Hillary's vote explained!

[Clintonista2]

I'm very surprised (ok, I geuss not), that many of you are angry about her vote on the NON-BINDING resolution.

1) It has no impact on anything. It's symbolic. It doesn't even have to be signed by *
2) It allows her to maintain her "tough security" image, appealing to independents, without any political retribution (it's NON-BINDING).
3) It's called political pragmatism, and it's the reason she's in first place.


Obama's no-show today was also a symbol. I'll let you make your own conclusions about that one, though.

[HeraldSquare212]

1. "without any political retribution"?

Spoken too soon.

edit to add: so you think for voting for any non-binding resolution would be OK, no matter what its content?

[Clintonista2]

3. No, consider:

Imagine Hillary is the GE candidate, and imagine she had voted NO today. Whoever she is running against could manipulate her vote into proving that she is "weak" on security (and don't assume Americans wouldn't fall for it, because they would, we saw that in '04). Now, by voting YES on this amendment, which was symbolic and had NO impact on ANYTHING, she cannot be portrayed as being "weak", and even if Americans are against this vote (unlikely), her Republican opponent would have supported it anyways, making that irrelevent.

Now, it could hurt her during the primaries, I do admit. However, people need to understand that this: 1) Affects nothing policy-wise
and 2) Cannot hurt her in a GE

[Atman]

7. I disagree. It shows she is WEAK on representing her constituents.

And that she'll sell out her convictions for convenience and votes.

Don't we have enough of those idiots in DC? The message obviously hasn't gotten through that we're sick of this bullshit. We can send a message loud and clear in November 08, though.

.

[Clintonista2]

8. As I said, political pragmatism is a virtue

It would be a completely different story if this was binding. It wasn't. Hillary was able to use this to her advantage.

[Atman]

10. We'll see who uses it to their advantage.

I don't think it will be Hillary Clinton.

.

[Lerkfish]

52. political pragmatism is a nicer word than "duplicitious"

You're attempting to say she's against the war as she votes for it.

that's duplicity, or intentional deception.

that you applaud her for it says a lot about what YOU want in a leader.

Fortunately, I want different things.

[Ignis]

148. Agreed. Threre's a fine line between realism and cynicism. (nt)

[cui bono]

105. Nope. She showed that she learned nothing from her incorrect IWR vote.

She just basically repeated it here. Shows why she's not apologetic about the IWR vote. She's a hawk. And that's not good for national security. Being willing to attack a sovereign country preemptively says you are not good on national security. Look what our invasion of Iraq got us. We're not safer. Oh, but then Hillary said we were in another debate. That explains it. She has it all wrong on this one.

[wyldwolf]

50. her constituents? 59% of Americans believe Iran is a threat.

67% believe Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

Sounds like the vote, as non-binding as it is, is perfectly representative of her consituents.

[Lerkfish]

54. what, you're watching Faux news, now?

so, you're arguing that the vote to preemptively invade Iran is GOOD? and that you wish it was BINDING?



screw that, screw war in general, and screw people who use the blood of innocents to further themselves politically.

[wyldwolf]

58. no, I'm reading CBS News and NY Times polls

so, you're arguing that the vote to preemptively invade Iran is GOOD?

Of course not, Forrest. The vote wasn't about that.

[Lerkfish]

59. sure, if you say so, the vote had nothing to do with invading Iran

just like IWR had nothing to do with invading Iraq.

[Atman]

60. Yeah, it wasn't about our INVADING Iran...it was about letting Bush do it!

Can't you see the difference? Uh...well, I can't either. We've been down this road before, and the same people who are now saying "I didn't think he'd actually DO IT!" just voted for this bill.

Call it what you will.

.

[frylock]

65. what percentage of people still believe saddam did 911?

what is the percenatge of people who believe that there were WMD found in Iraq? Your numbers only show how misinformed and/or gullible the populace is.

[cui bono]

107. Exactly. And how bad and partisan our media is. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

131. gee, isn't that stupidity/ignorance great for HRC!

instead of taking a stand for what is right, she capitalizes on the fact that the voters are just not informed. just the fact that anyone at all "thinks highly" of this warmonger middle-of-the-roader unimaginative corporate watergirl shows how dumb the electorate truly is to begin with.

[lojasmo]

142. Just like 75% of Americans believed Iraq was behind 9-11

Fucking fools. That includes Clinton.

[NoPasaran]

103. So you're saying her constituents

So you're saying her constituents support the growth of a Hezbollah-like organization in Iraq? Somehow I find that somewhat hard to believe.

[HeraldSquare212]

12. So it's cold political calculation that will lead us into another war

and not heartfelt sentiment? Wow, I'm relieved.

[HeraldSquare212]

16. which I don't believe either

I believe the vote reflects her consistent sentiments, not a fleeting political calculation.

[Lerkfish]

27. I agree with that: she has stated over and over again she's for the war

just considers its execution flawed.

[cui bono]

108. And she has said she actually thinks we're safer now than before the invasion.

good lord.

:eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

89. "political pragmatism" my f**cking @$$! you mean war-mongering

obeisance to her industrial-military paymasters.

and it goddam CAN and WIll "hurt her" in the GE because it shows she is WEAK on EVERYTHING. SHE IS JUST A KOW-TOWING ASS-KISSER.

[minnesota_liberal]

104. Voting with the likes of Lieberman is symbolic too

Take a stand already!

[Steve_in_California]

117. Hillary is pandering to the Jewish vote

Just like Lieberman, the Senator from Israel.

[Hydra]

2. You can tell her "Good luck with that"

Because she can't use the excuse of "If I knew then what I know now..." and "it wasn't a war authorization"

Well, maybe she can, but she's not going to look smarter or more credible for doing so.

[Clintonista2]

4. Except that the vote today was NON-BINDING

It does absolutley nothing policy-wise. It cannot be compared to the IWR in any way.

