Calling for someone to step down is so far from backing rebels, creating a no fly zone etc it's laughable.

I think I'll go with Politifact.

"Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?


On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.

The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."

Lastly:
""In effect, all this resolution does is say, ‘Gaddafi is a bad person and should stop,’ " Huder said, noting that this document cannot be interpreted as expression of congressional intent to take specific action to oust Gaddafi"

From Politifact

The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors

"The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to float rainbow bubbles out his butt and shoot mini golden unicorns from his flaring nostrils...."

and now you've given me proof

I think I can also infer that he hates large golden unicorns and clear bubbles

No, you didn't. It asked Ghaddafi to step down. Not the same as what Hill did giving Bush military authority to attack Iraq. Apples and Oranges. Or do i need to explain that difference also?

...according to the standard set here for Hillary by his supporters, this is a lie.

I'll go with 'misspoke.'

Read the article. The resolution Bernie co-sponsored called for Gaddafi to step down voluntarily in a peaceful manner. It had nothing to do with military intervention.

...and how much grief Clinton has taken for the consequences of that vote.

You should realize that vote was about more than a sense of the Senate, it was a green light to the administration to see regime change through.

1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

S.RES.85 Urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and (2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.

Others may differ, but to me that is the difference between "Mostly True" and "Mostly False" with this Politifact rating.

I would call it somewhat fuzzy when all things are explained. Not the HARD SUPPORT she wanted everyone to believe.

See the rest of the Politifact article...it pretty much shows what is wrong with this OP

The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors

Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)

I think there's quite a difference "calling" for someone to step down and voting to take action to make it happen. Are you aware of any vote by the Senate to take action? Please post it. Thanks in advance

However, here are snips of an very extensive article (3 parts) from the Washington Times this past Jan (before HRC decided to run- if I'm not mistaken) in regards to what went on with who and how. Enjoy!

campaign manager for the right wing rag Washington Times? No thanks.

Didn't think so. You have a good evening to

Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a helluva drug.

*****For those that find the source offensive- perhaps you will find these more acceptable?****

Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=389069

Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/


Opinion
Hillary’s Libyan Disaster Is A Bigger Scandal Than Who Emailed Her

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/hillarys-libya-disater-is-a-bigger-scandal-than-who-emailed-her/#ixzz3v7KU1LVf


Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/25/1150015/-Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria

Behind Petraeus’s Resignation https://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/10/behind-petraeuss-resignation/

Anyone thinking that any of the DNC candidates can throw rocks isn't looking at reality.

I can't remember the exact issue, but there was another item like this where they just got it dead wrong. And here they go again. Calling for a leader to step down is a far cry from voting for regime change. Especially since the original context was US intervention for regime change.

only partly lying?

Yay for Team Hillary -- she nearly told the truth!

We all would "like" to see regime change in Syria, N. Korea, Russia, BUT calling for it, and appropriating funds to make it happen militarily are two entirely different things.

Sorry, but trying to equate this with HRC's advocating military regime change, and giving GWB carte blance to militarily ravish Iraq is a diversion by her, NOT an honest rebuttal, but deceiving.

I think the people that decide the rating need to read the article on top of it.

My, my, my...poor Hill gets ALL "False" meter readings.

Am I surprised at all...of course not!

Thanks for posting!!

The vote

The U.S. military spent about $2 billion and several months backing the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, who had held power for decades. The uprising -- part of the Arab Spring -- toppled Gaddafi in August 2011, and rebel forces killed him the following October.

Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.

The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."

The article itself disproves its own title. The resolution Bernie co-sponsored clearly requested the Gaddafi step down voluntarily and in a peaceful manner. Nowhere did it say anything about military force, which is the staple of regime change. It's no wonder Hillary didn't let him respond to that charge during the debate.

The bill called for Gadhafi to voluntarily step down from power in a peaceful manner. That's it. It made no mention of military force, which is what Hillary was advocating for the whole time.

Wow.

It's a LISA.

Quatloos for anyone who knows exactly what I'm talking about.