We are living in Bizarro World.

I thought only Republicans and the Tea Party

avoided the facts and truth.

I was wrong.

Got a link? Defending the war itself is defending Bush's decision to go to war. I'm curious as to which member(s) did that. Thanks.

Thanks. I see exactly what the op is about now.

war please.

I would like to argue with them

There is a technical difference between voting to authorize the President to use force if he wants, and authorizing the war itself. But any sentient being knows that Bush would use the former for the latter, which of course, he did.

here is NOW defending that war, I wanna have a word with them.

What most politicians did back then for their own political reasons, no longer matters to me.

I know what they did and why.

Any sentient being.......cue eerie music....

Revisionist, apologist SHIT in there.

...are you on about? Am I wrong or did you accuse me of revisionist shit for asking about a thread I missed? Your post is confusing. Please clarify so that I understand exactly what I'm replying to. Maybe you were commenting on the linked thread provided for me? Thanks

Responded to wrong post.

Thought so.

point before the convention, she really needs to explain how she evolved into those positions.

Mostly children. And her partnership with the Koch Bros in the DLC. And her Family association. Except for her Gay position (since 2013) she's a Republican. Nice. Gay couples can hold hands while standing in the breadlines.

fuck.

In a different thread, to someone that touted the vote and the war as just in the thread in question, accused me of being a hater and blaming Hillary supporters for the war.

That's the response you get to anything. It's a change the subject and make false accusations rather than admit the truth.

Sad. Really very sad.

... simply unreal...

over Alan Grayson asking for contributions - BECAUSE HE IS RICH.

I must have missed the announcement wherein a vastly more wealthy Hillary said she is not asking for donations because she already has a lot of money. The meme-machine must be running out of bullshit.

A living wage. That way people who are qualified to intern but who have to work, can intern. You know, those that are not living off their rich parents, are working their way through school, etc.

You, and 99% of the people on this board will vote for her. You will crawl over broken glass to vote for her. When the alternative is Ted Cruz. Or Jeb Bush. Or Scott Walker. Or Rand Paul.

Triangulation works.

Secretary Clinton will be the nominee. Look at her opposition. Its no contest. And yes yes, you'll inevitably cry "look at 2008!!". Well lets look at 2008. Which presumptive nominee in 2015 is the next Barack Obama? Ha. Chuckle. Snort. Her only opposition are a series of fringe (at best) candidates, at least from a national perspective.

Therefore, all this hand wringing is unnecessary. We all know who we're going to be casting our ballot for in November 2016.

So we shall see when it comes to an actual vote.
Until then keep dreaming about crawling to your candidate over broken glass....

On many points.

First and foremost, you are wrong about who the nominee will be.

I'll re-evaluate that closer to the election, but I do not expect Clinton will be able to turn it around. The Republicans will be foaming at the mouth to vote against her, and she will not be able to inspire enough Democratic turnout to overcome that.

As a result, I will have the luxury of a meaningless vote.

(parroting Jeff47 above)

She doesn't need my vote and I am not sure whether I will give it to her.

"there has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less," according to Paul Krugman.

we will have to vote for her, nose held. What's your point? I'm going to work my ass off so she doesn't get the nomination to be a POTUS. Many of that 99% will and are working their asses off to make sure of the same thing. You've got no crystal ball. If HRC gets the nomination then I will truly know that the corporate fascists and bankers have bought this country lock, stock and barrel and run things and I will never vote again. And a lot of people I know feel the same way because we're sick and tired of this fascist-racist corptocracy disguised as a sham democracy.

A record means nothing today. Ignore the facts. Head shake and tears for the state of this country.

Jesus christ on a cheese sandwich! That just can't be possible

I honestly don't think ANY defense of that war should be allowed on this or any other democratic site. What in the Holy fuck kind of disgusting excuse can be used other than supporting liars, warmongers, corporatists, war criminal, Republicans?

I'm serious. It's one thing to defend Hillary Clinton on her vote and her pushing, selling, backing every bit of the lies that led to that war. I don't agree with, or understand that. But to justify the war? On a democratic site? Liberal or third way, there's absolutely no excuse!

Hey, let's defend Cheney and Halliburton! WTF! Let's defend Reagan, trickle down economics, union busting and aid to the Contras. How about defending Nixon and his dirty tricks? Why not?