[Lerkfish]

11. wow, a very slender straw you're clinging to, there.

don't get swept away in the fast moving river of Denial

[Clintonista2]

15. I'm sure you of all people know how fast that river is. nt.

[Hydra]

20. Ya, we see people like you swept away in it all the time

when you come out drenched and upset, you say things like, "why didn't you tell me...?"

[Lerkfish]

22. yeah, I"M the one in denial here.

:rolleyes:

[Clintonista2]

26. Aren't you the "Waah! Stop being mean to us you darn Hillary supporters!" people?

Oh yea, you are! :rofl: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3548497&mesg_id=3548497

[Lerkfish]

29. wow. just wow.

good luck with that.

the point is, you're flailing in wild rationalization to apologize for a vote for war by pretending it isn't a vote for war. You're going to give yourself a hernia twisting the truth so badly.

[Clintonista2]

32. Please state where in the Bill it says we're going to war with Iran

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.

[Lerkfish]

34. see post #25.

and stop holding your breath, it'll turn you blue, a color you're probaby not familiar with. (joke)

[Clintonista2]

35. WOW! You wrote the bill?

All I saw in post 25 was you stating your opinion. In fact, I didn't see anything that was actually said in the bill!

Again, I'll be waiting for you to find where in the bill it states we're going to war with Iran. That WAS what they were voting on, right? :eyes: I won't hold my breath.

[Lerkfish]

37. my. my you're a pleasant individual

do you have an extra "petty" key on your keyboard?

[Clintonista2]

42. I'll still be awaiting your response

The really annoying part about stating opinion as fact, is that you usually have to back it up! I know you're probably not used to that, but it's how I play.

[Lerkfish]

44. hey, no problem

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and...


I edited to add:


that's where I get my opinion. By labeling them a terrorist organization, when they are Irans army, we are effectively including Iran in the war on terror.


and, btw, I don't think you view your own debate style accurately. If you reread your OP, its all your opinion and your rationalization of her vote.

[Clintonista2]

46. I see what you bolded, it doesn't say anything about going to war with Iran!

In fact, I dont see the word "war" mentioned anywhere in that paragraph! Maybe I just need new glasses. Or maybe you should answer my original question, which asked "where in the bill does it say we are going to war with Iran?"

[Lerkfish]

48. I explained that,

you must need new glasses. among other things. and you responded as I was editing, you might want to reread the post you responded to.

[Clintonista2]

51. No, you gave your OPINION

You're not really grasping this whole "opinion" concept, are you? You can *claim* that one thing will lead to another, while conveniently forgetting that this is *non-binding*, which means that it cannot legally label them as terrorists. The truth is, while I'm sure a war with Iran would certainly boost your ego, this resolution cannot do so. Your fear-mongering is, I'm afraid, ineffective.

Edit: spelling

[Lerkfish]

55. Um, don't look now but your hypocrisy is showing.

what is your OP? why, whaddya know, its your OPINION.

i understand what an opinion is. Do you?

I clearly stated what I said was my opinion.

get it ?

[Clintonista2]

56. Yes, but I didn't treat my opinion as *fact*

I gave my reasons regarding why I think Hillary was right to vote the way she did. You, however, treat your opinion as pure FACT. "This bill means we're going to war with Iran!!!!!!!!!"

Anyways, I'm out to class, I'll comment again when I get back. I like debating you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel :rofl:, and I bet you really miss that "block" function that prevents people from replying! I know how much you love debate :rofl:

[Lerkfish]

61. naw, I usually like debating people who think about what they say

and who listen to what I say and use discernment and judgement in analyzing both.

with you, its just like dangling bright shiny objects in front of garden slugs, fun for a while, but ultimately accomplishes little.

and for the record, pretty much everything I say is my opinion. I've not represented it otherwise, if you're too dense to get that, then so be it.

[Clintonista2]

109. Discernment.... judgement?

You think you use both? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Mother Of Four]

135. Cmon kiddies...

You can disagree without resorting to bad behavior. Are we going to have to separate you two? :p


Adding a little humor to try and defuse, due to a Mad TV skit I saw recently that really represents this.

You know...by infighting we are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU

[YOY]

136. It takes a special person to treat Lerk in such a way

I mean, compared to myself he's level-headed and rational. Never flies off the handle. Uses reason and logic and seldom goes with his emotions alone.

The ROLF to him is beyond childish.

[karynnj]

100. The danger of that is that the resolution given before Afghanistan

can be more easily warped to mean going after these terrorists too.

[cui bono]

112. It makes war a "policy of the US" against the "Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran"

The IWR didn't state we were going to war either, but it gave W the power...

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3545461

Here is the language from the amendment:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat,
contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing
influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its
indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of
United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic,
intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy
described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.


The policy of the U.S should be to "combat" Iran with "all" "military
instruments"?!? You can be absolutely certain that those are the ONLY
words Dick Cheney and George Bush will see or care about.

[Tellurian]

138. Your above misrepresentation is an outright LIE...That paragraph was stricken from the Amendment..

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=8&

[cui bono]

150. That doesn't make it an outright LIE. Geez. But thanks for the update, I' heard that later.

And for the record, many people, such as Sen. Webb for one, are saying that calling the military of another nation terrorists opens the back door for Bush to attack them. So in essence, even though they watered it down, it is still handing over "war" powers to Bush in the case of Iran. And they have set a dangerous precedent, doing something that has never been done before, by declaring Iran's military terrorists. What a moronic thing to do. That's saying the nation is a terrorist nation. And remember, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" so where do you think this will lead? It's pretty obvious, we know that's what the admin and their new boy Lieberman want.

In the future you might want to tone down your accusations. That's really no way to have a discussion. And it won't help to get anyone to support your candidate. But then her votes are assuring that anyway, so you've really got an uphill battle. She obviously learned nothing from her IWR vote and from seeing Bush in action. She must be completely blind.

