Per The Nation and 350.org... Bernie has accepted the pledge. Hillary and fourteen Republican candidates did not respond.

For a candidate to say they care about children, it is cognitive dissonance to accept money from fossil fuel corporations.

he avoids talking about it. We could relate several cases, but one is the entire reason that the F35 ended up at the Burlington airport...basically, Lockheed came to Vermont with Bernie's blessing and manipulation. Lockheed Martin is one of the worst offenders of taking tax dollars for weapons. Bernie is no different that many other politicians despite all the speeches:

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.

that said, this doesn't put Bernie in a worse light than warhawk Hillary.

supporting the military in anyway is supposed to be a bad thing? get outta here.

like Bernie said, "is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

not like you can burn it all and hold up peace signs.

Bernie was in Congress (House and Senate) much longer than Hillary. He has a long history of survival and acted like a typical politician when it benefited himself. Even though Vermont was a bit off the mainstream, Bernie has his issues too. He has not faced serious national scrutiny that examin every deal and vote; mostly because he was fairly ineffective since he didn't belong to a party, he was rarely on the national stage, and Vermont doesn't get much attention.

Actually, Hillary's shorter stint in the Senate proved she was more effective - and rated that way by independent analysis. She also was solidly progressive.

The OP was looking for information, so here's where you can look for objective information:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

It silly to call Hillary a war hawk, and way to much factual evidence to post here. You can start with these. You don't have to like the website, but all the links to evidence are provided:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-keeping-the-peace/
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-power-foreign-policy/
http://correctrecord.org/secretary-clinton-working-for-middle-east-peace/

and oddly enough, no one can seem to find that much to scrutinize about him. there's a reason for that.

I know he isn't perfect for everyone, so yeah people could bring up the F35 thing you mentioned, but that's not really an approval of war. its an approval of weaponry if anything and I myself am fine with that.

Hillary on the other hand... and let's negate the fact she voted for the Iraqi war. disregard the record for a moment and consider her announcement speech in New York.

referencing of the towers, constant mention of keywords like "protect" "threat" "do anything it takes" mantra.

even if she shouldn't be considered a warhawk before, I consider anyone who intends to give ISIL the fight they want, a war hawk.

the truth is, Hillary would continue the war over there without question. its a fact. Bernie would go against the grain. its that simple.

Obama had continued the war, but many would have predicted differently looking at his campaign promises. Now he even asked for authorization and sent in more troops.

I have little doubt that if Israel were involved, Bernie would also send in the military. I also have little doubt that both Hillary and Bernie would be much more suspicious of the information from the military than Obama seems to have been given.

that's true, nothing is guaranteed.

but I trust the integrity of Bernie.

an activist first, politician second. proven by his history. that's enough of a difference between Obama and him for me to see that the chances are higher that Bernie would hold truer to those promises.

What would be gained for him, his state, or the country if it were simply going to be built elsewhere?

And he voted for Obamacare, even though he really wanted a single payer system.

To be a responsible and effective representative, you have to be somewhat pragmatic and not strictly an idealogue. This does not equate to hypocrisy or flip-flopping.

if he were to do that then he'd never get anything done.

he voted aca because it was better than an alternative and more proactive than not voting at all.

I thought Sanders voted AGAINST the war in Iraq?

The rest seems to be about the F-35, mostly. Sounds like he is similar to most Senators - he wants to keep jobs in his state. At least he admitted, which most politicians will not, that the F-35 has been an enormous waste of money. And he called out Lockheed's dirty pool along with other MiC contractors. I hear virtually NO other politicians doing that.

I don't completely agree w/ Sanders on guns either.

I expect to disagree with him on a few things, as I have most Dem Presidents Dem presidential candidates. I disagreed with Hillary when she ran in 2008 on at least one major issue. And God knows I've disagreed with Obama several times (yet still voted again for him in 2012).

We don't - cannot afford to - especially now - toss out the good for the perfect. Because sorry Virginia, there ain't no perfect. There just isn't. It doesn't exist.

even the hardcore GOP types have backed away. The entire Congress was swayed by the lies about WMD's. Hillary was from NY!! You may remember the towers were in NYC. It would be almost impossible to take a stand against "going after the bad guys" even if you were unsure if it was YOUR constituents.

If Burlington, VT had been blown up, Bernie would have also voted to send in the troops.