As long as we're at it, why not support a Republican for office?

Fuck this noise. Absolutely horrible!

Has to be the worst thing I have seen here. And lately, there's been some pretty awful stuff said.

Thanks. I don't know what is going on but glad people like you are here.

We live in a world so screwed by the GREEDY BASTARDS that even George Orwell could not completely envision what we have become...

... though I would much prefer Sanders.

However, any Reep alternative is just unthinkable.

american soldiers had just made her parents, "collateral damage". This. She's older now, you think she loves americans? Do you think the 1-MILLION Iraqi civilians killed and wounded, described as collateral damage are ever going to love their american liberators or the country they came from? I am so ashamed of my country for allowing the PNAC imperialist to take over our foreign policy and that some, even on here and in the democratic party make excuses for. Sad indeed. Thank you for reminding me again of how wrong the repugthugs really are and how they should never be allowed the reins of power ever again.

Embedding reporters was a brilliant move by the war pigs. Americans were served a sanitized war without blood and guts, and funerals, without all the wailing of the suffering. In 2005 I got to watch our military make a country weep, and rage, and tremble in fear from the front row. Unbelievable how many of my fellow soldiers thought we were doing "good" work.

We should be forced to watch what war does does to a population, in our schools, our churches, and while at work. Just 90 minutes a week of blasts and broken bodies and little children weeping for their parents and parents weeping for their children; forced to watch the horror until we all understand that we should be thoroughly sick of war by now.

Any war pig like Kristol or Trump or other chicken-hawks advocating more soldiers, more bombs, more war should be punched repeatedly in the mouth.

The Shadow Mayor

I'm asking because even though you're newish, i already know i respect your opinion. He's a legislator that has never voted for war. In my book, that's solid. Do you have an opinion on Hillary?

Good weekend to you Shadow Mayor...

Druidity33,

I cannot fathom why Clinton, Biden, Franken, and especially Kerry who knew what war really means, would vote for the authorization other than it being a cold political calculation for the presidency - and the wrong one at that! I mean, WTF??? It hurts to know so many people could have done much better. I'm all for Bernie. The hard part comes if he doesn't get the nomination. I can see why some would sit out the election, but one key issue will always make me hold my nose and vote for the Dem - Supreme Court nominations. Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are three of the worst ever. And those are thanks to republican presidents and lap dog democrats. So yes, I'm behind Bernie as his solution to foreign policy problems in not to bomb! What a concept.

The Shadow Mayor - warrior for peace

And he was rewarded with F-35s in Burlington, and those nuke weapon guys from Sandia Labs doing "energy" research in VT.

Sorry, I'm against violence toward women.

been there, done that...

The older you are, the more you understand this point. What passes for Democratic Party ideals today is truly awful, and what`s worse is what many are willing to excuse and explain away. It`s so bad that if you stand with unions or push for single payer health care, or not overlook the pro-Iraq-War vote you`re "left fringe". You`re even "left fringe" if you`re against the policies of George W. Bush that so many of today`s Democrats all of a sudden support. Apparently winning is everything, even if we have to literally sell our souls to do it.

are things Henry Wallace would recognize, but would never expect in a party he had been a member of

I believe both Obama and Hillary would have qualified as 'moderate' Republicans in the 1970's. The Democratic Party has been pushed so far to the right (and the Republicans even further right) that the word 'liberal' has little meaning anymore. Bernie Sanders is considered fringe yet the people are flocking to his rallies because they like his ideas. Establishment, corporate Democrats tell us he's too liberal in an effort to brand him outside the mainstream. Well, after decades of mainstream Democratic politics it's time for a change. If Bernie is pushed aside either the Progressive movement dies or a third party will need to be started. Simply voting for the Democratic nominee because the Republican is worse no longer works. Issues like climate change, income inequality and corporation owned elections are too serious to ignore any longer.

I also feel that way. I'm a Democrat, but I no longer feel like our elected officials are even Democrats. I really hate the thought of having to vote for another DINO again. I really cannot tell the difference between the DINOs and the PUKES.

And she hiding from the press (except for her latest interview on TV), that's what they did with Palin, she wasn't allowed to talk to the press, but for different reasons.

the GOP did"

A party controlled by very wealthy, conservatively inclined, types who like feeling good about themselves? They're more liberal than their Republican friends so they are sure of that.

