Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Still she owes an apology for all the lives lost, and all the wounded people.

Do you recall what she said to Paul Wolfowitz in 2004?

The entire Congress should apologize given your train of thought. You might have missed the part about her sticking up for the Vets.

She has admitted wrong. That she didn't review the entire Iraq War Resolution prior to voting. Her criteria for many years has been for the well-being of the Iraqi people and to take care of the Vets returning.

She's a politician. She is going to choose her words carefully. Of course, that doesn't always work well.

Oh, and how many times has Senator Sanders been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

I realize that the cornerstone of a successful Sanders Campaign is to tear down Clinton but these childish "attacks" don't do either campaign any good.

You appear 'needy' and Clinton supporters take on the role of playing 'whack the mole'. It's all bullshit. Counterproductive bullshit.

I mean holy shit...she didn't review the entire war resolution??? I don't know the validity of what you're saying, but if true, that should give everyone pause. We're talking about millions of lives, take some time to read the document for christ's sake.

The Senate was given just over a week because the Bush Crime Family was running behind schedule after Israel took the wind out of it. What is terrifying is your inability to consider all the words I typed and you make it sound like the entire "War" in Iraq was the fault of Senator Clinton.

Again.....

Do you recall what she said to Paul Wolfowitz in 2004?

If you're a senator and someone slaps a war resolution in your hand and gives you an ultimatum that doesn't even give you enough time to read it...simple answer, vote no.

I read everything you typed, and she did call Wolfowitz out after the fact, but after the fact is always too late when human lives are at stake. And I didn't pin the whole thing on Clinton, I know full well that Bush and his ilk are primarily to blame, but there is blood on every senator's hands who voted yes.

I'm not going to give Clinton a complete pass on this but I do recall the blood thirsty Media was playing the Drums of War and there was strong public support to go into Iraq. Clinton would have been attacked from both sides if she had voted no.

If's and What's and Such are easy to formulate at this late date. It was fucked up. Really fucked up.

we'd say she's too lazy or stupid to read before she signs.

If she's neither, what is she, then?

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-18/article/29503?headline=Commentary-Hillary-Clinton-s-Shameful-Vote-on-Cluster-Bombs--By-Paul-Rockwell

Cluster bombs kill a high number of civilians, especially children. Quite a death merchant, she is.

"Would I be voting for more war, intervention and the inevitable kickback that comes as a result?"

Would I be part of the problem in facilitating more and more American exceptionalism in the form of bombs, drones, advisors, arms sales, bloated military budgets?

And the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes and hell yes.

According to Hubris on MSNBC, Bush was planning on attacking Iraq and just needed an excuse. Nader and the suckers that voted for him made it possible to become president an follow through on his dreams.

Actually I mean that's VERY twisted logic.

Actually, logic has nothing to do with that bizarre mental feat of gymnastics.

which has been debunked with facts over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Did he not run?

Even a very cursory site search here will provide you all of the facts and analysis you need.

Of course you will ignore it because it does not confirm your already drawn conclusion.

And you'd have defended him for it when he did.

He was totally spineless when facing the Cheneys of the world.

Watch this and get back to me with a serious response.

helping Hillary? Blaming other people for her actions? The SC stole that election, period. They were going to steal it one way or another, Gore WON the election and no matter how many times a few people try to cover for the SC and point fingers elsewhere, it isn't going to work.

Hillary lost so many people when SHE without any help from Nader voted for that war.

Did Hillary invade Iraq? Did Kerry lose you in 2004?

She said Bush abused the authority given to him by invading Iraq before the inspectors were given a chance to complete their work.

My take on this:
If Hillary Clinton really thought that once given the authority to invade Iraq Bush would act in good faith, she was too uninformed and/or stupid for the office of United States Senator. We at DU knew and understood more than she did (if she was indeed fooled by Bushco).

But I sincerely doubt she was fooled. More likely she was on board with the neocon agenda and/or stuck her finger in the political winds of the day and calculated it was more advantageous to be a hawk.

Will she put bush/cheney in court for the way they lied to her and made her vote to let them commit a crime?

Good comeback for the next time a Hillary supporter says she admitted her mistake and suggests we should move on from this issue.

The only chance we have for that justice is that Bernie gets elected.

Neither will Sanders, as he's already shown.

When Hillary supporters accept her explanation and move on, they're intentionally putting on blinders.

