2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBoeing made nearly 69 BILLION dollars off Hillary's Iraq war.
Why does she think they need MORE assistance?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)privatize the profits?
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Bernie made sure they had what they needed after they were sent there. Would you prefer that American soldiers go hungry and not have armor? Seems like that's what you're advocating.......
vdogg
(1,384 posts)Hillary had no authority to send any troops anywhere. Obama and Bush had total legal authority in this regard, however Sec Defense has some capacity to mobilize troops in emergency situations.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Some are still dealing with the real life consequences.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Do tell?
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Wait...what? No? OK, never mind. She was just one Senator out of many who voted that way.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)I thought her experience mattered?
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)She was a Senator. She voted for the IWR. So did many of her Democratic colleagues. I remember that. It is not "her" war, however. Not by any definition that makes any sense.
She voted to approve GWB's false statements to justify it. I remember the mood of this country, although I was opposed to any such Middle East invasion. I also understand exactly why it happened.
Hillary's vote was a mistake, as she recognizes and admits.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)She failed the test, hundreds of thousands died, arms manufacturers (including gun makers) made billions, and she continued to sell Iraq as a great business opportunity when she was in the State Department (to Clinton Foundation donors).
What does Hillary stand for?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Are you implying that he should have voted for the Iraq war and Patriot Act in order to stay in office? His risked a lot, it's what people with strong moral backbones do, it's what EFFECTIVE leadership does.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_johnson_vs_feingold-3740.html
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)He'll be back. We need more like him.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Hope he wins.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)and was told a "no" vote would end any chance of his being reelected. Having learned from his awful DOMA vote (which he regretted) and deciding he'd rather be able to "live with himself" (his words), he voted no.
And took a jump in the polls.
It was not Feingold's IWR vote that cost him the election in 2010.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)not because they believed Bush (and anyone who was dumb enough to fall for his lies, is too stupid to hold public office).
Hillary and the others who supported this sent other people's kids to die for the sake of their own careers and the profits of their campaign "contributors".
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)This is our eventual future. For right now, at the behest of intervention supporting so-called "Democrats", we're still fucking up lesser established countries, but soon enough, the military will just be propagandist fodder. And I see it coming a mile off.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)That is not a party I can be a part of.
Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #15)
VulgarPoet This message was self-deleted by its author.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Democrats didn't support tearing down American privacy. Democrats didn't support military interventions. Democrats didn't support coups to put in totalitarian regimes.
And yet, this is everything we're supposed to support as "Democrats". Sure, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if absolutely necessary, but afterwards? I'm leaving the party, and praying to every god and goddess my altar venerates that my knee injury comes back, because that'll likely start the process for a medical separation.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)JFK supported coups, FDR didn't give a shit about the privacy rights of Japanese Americans, Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam is a dark spot on American history, even Jimmy Carter got his hands dirty.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)The $69 Billion is total sales--sales not profits. Gross profits were $4 billion. Arms sales were $38 billion in 2011 and $21.5 billion were from US government contracts (which probably includes contracts other than military). They also employed 171,700 people. I don't understand why Bernie thinks that it is bad to keep those jobs here.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)to take the plant to another state. Boeing can suck it as far as I'm concerned.
msongs
(67,394 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Jarqui
(10,122 posts)Boeing got government contracts, sold $4 billion in arms to Russia, 84 F-15s plus some choppers to Saudi Arabia, etc and the Clinton Foundation got 7 digit contributions from Boeing.
Both sides appear to have done very well in this arrangement.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Can't say the same for some of his supporters.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Rania Khalek / AlterNet June 21, 2011
One of the most significant scourges paralyzing our democracy is the merger of corporate power with elected and appointed government officials at the highest levels of office. Influence has a steep price-tag in American politics where politicians are bought and paid for with ever increasing campaign contributions from big business, essentially drowning out any and all voices advocating on behalf of the public interest.
Millions of dollars in campaign funding flooding Washington's halls of power combined with tens of thousands of high-paid corporate lobbyists and a never-ending revolving door that allows corporate executives to shuffle between the public and private sectors has blurred the line between government agencies and private corporations.
This corporate dominance over government affairs helps to explain why we are plagued by a health-care system that lines the pockets of industry executives to the detriment of the sick; a war industry that causes insurmountable death and destruction to enrich weapons-makers and defense contractors; and a financial sector that violates the working class and poor to dole out billions of dollars in bonuses to Wall Street CEO's.
The implications of this rapidly growing corporatism reach far beyond our borders and into the realm of American diplomacy, as in one case where efforts by US diplomats forced the minimum wage for beleaguered Haitian workers to remain below sweatshop levels.
In this context of corporate government corruption, one of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy. Many of the WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal the naked intervention by our ambassadorial staff in the business of foreign countries on behalf of US corporations. From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable.
While the merger of corporate and government power isn't exactly breaking news, it is one of the most critical yet under-reported issues of our time. And WikiLeaks has given us an inside look at the inner-workings of this corporate-government collusion, often operating at the highest levels of power. It is crystal clear that it's standard operating procedure for US government officials to moonlight as corporate stooges. Thanks to WikiLeaks, here are five instances that display the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to protect and promote US corporations around the world.
1. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing. The merger of state and corporate power is striking in a slew of cables detailing US State Department officials acting as marketing agents on behalf of one lucky corporation. Earlier this year the New York Times revealed details about how US diplomats have actively promoted the sale of commercial jets built by the US company Boeing.
CONTINUED...
http://www.alternet.org/story/151370/5_wikileaks_revelations_exposing_the_rapidly_growing_corporatism_dominating_american_diplomacy_abroad
This got dropped off the Corporate Owned News radar, so on it goes.