Profiting with money and favors!

dodging sniper fire

Than anyone else running on both sides?

But who voted for that clusterf*ck of a war? Who let George play out his mission accomplished fantasies? Don't say, I think I know the answer:

It was the junior senator from New York, a woman by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What Sanders has consistently voted for is good veterans care. Because he believes that when you ask people to risk life and limb for you, they deserve to be taken care of when they come home again. And yes, that funding goes via the defense budget too.

Womp womp.

Yeah, I can totally see how that would reduce my argument - NOT.

Sanders may not be perfect, but at least he is good. Clinton...?

I don't see the parallel of voting for war to respond to 911 by going after the perpetrators in Afghanistan versus
chasing a PNAC effort to involve the US in a war off a manipulative bogus WMD claim regarding a country that had never invaded the US nor even had the capability of delivering such weapons.

I don't understand Clinton supporters on this. Sanders strongly voted against Iraqi invasion, and only supported subsequent bills to fund the troops who were deployed in Iraq for their own protection and survival. It is disingenious to imply otherwise. Would you have him not fund the troops already deployed leaving them unprotected?

Clinton supporters basically are trying to deflect Clinton's egregious vote to initiate war with Iraq. Their spin is to attack Sanders votes against Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Actions supported by strong majorities of Americans. Iraq was controversial from the start with large rallies and demonstrations and marches and UN Inspector warnings that no WMD's were found.

Either Clinton supporters say "See Bernie voted for war too" or else they say "Bernie was a conscientious objector. He won't have the courage to initiate military action in a crisis." The problem is you can't have it both ways. Their only purpose in this is essentially to say "Don't look at Hillary's IWR vote, look at Sanders. Remember he was a CO, and he also voted for military action."

They simply don't get the magnitude of that IWR and what a costly, costly, horrendous mistake it was.

Afghanistan was the only military action since WW2 I'd have voted for, too. The direct, demonstrable connection of the Taliban government to the 9/11 attackers was legitimate justification on multiple levels, including the moral/ethical one.

"diplomacy"

(he doesn't have to govern alone, but at least he'd not appoint another clueless hawk like Clinton)

the Democratic electorate was wiser than that.

The rise of ISIS in Libya was not at all happening under her watch?

Syria didn't go from wrong to Hell under her watch?

Honduras never had a coup?

-----

When it comes to getting a clue, I think Clinton should be given a position at the front of the line: all that advice from Kissinger has tainted her judgement almost beyond repair.

But W owns the Iraq War, including the aftermath, of which both Syria and Libya are a part.

The rest is nonsense. Libya was an EU-led effort to prevent an impending massacre of civilians. There are some on the fringe left that thing that we should just let Rwandan style genocides happen without doing anything, but I'm not one of them. In Syria, we did not intervene, at least not in any significant way like Libya, and yet the loony left blames Hillary both for intervening in Libya and also for not intervening in Syria.

And then there's the Iran deal, which Hillary played a big part in setting the stage for.

The problem with the far left (and the isolationist right) is that they pretend that everything will be just great as long as the US decides to pull out and let things burn to the ground. This is almost as dangerously naive as Cheney style reckless militarism.

Bernie's foreign policy cluelessness is one of the reasons that the Democratic electorate has soundly rejected him.

Maybe she should just stop taking advice from Kissinger and Blumenthal, like Obama told her to?

Happens every time they are confronted with facts.

and sexist, racist and socialist too, who wants nothing but free stuff and ponies and unicorns. Did I summerise the current Clinton camp's assessment of myself well there?

bicycling with my top off.

(anyone who voted for that W idiocy should be barred from the presidency)

of her constituents had been murdered.

But I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

Not sure how you manage to reduce that (and the ensuing 10 years of misery) to "leverage".

By the way, the murder of 2000 New Yorkers was addressed by HJ res 64, NOT by the IWR, however persistently neo-cons like Bush and cheney claimed otherwise.

Which is also what she was told was going to happen.
The fact that they lied to her, and it became what it did, has NOTHING to do with WHY she actually voted the way she did.

And she was still under the pressure of doing her best for the families of those who were murdered. She wasn't advocating a rush to war, she was taking what she believed was a thoughtful, measured response to the situation.

It was an authorization for use of military force which was supposed to be used for leverage. She did not vote for a war.

The resolution didn't call for inspectors, it called for War. With a capital W.

The first consideration for the Clintons is always maximizing personal cash flow.