If Hillary really thought Bush abused his power and betrayed Congress by invading Iraq before the UN inspectors could complete their work, why didn't she speak up at the time and lead other senators in demanding to let the inspection process run its course?

Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She must have known, as we did here at DU, that the real "grave and gathering threat" in Iraq was that the UN inspectors would make an official report that there were no WMD and the primary rationale for the war would have evaporated along with the "mushroom clouds" we were told to fear.

anyone who claims they didn't know Dubya Inc was full of SHIT is either lying or very, VERY stupid and we ALL know Hillary is NOT STUPID

But it's not the lie that bothers me so much. It's her vote for the IWR when she knew, as we did at DU, about the PNAC agenda and that once given the authority Bush would invade no matter what.

Hillary was either on board with the neocon agenda, or she stuck her finger in the political winds and calculated it was to her political advantage to be "strong" on national security. I was never in my life so disappointed in Democratic leaders when John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton voted for the IWR.

I think Kerry would have won in 2004 if he had shown the same kind of leadership against the war in Iraq that he did against the war in Vietnam. If Hillary would have done the same, that would have gone a long way towards earning my support now.

In a Democratic primary I will never, ever, support a candidate who voted for the IWR in 2002.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.


The consequences:

http://reverbpress.com/news/phillips-lucky-gunner-aurora-shooting/
Grieving Parents Forced To Pay Legal Fees To Gun Companies That Sold Arms To Aurora Shooter

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

Bernie Sanders, Second Amendment Socialist?


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent who has announced he will run to the left of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, was first elected to Congress with the help of the National Rifle Association.

In 1990, Sanders — then the mayor of Burlington — challenged Vermont Republican Rep. Peter Smith. It was a rematch of the 1988 congressional race, which Smith won. Despite previously promising to oppose gun control, Smith came out for a so-called assault weapons ban.



"What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,” the defeated Republican Smith later told the Vermont Times. “What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.”

“Bernie’s response,” a Sanders spokesman said in response to critics of his boss’ reluctance to support gun control, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.”

The title of the Vermont Times article was “Who’s Afraid of the NRA? Vermont’s Congressmen, That’s Who.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/#ixzz3c673QCfm


Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007

I look forward to his republican challenger repeating your posts.

I mean, OMG, Bernie voted for gunz!!! That'll take away that issue. Thanks, Sancho.

http://correctrecord.org/secretary-clinton-working-for-middle-east-peace/

Sec. Clinton helped avert an all-out war in Gaza by negotiating a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians. According to Politico, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got a Gaza cease-fire right at the moment hope seemed dead for a rapid end to the violence — and next time, President Barack Obama will probably have to do it without her.” [Politico, 11/21/12]

Sec. Clinton left an East Asian summit in Cambodia to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and negotiate an emergency cease-fire. According to The Telegraph, “Washington announced that Mrs. Clinton would break off from an East Asian summit in Phnom Penh and arrive in Jerusalem tonight. She will meet the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday morning before visiting the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank before travelling to Egypt, which has led efforts to forge a ceasefire deal.” [The Telegraph, 11/20/12]

Foreign experience....

She was gung-ho to smash Libya. It is smashed. Too pieces.

She wanted to bomb Syria. It is in pieces, too.

She voted for the bush invasion of Iraq. Iraq is destroyed.

Not good, Sancho, not good.

WORKED CLOSELY WITH REGION’S LEADERS TO SECURE CEASE-FIRE

Sec. Clinton met with Netanyahu, Abbas, and Morsi in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Cairo. According to the State Department’s DipNote blog, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Cairo on November 20-21, 2012. She met with regional leaders, including with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, and Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, to consult on the situation in Gaza. Today, while in Cairo, Secretary Clinton and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr announced an agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza.” [DipNote blog, state.gov, 11/21/12]

Sec. Clinton “has built strong working relationships with many of the key” international players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which played a crucial role in the negotiations. In an article titled, “Hillary Clinton scores Gaza cease fire success,” Politico reported that Secretary Clinton “made clear her intention to leave the State Department soon — and while that won’t leave Obama and his administration starting from scratch, it will mean they’ll have to continue without a woman who has built strong working relationships with many of the key players over years. And coming off of a salvaged truce at a critical moment, the impact of that looms large over the White House’s next four years of dealings with the Middle East.” [Politico, 11/21/12]

