

 

invasion as a business oppurtunity and has zero empathy for the million that died and many times more whose lives were ruined.

For the record I didn't support Kerry or Edwards or any other turn coat bastard that groveled before Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:41 AM

109. "We only want to protect our women, what does it matter if we hate transgenders or not?"

 

1. She was wrong. Has admitted to it. So was the majority of Dem Senators. So was the vast majority of the country.
2. It matters because it frames the whole background of the event. It also exposes the hypocracy where there was almost no mention at all about John Kerry's vote in 2004, or John Edwards vote in his run in 2008. Two other POTUS candidates, who made the same wrong vote, who also made very imposing speeches before the Senate supporting that war, yet so much silence on their vote. Hmmm, I wonder.. What could be so different about those 2 candidates and Hillary? Very curious.
3. "Zero empathy" is a ridiculous assertion on your part, but that's your opinion and you're absolutely entitled to it. Of course I'm entitled to mine that yours is ridiculous.
4. With absolutely no snark intended, much respect to your consistancy in not supporting Kerry or Edwards. I am left with the lingering and original question though.. You've been very vocal (well at least in writing) about your disdain for Hillary, and the Iraq war vote has been one of your 2 biggest issues that I've read about.

Fair enough.

You've been a member since 2005. Perhaps you can drudge up even a single post you've made in all those years decrying the other 2 "yes" votes that have run for president? Just one? Surely if this is your conerstone issue of opposition, your passion and dedication to this cause can drum up a single post decrying Kerry for his vote, or Edwards during the 2008 campaign season for his?

At least that would make you one of the few truly consistent people on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:44 PM

63. The years since that vote provide more context for it

I used to see mitigating circumstances that I thought helped explain it. Not so much anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:13 PM

67. K&R

You're right, rhett o rick. It was a seminal moment. It was the decision of her life and she completely and totally blew it. It was a moral decision. It was a decision of conscience. It was the decision of her life that defined her. Hillary does not have the gut conviction of a real Democrat. She goes along to get along, to get ahead.

And yet, because of doing what she did, she may become the President of the United States. I guess if you want something bad enough, it doesn't matter how you get it? Whaaaaat? I can NOT go along with that line of thinking. It does matter HOW you arrive at your goal in life. If you get there by hook or by crook. If you lie, cheat, steal, play the game and only think of yourself to get there.

Character does matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:22 PM

69. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations.

Cheney and rest of the blood thirsty Fascist savages didn't fool me. They didn't fool me even though the television was full of Pravda like propaganda. They didn't fool tens of millions of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:32 PM

102. I truly don't understand how politicians...

that pushed and/or voted for the war in Iraq can sleep at night!
All the innocent lives lost, service men & women who died, and/or come back with PTSD, head injuries and maimed for life.
[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rockyj (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:36 PM

103. I honestly don't understand it either. How can Clinton-Sachs put MIC profits ahead of

 

human life. Every day 21 vets commit suicide. Thanks Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:14 AM

111. It's no wonder why she didnt name her book ...

GOOD CHOICES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread