HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The Sanders Campaign Crit...

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:25 PM

The Sanders Campaign Criticism of Clinton's Iraq War Vote

This is a ridiculous critique of Hillary Clinton. We as Democrats shouldn't be making our presidential decision this election cycle based on the last war, we should be making this decision based on the next war. It's as easy for Democrats to be against war as it is for Republicans to be for war. It doesn't take a lot of courage to vote with your own base on either side. The Iraq War resolution would have passed with or without Hillary Clinton's vote. 29 Senate Democrats sided with 48 Republicans to authorize the war. Rather than litigate the wisdom of that vote in hindsight, we should be focusing on who has the foresight to avoid the next unnecessary war of choice. You can say that Sanders voted for what the base of the Democratic Party wanted or but that negates the fact that 72% of the public supported the Iraq War at the time of the vote. So who really represented the will of the voters back then? Was it Sanders or Clinton?

45 replies, 2442 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Sanders Campaign Criticism of Clinton's Iraq War Vote (Original post)
Joe Nation Feb 2016 OP
virtualobserver Feb 2016 #1
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2016 #39
daleanime Feb 2016 #2
Paulie Feb 2016 #10
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #13
daleanime Feb 2016 #25
bvf Feb 2016 #28
Joe Nation Feb 2016 #23
djean111 Feb 2016 #3
frylock Feb 2016 #4
Iggy Knorr Feb 2016 #5
Avalux Feb 2016 #6
mikehiggins Feb 2016 #9
Punkingal Feb 2016 #7
bowens43 Feb 2016 #8
pinebox Feb 2016 #11
Red Oak Feb 2016 #12
MauriceLawrence96 Feb 2016 #14
TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #15
Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #16
HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #17
H2O Man Feb 2016 #18
casperthegm Feb 2016 #19
SamKnause Feb 2016 #20
cali Feb 2016 #21
Broward Feb 2016 #22
polly7 Feb 2016 #24
ViseGrip Feb 2016 #26
bvf Feb 2016 #27
KingCharlemagne Feb 2016 #29
My Good Babushka Feb 2016 #30
LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #31
SDJay Feb 2016 #32
LineReply .
Wilms Feb 2016 #33
democrank Feb 2016 #34
Joe Nation Feb 2016 #35
Maedhros Feb 2016 #40
farleftlib Feb 2016 #41
Dems to Win Feb 2016 #36
highprincipleswork Feb 2016 #37
jillan Feb 2016 #38
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #43
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #42
Joe Nation Feb 2016 #44
MisterP Feb 2016 #45

Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:28 PM

1. So if the Wardogs whip up the people again with fake information, She will be for the next war too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:32 PM

39. and it's the fallout from the Iraq war

thousands of people killed and maimed including our own - a war based on lies. The aftermath as we know has given rise to ISIS and given momentum to fanatical Islamic groups. She also voted for cluster bombs!!! She caves easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:28 PM

2. Has she ever met a war....

she didn't like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:37 PM

10. The war on wall street?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:39 PM

13. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:49 PM

25. Boom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:55 PM

28. +1. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:46 PM

23. Yes!

The war we are NOT HAVING with Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:29 PM

3. "we should be making this decision based on the next war" - I think it a million times

 

more likely that Clinton would start or be in favor of a "next war".

It is disingenuous at best to pretend that all Bernie's supporters care about is that Iraq vote. What I care about is that it shows Hillary's proclivity for war, and the fact that she not only voted for it, but made speeches urging others to do so, is only one of the reasons I will not support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:30 PM

4. Cool story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:30 PM

5. No sale

 

And tell Mary Housecoat I said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:31 PM

6. So what about good judgement do you not understand?

There have been too many foreign policy blunders by Hillary to think that she has any, especially when she cites Henry Kissinger as a mentor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:36 PM

9. Henry Kissinger. Darth Cheney's Sith Master eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:33 PM

7. I don't agree...I knew there was no real reason to invade Iraq. Why didn't she?

She brags about her record all the time...that is part of her record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:34 PM

8. 500,000 dead ? this doesn't matter to you???WOW

 

goes to character and judgement, she lacks both.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:38 PM

11. Wasn't an issue in the past was it?

 

*cough cough*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:39 PM

12. She'll get it right next time! Promise!

Well, it may depend on who has given her the most money lately...but, whatever.

"Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release."

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:40 PM

14. If you want a Neocon that sounds EXACTLY like Bush and Cheney

 

Hillary is your gal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:40 PM

15. Not sure...

it's a war that continues to haunt us and will likely haunt us for another 100 years. It de-stabilized an already insane region of the world. The sad thing is millions of innocent people have died who didn't have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:41 PM

16. Also the 19 minute speech she made imploring others to vote with her

 

and the more current statement about wanting a no fly zone in Syria.