[karynnj]

99. Was the IWR binding?

[cui bono]

110. Oh! Non-binding! Oh well then if she voted to make pedophilia legal

that would be fine, as long as it was non-binding.

:eyes:

[saracat]

5. What a crack of horseshit.Sorry.It is even MORE despicable if those are the

reasons! And what "Independent " a is she talking about? Most of the "Independent" vote has been polled to be against that war with Iran.Political pragmatism? The electorate is screaming for "change" and she gives them "more of the same" ? Jesus. By her own interpretation it wouldn't have cost her anything to vote against this! If it was only "symbolic" and she doesn't believe in it, why is she lying with her vote? Political pragmatism? She thinks she can "fool" the GOP? Please. The GOP voters don't even support this.

[cui bono]

113. Hey! I completely agree with you!

:)

[snappyturtle]

6. OK...if I believe what you said, why did they even bother with

wasting their time on something that only has symbolic value when there's so much on the table? I do not trust them. Bush has said he would go after terrorists wherever they are and now we have the label applied to Iran.

I heard that Reid had said yesterday there would be no vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment anytime soon. Maybe that's why Obama was a no show!?

[Cha]

24. I'll wait to hear from Obama

on that. I'm interested, too..I read they're doing a debate in New Hampshire tonight so we'll see what happens.

[Lerkfish]

9. guess what? we don't need more political pragmatists pandering to the right wing

we just don't, ok?

[Clintonista2]

14. Yea, DAMN THOSE PRAGMATISTS!

Always using that darn logic!

[Lerkfish]

18. your term, not mine, if I were to create the label, I'd say "narcissistic political opportunists"

meaning the only thing that matters to them is their own political careers.

you know what? screw that. Nero fiddled while rome burned.

Open your damn eyes and look around: rome is burning. we don't need more fiddlers. We need some buckets of water and some heroic firepersons.

[jgraz]

30. And never using darn morals

No thanks, I'll pass on this latest steaming pile of apologetica.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Wow, you summed it up perfectly as to why I would never vote for her.

She has no principles at all.. her decisions are based on politics.

This is exactly the reason I will work as hard as I can to keep her out of the oval office.

[Lerkfish]

36. funny, they never seem to understand that.

by arguing her as a political opportunist with no principles, they think that will somehow convince us to vote for her.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Slap that lipstick on! YEE-haw!

:eyes:

Sadly, I am not surprised at all about Hillary's vote on the Lieberman/Kyle amendment -- I expected nothing else but a "yea" vote from her. :shrug: Frankly, I would have been surprised if she had't voted for it.

I know who Hillary Clinton is.

I know what she wants.

I know what she is willing to do and who she is willing to sell out to accomplish her goals.

And that is exactly why I will not be voting for her, either in the primary or the general.

Any chance in hell of me pulling the lever for her in the general just went bye-bye. I am 100% done with her. And I am dangerously close to being done with Obama.

[NV Whino]

19. It was a non-binding fucking waste of time.

[Clanfear]

21. I agree with those reasons.

And as an Obama man I am disappointed in his no-show today. I have heard several reasons from not thinking there would be a vote today to stomach flu. Whatever the reason it doesn't bode well for him.

[MadHound]

23. I would have to say that labeling, officially, part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group

Is pretty damned binding, and considering what Bush has already put down about terrorist groups, this measure is just one stop short of declaring war.

[Lerkfish]

25. Technically, by labeling them terrorists, it becomes the same war on terror, so no need

to declare another war, Bush will use this "non-binding" excercise as tacit permission.

[MadHound]

28. Good point,

Thanks, I'm having trouble with keeping my "outrageous flaunting of the laws" straight after six plus years.

[Marr]

41. Exactly. n/t

[tech3149]

31. any thought about the legal contortions they'll use

to consider it a war authorization?

[Lerkfish]

33. see post #25, its already in the bag

[sandnsea]

38. Just like her Iraq war vote and 'stay the course'

Just symbolism so she'd look tough on security. And never calling Bush's WMD claims the lies they are, just more political pragmatism.

This is the case against her, not for her.

[Marr]

39. Give me a god damn break-- the IWR didn't mandate an invasion either.

But everyone knew it would lead to one. Hillary Clinton most certainly knew it, even though she claims to have been too damn stupid or naive to figure it out back then. She repeated that performance today, and you're already excusing it.

It's fucking pathetic.

[Dr Fate]

47. But-but-but-her speech said "no" but her vote said "yes." n/t

n/t

[JackORoses]

40. No Thanks, I'll pass on WarMonger-Lite

[Sparkly]

43. I don't understand why she thought this would help with "tough on security" imagery.

I DO understand that she has to present herself that way, but I don't get how this resolution is smart, strategically or practically.

In the primaries, she needs to persuade those of us who are fed up with BushCo's blunders and aggression, concerned for the military, appalled at what's going on in our names. This is so easily cast as deja-vu of the IWR, if not in effect, then in symbol. Doesn't this vote work AGAINST her among Democratic voters?

Why not say, as President Clinton did, that "Smart" and "Strong" aren't mutually exclusive; and that it's not "smart" for this administration -- OR the Congress -- to threaten Iran, overtly or more subtly.

I really want to understand this, and I don't see it.

[Dr Fate]

45. I wonder if she would support a non-binding resolution in support of impeachment investigations?

Or in support of his censure, or in support of him admitting that he "fooled" us into a war?

I mean, if we are voting on non-binding resolutions willy-nilly, and since they are no big deal, then could we at least get one out there that gets people talking about something that the base AGREES With????

How about a non-binding resolution that merely calls for Bush's resignation? LOL! I crack me up! How about merely CALLING for his resignation, with no vote at all?

No? I Didnt think so.

Okay- please resume the usual excuse making.

