Next November.

When the gop swiftboated Kerry I finally realized it didn't matter what a Democrat said or did. The gop would always give them an Emmanual Goldstein Five Minute Hate treatment. Except for a few media sources, most, I think, will allow he said-she said non fact checked Democrat bashing. Hopefully if Hillary gets the nomination she will be ready for that.

But one of the biggest reasons it worked was because Kerry's team was very slow to respond. IIRC like a week to 10 days late. Then their response was weak. I'd like to think HRC's team would be much better at reacting.

sensibility on ISIS, I would hope other candidates follows the lead.

She SUCKS.

Foreign policy.

why Hillary Clinton would have never gotten reelected as New York Senator had she not voted for the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq one year after 9/11/2001.

The American people are not exactly as anti-war as they - or Sanders supporters - like to claim we are.

If the American people were anti-war, President Obama's approval numbers should be through the roof for not having launched a new war after ending the war in Iraq and winding down the one in Afghanistan. No. Instead, he's excoriated for being too diplomatic and not having joined a military response to the Paris attacks.

The constant, 24/7 drumbeats for war keep on keeping on until those who profit from war can taste the fear among Americans in the polls. It's been peaceful far too long for the MiC and war-profiteers -profiteering at the expense of the American people who appear to be easily led into supporting war.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I mean, I've been on DU since nearly day one, though a really irregular poster.

But I remember so much of that time period, the protests against the Iraq war, the millions of people in the street, the dismissive nature of the media about it and so forth.

But I also remember the palpable fear so many had (again, because of pols and media) that reminds me why so many acted as they did.

I saw the new mediocre film The Secret in their Eyes this weekend. Part of the story deals with characters that were part of a CT task force watching a mosque in LA back in 2002. It's not the main story but is a tangent piece.

There are so many reminds of how things changed quickly back then, with the armed soldiers at stations, outside of federal buildings, the increased introduction at a rapid pace of surveillance cameras and more. The more being how some officials (FBI, etc) were adamant that stopping the next attack superceded EVERYTHING Else.

And a lot of that was the driving fear of the populace and the reactionary nature to the traumatic event.

I totally understand why so many will not veer towards Hillary because of her vote. At the same time, I really don't think many here understand why it will be such a non-issue for so many voters - both because they have the fear and there are a lot that recall how they themselves acted with a bit of shame and are looking for some sort of redemption through it, by not holding those leaders "accountable" for it in that sense.

Just that one throwaway line in the film with a guy on the street hawking duct tape and plastic to cover your windows to prepare for a biological attack... I know I laughed at that when it was reported on the news back in 2002. But I also recognized how many people utterly believed it and did all of that.

Day one? Democratic Underground opened in 2001. I have four years on you.

That said, I agree with your post - to an extent. The disconnect part of it is jarring.

I, myself, am NO pacifist. I believe we need a strong military because the United States isn't as loved around the world as we'd like to think we are, so we're prime targets for plenty of warmongering nations and murderous groups. But I believe in diplomacy first and foremost, and that military force should be a last resort - just like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Speaking only for me, I don't understand why Hillary Clinton is held to account for her vote in 2002. It was never a vote to go to war no matter what the popular sentiment is here and elsewhere. Read her speech here. Cleary, she believed in coercive diplomacy and believed the AUMF Against Iraq would give the president (who, in 2000, campaigned against nation-building, for those who forgot) the authority he needed to bring investigators back into Iraq with the power of the UN behind it.

After the trumped-up ebola-virus scare that helped sweep Republicans into office in 2014 (thanks in large part to our GOP-friendly - which is ALL - U.S. media) and what disappeared right after the elections, people should start thinking if they can trust the press that had consistently beat the drums of war until we heard nothing else. People need to understand that there is no such thing as "truth in advertising" in our press and that we no longer have a Fourth Estate. We have propaganda outlets designed to create a narrative rather than play the all-important roll of government watch dog.

Now the drums are beating again. Loudly. Pro-war propaganda is rearing its ugly head again, and it has brought President Obama's approval numbers on terrorism DOWN.