The “cease-fire deal was reached only through a final American diplomatic push.” According to the New York Times, “The cease-fire deal was reached only through a final American diplomatic push: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred for hours with Mr. Morsi and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, at the presidential palace here.” [New York Times, 11/21/12]

Brokered the Cease-Fire with Egypt’s Morsi

Sec. Clinton stressed the pivotal role of Egypt in any negotiated cease-fire. According to the Washington Post, “In her remarks to Netanyahu, Clinton also stressed the pivotal part Egypt stands to play, saying that ‘as a regional leader and neighbor, Egypt has the opportunity and responsibility to continue playing a crucial and constructive role in this process.’” [Washington Post, 11/20/12]

Egypt became the sponsor of the cease-fire agreement. According to NBC News, “Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire Wednesday, ending eight days of fighting that killed more than 140 Palestinians and five Israelis… Egypt is the ‘sponsor’ of the cease-fire agreement.” [NBC News, 11/21/12]
CEASE-FIRE DEAL CAME AT A CRITICAL MOMENT AMONG ESCALATING VIOLENCE

Sec. Clinton: “This is a critical moment for the region.” In remarks after meeting with Egypt’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr, Sec. Clinton said, “I want to thank President Morsi for his personal leadership to de-escalate the situation in Gaza and end the violence. This is a critical moment for the region. Egypt’s new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace. The United States welcomes the agreement today for a ceasefire in Gaza. For it to hold, the rocket attacks must end, a broader calm return.” [Remarks with Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr, state.gov, 11/21/12]

Sec. Clinton: It was “essential to de-escalate the situation in Gaza.” In remarks after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Sec. Clinton said, “Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I look forward to a productive discussion this evening at such a critical moment for Israel and the region. President Obama asked me to come to Israel with a very clear message: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering. That is why we believe it is essential to de-escalate the situation in Gaza.” [Remarks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, state.gov, 11/20/12]

Sec. Clinton “got a Gaza cease-fire right at the moment hope seemed dead for a rapid end to the violence.” According to Politico, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got a Gaza cease-fire right at the moment hope seemed dead for a rapid end to the violence — and next time, President Barack Obama will probably have to do it without her.” [Politico, 11/21/12]

The Gaza cease-fire averted a “full-scale Israeli ground invasion.” According to the New York Times, “Under intense Egyptian and American pressure, Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas halted eight days of bloody conflict on Wednesday, averting a full-scale Israeli ground invasion of the Gaza Strip without resolving the underlying disputes.” [New York Times, 11/21/12]

Strongly Condemned Ongoing Terrorist Attacks

Sec. Clinton strongly condemned the terror attacks taking place during cease-fire negotiations. According to Sec. Clinton’s press statement on the bus bombing in Tel Aviv, “The United States strongly condemns this terrorist attack and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the people of Israel. As I arrive in Cairo, I am closely monitoring reports from Tel Aviv, and we will stay in close contact with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s team. The United States stands ready to provide any assistance that Israel requires.” [Remarks on Bus Bombing in Tel Aviv, state.gov, 11/21/12]

Sec. Clinton: “The people of this region deserve the chance to be free of fear and violence and today’s agreement is a step in the right direction that we should build on.” According to Politico, “Clinton even announced the agreement standing next to Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr. She hailed the agreement as an important step to bringing stability and peace to a region that has seen major upheaval and transformation in the past two years. ‘The people of this region deserve the chance to be free of fear and violence and today’s agreement is a step in the right direction that we should build on,’ Clinton said.” [Politico, 11/21/12]

SUPPORTED ISRAELI SECURITY

Entering negotiations, Sec. Clinton emphasized the U.S.’s “rock solid and unwavering” commitment to Israeli security. According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, “I look forward to a productive discussion this evening at such a critical moment for Israel and the region. President Obama asked me to come to Israel with a very clear message: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering. That is why we believe it is essential to de-escalate the situation in Gaza. The rocket attacks from terrorist organizations inside Gaza on Israeli cities and towns must end and a broader calm restored.” [Remarks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, state.gov, 11/20/12]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Sec. Clinton for supporting the Iron Dome defense system “that’s been saving lives.” In remarks following a meeting with Sec. Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I want to welcome Secretary Clinton once again to Jerusalem. I want to thank President Obama, you, and the American Government and people for their strong support for Israel in this hour of need. I want to also thank you especially for your support of Iron Dome that’s been saving lives, and we are in a battle to save lives.” [Remarks with Israeli Prime Benjamin Minister Netanyahu, state.gov, 11/20/12]