[PATRICK]

49. The resolution itself

as the senators must know or be incompetently stupid is something that can be added to the already existing resolution interpretations that Bush already was going to use to go against Iran. the stand alone posturing is disingenuous. What it does is give Bush a green light and the same dem co-option as last time by increasing the viability of Bush using the first IWR and others to launch a war of whim against another oil country. Besides permission it grants the deadly rationale, a total lie, that for some reason the nebulous atomic program there is a bigger concern than war, devastation, oil crisis and threat to Israel's future which another Junior Big Adventure guarantees even before the first plane lifts off with its bombs.

That is marching in parallel not pragmatism. maybe not in lockstep but a chain to be yanked to make them come along as duped witnesses to yet another grand crime and grander disaster. Murder is in the words. Murder and surrender to lies. if that is pragmatism, it will kill us all right down to the last GOP abused child.

I mention the resolution because unfortunately all the candidates except DK- who will get my vote if the "top" candidates don't break this "pragmatic" complicity in outright murder and world destruction feel compelled(leaders?) to take the lemming road to hell, paved with good intentions or bad.

[ericgtr]

53. Regardless if it's non-binding

it makes a statement that reaffirms her initial vote on this war in my opinion. I also think if we want our troops to come home in a timely manner that it won't happen with her in office. She already has a "firm" stance/appeal about her, this just solidifies it. I'll take a candidate who stands for real diplomacy for a change. Obama lost my vote for this same reason when he spoke strongly about Iran a while back, just so I am not accused of being strictly anti Hillary.

[nealmhughes]

57. Oh, I get it, she was voting with two fingers crossed and with a wink!

Just some sop for the peanut gallery at Fox. In reality, she consulted Hugo Chavez and they had a laugh over it and she told him how she wanted the US to have its own Bolivarian Revolution, but had to play to the hicks and bourgeoisie until the revolution can truly be implemented in the near future. . .

:sarcasm: sarcasm, but barely.

[Lerkfish]

62. right, and You know who admires deceptive leaders like that?

gee, no progressives I know.

[Capn Sunshine]

63. Oh. That's completely different.

Here I thought Hillary was betraying every antiwar supporter she has by opening a back door for the pursuit of war with Iran.

Here I thought Hilary was showing craven triangulation by voting for something that supports the War industry at the expense of the middle class.

Here I though Hillary's cynical calculation that her supporters aren't paying attention is a slap in the face of all Democrats

Here I thought this vote proves Hillary has absolutely ZERO plans to get us out of the ME. ZERO. NONE. OUR KIDS DESTINED TO DIE FOR NOTHING FOR YEARS TO COME. OUR NATION SUFFERING UNDER THE HUGE BURDEN OF THESE EXPENSES. KIDS WITH NO INSURANCE, BAD. WAR, GOOD.

So I'm glad you straightened that out.

I'm so happy with all the Democrats and their courageous stands lately.

[BootinUp]

64. Who can explain their opposition to the resolution?

I read it, looks pretty straightforward, can't say I have a problem with it. Most of it is just recounting testimony or findings from the Defense department, its states that the US interest is not to have Iran fund and supply a "Hezbollah like" organization in Iraq. Someone has a problem with that?

[Lerkfish]

66. as a prelude to preemptive invasion, yes.

I do have a problem with it.

Our hegemony is going to be our downfall.

[BootinUp]

67. So you are trying to pre-empt the prelude that didn't happen?

Interesting.

Of course there is no language in the resolution that suggests an invasion, nor, is there any language that states official policy. The testimony in there does not state anything that controversial either. In other words, the vast majority of people in the US would accept as "highly likely" that Iran is providing support and influencing the Shite in Iraq. In the last year or so I haven't seen any good refutation of that.

[Capn Sunshine]

69. It's a back-door tacit approval for Bush to bomb Iran on a bullshit premise.

If you can't see that, Jimbo, you should read up on what resolutions represent.

[BootinUp]

71. Show me where you read in tacit approval for military action. n/t

[Lerkfish]

74. you just don't get it, do you?

were you in a coma the last 6 years? Bush doesn't view resolutions in the spirit they're crafted, he uses them as carte blanche permission, although frankly its more of a codpiece than anything else.

Listen to Kucinich, he's trying to warn us the decision to invade Iran is ALREADY HAPPENED.

This is just window dressing CYA, just like the IWR was.

[BootinUp]

75. see 73. n/t

[Lerkfish]

77. I did, I responded to it, I still feel the same way, sorry.

I think we ignore the threat of this administration's excesses to our own peril. literally.
You, apparently don't think so.

That means by this time next year, I'll be talking about people like you who failed to learn the lessons of history.

[BootinUp]

96. I do not ignore the threat though.

If and when there is a Resolution that gives back door tacit approval for military action against Iran, I am prepared to do everything I can to oppose it.

[Lerkfish]

101. so we can count on you AFTER the missiles fly?

well, that's wonderful, then.

[BootinUp]

102. I am not twisting your words anywhere am I?

So I fail to see why that was necessary.

[Lerkfish]

72. exactly. If we will put on our memory caps, BushCo used the UN resolutions as tacit permission to

regime change Iraq, even though those resolutions were not permission to do so.

[BootinUp]

78. The UN resolutions

were used by Bushco to make a case for war, and would have made no difference without the lies and distortions of intelligence. Bottom line, this sense of the Senate resolution is not making any statement with regard to being in favor or not in favor of military action or any other action.

[Lerkfish]

80. we will have to vehemently disagree. I'm saying this is the buttress for the pattern

that will be drummed in over the next few weeks. That's why Bush's little lapdog Lieberman pushed it through.

And Lieberman wants to invade Iran, he's made that clear.

connect the dots. Or don't, but the dots are there nonetheless
If we haven't invaded Iran by christmas, I'll be happy, but i'll be very surprised.

[Lerkfish]

70. well, I pre-emptively objected to the coming invasion of Iraq, back when people

were claiming "he'll never invade, he's just saber-rattling".

I think history vindicates my objection.

How does history support your contention that we shouldn't worry about it?