She can't pass the Commander In Chief test.


Deal with it.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:41 PM

17. She has a long way to go to match Kissingers death total.

 

I'm afraid she'll try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

18. Respectfully disagree.

That single vote is obviously not the only issue that we should consider. But it is an important one, for many reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

19. It's far from ridiculous

So what if her vote was one of many? They aren't running to be president. She is. And her judgement was poor, to say the least. You think we should talk about the war now? Well this one is a result of the war she previously voted for, so it's all connected, isn't it? And in this war she wants to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria. And what happens when Russian jets cross it? Because Putin isn't the type to back down. Then what?

And you don't vote for or against military action based on the poll of the people. You vote based on your knowledge.

Sanders predicted that the Iraq war would destabilize the region. And it did. Clinton tout's experience. Ok, she has experience but that experience reveals a checkered history regarding foreign policy, wouldn't you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

20. Oh, you were serious.



FEEL THE BERN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:45 PM

21. What's ridiculous is asserting that Iraq is some musty, irrelevant issue

 

The repercussions from that war are still rolling in.

The most jarring claim in your post is that any elected representatives should have based his or her vote on the will of the people. Some votes are and should be, votes of conscience. The IWR was certainly one of those votes.

In any case, Bernie is clearly our best choice when it comes to avoiding another war.

And as Pat Leahy said just before the vote, The IWR is a blank check to bushco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:45 PM

22. Yeah, but who got it right last time

provides at least some idea of who will get it right the next time. Moreover, you're essentially saying that Hillary should get a free pass on her craven, vile war vote. Absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:49 PM

24. The Wicked War on Syria

Clinton’s unwillingness to let go of the “regime change” requirement regarding a sovereign state, coupled with a moralistic but biased outrage, suggests someone who does not respect international law and could be dangerous as President: hypocritical, prejudiced and self-righteous.

Following are specific points of interest from “Syria: A Wicked Problem”.

Clinton echoes the western narrative about the Syrian conflict

The crisis began in early 2011, when Syrian citizens, inspired in part by the successful peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt, took to the streets to demonstrate against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al Assad. As in Libya, security forces responded with excessive force and mass detentions which in turn led some Syrians to take up arms to defend themselves and, eventually, to try to topple Assad.” (p 447)


This description is widespread but misleading. In his 2007 article Seymour Hersh exposed the U.S. promotion of Sunni fundamentalists to undermine Syria and Iran. In 2010 Secretary of State Clinton pressed Syrian President Bashar al Assad to comply with Israeli and US calls to stop supporting the Lebanese resistance and break relations with Iran. Was Clinton especially hostile to the Syrian President because he did not comply with her requests/demands and soon after forged an agreement with Iran? She makes no mention of this in her book but it is obviously relevant to the issue of Syria-USA relations.

Regarding the so-called peaceful protesters, in fact, there was a violent element from the start. In Deraa in March 2011 several police were killed. In the original “capital of the revolution”, Homs, a very credible eye-witness reported armed demonstrators initiating the violence.


http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/09/the-wicked-war-on-syria/

I think she learned very well from Iraq what it takes to topple a country. Apparently Libya was a great success ... on to the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:51 PM

26. Ridiuclous? Wow...yes...concern over the war and it breaking the country and all we stand for

 

we should have had Bush tried as a war criminal. Any and everyone who voted for the Iraq War has blood on their hands.

Much of Hillary's money has come from Wall Street and defense contractors. Defend it if you want. But don't expect voters to fall for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:53 PM

27. Pardon me, but your expectation is showing.

 


We as Democrats shouldn't be making our presidential decision this election cycle based on the last war, we should be making this decision based on the next war. (emphasis mine)



There you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:55 PM

29. You are hiding a small lie inside a bigger lie, to wit, that "72% of

 

the public supported the Iraq War at the time of the vote." The fact is that even on the eve of the invasion on March 20, 2003, 50% of the American public wanted to give the U.N. inspectors time to finish their work. IOW, against war as a first resort. Of course, letting the U.N. weapons inspectors finish their work was exactly what the Bush Junta could not afford to let happen at any cost. Hillary's vote thus subverted international law and the will of the people (your big lie). Nice try at rewriting history, though. Too bad most of us who lived through every sorry, sordid day of it are still alive. (RIP Malachai Richter.)