The Administration supported $205 million “for the purchase of up to ten Iron Dome batteries.” According to the Congressional Research Service, “In March 2010, the Obama Administration announced that it would support $205 million in defense assistance to Israel for the purchase of up to ten Iron Dome batteries.” [“The Middle East: Selected Key Issues and Options for the 112th Congress,” pg. 3, fas.org, 1/3/11]
An Iron Dome battery consisted of launchers and interceptors “that determines a rocket’s trajectory within seconds of launch.” According to Bloomberg, “Iron Dome, made by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd, is designed to intercept and destroy rockets capable of flying as far as 70 kilometers (44 miles). Israel has fielded its first four batteries consisting of launchers and interceptors costing as much as $90,000 apiece, according to the nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Research Service. Iron Dome’s effectiveness depends on a battle management system that determines a rocket’s trajectory within seconds of launch, based on radar and electro-optical sensors. In the same instant, the system determines whether the rocket is headed toward a populated area, making an intercept necessary.” [Bloomberg, 11/17/12]
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Sec. Clinton is a “champion of peace.” In remarks at a press availability with Sec. Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton to Jerusalem. Welcome, Hillary. You are a great friend and a great champion of peace. I think that we owe a vote of thanks to you, to George Mitchell, to your staffs, and of course, to President Obama and the entire Obama Administration for the tireless efforts to re-launch the peace process – the peace process between us and the Palestinians, and between us and the Arab world – following the President’s vision of a regional peace.” [Remarks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, state.gov, 10/31/09}

COMMITTED TO PEACE BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS

Resumed Peace Negotiations for First Time Since 2008

Sec. Clinton “opened the formal return to Middle East peace talks” in September 2010. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “It is Hillary Clinton, the once-assumed and later vanquished future president, who opened the formal return to Middle East peace talks in Washington this month by urging the Israeli and Palestinian people to rise above ‘the disappointments of the past’ to become ‘champions’ for peace.” [Christian Science Monitor, 9/25/10]

Sec. Clinton worked to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders together in direct talks for the first time in two years. According to the Washington Post, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Friday that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are expected in Washington on Sept. 2 for what will be the first face-to-face negotiations between the sides in two years.” [Washington Post, 8/21/10]

Sec. Clinton collaborated with foreign leaders and representatives from international organizations to encourage the sides to return to the negotiating table. According to the New York Times, “Mrs. Clinton has been working the phone in recent days to clear the final hurdles, speaking Thursday with Jordan’s foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, and with Tony Blair, the special representative of the Quartet, the group of Middle East peacemakers comprising the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Late on Wednesday, she spoke with the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad. The official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that on Thursday night President Abbas called a meeting of the Fatah Central Committee, the party’s main decision-making body, at which ‘developments in the peace process’ were discussed.” [New York Times, 8/20/10]

Sec. Clinton “wore down the reluctance of the Palestinians to come to the table and drummed up support from Arab neighbors.” According to the New York Times, “The tableau of Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas chatting amiably Thursday in front of the marble fireplace in her office, officials said, testified to her relentless phone calls in recent weeks as she wore down the reluctance of the Palestinians to come to the table and drummed up support from Arab neighbors like Jordan and Egypt. ‘One of the best indications that this could succeed is that Hillary Clinton is willing to get involved,’ said Stephen J. Hadley, who served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush. ‘Because that makes me think two things: She thinks it’s possible and, because she is as skilled as she is, it increases the likelihood of success.’” [New York Times, 9/4/10]

NSC Chief of Staff Denis McDonough: “The decision-making and policy-making that got to these talks were really handled between the two of them [Sec. Clinton and Obama] personally.” According to the New York Times, “The choreography last week, a White House dinner followed by talks at the State Department, bore the imprint of Mrs. Clinton, officials said. The administration debated having her travel to the Middle East to restart the talks, but she persuaded Mr. Obama to take a central role. ‘The decision-making and policy-making that got to these talks were really handled between the two of them personally,’ said Denis McDonough, the chief of staff of the National Security Council.” [New York Times, 9/4/10]

