Some of which were so bad as to be hidden.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251550285

'Bernie Bad' because he can't be an effective Commander-in-Chief since he was a conscientious objector during Vietnam.

So ...

NEWSFLASH: More Silly Hillaryite Crap

He obviously objected to the Vietnam war.

I consider that a good thing, and I think most Americans would, too.

He never became a CO. His application was rejected. That means he would at least consider war if circumstances warrant such action.

Again, that's a good thing. It keeps the military option on the table, whereas with somebody who was actually a CO the military option would be off the table the moment they take the oath of office.

So it doesn't count. Whatever. He's got plenty of pro-war votes to establish his cred.

A CO must object to any war under any circumstances.

If China somehow developed technology where they were able to get 400,000 troops on US soil without being detected and started fighting, a CO would object to fighting them due to deeply held beliefs.

That's the standard. He failed to meet that standard.

It's not nice to lie. In fact, it stinks.

He voted yes on H J Res 64 - Authorization for Use of Military Force - Voting Record

https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7933#.Vd9Kxf-FNaQ

And he voted for every Iraq war funding bill. He supports the F-35 trillion dollar non-working jet. Biggest MIC boondoggle in DoD history. He supports funding Israel's war machine.

Let's stop pretending, shall we?

All but one member of Congress voted in favor of it. It was THREE DAYS after 9/11.

Here is your comment (in case you edit it, as I've seen some Hillary supporters do with their comments):

-- MaggieD

Now here is Bernie Sanders' voting record on War and Peace issues:

Get Saudis & regional powers involved with fighting ISIS. (Oct 2014)
Arm the Peshmerga against ISIS, as international effort. (Oct 2014)
1983 war against Nicaragua was illegal and immoral. (Jun 1997)
1990: Opposed authorizing all-out war in Kuwait with Iraq. (Jun 1997)
1991: instead of Persian Gulf War, spend on America. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)

http://ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm

He is clearly not.

Bernie is against imperialistic wars like Vietnam and Iraq. Hegemonic wars. PNAC wars. Throw-your-weight-around wars. Make-the-world-safe-for-capitalism wars.

But of course he is for national self-defense. As he should be.

If you hold Democratic values, love this country and care about the future of the American people, you would want him for president, MaggieD.

They'll post anything with no regard to its truth or even its rationality or consistency.

It's an act.

maybe we would be less likely to go swinging our dicks around in other countries.

That status was rejected, though.

The application for it was made, so he apparently considered himself as eligible for CO status.

It's mostly because the standard is so high you would even object to fighting a war where another nation successfully invades the US.

I think everyone around then knew that, too. And yet, he applied for that status. That was a long time ago, so I have no idea what his reasons for doing so were. Lots of people my age also applied for that status or sought some other way to not participate in that war. I thought long and hard and then enlisted in the USAF because it was the least likely to lead me into a situation where I would have to try to kill someone. I ended up in Turkey as a Russian linguist. I was a strong opponent of the Vietnam War, but was not a pacifist, so CO status was not even an option.

Bernie Sanders applied for that status, but I do not know what was in his mind when he did, nor is it any of my business.

He would have been ineligible for the draft from 1964 until 1966 (the duration of his first marriage which resulted in a son so even Johnson's change about exemptions for married men applied), so he must have applied for CO status after the divorce because he was exempt until that point.

I would like to know if he opposed all war when he applied and if so, when his deeply held beliefs changed.

I'd like to hear his explanation. Now, many people change their views on such things as they get older, so it would also be important to get a clear explanation of his current thinking about warfare.

Many people do not understand what being a Conscientious Objector requires. It's a very specific set of beliefs, and has been tested in the SCOTUS. Perhaps Bernie Sanders understood the requirement for CO status at the time. If so, it would be interesting to hear how and why his positions on warfare have changed since then.

On the other hand, I knew several people who applied for CO status during the VN War. Only one of those was an actual pacifist, as far as I was able to tell. The others were only pretending to be. They were attempting to avoid military service through a ruse. I could not do such a thing, nor could I flee to Canada. So, I enlisted in the Air Force when my draft notice was imminent. I was not alone in taking that option, either.

I remember being called a "draft dodger" once by an Army guy in a bar. He also said, "Air Force Sucks." I agreed with him on both counts. I'm an honest guy. I enlisted in the USAF to avoid being drafted into the Army. There was also much about the USAF that did, indeed, suck, too. The Army guy was puzzled by my response, so I bought him a beer and we talked about his family.