Of course, the Iraq vote disqualifies HRC from POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:58 PM

30. I am thinking about the future wars

and the connection between large donations to the Clinton Foundation and approved sales of $165 billion in weapons systems to foreign governments with human rights records as illustrious as Saudi Arabia, our good friends. That is nearly double the value of American arms sales made to foreign governments and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:02 PM

31. Yes, when considering who will make the right decision going forward

we should totally ignore that one of the two candidates fucked up her vote last time. Not only fucked it up, but vigorously encouraged others to fuck up their votes as well.

Yes, that's the person we should trust to in the future, yes indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:05 PM

32. The Best Way to Predict

a person's decision on the next war is to look at how he or she decided on a previous war. What's more relevant than that? It's not as if we were all duped by some really high-level and top-notch 'intelligence' obtained. There were millions of people - me included - who knew that this was an absolutely bullcrap war.

I don't know if I'm right about this or not, but it's the impression I got: She had to have known that the case for an unprovoked war was weak at best, criminal at worst. To say otherwise is to obviate all of the arguments about how highly intelligent she is. She could have taken a brave step and spoken out against the war. I got the feeling that she used this as an opportunity to bone up on her hawkish bona fides because remember, Democrats are branded wimps/doves/pacifists/whatever. It felt like a self-serving political decision instead of the right decision.

Given all of the suffering that transpired all over the world, I don't think she should be given a pass for this. Is she responsible for this war? No. But she is responsible for her voice leading up to it.

If she's faced with another decision like this one during her administration, do you really think she'll back off from a war? I don't, at least not based on what I think was her calculus for this previous decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:10 PM

33. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:10 PM

34. The "last war" isn`t over, Joe Nation.

It lives on as we live and breathe, both at home and in Iraq. The vote to invade Iraq was, for some of us, the single worst foreign policy decision in memory and it showed very poor judgement. It doesn`t matter if the resolution would have passed with or without Clinton`s vote. One doesn`t vote in favor of a war, a matter of life and death, based on what everybody else is doing.

The "last war" you speak of is alive and well in every VA hospital I`ve visited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:19 PM

35. Yes, war has consequences

But hindsight also has limitations. Was WWII wrong? Hindsight! What if it had turned out differently? I'm no fan of the Iraq War by any stretch but I remember the public's lust for war after 911 and I can't blame Clinton for voting with public sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:59 PM

40. I can and do blame Clinton.

 

We need politicians with principle. She has none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:06 PM

41. A leader doesn't accommodate the lowest common denominator

 

Pandering to the troglodytes who were blinded by "lust for war after 9/11" would be the worst form of cowardice. War is literally hell on earth. She has blood on her hands and should not be given a pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:26 PM

36. Hillary had NO EXCUSE for being duped by George Bush

 

Of ALL the members of the Senate in 2002, Hillary should have known Bush was peddling a pack of lies.

Hillary was 'co-president' from 1993-2000, when the US bombed Iraq weekly or monthly to enforce the no-fly zones enacted after the first Iraq War. The Clinton White House enforced crippling sanctions on Iraq the whole time. It made not a bit of sense that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program when the country couldn't even get spare parts to repair their sewage treatment plants. Never for an instant did I, and the millions marching against the war, believe Iraq could possibly be a danger to the US after the destruction of the First Iraq War and subsequent bombings and sanctions.

It never made a bit of sense that secular Saddam, known for brutally repressing the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, had anything to do with Al Qeada and 9/11. Not for a single moment did I, or the millions of others marching in the streets, believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Hillary should have known this, too.

If she is smart and competent and the co-president during her husband's term, she would have been leading the charge for NO votes on the IWR. Instead, she voted yes and authorized the epic travesty of the Iraq War and all that followed, the biggest mistake the US has made during my lifetime.

No, I'm not going to forget about Hillary's poor judgement when making my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:28 PM

37. All you should really think about is who represented you!

 

I know my answer, and it surely isn't Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:30 PM

38. We are living in the aftermath of that vote!! The entire region was destabilized because of that.

Isis formed from members of Saddam's personal army.

We ARE fighting the next war, all of them, that resulted from that one vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:11 PM

43. Some seem to forget this fact. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:10 PM

42. This is satire, right?

If not, let me say what her vote demonstrated is her horrific judgement
and you can believe she made a mistake, I don't see it that way since
her record on "interventions" is vast and her rhetoric is dangerous and
irresponsible.

She is not like Obama on this regard, she would never have had an
Iran deal..never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 05:39 PM

44. Do I hear a "completely agree"?

I stand by the OP 100% since I have yet to hear one good counter argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Nation (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:16 AM

45. the IWR wouldn't have passed without the Dems, and she led the Dem hawk charge in '02

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread