Sanders voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)

1. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:50 PM

Apr 2016

How much do you get paid for this shilling for Hillary Coattails?

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)

2. oh factfinder.. I appreciate your determination..but if your trying to equate bernie and hillary on

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:50 PM

Apr 2016

war... it's not gonna work my friend

dchill

(38,547 posts)

3. Yes. And?

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:51 PM

Apr 2016

It's Cheney, not Chaney.

SoLeftIAmRight

(4,883 posts)

4. kissinger and $hillary had long talks about this one

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:52 PM

Apr 2016

lol

CentralCoaster

(1,163 posts)

5. No such thing as "2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists"

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:53 PM

Apr 2016

So, No.

Look up instead, "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

Sanders, Nay: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

factfinder_77

(841 posts)

9. there is..

Reply to CentralCoaster (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:03 PM

Apr 2016

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

BILL TITLE: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)

15. Barbara Lee was right that the language...

Reply to factfinder_77 (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:34 PM

Apr 2016

...left an opening for abuse by the Bush administration, but even Barbara Lee stated her support for the action it represented. Apparently Sanders (and everyone else in the House and Senate) concluded that the language was narrow enough. They were wrong.

But I'm not sure that even Barbara Lee could have foreseen the extent to which Bush/Cheney would abuse this resolution. No one is responsible the the fact that Bush/Cheney invoked it as the fig leaf behind which they violated the Geneva conventions. The resolution gave them no such power.

Nevertheless, kudos to Barbara Lee for her foresight!

KPN

(15,662 posts)

6. Lol.

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:56 PM

Apr 2016

Again? HRC campaign can't find anything new so time to recycle something that'already been tried before ... and easily discredited. Hell, even Hillary tried using this one herself in one of the debates.

floriduck

(2,262 posts)

7. F A I L !

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:58 PM

Apr 2016

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)

8. Actually it didn't, only Bush thinks it gave him carte blanche. And Iraq didn't attack us, remember?

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:00 PM

Apr 2016

You should have stopped listening to neocons and paid attention to Bernie:

factfinder_77

(841 posts)

12. you should really read the bill and not listen to Sanders lies..

Reply to beam me up scottie (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:11 PM

Apr 2016

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text/es

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text/es

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)

14. I read the bill, why do you still think Iraq attacked us and harboured Al Qaeda?

Reply to factfinder_77 (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:14 PM

Apr 2016

Does Hillary still believe that or has she evolved?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

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

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

In March 2003 she fully endorsed the invasion:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.

If you still believe Bush's lies I think you're on the wrong website.

factfinder_77

(841 posts)

10. This joint resolution may be cited as the ’Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:06 PM

Apr 2016

This joint resolution may be cited as the ’Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)

13. Reading is fundamental, Iraq didn't attack us:

Reply to factfinder_77 (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:12 PM

Apr 2016

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Why did Hillary claim Saddam harboured Al Qaeda when it wasn't true?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

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

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Why did she fully endorse the invasion in 2003?:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.

And why did she claim that what we did to Iraq was a gift?:

Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."

There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html

northernsouthern

(1,511 posts)

11. Hillary just released her new campaign ad.

Reply to factfinder_77 (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:07 PM

Apr 2016

Not sure if I get what the point is?