Just like their Republican friends know they are more sensible because they are for lower taxes.

Too many think Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liberals, which they are not, let alone progressives.

I'll vote for Hillary if I have no other choice, but I'd rather have a different nominee.

when you believe completely in a person, you no longer have to evaluate issues - 'if they did it, it is good'

whatever 'it' is

I got barred from posting in the Hillary Clinton Group when I challenged one of them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=11480

touchy aren't they?

Her supporters would be ecstatic because she'd be a shoo-in for the the nomination. Because after all, winning is the only thing that matters.

that she trusted W to do the right thing is just jaw-dropping stupid and has no place in the White House.

It's getting far worse than in previous election cycles ...

Thanks for this post, Will ...

I generally like your posts and I respect you. I respect your choice of candidate and I respect that candidate. I LOVE what he is saying and I want him to keep on saying it as loudly and as often as he can. His speaking out helps us all, IMO.

But he is not my candidate - unless he wins the Dem nomination. Until then, Hillary is.

Please do NOT disrespect me for my choice and please do not disrespect my candidate. We are ALL Democrats. We all want the best for this country. I would very much appreciate it if we ALL remembered that.

As I do have a memory somewhat longer than a nanosecond, I can remember back to the 2004 primary season when we had a wonderful liberal Dem candidate running against another liberal Dem candidate. The former was Howard Dean and the latter was John Kerry.

Howard Dean had never been in Congress. But following the tragic loss of Senator Paul Wellstone, Dean was one of the lone Dem voices even in 2003 speaking out strongly against the War in Iraq and wondering why Democrats then were not acting like Democrats - and had not been for some time. Howard made a wonderful uphill run against TPTB until he was deliberately destroyed by TPTB. I was a staunch Howard Dean supporter and remain an admirer today. Howard also supports Hillary.

As I recall - please do not hesitate to correct my recollection if I am inaccurate - YOU were very much in John Kerry's corner at the time - even before Howard's candidacy was destroyed. As I recall - and the facts do support me on this - John Kerry was among those Democrats (the majority at the time) who had not only voted FOR the IWR but also FOR the Patriot Act.

So I am somewhat perplexed that you would be strongly pro-Kerry in 2004 when you had a progressive alternative in Howard Dean - and then use Hillary's actions against her NOW when she was certainly doing nothing different from what John Kerry had done. ????

You see that there are inconsistencies among us all. But we should agree to disagree and stop some of the hyperbole. We should certainly agree as Dems NOT to continue to use the same talking points against our candidates as GOPers will use against them. None of our candidates is perfect. But EVERY SINGLE ONE is at least someone who will try to put our country on a better course, which is very badly needed.

I do NOT defend either Kerry's or Clinton's votes, btw. But those votes are in the past and it's time to let go. Please.

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Bush. If you don't get that, you never will.

Also, I did not indulge in hyperbole. Sec. Clinton was dead-bang wrong on these four issues according to my lights. My lights are all I have to go by.

general election. I was talking about the primaries. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough?

Anyway, I agree that both were wrong on their votes.

Now - can we just deal with the present? Instead of trying to rehash what can't be changed?

... says the person who brought up Dean and Kerry in the first place.

Cognitive dissonance is always somewhat awesome to behold.

Somewhat.

can we focus on the present and not the past, he says "you're the one who brought up Dean and Kerry in the first place."

Kerry was brought up in response to the Iraq war vote which is what the OP was complaining about. I guess when arguing is the sole purpose, trying to keep up with what you said is kind of superfluous.

now it's just playing to a certain crowd . but there isn't much support or passion behind the person or issue as there was when he supported kerry and wrote many positive articles on it. it was more comparable to bigtree's threads on o'malley right now but i would say even better .

now it's just about getting recs , being popular among certain people etc .

Stirring things up for the "gang" seems to be popular around here for some, especially on the weekends.

point, I am very disappointed in you.

I really thought that you were better than that. I was wrong.

Not only did he avoid your point, he's avoided that point multiple times in the last several months.

"But Republicans y'all!"

If you'd paid any attention, you'd know that.