[BootinUp]

73. Fight the battles when they are real.

This resolution is based on testimony that is unrefuted, and basically that is all it says.

[Lerkfish]

76. no, with this administration you have to fight the battles preemptively or

you have not chance to stop them.

honestly, I don't see why you don't understand this reality.

[BootinUp]

79. If this resolution in any way affected the move

of the country to war I would oppose it. However it does not. And a war in the future won't change that.

[Dr Fate]

82. Frankly, I just dont trust the "centrists" who agree with Bush & Joe anymore.

The same "centrists" who are backing away (or pretending to back away) from their last failed war now seem to be beating the war drums again.

Maybe I'm wrong and hope to be so, but damn if history doesnt seem to give me reason for caution & concern.

I would prefer leaving the saber rattling to Joe (I-3rd Party) and Bush, before DEMS have to try to disclaim yet another failed battle front. 2 is enough.

I-know- I know- you might say that my concerns are unfounded- that's what the "centrists" told me the last time my instincts and facts were 100% correct on Iraq. I really just dont trust you guys anymore- youve been 100% wrong, I've been 100% right. Maybe your luck is about to change- I doubt it, but if so, so be it.

The shortest answer is that at this point in time, I dont like anything that can even be remotely construed as supporting yet another invasion somewhere in some god-damed desert.

The last thing we need when yet another war effort fails is the media & GOP correctly saying: "But-but-Hillary and all the top DEMS agreed with it-they voted 'yes' for it!!!"

My guess, and I hope I am wrong, is that she will continue to support "measures" that lead to more confrontations, and my other guess is you and others who have been 100% wrong before will try to tell me she wont.

[BootinUp]

84. One other point that is of note

Actually Joe LieberBush did not get what they want. Look at the part that was struck out.

I'll tell you how to read this thing, "Yes we heard the testimony and think its probably based on good intel, however we still do not support any military action against Iran."

[Dr Fate]

88. I just dont trust the "centrists" or their failed political instincts anymore.

They have been 100% incorrect about their support for Bush concerning Iraq and FP, while the Liberals and anti-war moderates like myself that they fought and still fight tooth & nail have essentially been right on the money and vidicated by history.

If the "centrists" are telling us: "Dont worry buddy, it will all work out, nothing to see here"- then I know that there is indeed something to worry about and there is more to it than they say.

At this point I tend to agree with the others who have answered your post- unless the usual suspect "centrists" are opposed, this will probably be a 1st small step towards yet another confrontation that will serve to give conservatives even more power to subvert the Constitution.

So, my instinct is to continue to oppose those who have been 100% incorrect on defense and FP.

LOL! It's not as outrageous to oppose people who have been 100% wrong as those very people would have me believe!!

[ima_sinnic]

93. "centrists" are nothing but goddam fence-sitting COWARDS

who, like Shillary, "maintain an image" without taking a courageous stand on ANYthing!
she is SOOO expert at it, so professional, is it no wonder she is the personal choice of Rupert Murdoch and every other goddam predatory corporatist? whatta front woman!! I SPIT ON "CEMTRISTS" AS COWARDLY ENABLERS.

[Dr Fate]

94. I put it in quotes for a reason. Supporting/enabling the far right is neither centrist or moderate.

The "centrists" like to strut around and pretend that being 100% wrong on Iraq is some kind of badge of clear eyes pragmatism-while being 100% correct makes you some kind of out-of-touch loon.

The "centrists" love to tell us that supporting multi-billion dollar wars based on lies, that the public now opposes, is "moderate" rather than something that enables the far right.

The "centrists" tell you that impeaching Bush or opposing the Alito Filibuster is "far left" stuff rather than mere spirited and REAL oppostion from Liberals and fighting moderates to the far right.

Fact is, they have twisted and warped the spectrum so that people who enable the far right- are somehow now in the "middle."

[BootinUp]

95. What it comes down to

is who does the country trust to lead them, and what political actions/positions do they support. We know where you stand, and I will agree that the IWR as finally written should have been opposed, but that is not what the vast majority of the country wanted at the time. If you recall, the UN inspections being restarted with vigor was a key issue that had to be dealt with and the IWR from the "centrists" point of view was intended for that purpose and worked. It was Bush who ordered them back out and declared the UN inspections to be worthless, much to his and the Republican party's and the country's dismay now.

[Dr Fate]

143. In other words, the "centrists" were stupid enough to be "fooled" by Bush. And were 100% wrong.

And "the vast majority" they were tryinmg to impress still thinks they are idiots- and now they have realized they do NOT want the war.

maybe the "centrists" should have tried to convince "the vast amjority" that Buish was lying to them- ahh- but they were too busy being "fooled" themselves, no?

Not the Liberals & Anti-War Moderates- we were 100% correct. Still are.

[BootinUp]

149. Maybe the centrists

needed some help from the looney left to do the convincing.

To be frank your black and white view of politics is not very interesting nor helpful.

[Lerkfish]

68. for the record, I"m upset with EVERYONE who voted for this.

however, this thread chose to innoculate Clinton against criticism for doing so, so since it singled her out to defend, it forced me to single her out to object.

the bottom line is this:

we all know or should know what's going on here. Its only been 4 years ago we went down this same road.
We should learn from history, not be a slave to repeat it.

[jefferson_dem]

81. Symbolism. Image. Politics. Pragmatism.

Does she make you proud?

[zulchzulu]

83. Sorry Hillary, but you can't chuckle your way out of a bloodbath you endorse continuously

I guess it's easy laughing at the needless death of thousands and trillions of dollars wasted when you have no soul. Maybe you decided to give that up after your husband pulled out the biting lip trick for yet another apology.

I fully expect her to condemn Bush for attacking Iran now...heck, the free pass was just a pass... Golly gee whiz, by the time Bush attacks Iran next spring, you'll be the DLC's nominee by then*, so those lefties can go fuck themselves...