The F35 things shows that ALL politicians will represent their own. Bernie and Hillary both do the same thing.

First, the ENTIRE CONGRESS was NOT swayed by the lies of WMD's. Many great Dems and Sanders voted against the war.

Two, living in an area that was attacked is no excuse to vote for an illegal and unjust war.

Third, you have zero proof that Bernie would vote for war if Vermont was attacked. History shows that he probably wouldn't.

The "F35 thing" shows that Bernie supported it at the time. It doesn't show that Hillary would have done the same thing, or that they are both equal on everything.

Geez!

Proximity has nothing to do with it. If you were paying attention, you saw what Bush and his surrgogates were doing with misleading statements and implications that contradicted available facts. Being near the event didn't need to make you stupid. But you did have to be willing to read out of town papers, look past Judith Miller's nonsense at the NY Times and see what was being reported by Knight Ridder (McClatchy), for example.

It just boggles my mind that anyone can claim to have had the wool pulled over their eyes. They either willingly believed the lies, or pretended to believe the lies. Anyone who was actually fooled was an idiot.

As a New Yorker who lived and worked in NYC at that time, I felt deeply, deeply betrayed by Hillary's vote.

My husband worked at the World Trade Center and his company was destroyed and many colleagues killed. Part of my job, for many months after the attacks, was to work with first responders. I am so grateful that no one in my family was killed, but this attack was about as close to home as you can get.

We needed a leader representing New York who would stand up for true justice and she failed - and she failed on purpose for political reasons.

Representing New York was MORE reason for her to vote no on Iraq, not less.

(I met Hillary and I voted for her. I defended her against attacks from New Yorkers saying that she was a "carpet bagger" and that her desire to represent New York was a product of ambition. I really do feel burned by her.)

But there's a huge difference between voting for the war and voting for the money to make sure that our troops are given the equipment they need to help keep them alive.

We were sending flak jackets to the troops at the beginning of the illegal war in Iraq. The humvees didn't have shocks and hundreds of our troops now have permanent brain damage because of it.

You're information about Israel and Sen . Sanders is old and inaccurate for what is currently happening

You want to put information out there about Sen. Sanders, please make sure that it's current and that it's not misleading.

Who do you support?

but I agree much more with Hillary than Bernie.

As much as I appreciate the enthusiasm, and I've listened to Bernie on Thom Hartmann for years, I don't think he supports my agenda as well as Hillary. Nothing really wrong with Martin O'Malley either.

Bernie's economic agenda has been around for a while, and it has been brought to the forefront by the latest crisis and Warren hammering from an intellectual POV.

I find many of Bernie's economic solutions unworkable or simply wrong, even though he's good at pointing out popular companies.

In terms of the military - I was A1 in the Vietnam draft but my number wasn't drawn. I protested against the Vietnam war - and my father was a GI Bill MD in the 50's (like the TV show MASH), so many of us have been fighting the GOP war machine for a LONG time. Korea, Vietnam, and a dozen smaller interventions since the cold war.

Since Carter, no US President has even had a remote understanding of the international scene. Nixon took credit for other's work. The Bushes were obsessed with oil and wars without end.

Hillary has a chance to be effective because of her first hand experience. She had to carry out Obama's agenda, and we all probably think he was hoodwinked by bad advice and lack of first hand understanding of Europe and the Mideast. He's been holding on, but no real international usefulness except the yet to be finished TPP.

Whether Hillary's experience would help the US or not is unknown, but she has probably has international respect.

You have issues with Sanders supposed support for certain corporations, old views on Palestine/Israel yet support someone that has a proven track record of supporting Wall Street, is even more pro Israel than Sanders, http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.665148 who voted for the illegal war in Iraq and pushed the lies that gave the excuse to vote for it


Makes absolutely zero sense to me

If I made a list long before this primary began of my issues (and you could check on DU for 10 years - I have been consistent), the main ones for me would be:

1.) Election processes including voter access, registration, gerrymandering, etc. (Gore won!)
2.) Gun control (This has been an issue for me since the 70's.)
3.) Education - particularly early education, university kindergarten (My wife and I are educators, 40 years +)
4.) Women's rights including access to education, Title IX, pay transparency (I've seen the effects of Title IX, still wish we had ratified ERA)
5.) Immigration and a path to citizenship (in Fl 25%+ were born outside the US)
6.) Unions and labor rights (I'm a long time union member and often in the leadership.)