FUCK THAT

those issues and I don't get continuing to support a politician AFTER they make such bad decisions, it wasn't difficult for me, though I was pretty shocked at the time, to admit that this was a huge disappointment, the Iraq War vote which we are now being asked to forget. How can anyone forget when the disastrous effects predicted are still ongoing??

So many many PEOPLE lost, men, women and children. I don't get how anyone can just sweep this under the rug.

In new her memoir about her time helming State, “Hard Choices,” Clinton adds: “There was no denying that our country’s approach to human rights had gotten somewhat out of balance” after the Bush administration. She also praised Obama’s order “prohibiting the use of torture or official cruelty,” using the term the Bush administration refused to use for the harsh interrogation tactics.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, however, torture was a minor issue adjacent to the central disagreement on the Iraq War. Clinton, to the right of the rest of the field on foreign policy, took a more nuanced view on torture than some of her competitors, like then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The two challengers opposed the use of torture in all cases, but Clinton at first carved out an exception for a ticking time bomb scenario. “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president,” she told the New York Daily News in 2007.

In an editorial board meeting, she added that there “are very rare” circumstances when an exception to the no torturing rule would be needed, and “if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing it.”

Obama attacked her on the issue in a late January 2008 speech in Denver, suggesting her position on torture even put her to the right of the then-presumed GOP nominee John McCain, who opposed the harsh tactics after being tortured in Vietnam.

But by then, Clinton had changed her position. When asked about a ticking time bomb scenario during a debate in September 2007, she categorically ruled out the use of torture. “It cannot be American policy, period,” she said.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-hillary-clinton-torture

She evolved after everyone said she was wrong

and was again shocked that any Democrat would even go there, to take the position of the right, that was exactly their talking point, which was shot down over and over again by experts.

I guess the backlash caused her to change her mind during election season. But for me, the very fact that she even thought it was an okay position to take, made it impossible for me to support her.

Not to mention that if a candidate keeps changing their minds depending on how the political winds are blowing, I'm sorry but that is not someone you want in power when you know such decisions will have to be made on a daily basis.

And that is why I supported Obama in that campaign. And why I am supporting Bernie is this one.

There's a difference.

for this country right now, in fact the ONLY choice. If we do not take this opportunity not only will nothing change for the better, the oligarchs who more or less own our politicians now, will only become bolder and more powerful.

I will work for Progressives for Congress also, but no, I cannot support the candidacy of any corporate funded candidates anymore.

geesh

Millions of lives were changed because of war and free trade. To say let bygones be bygones is like telling the institution's victims that they need to forget about losing their jobs, their limbs, and their loved ones. I'm sorry but your past defines your future, especially when its recent history. She had an interview on CNN and couldn't answer her questions correctly.

http://time.com/3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/#3951961/hillary-clintons-cnn-interview-trustworthy/

If she can't be honest about anything, then she doesn't deserve my vote.

and SHAME ON ANYONE who tells me it was in "in the past" and I need to "get over it".......seriously - W.T.F.

The gymnastics some folks are going through to justify the Iraq War II, Electric Boogaloo are horrifying.
I expected much more from DU.

Voted for Bush's No Child Left Behind

1. "She's the most likely candidate who can win for the Democrats, and the stakes are too high to risk losing to a RepubliCon." Paul Krugman made somewhat this argument when he pointed out that ANY Democrat is better than ANY Republican, and Democrats have to remember that when Social Security and SCOTUS nominees hang in the balance. He writes, "there has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html

2. "Bill and Hillary have been kicked around by the Cons so much, they know how to fight back. They earned it, and they're smart and charming." These folks just love The Clintons, and Bill lying about his womanizing as president of the United States and Hillary lying about making money in beef futures and landing under sniper fire and Chelsea working as hedge fund manager, be damned.

3. "The symbolism of a woman president is more important than the flaws of the particular woman who holds the office." Oddly, not many make the case for Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin based on that position. In fact, I get the impression (and I may be wrong) that some folks are so gung ho for a leader of the Free World with two X chromosomes that they stopped seeing any flaws in their candidate many moons ago.

I understand people get defensive when their candidate is called to account for a statement or vote or whatever, but how does one defend the war? It' indefensible. It was phony from the start, a hysterical reaction that gave the president "wartime" powers. Iraq is in wrse shape now than when we started, and that's not counting the 100k, 200k, ???k people dead.

and over, and over again.