:thumbsdown:

* not if I can help it

[William769]

85. And where does she endorse this continuously?

[zulchzulu]

87. Congratulations for just crawling from under a rock

Where have you been?

The IWR was just a "resolution". No friggin' biggie. right?

This latest rubbing of Bush's crotch... just a pat on the old zipper, right?

Are you THAT out of it?

[William769]

90. Nice deflection but you still have not shown where she has endorsed this continuously.

[Dr Fate]

92. She never, EVER supported the Iraq war- didnt you read one of her speeches?

No sir- just because those stinking, far-left Liberals tell you that she voted "yes" doesnt me she didnt once say "no" in a couple of speeches.

She OPPOSED the war in Iraq, she OPPOSES George Bush and she DOES NOT agree with Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party). No sir!!!

And dont forget, the pro Hillary "centrists" have been 100% correct on Iraq, so why do you "nut roots" crazies question anything they contmeplate concerning Iran now-a-days?

[Clintonista2]

106. Good, I bet you're glad Obama stood true to his principles and voted against it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

86. WHATEVER! how very very hillary, to "maintain an image" w/o taking a stand!

and you of course have no problem with that! you are defending a coward who refuses to take a stand on ANYthing! isn't that special?! I the voter am supposed to be won over by that? sheesh, get REAL! but you couldn't have stated better why she will NEVER get my vote!

DU rules forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of her and of you for excusing this forked-tongue, SLEAZY, insincere, scheming, duplicitous weaselly person.

ENDLESS WAR WAGED BY ENDLESSLY WARRING WARMONGERS WHO CLEVERLY APPEAR NOT TO BE WAGING WAR!! STATUS QUO, HO HO HO, HILLARY HAS GOT TO GO!! (just warming up for the chanting we will be doing in the streets of DC in just a couple more years)

[hedgehog]

91. Hillary has never heard the phrase : Fool me once,

shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you.

I'll take Obama's stomach flu over her supposed symbolic triangulation any day of the week! At least the stomach flu is beleivable!

[nealmhughes]

97. Hey, the flu is already acting up in the SE, and if he flew with anyone who had changed planes in

Atlanta. . .

Plus it is so much more tactful to maintain "plausible denibility."

[ileus]

98. bait and switch...

have a little faith in her. She votes like she has to in order to get 15% of the repuke vote in 08...

[ChiciB1]

111. WAS NOT, WAS NOT -- DEFINITELY WAS NOT!! Edwards Took Her On

and she looked "wimped!" But MSM will give her a pass, AND BIG DWAG will come to her rescue and be out there much more often now!!

[AtomicKitten]

114. * shares his turd polish and the war with Hillary.

[Clintonista2]

115. Gutter politics. Please refrain.

[AtomicKitten]

116. It must be tough to support a candidate that will stay in Iraq.

But then again you already revealed you find "senate attendance" a more compelling issue than the war, so that pretty much explains your priorities.

And even though Obama was ill tonight, he managed to clarify his position on withdrawal from Iraq, that he will start on day #1 removing 1-2 battalions a month until they are home. And Obama also has spoken out against permanent bases.

Now what was your candidate's position on these issues again? Oh, yeah, that's right, Obama missed some votes in the Senate.

[Clintonista2]

118. I wonder how Obama would vote on a withdrawal bill?

Wait, let me rephrase that... I wonder IF Obama will vote on a withdrawal bill :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

119. well, we DO know your candidate voted YOUBETCHA on a pre-Iran War invasion bill.

There is NOTHING you can say that will shed a favorable light on that because that vote was nothing short of tragic.

[BootinUp]

121. Deflecting the blame from Bush and Dick

where it belongs is bad politics and just not too smart. It was tragic when he ended the UN inspections and declared them worthless, this was what the country had asked for and what he had promised them, UN inspections and the threat of war in the event Sadaam did not comply is what the Democrats went along with. The rest is all Bush.

[AtomicKitten]

124. This bill should have been stopped in committee -

or in the cloakroom or hallway or anywhere or way. I don't understand why Republicans can tie the Senate in knots, but the Democrats can't. Of course, this administration and their minions deserve the lion's share of the blame but, I, again, cannot and will not turn a blind eye to the complicity of the Democrats in Congress.

This bill was spawned from Lieberman - ugh - and that should have been their first clue. It reeks of the BS Iraq Liberation Act, in fact, it mirrors it. It has to stop. And I will hold their feet to the fire and should have all along. Enough.

[BootinUp]

125. And I'll continue to do what I can

to hold the republicans responsible.

[AtomicKitten]

127. We ALL oppose the Republicans,

so I'm not sure what you are getting at here (oh, yeah, I get it).

I will not apologize to you or anyone else for finally pulling up my socks as a citizen and demanding accountability from all of them - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. No matter how severe the brow-beating.

[BootinUp]

128. I said it already somewhere

but just to clarify.

1) the IWR left the final decision to Bush.

2) The arm twisting to get the resolution included broken promises and lies.

3) Public opinion was strongly in favor to pass the resolution to get UN inspections to all facilities in Iraq.

4) The UN inspections which were the main reason for the resolution were then declared worthless by Bush after the fact.

5) By blaming democrats you remove blame from Bush in the eyes of the public and they use it all the time against us. We should not accept any blame as a party as we did not make the decision to go in.

Not that I expect to sway you, but its not like I don't have a case here. There is a case to defend the IWR vote and I get quite tired of the DU line which is highly distorted from the facts.

[AtomicKitten]

129. Well, there are facts and then there are not so much facts.

#1 and #2: No argument.

#2 There was an extraordinary worldwide display of vehement opposition to this war. What about that public opinion? Hell, what about reading the damn intelligence before voting on war?

#4 The main part of the resolution - the piece de resistance in my opinion - was the abdicating of Congress' war-declaring powers to Junior. That is outrageous in its breadth.