Hermann Goering's words are ringing loudly in my ears again..."Of course the people don't want war...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Day one? Democratic Underground opened in 2001. I have four years on you.

your name is very familiar, I know TheMagistrate posted on Digg for years before the board was sold.

but it's like a different person. That place went downhill fast once they changed their algorithm though. I remember spending an inordinate amount of time on there and then the way it changed in a heartbeat it felt like was striking.

(as you can see in my profile) and only changed my moniker when the DU Admins gave me the opportunity. I changed it from BlueCaliDem04 to BlueCaliDem. Not much of a change, but there you have it. So I guess I didn't see it from your p.o.v. Thanks for the clarification.

I have never been suspended, I have never quit, and I have never had my account deleted for any reason. I'm an infrequent poster, too, hence my fairly low post-count despite being a member for eleven years. Sometimes I'd leave for a year/year and a half. But I always come back and oftentimes, during my self-imposed sabbaticals, I lurk just to read up on the latest.

Anyway, I believe you. So you have three years on me.

Just wanted to show the context where back in 2002 DU had a "disconnect" from the mainstream and the mainstream had its own disconnects. While I find a lot of value in talking about the IWR vote and all associated it it, a lot that gets lost is the actual context of the time and how the populace in general felt. And it's an important piece to remember as a vote does not occur in a vacuum.

I apologize if that's how I came across.

And it's an important piece to remember as a vote does not occur in a vacuum.

she talks as tough as GOP does.yes she doesn't go on american muslim attacks but she is just as much in favor of more war In ME as republicans.

As your side loves to point out, she's a political insider. Her policies and positions actually influence the Democratic party as a whole, and in turn her own policies and positions are shaped by the Democratic Party establishment, and the half of the country that identifies as Democrat.

She is actually IN the political arena, and what she says actually DOES make a difference.

When you're on the independent political sidelines, you have the freedom to sit back and heckle the ones who are actually in the game making things happen.

This picture made me laugh!

And yes, I much prefer feet-on-the-ground reality-based policy over head-in-the-clouds cotton-candy idealism, too.

A political point.

I think you might benefit from a new optical prescription.

She became a cheerleader for Cheney/Bush's worse foreign policy blunder in modern history...

And she suggested Bernie was a racist and a woman hater..

Hyperbole:

"She voted for the war!"
"She's an unapologetic hawk!"
"She's just another Dick Cheney when it comes to foreign policy!"

What she really said that totally disproves the above:

never been the Cheney and Bush doctrine.

She didn't believe in the Cheney/Bush's doctrine of preemption nor for their unilateralism doctrine, either.

So to say that she was a "cheerleader for Cheney/Bush's" foreign policy catastrophe, is hyperbole. And it needs to stop.

And Hillary Clinton gave them a vote of confidence while echoing their false claims. That Iraq was actually a direct threat to the U.S. and developing nukes.. When a Republican does it, it's called fear mongering.

Just the fact that she ever believed Iraq was a threat to this country(if you actually believe that) is reason enough not to vote for her...

that she's "a cheerleader for Cheney/Bush" - which is false.

It's clear in her Senate floor speech why she voted for the AUMF Against Iraq. I've laid it out in detail. What she said is exactly the opposite of the Cheney/Bush doctrine, and now you know it, too, even if you refuse to accept it.

NO VOTE is made in a vacuum. Anyone who believes otherwise is politically naive.

You stated in your original post that she became a cheerleader for Cheney/Bush's worse foreign policy blunder, and you're doubling down on that position. If you really believe that, you'll also have to believe that Senators John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Tom Harkin are also cheerleaders of Cheney/Bush's catastrophic foreign policy decision since they voted YEA, too. Do you?

Again, ""A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war;" Her own words. "use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

A vote for the AUMF Against Iraq was not a vote for war. Keep in mind that Congress hasn't declared war since 1942. So voting for the AUMF Against Iraq was merely a tool to coerce Saddam Hussein into allowing inspectors back into Iraq.
A vote for the AUMF Against Iraq was a vote for coercive diplomacy.