A cynic might regard that as opportunistic. Someone less critical might call it realpolitik. I simply point it out as ... FACT.

It's easy to sorta-kinda take a stand when the outcome is already pre-determined, and you know your little ole vote ain't gonna make a bit of difference.

The Military Industrial Congressional (and don't forget that third leg in that triad) complex is a bad, bad thing....except when it brings home the pork, I suppose.

Consistency is a tough nut for even the so-called "principled" at times. Or maybe, just maybe--all politics is LOCAL. So said an old friend from Cambridge, many years ago....but hey, let's excoriate some more than others, shall we? It's the cool thing to do on DU, apparently.

Your lack of integrity is showing.

If it was so meaningless, why note vote against it?

You people are legitimately frightening.

At least he didn't tell you to "shut the fuck up" or threaten you with violence.

You've got that going for you!

I'll put my military service up against anyone's--I don't claim to be a hero, but I've done my duty, and I get a check on the first of every month to recognize my contribution to the defense of our nation.

But hey, nice cheap shot, there!! I hope that didn't hurt, pulling it out...!

Yes, some here are truly creepy.

If everyone knew that not one WMD existed then they betrayed their office by voting for the IWR.

If, however, Judith Miller, or our troops, could have found a few real bits here and there then anyone who voted against the IWR would have been held up as the worst kind of unpatriotic fool.

Imo, that's a large part of what was on the line. People knew that the administration was using BS intelligence but they were afraid that enough crumbs were still left so that their careers would be hurt if they were found.

I thought the intelligence to justify the invasion was BS but I was amazed at how completely the Iraqi programs were destroyed. I guess Hussein's people took the threats against Iraq to heart.

And you know the administration was desperate to find anything connected to WMD's and long range launchers. A few missiles and some containers of XXX nasty and they would have been crowing how they saved us from a disaster.

That vote was not meaningless, it was a gut check. The vote was about letting Bush put over his lies. If you voted no to the IWR you would have a target on your back. Cheney and Judith Miller would have pilloried anyone voting No if anything had been found.

Nobody knew that there was absolutely nothing of note. What was known is that Saddam's program had been destroyed and nothing substantial remained of it. What was known was that intelligence to drum up the invasion was BS.

Those who voted "yes" should have risen up like The Furies when Bush ordered the invasion, even though the inspectors said no evidence justified it. Bush betrayed them, and us, and it was allowed to slide.

It was allowed to slide, imo, because they feared the political consequences if anything could be presented to the reporters. Like that anthrax vial that was presented at the UN.

It was a defining period in history. Some had the courage to take on Bush and Cheney for an invasion based on lies, and some played it safe.

It WAS meaningless, because it made no difference to the outcome and he knew it before he hit the NAY button. Further, he immediately obviated any sincerity of that vote by voting, repeatedly, to FUND the very thing he said he opposed. Of course, by this point in time, he was already conversing very vigorously with Lockheed Martin and putting aside his squeamishness about dealing with a corporation--Sandia Labs-- that was heavily vested in the atomic weaponry game, because he wanted that Big Score of fighter aircraft for Burlington and a Sandia satellite for his state--which he got.

All politics is local, and I get that. I just don't think it's appropriate to call out one politician on what some might regard as their rather hypocritical accomodations/decisions that benefit their state (and their electability amongst the voters of that state), and then have the stones to pretend that others don't have equally--if not more so--ethical difficulties with their votes and decisions, when they clearly do.

And I can't resist saying, history agrees.

If your much larger point is that all of our candidates have feet of clay, I agree. If you are arguing that HRC, like Sanders, should be considered on all her merits, and not just a few isolated votes, I agree.

I'm for Sanders because of the sum of his parts. I respect anyone feeling the same about Clinton.

It was choices like this vote that is one of the parts I like about Sanders, and it is part of what distinguishes him from HRC. HRC brings a lot to the table so Sanders supporters like myself will note where we see our choice as having the edge.

That can involve rough talk, and I guess that's why you're here.

and it really should notice that, because those are the more important votes, at the end of the day. Nothing happens without money, and he voted to give Bush the money to pay for his lousy war. Not just once, either--over and over and over again.