WORKED REPEATEDLY AND DIRECTLY WITH COUNTRIES IN THE REGION

Secretary Clinton traveled to the Middle East and Northern Africa 16 times:

1. The Middle East and Europe, February 28 – March 8, 2009
2. Middle East, April 23-26, 2009
3. El Salvador, Honduras, Egypt With the President, May 31-June 4, 2009
4. Pakistan, the Middle East, Morocco and Egypt, October 27-November 4, 2009
5. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, February 13-16, 2010
6. Sharm el-Sheikh, Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Amman, September 13-16, 2010.
7. Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, and Bahrain, November 30-December 4, 2010
8. United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman, and Qatar, January 8-13, 2011
9. France, Egypt, Tunisia, March 14-17, 2011
10. U.A.E., Zambia, Tanzania, and Ethiopia, June 8-14, 2011
11. Malta, Libya, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, October 17-23, 2011
12. United Kingdom, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, February 22-26, 2012
13. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, March 30-April 1, 2012
14. France, Afghanistan, Japan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Egypt, and Israel, July 5-17, 2012
15. Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, and Croatia: October 29-November 2, 2012
16. Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Cairo, November 20-21, 2012

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-18/article/29503?headline=Commentary-Hillary-Clinton-s-Shameful-Vote-on-Cluster-Bombs--By-Paul-Rockwell

She's a real merchant of death.

can't drop those bombs without planes!!! See the post:

17. The politician who says one thing about the military, but does another is Bernie Sanders

Bernie on Israel:

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/sanders-leftwing-economic

anders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/sanders-leftwing-economic#sthash.iOMNMzSV.dpuf
Sanders is also getting points for opposing the Iraq War, which Hillary Clinton supported, and he supports the Iran deal. But I’ve seen no one apart from Juan Cole, in this excellent summary of Sanders’s Middle East views, point out his yeoman defense of Israel during its assault on Gaza last summer. In July Sanders formed part of the “unanimous consent” to a resolution to support Israel in its attack, a resolution Salon’s David Palumbo-Liu said at the time “does more than confirm U.S. Senate support for Israel. It pushes that statement beyond any rational or ethical or moral framework imaginable.”

In a famous encounter at a town hall meeting in Vermont near the end of the onslaught– video below–, Sanders got so angry at pro-Palestinian constituents who were obviously deeply upset by an assault that had killed 500 Palestinian children that he told them to “shut up.”

What the encounter demonstrated is that Sanders’s own leftwing base has no illusions about Israel, they see the country as a marauding human rights abuser. But while he faulted Israeli “overreaction” in Gaza, and has issued criticisms of Israeli conduct over the years and has bucked the Israel lobby over its opposition to Palestinian statehood initiatives at the U.N., Sanders cleaves to a very conventional mainstream view of the conflict, in which Hamas is to blame, the Palestinians leadership is not a partner, and Arab countries are bad actors (as he has said in 2009).

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/sanders-leftwing-economic#sthash.iOMNMzSV.dpuf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.

The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified,” then-FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said at the time, according to a 2006 Washington Post story. The regulation “protects Internet activities by individuals in all forms, including e-mailing, linking, blogging, or hosting a Web site," said Toner, now a prominent Republican campaign finance attorney.

Yep, no bias there.

Correct the record my ass. More like catapult the propaganda.

is performance art of sorts. It is so grotesquely funny that I would not be surprised if some funny people cretaed it as a long running comedy.

Instead of bash and trash posts, maybe something more informative wouldn't waste time. No one will change minds for silly OP's.

Bernie has never faced a real national attack, and he really doesn't have the resources to deal much. Believe me, the GOP won't have any trouble creating real and imaginary ads about Bernie. My little posts are just examples - and the sources are linked for anyone to accept or reject.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate, but I don't see how Bernie has a chance right now.

This OP had nothing new, was possibly intended as a snarky way to attack other candidates (something that Bernie and Hillary have avoided so far), and is part of an almost daily set of wasted space.

From the beginning Bernie's whole campaign idea has been one that only grassroots could win. This will not be a campaign of tv ads. It will be a campaign of street corner talking. The republicans can't win on the street corner. This will be a campaign of social media and the republicans can't win there either.

Win or lose, Bernie's campaign is a revolution. A new deal. A new way of politicking the masses.

