Hillary gave Bush the authorization to go to war as a *last* resort. Bush went to war as a *first* resort. Bush also didn’t let the UN inspectors finish their job, something he said he would let them do. Hillary already said she regrets giving Bush the authorization for the war. But she trusted him in the aftermath of 9/11, something most Americans regrettably did. Patriotism and trust was at an all-time high after 9/11/2001, and no one thought Bush would go into Iraq before the inspectors were finished.
Bernie supported funding the war, so he gets to claim he voted against the Iraq war, yet didn’t do anything to actually stop it. Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, something President Clinton signed into law to make our nation safer from gun violence. Bernie was a typical politician and played to his pro-gun, 95% white constituency. Bernie doesn't realize this is an urban, African American problem that kills 30,000+ Americans a year and 90+ Americans a day.

Bernie not only voted against the war he implored others to do the same, he knew what would happen in Iraq if we believed Bush and he was right:

You totally ignored my post.

Cheney -- Vice President
Rumsfeld -- Defense Secretary

Feith, Bolton, etc etc. That is the problem, you do not want to learn. Anyone who believed that this particular group was not going to war in Iraq even though they had advocated for war in Iraq for years was being intentionally ignorant. It was the principal philosophy of the PNAC to have regime change in Iraq. The Weapons were just a lie. They wanted to regime change.

Just read up on the PNAC. These were not unknown players. Anyone who knew anything knew who they were and who they were in the Administration. It is true that they said they would not use the authority but everyone everyone everyone knew that was the real lie.

You are asserting things without knowing anything about the history and politics. Its like people who do not know why Iraq was important to the oil mongers. The Baath party created Opec. That is the real problem with arguing with some Hillary people, they just create arguments without actually looking at the truth.

but two instead. One that the war was a good idea and two that she felt that 'W's judgement was up to the task.


THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANT IN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.


Sorry about the 'shouting'. Have a great day.

it demonstrates poor judgment.

EPIC FAIL

You are just misinformed or making it up. Everyone knew that Bush was asking for authority for war.

You are just selling lies. The whole Bush foreign and defense policy and the vice president were members of the PNAC. You clearly have no idea of what that was. Just google it and understand that every one of the players in the Bush Administration was PNAC.

It was not about trust. If every member of the Bush Administration was a member of the PNAC whose main advocacy was for war in IRAQ (before 9/11, before WMD) who could possibly believe that if you authorize them to go to war, they would not go to war.

Do you think Hillary did not know who the PNAC and that Cheney and Rumsfield were principals? Do you really want to argue that. The PNAC tried to get the Clinton Administration to do the invasion. When Bush was elected and appointed them to the most important positions in the administration regarding war, it was a given we were invading Iraq. I KNEW THAT WHEN BUSH WAS ELECTED. Because I believe in actually learning something. I knew who Cheney and Rumsfeld were. You still dont.

Arguing that the war resolution was anything other than war in IRAQ is totally inauthentic. You are better off arguing that she beliee that Saddam had WMD and that war was the right thing. That was the first arguments that Hillary herself made because she knew that informed people would not buy the argument you have been making. Because informed people knew who the PNAC was. Stop making absolutely inauthentic arguments without learning about the politics behind the war.

Here are some quotes from the 2008 campaign. Guess who made them and realize they are exactly Bernie's position at the time. I do not like his Vote against the Brady Bill. I think most supporter do not. However, he is not a Gun Nut as you are implying. Even though he voted against the Brady Bill he did vote for other gun control measures. Here are the quotes. Realize that it is Hillary talking, not Bernie. These were from her 2008 failed campaign when she was trying to get to the RIGHT of Obama on Guns.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/4/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now

"We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.”

"I respect the 2nd Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people.”

The Iraq War was not some sudden crisis that suddenly popped up. There was a build up and debate of months before that vote. And by that time, it had become utterly transparent that if given the authorization, Bush & Co. were going to invade come hell or high water......If she thought otherwise, she's also buying bridges in Brooklyn.

By that time, the country had returned to some sense of sanity after the initial 9-11 shock. It was completely obvious that Iraq was a trumped-up phony crisis.

AS for Bernie voting to authorize funding afterward. Duh. Remember the Pottery Barn rule? Once the invasion was done we were stuck with it. There wasn't the optioon to suddenly cut off funds.

And it was ever so clever to slip that irrelevant little aside about guns in there.

The First Gulf War in 1991 was won so fast it made anyone who voted against it look like a peacenik or a coward.... she couldn't risk that!!!! She thought she was playing it safe when Hillary voted for the War in Iraq, and it has turned out to be the biggest mistake of her career. Of course she can't admit that, so she has to pretend that the Bushies 'tricked' her or something. She's NOT a leader, she's a follower.

