HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » He was right then, he's r...

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:32 AM

 

He was right then, he's right now.



Especially note that Bernie understood then the effect this war would have on poor and elderly Americans.

39 replies, 3274 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 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply He was right then, he's right now. (Original post)
Scuba Jan 2016 OP
merrily Jan 2016 #1
Protalker Jan 2016 #5
daleanime Jan 2016 #13
merrily Jan 2016 #29
ljm2002 Jan 2016 #34
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #2
Scuba Jan 2016 #3
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #4
Scuba Jan 2016 #6
Cary Jan 2016 #10
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #11
Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #15
pangaia Jan 2016 #19
BlueStateLib Jan 2016 #30
Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #35
BlueStateLib Jan 2016 #39
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #16
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #20
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #22
snort Jan 2016 #24
Fuddnik Jan 2016 #21
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #23
merrily Jan 2016 #31
Cary Jan 2016 #7
newfie11 Jan 2016 #8
one_voice Jan 2016 #37
tecelote Jan 2016 #9
raouldukelives Jan 2016 #17
Doctor_J Jan 2016 #12
daleanime Jan 2016 #14
Babel_17 Jan 2016 #18
madfloridian Jan 2016 #25
Historic NY Jan 2016 #26
bobbobbins01 Jan 2016 #27
merrily Jan 2016 #33
merrily Jan 2016 #32
BlueStateLib Jan 2016 #28
Duval Jan 2016 #36
ChiciB1 Jan 2016 #38

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:45 AM

1. Yes, but it was only a matter of war and de-stabilizing the entire Middle East.

Deaths, maimings, displacements of millions.

ONE vote, FIFTEEN years ago. (That is from a reply I got here some months ago.) How can you be so picky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:57 AM

5. North Korea, the middle east, say something

Please get current. What about China the tragedy in Central America? Is it just me or is he too myopic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Protalker (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:26 AM

13. ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Protalker (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

29. I am very current in that I noticed the topic of the OP. Did you?

If you'd rather post on North Korea, you are free to start a thread. On this thread, though, it would be OT, but you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Protalker (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:17 AM

34. It's just you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:52 AM

2. His evolution with respect to this topic is admirable. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:54 AM

3. Please elaborate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:56 AM

4. I didn't think it was necessary.

 

It's very well known that he was promoting regime change in Iraq in the run up to the war. Thought that was common knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:00 AM

6. A bill supporting programs which would lead to a transition to democracy ...

 

... is not the same thing as regime change through an invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:17 AM

10. Supporting a candidate who advocates for policies you favor

...is not the same thing as trash talking the rest of that candidate's party and it's supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:28 AM

11. So the multiple days of bombings....

 

It resulted in were...

You might want to actually see what it covered.

The themes of deception and pass the buck have been brought to a whole new level with the Sanders campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:37 AM

15. Deception?

Really? That's the road a Clinton supporter wants to go down?

Seriously, you want to say Bernie was wrong on war in Iraq, wrong to the point he's just as dirty as rah rah, war is wonderful Clinton?

Please, I haven't had a seriously good laugh yet today. Please continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassiopeia (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

19. Wow.. I don't dare make a reply to NC. I'm sure glad you did.

Thanks,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassiopeia (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:04 AM

30. Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote

Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote
October 10, 2002

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:00 PM

35. It was complete bullshit then just as it is now.

The Bush administration was actively seeking authorization for war. They did some song and dance about the road to it, but war was the agenda and anyone who paid attention, even in a remote way, knew it at the time.

To claim the IWR vote was anything other than a vote for war is just silly and everyone knows it.

To claim otherwise is just more of the same. Lies and deception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassiopeia (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 8, 2016, 10:34 AM

39. Ok

Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002


On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on

1- The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)∑

2- Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today

3- Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)



Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:41 AM

16. Link to Bernie "promoting regime change in Iraq in the run up to the war"?

You keep making that claim but never provide any evidence.

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

If it's "very well known" why can't you cite proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:05 AM

20. He is referring to Iraq Liberation Act

Despite it explicitly not calling for military action . As i understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:07 AM

22. She's been claiming Bernie promoted it for weeks but won't say how.

I can only assume it's deflection from Hillary's part in promoting the war.