#5 We as a party bought in to the Iraq War with the IWR. Everybody KNEW * was headed for war, and the Democrats rubber-stamped it because many considered their political behinds more important doing the right thing. That matters and they should be held accountable for their part in it.

* Other than #1 and #2 which we agree on, the rest of your bullet points are your opinion. I disagree. That's allowed.

[BootinUp]

130. really? I guess we can't agree on what is opinion then. (edited)

>3) Public opinion was strongly in favor to pass the resolution to get UN inspections to all facilities in Iraq.

I am talking about US public opinion polls, I am not talking about my opinion of anything. Either the statement is true or false.


>4) The UN inspections which were the main reason for the resolution were then declared worthless by Bush after the fact.

This is again a statement about actual events that can easily be supported or refuted by news reports and the congressional record. No opinion there either. True or false.


>5) By blaming democrats you remove blame from Bush in the eyes of the public and they use it all the time against us. We should not accept any blame as a party as we did not make the decision to go in.

There is a sliver of opinion in 5 "We should not..."

[Lord Helmet]

139. my poly-sci prof says opinion is an interpretation of facts

Your difference of opinion is the difference in the way you interpret facts. AK pointed to your common ground
but I guess you just want to win by insisting your opinion is the correct one. Doesn't work like that.

[BootinUp]

140. I was getting

very tired by that time, I agree with your prof, I would have to eliminate a few more subjective words and replace with real numbers in those statements yet to claim they are all fact. But I didn't see much common ground on the issue of the candidates she was attacking for that one vote. Cya

[BootinUp]

120. Its tough around here to defend against all the spinning

and downright bizarro twists of history thats for sure.

I can't really attack Obama and Edwards because their positions on Iraq and Iran are virtually identical to Hillary's though.

[AtomicKitten]

122. You are being too kind.

There is nothing that is worse than Hillary and Edwards (and the others) abdicating their war-declaring powers to Junior in such an insipidly nasty bill, the IWR (co-sponsored by Edwards). Almost all of the horrible things that have gone down since then began then. IMO it is unforgivable and I simply cannot, will not, reward either of them in the primary with my vote. Obama wins my vote by default, and it works out quite nicely that I actually prefer him.

[BootinUp]

123. Its especially convenient

that Obama didn't actually have the responsibility to vote in 2002. Convenient for him. As Wes Clark said, the IWR should not be a litmus test for the Democrats. I'll add that of course it was not a declaration of war or an order to send troops to war. It was conditional and it was Bush's decision. That is all in English by the way.


minor edit.

[AtomicKitten]

126. perhaps it is convenient but I adamantly disagree about it not mattering as a litmus test

The fact remains he DID NOT VOTE YES ON IT. He, in fact, came out BEFORE the invasion speaking against it. He did say in one interview that in retrospect he's not sure how he would have voted and many cling to that as if that means, what?, that he would have? Not buying that. His being or not being in the Senate at the time is circumstantial and not really relevant to the gist of this discussion. Again, HE DID NOT VOTE YES.

And thanks for the reference to another post which makes where you are coming from very clear to me. Why I don't know, but it is what it is. Got it.

On edit: I had no idea Clark's endorsement of Hillary would send you down this path. To be honest, that surprises me, but you have corrected that impression quite nicely tonight.

[fightindonkey]

132. Bottomline is, Hillary Has Made Her Position Clear

This is politics. She has said that we can take them down from the inside without military force. She has said that we need to first figure out who's controlling what, and that we need to talk to our enemies. I understand some of the harsh statements, but this whole Hillary-bashing needs to end. She is the nominee. You're going to have to wrap your heads around that fact. We are getting closer and closer and the woman hasn't slipped once, while all the others continue to fall around her on both sides. She is not stupid.

[ima_sinnic]

134. "she is the nominee"?? the primaries happened?

so I shouldn't even bother to vote in the primary here in Maine? it's a done deal, oh wise one?

further proof that our system sucks. if "she is the nominee" and we haven't even voted her to be the nominee yet, what do we have?

and I WILL continue to "bash" the corporate shill because she is a forked-tongued duplicitous turncoat who never met a lobbyist whose 30 pieces of silver she wouldn't kiss his butt for. she is in the pocket of the insurance companies and the weapons mfr's. she will say whatever "sounds good" at the moment, but DO what her paymasters want, which 99% of the time is not in the best interests of most Americans. the ONLY interests she is working for are those of the fascist Murdoch types who love her so much. she's their gal, their trojan horse. They give her huge amounts of airtime, call all kinds of attention to her and make all kinds of noise about how much they can't stand her--if they were really threatened and afraid of her, don't you think she'd get the Kucinich treatment? you know, the same treatment that 100,000 anti-*, antiwar protesters routinely get? the "invisible" treatment?

love the way things are now?? VOTE FOR HILLARY, then, because they are guaranteed to stay just as corrupt, money-grubbing, and war mongering as they are now under a President HRC.

[leftchick]

133. oh sure, I will trust a warmonger neocon like clinton

this is another step to a WAR.....

READ THIS and feel safe..... :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1912892

[ihelpu2see]

137. Edwards Schooled her on Iraq and Iran and Health care, enough said... nt

[Musty]

141. Yes, but...

if you don't think that Cheney/Bush won't use this "sense of the Senate" to claim that they have Congressional approval to attack Iran, then your living on planet clueless. This "sense of the Senate" was authored by Cheney! The Democrats, minus the good guys, fell for it hook, line and sinker!

[Moderate Dem]

144. Look at it this way...

If the far left was completely happy with Hillary, chances are that she couldn't win the general election. If the far left is happy enough to merely tolerate Hillary, I'd say that it improves her chances a lot.

[ProudDad]

145. You're talking about her YES vote on IWR, right? (n/t)

[ProudDad]

146. You're 100% right!!!

She's voting her constituency -- the corporate capitalist masters who have bought and sold her soul...

She's NOT voting what those pesky "We the People" really want or need... Can't pander to the masses...