It won't be easy. But it will be fun.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

03 June 14



Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

hat was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/

The Myth of Bernie Sanders
Although Sanders may have once been a socialist back in the 80s when he was Mayor of Burlington, today, a socialist he is not. Rather he behaves more like a technofascist disguised as a liberal, who backs all of President Obama’s nasty little wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Since he always “supports the troops,” Sanders never opposes any defense spending bill. He stands behind all military contractors who bring much-needed jobs to Vermont.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch could hardlycontain their enthusiasm over the news that Burlington International Airport had been named as a possible site to house the Air Force’s new F-35 fighter jet scheduled to replace the Vermont Air National Guard’s aging fleet of F-16s. The new high-tech instruments of death will cost $115 million a pop in sharp contrast to the F-16s which cost a mere $20 million each.

From whom might these F-35s protect Vermont? Possibly, Canada, separatist-minded Quebec, upstate New York, the New Hampshire Free State, or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Why on earth would anyone want to invade Vermont? Vermont has no military bases, no large cities, no important government installations, and no strategic resources unless you count an aging nuclear power plant. What if Canada, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or even the U.S. Marines were to invade the Green Mountain state? Just what would they do with it? Would all of the black-and-white Holsteins be confiscated, or perhaps the entire sugar maple crop be burned? Imagine trying to enslave freedom-loving Vermonters. Good luck!

——snip————

Sanders is the darling of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the right-wing Likud government of Israel. He has done everything within his power to keep the myth of Islamic terrorism alive. He never questions the U.S. government’s unconditional support of Israeli acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. It is as though these are nonevents.

Last, but by no means least, is the U.S. government-owned Sandia National Laboratories. For over two years Sanders and former University of Vermont President Daniel Fogel have been encouraging Sandia to open a satellite laboratory in Vermont. Sandia, whose historical origins can be traced back to the Manhattan Project in World War II, designs, builds, and tests weapons of mass destruction. The Vermont laboratory envisaged by Sanders would not be involved with nuclear weapons but rather would be engaged in projects related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and electric grids. Sandia, interestingly enough, is operated under contract by Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the world. Lockheed Martin produces F-35s and drones. General Dubie, who has close ties to Lockheed Martin, recently received an honorary doctorate from UVM. No one at UVM seems to care whether or not the University gets in bed with a manufacturer of atomic bombs.



————————

http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/09/vermont-says-no-to-the-f35



HUNDREDS OF northern Vermont residents are campaigning against U.S. Air Force plans to base the new F-35 bomber at the Burlington, Vt., airport--and they're getting fierce opposition for their activism from the primary backers of the plan, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and the rest of Vermont's Democratic Party establishment.

The F-35 is designed for stealth, first-strike capability and its capacity to carry 19,000 pounds of materiel, including nuclear bombs. As an attack aircraft, the F-35 is promoted as "unparalleled" and capable of reducing its human targets to "nothing but hair, teeth and eyeballs.”

THESE ISSUES have brought hundreds of people to organizing meetings, rallies and public hearings. Two local school boards passed resolutions against the F-35 basing, and the South Burlington City Council has also condemned the plan. However, to date, Vermont's senators and its Democratic congressman, Rep. Peter Welch, have continued to promote the basing and have yet to take seriously any of the community concerns. All members of the congressional delegation have refused to even meet with F-35 opponents.



What's more, Democratic Party support for the F-35 basing raises a more glaring contradiction. Vermont Democrats campaign on their "antiwar" credentials, but now they are cheerleading a first-strike weapon of mass destruction. Sen. Sanders even deflected questions about his support for the F-35 bomber during a Vermont Public Radio interview by turning to glowing praise for the Vermont Guard's contribution to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably including the use of Vermont Air Guard F-16s to bomb Iraq as part of the illegal occupation.

But this shouldn't come as a shock. Sanders initially ran for Congress in 1990 while supporting the first Gulf War. Sanders has since aligned himself with several U.S. wars, including the 1990s blockade and bombing of Iraq that killed more than 1 million Iraqis, the war in Yugoslavia and the "war on terror." His views on war and interventions closely mirror those of President Obama.