It would be interesting to hear where Bernie's thinking was at that time. There were many approaches to an unjust and useless war in Viet Nam. I'd like to hear his.

Since I must have applied knowing I'd get in, the school's decision is rendered meaningless. I'd better ask for a raise, this new information is a life changer.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to tell me, though.

A man of peace is very desirable. I also believe that he will be a strong CiC and will use force as a last resort as he has said.

We need a more peaceful planet. It starts with our leadership.

Bernie or bust.

I would have no choice but to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat him were he, in fact, a CO.

That he is willing to go t war as a last resort shows he is not a CO.

That's a good thing. A thoughtful approach to the use of force is always desirable.

If Hillary can evolve on marriage rights and get so many votes wrong on so many issues, couldn't a young man with pacifist notions see the world differently as he gets older? As the world changes, the culture changes and such. I certainly see the world differently as an older adult than I did at age 26. I would hope a person matures and and sees the world anew as he/she experiences life.

There was a huge counter culture and resistance to to the Vietnam war. It is very easy to see how reasonable people young or old were confused about what we were there for. War is always ugly and horrible. Sometimes it is necessary. I am grateful for the Veterans who defend us, please don't get me wrong. I also applaud those who dared question the authority.

Many DUers are able to point to GWB and Cheney as leading us into a horrible war in Iraq and question the legitimacy of that war. If we want a more perfect union, if we want a more just society than we have to question our sending so many troops to so many places and all the blood spilled. We are to provide for the common defense - Is that what was happening in Vietnam? Is that what was happening in Iraq?

I know I am just some guy and am told quite often that I don't understand the geopolitical nuances and such that require our troops to go into harms way - but it seems to me that we need a person with good conscious and a strong moral compass and sense of justice to lead us. Bernie has demonstrated these qualities again and again.

We are talking about Viet Nam which was like every WAR since WW 2 was about some made up bullshit.

Or at least ok with it. Glad his pure reputation of being against war and the mic has been put to bed.

Bernie is not pro-war. I mean, it seems like you're putting some words that aren't there in the mouths (or textboxes) of people posting on this thread.

The thing Bernie has said that moved me most was, "If you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war." I also respected his view on the F-35 - he voted more funding for it because there's a base in Burlington that would be less likely to close if it got F-35 fighter 'mission.'

I also like the way he voted against the Iraq war, demonstrated against Vietnam, applied for CO status but then aged out of the draft.

And here are some quotes from Sanders on the MIC:
“They make sure they have military contracts all over the country. So then any member of Congress who stands up and says ‘Well, maybe we don’t have to spend $600 billion on the military.’ They get letters from people working in the military industry in their own state.”

As president, Sanders said he would audit the Department of Defense because of the massive cost overruns. “The Department of Defense is so large, it is so complicated, that they can’t even audit themselves. You ask them, ‘tell me exactly where is the money going’, they’re not quite clear about it.”

“We know that there is massive fraud going on in the defense industry. Virtually every major defense contractor has either been convicted of fraud or reached a settlement with the government….We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world. But I think we can make judicious cuts.”

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how this makes him either pro-war or for the MIC.

I mean if he is for any war, that would mean he is pro war in some instance, no?

I was just having a little fun.

Totally agree, PatrickforO! This is just another attempt to smear the greatest candidate to come down the pike in several generations.


Bernie or bust!

When I was about to be drafted, I checking into the status called AO-1. That means you object, but are willing to serve in a non-combat capacity, usually the medical or communications services. At that time, AO-1 was relatively easy to get, since the military had a need for medical and communications people, and they made no objection if somebody wanted to be AO-1. Straight up CO status was much harder, and usually required letters from religious figures, or something of that nature, confirming that the applicant had a religious or moral belief that precluded his participation in any way. At that time, however, not all wars were off limits. Some applicants were successful when they held a specific objection to the Vietnam War, not all wars. They could avoid the "all war" question by claiming it was a hypothetical, and they were not objecting to hypothetical wars, only the real war for which they were to be drafted. I don't know the success rate on this approach, but I know it worked for some applicants.

The only reason is an issue with right wingers is because so many ate chickenhawks who attack people who did serve and those who oppose war.

in the 1960's who did what he could to stay out of a war that most thought was a bad idea at the time.

He's no better, or worse than some of the Republican stories we've heard.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for those that chose to serve back then, real heroes. The rest, as in this case, I try not to judge. All I know about me is I would do whatever it took to keep my son out of a war over oil, so I refuse to be the pot calling the kettle black.