He knew Bill Clinton wouldn't abuse his authority.

The claim that Bernie supported regime change is either dishonest or delusional, he was intelligent enough to realize that Bush was lying about Iraq and what would happen if we took out Saddam. In fact he spoke out against it:

And of course they also claim that by voting to support the troops he also supported the illegal invasion.

Hillary said we can not afford Bernie's plans to improve the lives of Americans during the debate. Yet, she also said that we can afford regime change in the ME.

Before we bring Democracy to other countries, maybe we should restore it here in America.

And why is it Hillary always thinks there's enough money for more war, but not enough for Bernie's plans to improve lives for Americans?

Trying to equate Bernie's vote for the IWL with her vote for Bush's IWR is bullshit, they have to completely ignore everything both of them said before the vote and after in order to make it work.

"Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security."

In the lead up to war, I clearly remember editorials written by senior military and retired military personnel warning that an invasion of Iraq without a plan for stabilization after the invasion, would be devistating to that country. If anything, our invasion did more to "alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East" than Sadam could have ever hoped to do.

Also, It's been documented elsewhere that then Sec Clinton never accessed the written Congressional intelligence briefings when making her decision to vote for the war. That's always bothered me as well, but that's a horse of I different color I suppose.

We were horrified that they were getting away with it, so many people realized what was happening and still couldn't stop them.

It still boggles the mind.

I can still remember vividly where I was and what I was doing as reports began rolling in that we had begun targeted strikes in Iraq in lead up to the invasion. I was at a party with friends in my Med school class and almost all of us were of the liberal persuasion. I remember the revelry stopping and all of us gathering around the TV for the news reports. The only thought I could muster in that sad moment was "We're actually doing this...we are going to preemtively invade another country, based on bogus intelligence claims. WTF is happening." That moment was a lifetime ago and yet I can go back to it like it was yesterday.

My parents had friends in Baghdad, my dad worked with a wonderful young Iraqi in Brussels and was invited to his wedding. He moved back to Iraq with his wife before the war. We never heard from them again.

Many in this country have no idea how devistating our choice to invade was to that country. We demolished the entire infrastructure: from roads, to businesses, to utilities. That country will never be the same, because our leaders voted for an invasion based on false intelligence with absolutely zero plan for the occupation.

The USA, Dump the GOP

Libya was the most developed country in North Africa with the highest standard of living.
Women could own property, care for their own money, spend it, attend schools, drive cars, and vote.

Hillary and the NeoCons "fixed" all that.
Libya is now a Failed State that has re instituted Sharia Law.

"Pan-African" means Africa and its resources are for Africans,
and NOT for Western Banks, Absentee Landlords, or the IMF.

Thats what it was always about. n/t

It is frightening to realize that the US Military has become the Enforcement Arm of the IMF and World Banks.

Hillary has a reputation for being sooo good on "Women's Issues".
She didn't "help" the hundreds of thousands of Women of Libya except to reverse their gains of 300 years back to being chattle.

Practically perfect in every way!

Or did you think we'd forget about the war because for some it clearly wasn't a big deal?

As for being perfect that's your pet strawman, you dance with it.

Sounds just like the right winger messiah meme they used against liberals who supported Obama so it's not surprising to see which faction picked it up and ran with it this time.

If Bernie's constituency wanted him to vote for troops in Iraq, you think he might have changed his mind? I do.

Politicians are a pragmatic bunch. They like getting re-elected, and their votes usually reflect that.

Care to take this to the next level and accuse me of being a rightwing mole?

That is a despicable sentiment, it's congress' responsibility to make sure our troops don't get sent to war unless it's a last resort. And ours to protest when they ignore that responsibility.

No, I don't think Bernie would have changed his mind, he knew Bush was lying, hell all of DU knew it. Why didn't Hillary?

And why did she repeat those lies to get us into the war?

No accusation, just an observation about which supporters use common right wing talking points.

Like the messiah meme and 'the troops volunteered so they shouldn't complain about where they're sent and for what reason'.

Have the last word.

Your post is disgusting.

I love melodrama.

if you are a drama queen.

We both know that you are answering my ridicule of your silliness with a bizarre "what about the dead soldiers?" reaction. Are you hoping that I will break down in tears?

By the way, I had family on the ground in Iraq, and my choice in reactions to your bullshit is either a) contempt at your obvious attempt to tug at the heartstrings or b) ridicule. I opted for (b). Don't like it? Then stop.