Of course, that's not all, but primarily I would have named all of those many years ago. I joined DU mostly because of #1. I've been in the Education and GCRA groups for a while. I've also been in Election Reform too.

Hillary has been on my list as an advocate for many of my positions for quite a while. I don't think economic equity will be achieved by breaking up banks, minimum wage increases, or even higher taxes. Those are issues, but only a long term Democratic Congress would affect the economy much. All the Democratic candidates now realize there needs to be regulation and tax reform, but none will be able to do anything without a differenct Congress. Wall Street is an easy target - likely Wichita, KS is a bigger problem.

I don't hate Bernie, and his voting record is pretty similar to Hillary. I just think Hillary has been much more aligned with my interests. She would probably fight with a GOP Congress also, but would get a few things done. I would also trust her to nominate some good SC judges. Frankly, I think Hillary likely has more inside awareness of many international situations from first hand observation than almost any candidate from either party.

Hillary voted for, and supported, no child left behind and charter schools. Two horrible things that have happened to our educational system. Sanders did not.

The President does have control over banking regulations. At least to a much greater extent than many other things you have named. Sanders will be, and has been, much better in this area as well. And the banking regulations are hugely important. The damn world economy tanked because of deregulation and too big to fail banks.

Bernie Sanders has been much better on introducing bills for equality than Clinton. In almost every area, in fact, as far as taking the initiative and trying to get bills passed.

Of course we have to have a democratic Congress. Again, Sanders says so constantly. I don't want anymore third way, corporate paid for, politicians in office. They're beholden to Wall Street. What has been happening in this country for decades now proves that.

I am very aware of No Child Left Behind and it's parts that are problems. In my view though, the proliferation of charter schools (which I disagree with) are mostly state legislatures trying to undermine public schools. Duncan was a terrible Sec. of Ed. I worked for a good one (Riley under Clinton).

Most of the banking problems today have moved to international manipulation and offshore havens. For example, the current Greek crisis was partially because of Goldman Sacs. The President cannot create new US laws without Congress, and cannot do anything about the fact that only 1 US bank is now in the top 10 worldwide. In fact, there is more money in the Caribbean Islands than NYC now. Bermuda, Samoa, etc. have become the problem. If you prosecute CEO's (like was done in the S&L crisis and with Enron), you will put someone in jail, leave thousands without their pensions, and accomplish nothing. The President cannot do anything about 18 of the 20 international banks where most US bad guys (Koch, Romney, etc.) have their money and do their dirty work.

Hillary was much more effective than Bernie in Congress, here's the independent ratings:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
Just check out the links and you can see that 10 to 20 years ago Hillary was sponsoring all kinds of bills or working on projects for children, equality, women's rights, education, and social justice. In fact, there's almost no better record.
http://correctrecord.org/the-record/

Even though Wall Street is a problem as far a inequity and manipulation - I'm a public employee and a member of a union. Almost all pensions, including public employs depend on our retirement that is invested in Wall Street. As such, regulating Wall Street to prevent speculation is fine, but breaking it up is not...and the NYSE today only accounts for about 10 % of trades. Here are some examples. If you take down Wall Street, you are killing public employees and their retirement:

I just looked at NY, AZ, WI, CA, etc..these funds are often public employees represented by unions. This money is hard-fought. It's collected and invested for decades by whatever office each state sets up - in Florida it's almost 200 billion invested by a staff of 200 who are constantly buying, selling, and trading. Also, some funds are in the hands of large private investment companies. They clearly complete transactions everyday, which include stocks, bonds, real estate, derivatives, commodities. Most of the time, no type of investment is out of bounds unless the state or controlling board specifically limit them. Those investments would be TAXED by Bernie's transaction tax. That retirement money is earned by public employees, often union members: teachers, professors, police, firemen, city employees, social workers, park rangers, etc. Every penny that fund doesn't contain, is a penny that labor has to fight over.

For example, you can see in AZ the following allocation:

Equity/Stocks: 58%
U.S. Equity: 26%
Non-US Equity: 24%
Private Equity: 8%
Fixed Income: 25%
U.S. Fixed Income: 15%
Private Debt: 10%
Inflation Linked Assets: 12%
Real Estate: 10%
Commodities: 2%

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/asset-allocation
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/overview.htm
http://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview

others are unsubstantiated, and little more than posts on a left wing party site.