————————

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypocrisy-alert-bernie-sanders-wanting.html



Hypocrisy alert: Bernie Sanders, wanting to suck on the military teat

No wonder Bernie Sanders wants to run as a Democrat, not a Green; he's too willing to suck at the military teat (near end of story):
Whatever its technical challenges, the F-35 is a triumph of political engineering, and on a global scale. For a piquant illustration of the difference that political engineering can make, consider the case of Bernie Sanders—former Socialist mayor of Burlington, current Independent senator from Vermont, possible candidate from the left in the next presidential race. In principle, he thinks the F-35 is a bad choice. After one of the planes caught fire last summer on a runway in Florida, Sanders told a reporter that the program had been “incredibly wasteful.” Yet Sanders, with the rest of Vermont’s mainly left-leaning political establishment, has fought hard to get an F-35 unit assigned to the Vermont Air National Guard in Burlington, and to dissuade neighborhood groups there who think the planes will be too noisy and dangerous. “For better or worse, [the F-35] is the plane of record right now,” Sanders told a local reporter after the runway fire last year, “and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.” It’s going to be somewhere, so why not here? As Vermont goes, so goes the nation.
So, Bernie, really? Ohh, it's bad, but I"m not going to oppose out-of-control military spending that makes Ike's "military-industrial complex" that much, because I want Vermont on the gravy train, even if it's a war weapon, even if it's a bloated one.

What else, Bernie? Want to invite the federal prison system to Vermont. You are a border state, and people could be sneaking through from Canada. Why not ask Immigration and Customs to build one, since they're already being nutbar on one town straddling the border with Quebec?

———————————
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html

How Lockheed and Sandia Came to Vermont

On October 2, 2009 Senator Bernie Sanders made one of his classic fiery speeches on the floor of the US Senate. This time Vermont's independent socialist was taking on Lockheed Martin and other top military contractors for what he called “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.”
Among other crimes, Sanders mentioned how Lockheed had defrauded the government by fraudulently inflating the cost of several Air Force contracts, lied about the costs when negotiating contracts for the repairs on US warships, and submitted false invoices for payment on a multi-billion dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program.
A month later, however, he was in a different mood when he hosted a delegation from Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is managed for the Department of Energy by Sandia Inc., a wholly-owned Lockheed subsidiary. At Sanders’ invitation, the Sandia delegation was in Vermont to talk partnership and scout locations for a satellite lab. He had been working on the idea since 2008 when he visited Sandia headquarters in New Mexico.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
———snip---------
Sanders added that “working with Sandia and their wide areas of knowledge – some of the best scientists in the country – we hope to take a state that is already a leader in some of these areas even further.” Lockheed’s past offenses didn't come up.

——————
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week

Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week
1999

by Will Miller

In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders’ Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves
the “Instant Antiwar Action Group,” we decided to bring our outrage at
Bernie’s escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted
in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

Really? That's what you want to quote us from, Comrade?

Bernie has never faced a real attack with every billboard on the highway, every five minutes on TV, and every mailbox with a flyer repeating some story - real or imagined - as long as there is even a hint of evidence.

If Bernie gets past the honeymoon, the GOP will have fun with his labels and dig into his past.

Question #1: why was the socialist worker even interested in Bernie Sanders?

I await your thoughtful response.

The GOP will exert precisely as much to destroy the Democratic president no matter WHO it is.

Bernie can handle himself and the fact that you have to dig into internet scat like socialist worker.org (whatever the fuck that is) is actually proof that there isn't that much to dig into.

That's why all you guys keep throwing at us is a single vote against a gun control bill (among a career of gun control) and some weak shit about lack of minority interest.

You have nothing and keep digging for water in a desert.

One.

She lost.

The Clintons, including Hillary have been the target of the GOP for decades. Hillary barely lost - she actually did well in the second half of the last primary. She had the votes, but not the delegates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.svg

No women has ever faced the GOP in a general election, but if Hillary is the only Democratic candidate with the experience and resources to fight for 2016. She also has been "researched" for decades, so we know there are no new scandals out there.

Check out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251428141

not even as many people as most counties in Florida; very homogeneous, and very little outside money influencing elections. Basically Bernie was ineffective in the House and Senate except as a showman, scared to call himself a Democrat, no international experience, no legal experience, and skeletons in the closet that have not been on popular media yet.

I've listened to Bernie for many years - and he's a one-hit wonder who gets a crowd excited - like a motivational speaker. The message is a good one, and Bernie packages the story in a popular way so he gets an audience. It's not original, but something that a few people get excited about if it fits their niche. At least he's appealing to the white male voters that have sometimes abandoned the Democratic party. Hopefully they will vote Democratic for any candidate.