I think it's easy to be selective in what one likes about a candidate, but I find the avuncular old guy hippie-ish, Granola and Peacenik persona hiding behind a fighter jet and nuclear weapon accommodation a bit off - putting. It would bother me less if the collar matched the cuffs, but he plays at the way left game and tacks sharply to the right when it suits him--on the issues I've mentioned, on Israel, and the whole gun business, as well. Plus, he just doesn't have the network or the endorsements or the cash, or the outreach to minority voters--his venues have been almost entirely white, and even in Arlington VA, where you'd think he could draw a multi-cultural audience, the venue population was pretty pale. He just doesn't appeal across the broad cultural swathe. Maybe he can change that; I just don't see it happening. I don't feel him speaking to people who don't fit the VT profile. He has no superdelegate endorsements--none. He has a great litany of complaints about what's wrong, and I agree with him on many of them, but he has yet to articulate any solutions that I could see Congress rising up to back him on.

I simply don't see a path for him.

Should a path open up, and he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him (any Democrat, even a nominal one, is better than any Republican) --but he's not my first choice; he's not even my 2nd anymore (I lean to O'Malley in the second slot). He's well ahead of Webb in my personal horse-race, but that wasn't hard! I don't appreciate Webb's historical dismissal of women, or his "heritage" enthusiasm for the Confederacy...

and to have the best armor and equipment available to get them home as safe as possible.
What would you have done turned your back on them?

and thereby force Bush to bring them home?

He may have if he thought it stood a snowballs chance.

When it comes to paying for war and weapons of mass destruction, Sanders is as much a hawk as any Republican Senator. He's voted to waste billions on the T-35 Turkey. He's firmly wedged into the pocket of the MIC in general and Lockheed Martin in particular..

Tell me you support Sanders because you agree with him about his priorities and his one-note message of "economic justice.". But don't tell me you support Sanders because his hands are clean of the horrors of Iraq. They're not.

Anyway, the administration had enough funds in the pipeline, and money it could move around, to not only finish the invasion but also start setting up the occupation. So when we talk about defunding, it's in that context.

Defunding, if passed, would mean we'd walk away from Iraq after having broken it to pieces. Walking away would have left us no way to fund and deliver humanitarian aid. no way to rebuild the bombed out infrastructure, the looted hospitals and fire stations.

Defunding would have meant no aid to our allies the Kurds, nice message to other groups that agree to join up with us and risk everything.

Defunding was talked about at the time and IIRC nobody could come up with a plausible way to do it in a way to force Bush to leave Iraq and still provide for the millions in Iraq who needed help just to get food and water, and basic policing, and medical care. IIRC it's nearly impossible to design such a bill. Getting such to make it to the floor for a vote would never happen, but the legal language alone would have been a futile gesture and would have gained us little but derision, contempt, and hatred.

What was needed was a time machine, so as to go back and not illegally invade. And it was a crime to invade and do a regime change based on bogus evidence. We've signed agreements to that effect.

APCs, tilt roter a/c and other assorted armaments were "add-ons" to an appropriation that had as a main purpose, FEEDING THE TROOPS?



Judge Judy has a great comment about peeing on her leg and telling her it's raining--that's what you're doing here.

Apparently, the concept of continuing resolution is foreign to you. There is no circumstance that would have left US servicemembers "un-fed." And body armor remained a problem through most of that horrible conflict--that's why so many parents bought dragonskin for their kids and sent it to them, illegally....that's why Bush's body armor was STOLEN during his Plastic Turkey visit.

Body armor and food could have been handled in a separate appropration, if it came to that....but Sanders voted FOR funding the WAR, not touchy-feely crap. He voted for weaponry, he voted for equipment, and he authorized end strength shifts to take boots off ships and sea and put boots on the ground in-country.


He wasn't voting to "get them home as safe as possible." He was voting to CONTINUE Bush's WAR.

And he did it over and over and over again.

Why? Ask yourself why SANDIA LABS is in VT now. Ask yourself why F-35s are going to be home-based in Burlington VT, protecting the nation from Canada. Ask yourself why Sanders and Lockheed - Martin are so friendly these days....

All politics is local--he traded principle for cash for his state. Why is his realpolitik excused, and excuses are made for it, while the same sorts of trades invite such scorn when others do them?

Don't pee on my leg....etc.

try to get your breath back.