Hillary for fracking

Bernie against it

oh! and another that I've never seen anyone try to defend.

Hillary's chameleon-like accent changing to cater to crowds. (hey y'all I can dye mah haerrr!)

Bernie's constant unchanging character.

That's a big one for me.

In 2006, Senator Clinton voted to block Senator Feinstein's amendment to protect civilians from unexploded cluster bombs.

Bernie Sanders assumed office in the Senate on January 3, 2007. The following month, on February 14, 2007, as a brand new, freshman Senator, Bernie introduced (with co-sponsors Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Mikulski (MD) the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S. 594). This far-reaching legislation would have banned the use of cluster munitions in or near civilian populated areas, and prohibit funds for the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. The bill was referred to the Senate committee on Foreign Relations, then chaired by Republican Richard Lugar, where it died. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/594/all-info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relations

While administration officials dawdle, some policymakers are beginning to pay attention. On February 14, 2007, Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Bernie Sanders (VT) introduced the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S. 594). This far-reaching legislation would ban the use of cluster munitions in or near civilian populated areas, and prohibit funds for the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent.

http://fpif.org/a_cluster_bomb_treaty_again_its_the_us_v_the_world/

Hillary supported the use of land mines and cluster bombs, regardless of how many children were killed and maimed by same. Guess she hadn't "evolved" into being a self-proclaimed champion of children yet. I want a president who will not only honor but strengthen the Geneva Conventions.That ain't "never-served-a-day-in-uniform-but dodged-sniper-fire-in-Bosnia, Hillary Clinton."

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity." -- Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI

Combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives." -- Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48

as per http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413864

The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425303/-Hillary-Clinton-Voted-to-Continue-Cluster-Bombing-Civilians

Clinton's vote in support of continued use of cluster bombs was cast September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein - Senate amendment 4882 to H.R. 5631 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007.
Statement of Purpose: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.

The vote totals with presidential candidates in bold.

30 Democrats voted YEA: Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)

15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

Currently, the United States Government allows the production and export of cluster bombs by U.S. manufacturers (Corporations!)

How US Cluster Bombs Banned by Most Countries Ended Up in Yemen
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/cluster-bombs-yemen-saudi-united-states

Bernie has supported the military, at least when it was pork for his state. That's the same as all politicians. If the bomb factory had been in Vermont, maybe Bernie would have voted differently.

Bernie (and Hillary) have both been generally progressive. Hillary had much more experience looking face to face with foreign leaders, seeing the people on the ground, and negotiating with difficulty regimes.

It's easy (ask Obama!!) to say one thing when sitting in mid-America. It's another when presented with real life international crazies.

Hillary is not a war hawk or interested in military aggression any more than absolutely necessary. Hillary is also committed to peace. Cherry picking complicated bills and why people voted for and against them is not easy. If you want to look at 10 year old history in context, please go ahead, but hindsight is 20/20.

Feinstein and others often compromised, twisted the arms of Democrats, and made deals for the overall good. Bernie didn't have to tow the party line (maybe he was afraid of commitment?). So he could look like a hero when he wanted to, but it meant he ranted a lot and got little passed. The Cluster Bomb thing (and chemical weapons, and land mines) have been complicated and difficult for decades.

And, if Hillary is not interested in unnecassary military aggression then why was she not capable of seeing what other Senators (like Bernie) were able to see when it was time to vote for war against Iraq? That's a pretty big deal...not cherry picking something that happened 10 years ago.



Oh shit. First time I've seen anyone claim that Bernie wasn't a member of a party because he was afraid of commitment.

and didn't need a weathervane to get him to that place either. That to me means a hell of a lot.

if Hillary can beat any one of the 'CONs then Bernie can do it with a 2 to 1 margin. Bernie's record and his messages all but guarantees him as being our next POTUS

Feel the Bern

1) Everything that Hillary does is wrong;
2) Everything that Bernie does is right;
3) Therefore you'd have to be an idiot to vote for Hillary, so vote for Bernie.

you're wrong. don't post exaggerations like this.

Think about the children and stop the HRC bashing!

Bernie co-sponsors anti H-1b visa abuse amendment to TARP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251430600

introduced bill to stop abuse



Hillary pu$he$ for more

And her numerous flip flops are signs of growth, not complete lack of principle. And Sanders is a racist because he wants poor whites to escape poverty too.

If you want to be accepted, lose the facts and stick with the memes and outright lies