People have every right to still be outraged by the war.

Anyone who was personally affected by it would realize that.

But it is NOT the answer to every question.

Have the last word.

My oldest daughter in Afghanistan for a year, my son in Iraq for 18 months. It has never occurred to me to blame Hillary Clinton's vote for those wars. I'm baffled by the people who do.


I followed the aftermath you see--I had to--how we left Afghanistan underfunded, more or less, for a full scale action in Iraq. There were so many twists and turns--military advisors ignored, no real exit strategy, constant votes for various funding riding in congress etc and I have so many stories from my children.

My daughter telling me "I've seen those caves, I've been up in those caves--We'll never get him out of there, it's a huge system" or "The Marines came in and kicked the Talibans ass, just kicked thier ass, but they are still all over the place."
My son, in a FOB in northern Iraq telling about a town that had found a way to divert the water from the base--and what it felt like to go and take that water away.

Dozens of stories.
That one moment, one of the worst in my life, taking my 5 year old grandson by the hand and walking away from his mother when she returned from leave back to that hellhole. His face just crumpling--a fucking five year old trying not to cry.

Having The last word doesn't do anything for me either

That was powerful.

It shows almost no level of empathy for their fellow human being.

Although I suppose I should be thankful since both of them were in the National Guard at the time.

The things I read on DU in defense of Hillary's support for that war make me sick.

It's disgusting to think that your brother or myself back in the late 80's would be thought of as some kind of disposable person because we volunteered for service to this country or that our patriotism would be abused by politicians and excused by a candidates supporters because we "volunteered".

At least until recently - whenever Hillary gets criticized for her support of the war some just have to resort to blaming the victims.

And the soldiers who were maimed or killed were victims.

They deserved better.

I severed in Afghanistan as a navy surgeon in support of the Marines during the bloodiest months of that conflict. I know plenty of folks who were in Ramadi, and I can only imagine what your brother endured there.

Because of the medics, nurses and docs who served many were able to come home to their families.

You have my respect and gratitude.

I truly appreciate your comments. I've found that I am quick to jump into heated conversations regarding our military, maybe it's my own battles. Nothing in my civilian training could have prepared me for the trauma we witnessed, and I can only imagine how that affected the corpsmen, nurses, and other staff we had who had never see a major trauma in their lives. I don't say this lightly, I've worked in one of the busiest trauma centers in the US and it was a cakewalk compared to war trauma. We had an under Sec of Def visit our Fob along with several high ranking officers. They all ask us who was caring for us. There's not a day that goes by that I don't think of that place and what we experienced, sometimes in very visceral ways. Is it PTSD? I'm sure there's some component of that, but I think the larger component is that war is such a brutal thing that it can only change those who have experienced it first hand. I guess my long diatribe is intended to say this: I can't support a candidate who would send troops into harms way without the consideration of consequences. That didn't happen in Iraq...I pray we have learned from those mistakes.

If it had just been just a vote that would be one thing, but she promoted the war, lied to get us into it and then said we have given the Iraqis the "gift of freedom" in 2008:

When you say that Sanders "knew that Bill Clinton wouldn't abuse his authority," that seems to imply that the ILA gave him the authority to wage war in Iraq. But as I point out in my OP, the ILA did not authorize any use of American military force in Iraq.

He has said repeatedly that military force should only be used as a last resort.

SEE: The Clinton Sanctions on Iraq.

Madeline Albright, Bill's Secretary of State, conformed the 1/2 Million (more than Hiroshima) dead children on 60 minutes one night.
She said 1/2 MILLION Dead Innocent Iraqi Children..."Was Worth It!!!!!"

When the subject of regime change arises, votes do count, as much as Hillary owns her vote IWR, Sanders owns his vote on ILA, when bills are passed in congress they remain in effect and Sanders should know this fact.

And that we would get attacked on 9/11 allowing Bush to use that attack to blame Saddam and as an excuse to invade Iraq.

That's obviously what he voted for, it's all so clear now.

It's a shame he didn't vote against regime change or give a speech imploring others to do the same, otherwise we would know what he was really thinking at the time.

Kerspluurt!

a authorization for US military force?

"deflected" to AUMF.

You know that this isn't a verbal argument, right, that we just have to scroll up to see what you said?

It was for those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks.

which explicitly did not authorize use of military force.

"Did you read the part about the ILA explicitly saying that it was not to be construed as
a authorization for US military force?"

This is what I responded, in fact it included botht eh ILA and aumf.

In fact, that post did not include the AUMF.

I've encountered your fallacious arguments on this before, trying to equate Sanders' ILA vote with the IWR.

The plain fact of the matter is Bernie Sanders spoke out forcefully and with great foresight against the IWR in October 2002, whereas Hillary Clinton vocally supported and voted for it.

In the most consequential vote in their Senate careers, Sanders demonstrated far superior judgment in a crucially important matter of war and peace.

And you are accusing me of fallacious arguments.

I'm not sure which post you are reading, but post #14 referred to the ILA and stated it did not authorize military force. The AUMF (2001 and/or 2002) were totally separate votes.

The question in the subject title of your post is a capitulation on this point, and a prime example of your fallacious arguments.

You had made a false attempt to equate the ILA with the AUMF votes, and the response in post #14 pointed out the ILA did not authorize military force. Now you're trying to spin that refutation of your argument in your failed attempt to put Bernie Sanders in the same basket with Hillary Clinton regarding the decision to invade Iraq.

... if you can't handle someone pointing out the fallacies in your arguments?

Rather continuing to defend an indefensible position, perhaps you should carefully reconsider your thinking.

Sanders vote was on a resolution that asked for Qaddafi to step down. Clinton voted to invade another country.

Hillary did not invade Iraq, it is a popular talking point, the truth is Bush invaded Iraq, why are you letting Bush off the hook on Iraq?

Didn't find a full screen version - it's been removed from Youtube. Hillary's quoted remarks start at 6:37

One other:
NY Times, Feb 18, 2007: Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

....
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

"trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision..."

She couldn't be more full of it.

funny thing, your average peasant could discern that the "information and intelligence" was vapid self serving bullshit, but all these wise leaders were utterly bamboozled.

Halliburton?

Absolutely right.

According to Congressional logbooks, she never reviewed the intelligence reports that were provided to Congress.

I wish her supporters would own that, instead of lying about it.

He's been in Congress longer, and is excoriated by socialists and pacifists alike.

But you knew that, right?

The dawning realization of the productive harnessing 'liberalism' to international interventionism seems to be central to the creation myth of both neocolonialism and neoconservatism.

LOTS more.

K and R.

In either case, it makes her unfit to hold public office.

She was on board with the neocon agenda.

And yours as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/hillary-clinton-brings-ha_b_148786.html



...



...



...This article is a fascinating read because it illustrates a pattern over and over again not just with Iraq, bit other countries as well. She is quite defensive when challenged on this and often will talk right over another speaker to prevent them from even talking as she is quite vulnerable on these issues.

I realize some people may be voting for her because they might like some aspect of her social platform, but anyone who doesn't view her as a hawk, really needs to read this article.

This is what I am talking about... A verrryyyy slippery character, that HRC!

They'll have to start using Fox talking points to minimize his acumen.

which makes it less black and white than people do here. And highlighted that Bernie voted for that, too.

there are about a Million Innocent Iraqis who are no longer suffering.

running from the fighting,running from isis,running from the constant droning

we have created a nightmare

It's important to note that the administration pulled a swindle. Yeah, it looks like our representatives should have suspected something like that was possible, but once the swindle actually occurred our representatives should have screamed "Foul!".

The IWR was not a blank check with its language. But our people stood by while the administration lied so that they could invade under its provisions. The inspectors were still there, though Bush lied about their being kicked out.

Bush was authorized to go to war if he judged it necessary to protect the US against the threat posed by Hussein.

If you drill down into it, I agree that the authorization is there as a blank check. Though it was written to be used as a swindle, it wasn't presented that way to the public. There was language there to assuage hesitant representatives, and that exact same language helped compel them to vote for it.

When Bush claimed the inspectors had been ejected by Saddam, and the representatives who voted for the IWR remained fairly quiet (or at least quiet enough), that was when the swindle was finalized. Really gave me an appreciation for what politics is like when a faction desperately wants its war.

voted for it. The 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists was the blank check, and Bernie as well as Hillary Clinton voted for it.

Whether the AUMF Against Iraq would have passed or not, the AUMF Against Terrorists covered that already. All Cheney's Admin had to do was label Iraq part of the terrorist fight (I believe Duhbya did that with his Axis of Evil b.s.) and he already had the authorization to attack Iraq.

The AUMF Against Iraq was merely icing for the Cheney Admin and the finish to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - which Bernie voted for, as I've pointed out to you before.

Here's proof that the AUMF Against Terrorists is still in effect and can go beyond Afghanistan:


So can we stop pretending that the U.S. would not have launched war against Iraq were it not for Hillary Clinton's vote? It's disingenuous at best and an outright smear and lie at worst.

Hussein did not harbor Al Qaeda. The obvious intent of that clause was to authorize attacks against the Taliban. And of course Hussein did not plan, authorize, commit or aid the 9-11 attacks. So trying to saddle Sanders with responsibility for the Iraq invasion by way of his vote for the 2001 AUMF is not going to convince any well-informed and unbiased person.

No, we know Saddam didn't harbor or had anything whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda or September 11, 2001. WE know that NOW. The obvious intent of the 2001 AUMF Against TERRORISTS was a blank check from Congress in an attempt to abdicate their responsibility as the only branch of Gov't to declare war, and wash their hands in innocence as they handed this blank check to warmongering President Cheney and pResident G.W. Bush to attack any country he wanted to war against under the guise of fighting the war on terrorism.

The Centre for Research on Globalization was astute when they reported that the U.S. Gov't doesn't need another AUMF after the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists since this one -the one both Sanders and Clinton signed for - already gave any president a blank check to wage war anytime he feels there should be one.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq wasn't necessary unless it was to scare Saddam Hussein into allowing inspectors back into Iraq. That AUMF even contains the language of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, both which Sanders voted YEA for:

17th "Whereas" in the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq:


NO ONE is "saddling" Sanders with sole responsibility for the Iraq invasion, but he had a hand in it even if you refuse to believe it. Facts are facts. Unless he's too stupid to understand what he was voting for in 1998 (ILA) and in 2001 (AUMF Against Terrorists), I can only assume that he damn well knew he was voting for perpetual and permanent war.

It is amazing that you push the dumb argument that somehow voting for the ILA makes Sanders responsible for the invasion when in my OP I point out exactly why that is a dumb argument. You just ignore what I say and continue to push the bullshit.

And the idea that the 2001 AUMF authorized Bush to invade Iraq is absurd on its face.

Besides, Clinton not only voted for the IWR, she promoted the war and endorsed all of Bush's false claims to justify it.

Again, never claimed that Sanders is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not making the "dumb argument" here. But he DID vote for it, which I expect a Bernie supporter to do his own research on why that was the case.

The ILA was the run up to the invasion of Iraq - which, if you understood the history of it, you'd know these were two separate foreign policy issues. The 2001 AUMF Against Terrorism was born out of 9/11. The ILA and 2002 AUMF Against Iraq were part of a longer foreign policy under President Clinton to get Saddam Hussein to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations under Public Law 105-235. Again, two separate foreign policy initiatives.

The ILA clearly states, that it's Congress' position to remove Saddam Hussein and install (replace him with) a democratically elected government. Now how do you think they proposed to depose a despot realistically? Ask him nicely? Come on, Vattal. Surely you're smarter than that.

And the idea that the 2001 AUMF authorized Bush to invade Iraq is absurd on its face.

Yes. Absurd ON IT'S FACE. But it was nevertheless the perfect vehicle to use if you're determined to go to war, isn't it? All they had to do was claim that Hussein was helping the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. It's that simple. And Cheney and Bush were busy doing just that.

Let me remind you that Bush began touting the Axis of Evil bull three months after the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists was signed into law and throughout his presidency. You bet he was going to use it to justify war against Iraq because what were the three countries again that were part of his Axis of Evil? That's right. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He was setting the groundwork for invasion already on January 29, 2002 during the SOTU address when he mentioned the Axis of Evil for the first time, three months after the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists was passed and signed into law.

There is NO doubt that Cheney and Bush were going to go to war no matter what - which is another reason why Nader's cry that Al Gore and G.W. Bush were "no different" was so horribly wrong.

Besides, Clinton not only voted for the IWR, she promoted the war and endorsed all of Bush's false claims to justify it.

Link please? Because I've been reading just the opposite.

Let's be crystal clear here. Hillary Clinton never voted to go to war in Iraq, nor did she support the Bush/Cheney decision to kick out the UN weapons inspectors and invade. She couldn't have voted to go to war because the United States Congress hasn't officially declared war on any country since 1942. Let that sink in for a moment.