1 million innocent people means nothing to one such as her or her coterie here. Disgusting and pathetic.

This is not a person I can trust with that 3am phone call.

The analogy hinges on Charlie Brown's failure to adjust his expectations in response to a long history of deception.

Did Bush have an established history of saying that he wouldn't go to war and then going to to war? Please provide references.

Thanks in advance.

Don't expect a reasoned reply. I am not sure that these Bernie supporters are all actually Bernie supporters.

Many likely aren't.

Read my post then google the PNAC. Bush was surrounded by PNAC people including the Vice President (or really who some think was the president) and the Secretary of Defense. Know that the PNAC had 25 signing members all high chiefs in Republican Circles and 10 of these were in the Bush Administration.

Forget Hillary, forget Bernie. Learn something about learning before you jump into arguments.

Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

You will find that their main advocacy was for Regime Change in Iraq. This was not related to any of the 9/11 claims. It was based on an assertive US foreign policy.

Before you presume to school me on the PNAC, you need to get your own rhetoric in order.

Again, the Charlie Brown/Lucy analogy depends entirely on the failure to adjust expectations based on repetition. For instance, DU loved to scold President Obama for his continued expectation that he'd be able to negotiate with the GOP after they'd repeatedly shown their refusal to negotiate. His repeated attempt to negotiate with them suggest that he failed to alter his expectation, similar to the way Charlie Brown failed to adjust his own expectations of Lucy.

The situation that you're describing, with the Neocons plotting to justify and engage in decades-long war, is so different that the analogy simply doesn't work, because the repetition is absent.

Your underlying point may be completely correct, but your analogy fails completely.


So by all means, beat your chest and howl about the PNAC. But don't pretend that you scored a clever rhetorical victory by latching onto an overused and ill-fitting analogy.

I will eat your cookie if you leave it out on the table and I keep telling you that. Would you then trust me if one time I say I wont. The PNAC was a powerful political movement that was going to war in Iraq no matter what. That is why the Bush Administration lied about everything because they did not care about the truth and everyone knew that they were going to war who knew anything about Republican politics at the time. Are you really saying Hillary didnt?

But forget my analogy then. Deal with the substance.

1. Do you deny that the Bush Administration including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were PNAC members.

2. Do you deny that they had wanted to go to regime change in Iraq for years unrelated to anything going on at the time.

3. Do you deny that Hillary is smart enough and connected enough to know who the PNAC was.

Please do yourself a favor. Forget the candidates, learn something about the way we got into the Iraq War. Google the PNAC.

Oh, wait--no he didn't! Too bad--that would have been a brave position to take on 9/14/2001.

This one is about an argument Hillary supporters are making. But you do know or maybe you dont that that resolution was about Afghanistan which actually was related to 9/11. I was against that invasion as well personally but it was not the same as Iraq which is why Obama ran on Afghanistan as a good war. Many democrats supported that invasion which is why only Barbara Lee voted against it. Many democrats voted against invading Iraq.

The PNAC did not care about Afghanistan. It was about 9/11. The PNAC which you refuse to really acknowledge wanted regime change in Iraq which you would know if you cared about actually learning about the causes and background and politics of the Iraq war and could stop using bad inauthentic talking points about Hillary's vote.

I find that cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Is this typical of Sanders' acolytes?

...just in case you get close to starving to death while waiting for a response to the facts you've presented. Once you get past "Hillary's a fighter" and "It's her turn", they usually run out of things to say.

I saw that story on crickets too.

I am actually surprised by the lack of willingness to actually ditch a false narrative in this thread in favor of actual historical exploration of why the Bush Administration wanted to go to war and was willing to lie and distort the facts to build public support. 9 11 was an excuse. The Neo Cons thought was that Iraq would become a model for a capitalist middle eastern capitalistic country if they managed to effect regime change. They even told us that was their expectations in building support. The lies were about weapons. Hillary could have believed the claims about weapons. She could not believe that the Bush Neo Cons would not use the resolution to effect regime change in Iraq.

If the war had been a shining success, would she still be claiming that the AUMF wasn't really a vote for war?


I've actually eaten crickets, they're not that bad really, kinda flavorless. But only dried-out ones, they're probably a lot more challenging when all the gore inside is still moist.

Hillary supporters also say it didn't matter how Hillary voted because Bush was going to go to war either way. Do Hillary supporters want it both ways? Do they think everyone else doesn't see what they are trying to do?

The point of my OP was to absolutely destroy one and only one argument that seems to be made by inauthentic Hillary defenders.