If she did she wouldn't "WIN"!

[ProudDad]

147. Pro-war is NOT "tough on security"

Pro-war is pro-war...

If she were "tough on security" she would be following THIS PLATFORM:

------------------------

Universal Health Care...

Our health care system is broken, and H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program. Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in...

In the America of my dreams, the America I see taking root and flourishing under new administration, other nations will encounter an America that abides by Lincoln's precept: "The only lasting way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend." We will accommodate rather than alienate, make friends instead of enemies, and employ carrots far more often than sticks. We need an administration that will drain the swamps of hopelessness, exploitation, and humiliation that cause vulnerable individuals to head down the terrorist road. We need leaders who will be both tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror.

We must work to replace the law of force on the world stage with the force of law. By showing such open disdain for the UN Charter and international law during the past three years, we have become in the eyes of many the primary outlaw on the world stage. If we disregard the law of nations, we're left with the law of the despot, where the only constraint on violence is the power and ruthlessness of those who would employ it. Rest assured, in that world we won't be the only ones to use it.

We must immediately move for the United States to re-engage in the important treaties that the Bush Administration has abandoned. We must affirm and ratify treaties, beginning with:

The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change
The Biodiversity Treaty
The Forest Protection Treaty
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The Landmine Ban Treaty
The Biological Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention
The International Criminal Court

Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties that reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic that does not respect human rights, workers' rights, and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.


Putting America Back to Work IN America...

Our country is facing twin crises: high unemployment and a decrepit infrastructure. At the same time, millions of manufacturing and high-tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I have a plan that will turn our problems around and put Americans back to work in America.

By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life.

As a nation, we face a predicament of either buy American, or bye-bye America. Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit.

Repeal of the "patriot" act...

It's time for our Party to show some backbone. It's time to stand for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I spoke against it, I voted against it, and I introduced legislation for its repeal. From traveling across America, it's unmistakably clear to me that there is an almost universal rejection of the PATRIOT Act.

Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K through College...

The right of every American child to a high-quality free public education is one of America's most treasured principles. We must improve the quality of public education in those schools that are struggling and expand public education to include pre-kindergarten beginning at age 3 for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students.

Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65...

I see a new vision for American seniors. I see a country where all citizens can retire with full benefits at age 65, where social security will never become privatized, and where retirement years won't land in the hands of the stock market. I see an America where equal access and equal rights are obtained by all; where health care is regarded as a human right; and where the people who have lived to see this country grow can continue to grow old with it in peace.

Right to Choose...

Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies.

The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill."

Privacy and Civil Rights...

The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records.

Balance between Workers and Corporations...

Labor has stood almost alone while corporations have cut wages and benefits, slashed working hours, tried to undermine wage and hour provisions, reneged on contracts, and jettisoned retirements through bankruptcy strategies. The current clamor for corporate accountability calls for honesty in stating the numbers, and faithful custody of shareholders money.

There needs to be equal concern for those who created the wealth through their labor, because the attacks on unions are a means of redistributing the wealth upwards. As union membership has declined, the disparity of wealth has increased. Since 1973, union membership has dropped from 24% to 14%. And the share of aggregate income of the poor, the middle class, and the upper middle class has declined. Congress has not passed an increase in the $5.15 minimum wage, even though the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is 21% lower today than in 1979.

People have a right to:

* Have a job.
* Have a safe workplace.
* Get decent wages and benefits.
* Organize and be represented.
* Grieve about working conditions.
* Strike.
* Get fair compensation for injuries on the job.
* Sue if injured by negligent employers.
* Have secure pension and retirement benefits.
* Participate in the political process.

Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy...

The EPA under the Bush Administration has stood for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We as a nation must turn our efforts towards the great work of restoring our air and our water and our land. We must view our natural resources as the common property of all humanity -- even more, as the commonwealth of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection, which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival.

I am not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests or pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability.

Restored Rural Comomunities and Family Farms...

Something is wrong when profits of agribusiness corporations skyrocket, but farmers must find off-farm jobs or sell their farms to survive. I believe the United States must implement the following farm policies to benefit farmers, provide our nation with wholesome food, protect our natural resources, and restore our rural communities:

Fair Price and Fair Markets
Cancel NAFTA and the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements designed to benefit family farmers and workers while protecting the health of communities and the environment.

Market Concentration
Create new markets by actively enforcing existing anti-trust laws and proposing new laws to force divestiture in concentrated markets, breaking apart monopolistic agribusiness companies and shifting farm economics towards higher commodity prices for farmers.

Biotechnology and GM Seeds
Advocate only for responsible farm sector biotechnology, creating an indemnity fund -- financed by the corporations responsible for the technology -- for farmers who incur losses caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To protect farmers, labeling GMO seeds with disclosure and liability information must be required. To protect consumers, food containing GMOs also requires labeling.

Local Food Systems
Shift USDA funding and focus away from the promotion of concentrated intensive and industrial agribusiness. The new focus must benefit family farmers, rural communities, the environment, and consumers, with policies crafted to enable farmers to earn a fair price and to provide safe, nutritious food to all people.

Conservation and Environmental Protection
Strengthen and enforce air and water quality laws to safeguard rural communities from factory farm pollution.

Food Industry Workers and Food Safety
Implement new safety standards in meatpacking and food processing. Worker health and safety protections would be expanded through increased inspections and fines, with criminal charges for employers who cause injury or death to agricultural industry workers.

Rural Communities
Initiate a major new program of investment in rural America, putting thousands to work rebuilding invaluable public assets such as schools, hospitals, libraries, swimming pools, and parks. Teachers, doctors, veterinarians, and other important service providers would be offered incentives to work in under-served areas.


More Details here: http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

====================

And the plan to end the iraq invasion and occupation...

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation.

Complete details here:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucinich-unveils-comprehensive-exit-plan-to-bring-troops-home,-stabilize-iraq/