Her vote was on the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", which many other "war as last resort" Democrats like John Kerry, Harry Reid and Tom Harkin also voted for. Are you now claiming that Tom Harkin is a warmongering warhawk?

Here is an excerpt from her 2002 floor speech in Congress:


But it really doesn't matter what I present as evidence to contradict your false "Hillary Warhawk" narrative, does it? You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in demonizing Hillary Clinton as much as you can. But let's be clear here: I didn't post this for you, because I understand you can't change a closed mind. I've posted this for other readers who might be open to wanting to know the truth instead of giving in to baseless hyperbole and prejudices that will inevitably form that old Nader b.s. "there's no difference between Hillary Clinton and any Republican" so that we don't make that same mistake twice.

You say:

The ILA was not a call for an invasion of Iraq. Not even close. The ILA explicitly says that it does not authorize US military force. In it's own text it says:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

Section 4(a)(2) says: "The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."

The ILA does authorize support for internal opposition to Hussein. As you know, sometimes nations overthrow their own dictators without US assistance. One thing is clear. Sanders' vote for the ILA does not mean that he shares any of the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq.

As for Clinton, as my OP explains, she did more than just vote for the IWR. That was bad enough, but she also endorsed going to war and parroted all of Bush's lies about WMDs and harboring Al Qaeda people.

But her support for the Iraq war cannot be easily dismissed because she didn't just vote for it - she actually promoted it.

And her support for an illegal war cannot be equated to Bernie's support for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The Taliban attacked us, Saddam didn't.

... that she was part of the invading force.

It's over, it's done, Hillary already said she made a bad decision at the time. EVERYONE KNOWS what her vote was. It's like beating on Benghazi. Let it lay.

I'm currently supporting Bernie, but it has nothing to do with his Iraq vote. I'm voting for hi, because he's proposing breaking up the hugh monopolies, including the banks. He's going to make public colleges free. He would vote against ridiculous trade deals like have been passed. He proposes single payer health care. A whole host of reasons...NONE of them involve the Iraq war vote!

Lets all deal with fixing the present instead of concentrating on wrongs of the past.

The desperation is getting enormous.

That kind of dishonesty has to be addressed.

responsible for the INVASION of Iraq

Some knew better, they're not responsible.

That's not an opinion. That's a fact. But what is really interesting is what we learn about Bernie. He doesn't seem to have much influence with his congressional colleagues because he wasn't able to persuade them to vote against the war. Now that's interesting. i imagine many voters will be thinking about that when they consider must of what he wants to do requires the Congress to enact law and them fund them.

Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

And their record, as opposed to their campaign rhetoric, is the best evidence we have of their fitness to be President.

Furthermore, some Clinton supporters keep trying to obscure that record by suggesting such nonsense as that Sanders' vote for the ILA means that he as responsible for the invasion of Iraq as Clinton, or that Clinton didn't really support the invasion, or that the IWR authorized war only if necessary to ensure that Hussein adhered to UN resolutions involving weapons inspectors. If Clinton supporters stopped twisting the facts, it would make posts like this one less necessary.

While she might not be as extreme as many Republicans, she's def. not "liberal" when it comes to foreign policy.

...in Iraq. Has she ever spoken out against them? Her later statements appear to deflect criticism for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and children toward Saddam Housein.

the Annointed One by the Rightwing of the Establishment and the enemy of progress and peace in the world.

She is the one most likely to bring another war of choice, and has said as much, repeatedly. Those who support her are neocons, whether or not they admit it openly and to themselves.

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Sanders voted against the Iraq AUMF, and on the same day, voted to fund the Defense Department in fiscal year 2003:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3083/12790/27110/use-of-military-force-against-iraq#.VYZ9uba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3122/8511/27110/department-of-defense-appropriations-fiscal-year-2003#.VYZ8NLa1qSo

In 2003, he voted to protect "lawful commerce in arms." He also voted to fund Homeland Security (twice) and pay for military construction:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3157/8217/27110/protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act#.VYZ77ra1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3184/8100/27110/homeland-security-appropriations-fy-2004-bill#.VYZ6fba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3184/8556/27110/homeland-security-appropriations-fy-2004-bill#.VYZ7Kba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3185/21023/27110/military-construction-appropriations-act-2004#.VYZ7aba1qSo

So possibly Senator Sanders' record is not as sterling as some would have it.

and she was senator of the state that was attacked by terrorists....not Bernie