During the Janurary 2008 Democratic debate, Senator Clinton said this:

And she was willing to hand this inept bunch the "awesome responsibility" to attack Iraq?

"We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job?' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do."

voted no.. Like Sanders and Obama did...

you insist that a vote for the AUMF Against Iraq is a vote for war, and that's just false. Claiming that Hillary Clinton was "a cheerleader for the Cheney/Bush foreign policy blunder" is also false.

Career-ending votes are made all the time by all politicians - including Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton's quest for the White House in 2008 ended because of her 2002 vote. She apologized, and now she's back and, if polls can be believed, will win the White House. Now it's Bernie Sanders' turn to be held accountable for his "career-ending" vote - on his defense of the NRA and gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers, and his votes to protect them. He will not win the White House this time around. Let him try in 2024.

I'm done with this subthread. We're going round and round in circles with very little more to add to it. Enough information is provided in what's already been posted, so I see no need to continue this line of debate.

By the way? Obama wasn't in the Senate when the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq vote happened.

You've avoided the fact that Hillary Clinton used a false information to manufacture the idea that Iraq was enough of a threat to this country to warrant giving Bush a green light to attack it.. You presented nothing that changes that fact. She actually went so far as to suggest that Saddam Hussein was supporting Al-Qaeda... Which is right out of the Dick Cheney playbook...

And I have to say I find it ridiculous that you're denying Hillary voted in favor of George W. Bush's call to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq... When she admits it herself... "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote" and it was one that "I stand by." Speech given at George Washington University
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/remarks-senator-hillary-rodham-clinton-transcript/p6600


Also there's no comparison between Bernie's vote to protect gun manufactures from being sued and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war. Other than to try and make it appear that Sanders is favorable to the NRA...

This is like an unamusing version of Groundhog Day.

in another unwinnable quagmire. No fear here.

to create more terror cells.

I think they have co-opted the worst of the RW memes out there....in support of their candidate.

9-11 and .....

Real terrorism in the US is brought to us by crazy disaffected white youth (Columbine, Aurora, etc) and race frightened police officers with poor training and no checks and balances. (and no, not all police are bad, just the ones that decide they are judge, jury and executioner.

He wouldn't want to lose all of those Republicans that are going to flock over to him in the General to give him that dream win.

Does the American public know that the Iraq War, which she voted for, led to the creation of ISIS? Does the American public understand that the Iraq War distracted our fight against Al Qaeda?

You apparently seem to be one of those people that can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nada she does nor say will change them. But alas, the negativity have secured many to re-evaluate and vote for her.

and al Qaeda was operating there.

There was no evidence that AQ or OBL had anything to do with Iraq. That was Clinton's blunder that escalated the mess.

every Republican beating Hillary on every issue. One thing that is going to affect the election is what Obama does. So far his response to the attacks in Europe have been as weak as they could be. Now he even came up with a new name for them instead of ISIS or ISIL, does he really think by calling them a name we will defeat them?

Trust? Her?



Uh...no.

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Has she got to the "Bring it on" and "Smoke 'em out" part yet?

Yeah that'll surely work.

Sorry. She helped start this shit with her Iraqi War vote, not that I think people understand that, but...

That said: I do not trust her with my son's future. One (of the many) reasons I cannot vote for her is because she picks that terrorist NuttyYahoo to be one of her first visitors to the White House. She wants to kill my son.

And she did claim that Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda when she was selling the Iraq war.

So if you want a "tough talker" and perpetual war in the middle east you can trust her.

as I try to be when it comes to politics, the GOP's fear-mongering about Islam since the attacks has been effective. They even have my parents (who are both Dems) paranoid about any attacks after letting Syrian refugees into the country. I tried convincing them that Pres. O knows what he's doing and that there have been no major attacks here with him at the helm, and that neither of them know the process involved in him making this decision, but they still don't think he's doing the right thing. They think that he and other D's are being too lenient and letting in "a bunch of killers". As we get closer to Nov. 2016, I expect more fear-mongering from the R's as they again try to paint D's as weak.