Unfortunately, he has zero practical solutions, and no chance of anything ever passing Congress. All the candidates are now aware of economic inequity, etc. so that message will be on the platform regardless of who becomes the candidate.

With the current Congress, it would a disaster if Jeb or the GOP won, and Bernie has no chance in a general election against the major repubs now. It will be a fight to get any Democrat elected. Hillary is the best positioned and most experienced and appeals to the broadest base of Democrats. You can bash and trash all you want, but it's not affecting the Hillary voters nor the people who will vote for the Democrat no matter who is nominated. All it does is cause a debate on DU.

By the way, you might want to read the legislation for which she voted. It's not her fault, or anyone else who voted for it, that bush violated the conditions of that legislation.

But yeah, Hillary Clinton is solely responsible for the Iraq war..........

Your candidate, on war issues, aligns with Feinstein and Lieberman and Nelson, etc.

Look at who she voted with and who she voted against:

Other YAY Senators:
Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)

NAY Senators:
Boxer (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Akaka (D-HI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Durbin (D-IL)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Levin (D-MI)
Dayton (D-MN)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Wyden (D-OR)
Reed (D-RI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Murray (D-WA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)

Why is this a problem for you now?

Who says?

Maybe you need to re-read your response to me. I bet you'll eventually get it.

Your candidate in 2004, on war issues, aligns with Feinstein and Lieberman and Nelson, etc.

This is the primaries, man.

...much as they'd like to forget that part.

I do NOT want to vote for someone who chooses to vote for military force because they are easily swayed by manipulation from either above or below.

but maybe too many years of this kind of thing has me a bit beaten down. I never bought into the whole WMD story, but I knew so many otherwise intelligent people who did it was hard at the time to really blame them.

Elected officials are supposed to be the best informed, but they're also supposed to act according in a manner that represents the will of the people that put them in office. I'd vote for Sanders first, based on his solid stance on the war, but I'd also grudgingly accept the explanations of another candidate who wasn't so solid at the time.

Try to stay on point.

The AUMF was just what it sounds like. The Authorization to Use Military Force.

So, no, she didn't START the Iraqi War. She authorized it.

Now concentrate:

So in my analogy, I did not say SHE used an uzi in a shopping mall. I said she gave a madman an uzi.

And I didn't say Sanders fired the gun, but he was "responsible" for the massacre, similar to you saying that Clinton (not mentioning ALL the other legislators) handed bush the gun. Sanders, and his pro-gun stance, "handed" Adam Lanza his gun.

Now, tell us the difference, okay?

I'm waiting with baited breath for you to tell me how no one could possibly have known that George Bush would invade Iraq.

You SEEM to lack the courage of your own conviction.

My guess is that you want to argue that the AUMF was not giving the administration the permission to use force.

Is that right?

If that is your point, make it. If not, I have to conclude you do not have a point.

It really isn't enough to say "It is clear you didn't read the AUMF." That isn't making a point. It is actually NOT making a point but pretending to have made one.

So I eagerly await your thoughtful response.

....against Iraq ONLY if Iraq did not comply with several UN Resolutions. Iraq in fact WAS complying with the UN Resolutions, but the bush administration lied about that and sent poor Colin Powell to the UN to present false "evidence" that Iraq had not destroyed their WMD (remember that long address to the UN with pictures?) THAT was the basis for the invasion and we found out a year or two later that what Powell told the UN was totally false.

The fact is that Iraq was indeed complying with the UN resolutions but bush ignored that and invaded anyway.

So, although people like to say that Clinton and others "voted for the Iraq war", in fact they did NOT do so explicitly, the war was expected to be a last resort. The AUMF gave the administration the "permission to use force" ONLY if certain other steps failed. Tose steps did

Here's the full text of the AUMF, nowhere does it say explicitly or implicitly that bush was free to invade Iraq.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

I think there is about an inch or two left in the cesspool.

Hint: Check the list of people who voted against the IWR when they knew full well their vote wouldn't matter.

What happened AFTER that vote is salient, too...kind of tests the whole "Money where your mouth is" schtick. Vote against it when you know it won't matter, to make a faux point...but then vote to fund it.

These are complex issues, aren't they...?