This is a recently made up argument that Hillary did not believe that the Bush Administration would use the Resolution to go to war. I suspect it is a made by inauthentic people but it can also be people that just do not know things. One example is someone calling the PNAC a conspiracy theory even though it was a powerful and known Republican organization with the Members I have mentioned including the Vice President. Its not a conspiracy theory it was a theory of foreign policy held by all the members of the Bush Administration and this theory led directly to the war.

This one claim that Hillary thought Bush was not going to war if he was authorized was not believable because of the players in the Bush Administration. Hillary was certainly aware of Cheney. He was the Vice President. Hillary was certainly aware of Rumsfeld. He was the defense secretary. In fact she was aware of all of them and that they did not want inspections, they wanted to invade and Regime Change. It was not about WMD.


It is possible to make at least a logical argument that she believed the intelligence showed Saddam had WMD and that we needed to take him out of the picture. This was wrong and probably stork in the sand thinking but at least it does not run into the problem of the more recent claim.

She was ramping up her "tough guy" credentials for a future presidential run. Everything she does is calculated. Even her calculated vote for a flag burning amendment.

She was showing voters that she was every bit as much of a Republican, as the Republicans.

I'm sure you remember him taking a strong stance against the Authorization for Use of Military Force on 9/14/2001. Quite a principled position to take, and he should be commended for his courage.

Oh, wait! Barbara Lee was the sole dissenting vote--my mistake! Sanders voted for it, just like Clinton voted for S.J.RES.23! Looks like he was eager to kick Lucy's poorly analogized football as well!

What does this have to do with the argument that Hillary supporters have been making which is the subject of my OP.

I would also prefer a candidate that did not originally favor war in Afghanistan as well as did not support war in Iraq. A lot of democrats were for the invasion of Afghanistan. It was a little more reasoned because at least Afghanistan was related to 9/11 and was harboring Bin Laden.
Barbara Lee would be fine with me. However, she is pretty far away from Hillary.

You want to condemn Clinton for her vote, but you give Sanders a pass for voting the same way.

Unlike you, I will not argue that he did not support that war when he did when he signed the resolution. Of course it was related to 9 11 and every other democrat did sign the resolution as well unlike the Iraq resolution in 2002 which had many democrats against because they knew it had nothing to do with 9/11 and was basically a PNAC wish list vote.

See how that works. If your candidate voted for something, you admit it. You dont make tortured arguments to say she didnt.

The 2001 Resolution was the Afghan invasion. Bernie voted for that like every democrat except Barbara Lee. See how easy that was. However, it had nothing to do with Iraq which Bernie was against. He is not a pacifist.

The 2002 Resolution was Iraq which was supported by Hillary. You have difficulty admitting the truth. Bernie did not support the invasion of Iraq. He never supported it. He was not for it then against it. Again, you are just inauthentic.

Just admit that Hillary voted to invade Iraq. It will require less squirming and avoiding political facts.

The 2001 resolution enabled all that followed.

The 2002 Resolution was about Iraq explicitly. If the 2001 resolution had enabled it, the Bush Administration would not have pursued another resolution in 2002 for Iraq. Get it. Even the Bush Administration was not buying your argument that the 2001 Resolution fully enabled them to invade Iraq.

Why are you bothering to argue this. The 2001 Resolution was about invading Afghanistan because Bin Ladin was there. It was related to 9 11. It had a lot of support within the country and the democratic party.

The Bush Administration did not really care about Afghanistan. The real goal was Iraq but Iraq was not harboring Bin Laden.

We had had a long conflict with Iraq from Bush Sr. through the Clinton Administration but this was going to be a new war. So the Bush Administration made the basis of the Iraq War the WMD that were a threat to the security of the US.

Why are you even trying to argue that the 2001 Resolution was not about Afghanistan and the 2002 Resolution about Iraq.

Not even bogus analogies or baseless insults by Sanders' supporters.

After all, Sanders surely wouldn't have voted on 9/14/2001 to give Bush free rein if he'd known of the PNAC agenda.

What could possibly explain his disastrous vote, from which the rest of our current middle east catastrophe resulted?

You are just making stuff up now with no factual or historical basis. I have corrected you three times with regard to 2001 resolution and the 2002 resolution. If Bush thought he had free rein, there would be no need for a Second Resolution titled formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114)

You post explicit falsehoods, you don't know how analogies work, you refuse to answer the questions that you demand of others, and you refuse to acknowledge Sanders' role in enabling our perpetual "war on terror."

Your favored candidate wouldn't support such intellectual dishonesty--why do you embrace it?

I was aware of them as well. More important and the reason for this OP was that Hillary was also certainly aware of them in 2002.

Bill and Hillary initially denied that Bill had an inappropriate relationship with former Lewinsky
let alone in the oval office.


think about that for a second and what it meant for the 2000 election.