A Rovian tactic - attacking Bernie on his strengths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:37 AM

24. Agreed.

That tactic has Karl's stink all over it. You would think a person would be repulsed by that kind of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:05 AM

21. There is no evidence.

They're getting more desperate and dirty by the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:08 AM

23. Yep. Anything to absolve their candidate and spread the blame around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:05 AM

31. Please. Asking a head of state to step down is very different from invading to effect regime change.

Please be serious--and straightforward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:06 AM

7. He was correct indeed

No doubt, and this along with his stupid tax cuts and deregulation and torture and attempt to destroy Social Security is why George W. Bush was the worst president in our history. The blame rightfully falls squarely on him and on Republicans who are not fit to govern.

I left out Bush's Supreme Court appointees who have undermined us with their straight across party lines 5 - 4 radical opinions.

Bernie is right about Republicans too. Republicans are not fit to govern and it is imperative that we have a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats in Congress. I have not heard him speak to the efficacy of a cult of personality but given his awesome intellect I'm sure he disapproves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:15 AM

8. Agreed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:36 PM

37. Agreed! Nice post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:15 AM

9. Today is a tragic day for humanity.

...and for the children. 30,000 of whom in the third world will starve to death today while we spend billions to wage this war.

How can Hillary supporters hear this and continue to support a war monger bent on regime change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:49 AM

17. Because they are heavily invested in it.

For some, perpetual war equals perpetual profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 08:29 AM

12. The only actual Democrat running for president right now

 

I can hardly believe the party has fallen so far as to where they insist a conservative war monger would be a better president than Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:29 AM

14. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:51 AM

18. The Iraq invasion, and subsequent desreuction, is an elephant in the room

Sanders can credibly point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:39 AM

25. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:48 AM

26. Those F-35's he love so much will add to more wars.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:54 AM

27. You realize that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, right?

And that supporting certain military expenditures is not a call to war, you do understand that, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:10 AM

33. Bernie did not support that expenditure. When it was inevitable, however,

he supported manufacture in Vermont, rather than another state.

It was never a choice between building in Vermont or not building at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:09 AM

32. I bought an umbrella the other day, thereby making it rain.

BTW, Bernie does not love F 35s. However, as long as they were going to be built anyway, he wanted them built in his state. That's part of his job as Senator from Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:56 AM

28. Only one person voted 'NO' to war and that was Rep. Barbara Lee

60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History

Written in the frenzied, emotional days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force was intended to give President Bush the ability to retaliate against whoever orchestrated the attacks. But more than 12 years later, this sentence remains the primary legal justification for nearly every covert operation around the world. Hereís how it came to be, and what itís since come to mean.


Bernie Sanders voted for war without end and when it came time to try to stop Bush from war with the intervention of the United Nations and Hans Blix U.N. Weapons Inspector's re-entry into Iraq after 4 year absent, Bernie Sanders voted 'NO'
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/60-words-and-a-war-without-end-the-untold-story-of-the-most#.fx208Vn1j



Scott Ritter: Facts needed before Iraq attack
17 July 2002


Scott Ritter: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want the inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.

Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002


On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

1- The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)∑

2- Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today

3- Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)∑
Does President Bush Need the Approval of Congress to Attack Iraq?

White House lawyers that Bush does not require Congressional approval for an attack on Iraq

From this, it's a short step to other manifestations of imperial decision-making, such as the August 26 opinion by White House lawyers that Bush does not require Congressional approval for an attack on Iraq. Supposedly, the 1991 resolution secured by the elder Bush for Operation Desert Storm is sufficient. "We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has that full authority," a senior White House official told the Washington Post.
The Nation. The Imperial Presidency

THE NATION: Half a Victory at the UN
December 2, 2002


In general, antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack. It provides a powerful tool to fight for US accountability to multilateralism and the UN. But it still reflects the heavy-handed domination of the UN and the rest of the world by the United States and ultimately sets the terms for war.
Half a Victory at the UN - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

http://aumf.awardspace.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:13 PM

36. K&R! Great job, as usual. Thanks!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:38 PM

38. This Was/Is Very Important To Me...

Thanks for reminding everyone again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread