2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf You Break It, You Own It - Hillary's vote for the war is the defining issue for me
ISIS is just one more side effect that Hillary owns.
For the thousands that are dead, American, Iraqi or otherwise, their problems are over, but
for the people left behind, the hundreds of thousands with injured bodies and minds, their
war continues, although the body count rises with each suicide.
I know that people say that she has apologized for her mistake. She is not the only one
who enabled Bush and Cheney.
Tell that to the people who have had their arms, legs and worse blown off, or have traumatic
brain injuries. (hundreds of thousands with PTSD)
In jobs that I have held since the invasion of Iraq, I have met many veterans of that war.
They are the best people that I have ever met.....many of them dealing with horrific injuries
to body and soul, often amazingly without complaint. Many of them also feeling guilt that they
are no longer there to support their comrades.
We owe them more than a mere "thank you for your service". We owe them
judicious use of their service and sacrifice.
State Senator Barack Obama and Representative Bernie Sanders could see through the nonsense.
The more important point though.....What I would have wanted her to do then
was LEAD the fight against the war.....that didn't happen
..If I could see through the nonsense that Bush and Cheney were peddling,
why should I choose someone for the office of President who couldn't?
THE ROAD OF GOOD INTENTIONS (2006)
(John Gorka)
There's addition and subtraction, but division overall;
Hope, once in fluid motion, is slowed behind a crawl.
The images are strong and the words are pretty good,
But there's more fiction out of Washington than out of Hollywood.
cho: On the road of good intentions, all gets justified to hell,
The price revealed in stories too short, too sad to tell.
Is this permanent improvement through abbreviated lives,
Or another tragic venture, shocking when the bill arrives?
By the rubble where the house was, there are markers in the dirt.
Children with no need of freedom, they can no longer be hurt.
The soldiers and their families, with life and limb they pay,
While the ones who sent them marching get to dance the night away.
I always come back to the soldiers with their courage and ideals.
I've seen them smoking in the airports. There's no telling how it feels.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I have about her.
There are a lot more.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)the other being money, which is the road block for any action we want taken.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)1. Iraq War Vote - voted for it. This is the major one. Perhaps people will be forgiving, but it helped enable the mess that exists to this day. It is the one unforgiveable vote that stops me from even considering her.
2. TPP - writings indicate a pretty strong supporter of it. Unions dramatically against it. Yet, she wants the AFL-CIO endorsement.
3. Keystone XL pipeline - equivocates, refuses to say what she'd do which makes her appear indecisive.
4. Bengazi - left a mess in terms of this phone email and GOP will hammer her on it.
5. Victor Pinchuk scandal - looks very bad in terms of favoritism to Pinchuk with Iran when she was Sec. of State.
6. Bank bailouts and TARP - big difference on their votes on how Sanders and her addressed the market mess. Since banks profited immensely it may be used to attack her as over friendly to the financial sector, especially if her contributions from that area are excessive.
7. Trust- perhaps this may be the biggest one. Do people beyond her most ardent supporters trust her? Polls say no.
Response to virtualobserver (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and over in 6 months
or she's so venal she wanted to score conservative brownie points (like her anti-flag burning amendment) at the expense of gallons of American and Iraqi blood, or even just bolster MIC derivatives like Feinstein
it had only 48 "yea" votes without the Dems, and any REAL party would've been able to whip its members on something this essential to its reputation and to the wellbeing of the country
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)That was why I supported Howard Dean
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But we were told that he could not win just like now...and told we needed a war hero to counter Bush photo op landing on a carrier.
We are told lots of shit that is not true.
artislife
(9,497 posts)brooklynite
(94,571 posts)...I'll just observe that this was part of her record in 2008, and she got as many votes as Barack Obama, who opposed the IWR.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Vinca
(50,271 posts)The Congress was fed heaping piles of BS just like the public. What they were told by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of war criminals were lies.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)a standard that seem quite weird to me.
A president that doesn't get any info, but acts on gut feelings or odors alone. Not my cuppa tea, thanks.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Falling for BS is not MY cup of tea.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Easily deceived? Indifferent? Complicit? None of those make her an appealing candidate.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)matters of war than a candidate for the office of Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, then that candidate has no business being Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
There is no Monday Morning quarterbacking going on here. It was painfully obvious, crystal clear, to tens of millions on the progressive left, worldwide, that Bush was lying.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and lay waste to the earth with reckless abandon.
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002
Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
We must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide. We can help negotiate a resolution with Iraq that encompasses unfettered inspections, the end of sanctions, and the cessation of the regime change policy.
http://www.progressive.org/node/1424
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1509091
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)We knew about PNAC and we knew that once given the green light Bush would invade come hell or UN inspectors.
There is no excuse for Hillary, Kerry, Biden, et al. They were either too incompetent to be US senators, or they calculated it was politically advantageous to be hawks, or they were on board with the neocon agenda.
Take your pick, it's a disqualifier where my vote is concerned.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)of innocent people, and set in motion the process of destabilization and eternal war for profit.
They are disqualified as too clueless, or malicious, to be President.
(off topic note: Jeb Bush was a signatory of the PNAC manifesto.)
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)It was still the post 9/11 political environment, and Bush had not yet spent his political capital. Prominent Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton must have known GW was feeding the public a line of BS, but they stuck their finger in the political winds and calculated they needed to be "tough" on national security. I suspect they also shared the hubris of so many who thought the US had the right and the wherewithal to impose our will through military force. In that regard, they were on board with the neocon agenda.
I would not however go so far to state these Democrats leaders wanted perpetual chaos and war to feed the MIC. But I will say they betrayed the American people whom they were sworn to serve. More than ever we needed strong Democratic leaders who were smart enough to assess the situation and courageous enough to call out lies and liars for what they were. The stakes (in terms of real consequences for human lives and for our country) were about as high as they ever come, and far too many Democrats (nearly half) failed miserably to stand up when we needed them the most.
I was especially disappointed in John Kerry, who rose to prominence as the leader of Vietnam Vets against the War. I refused to support him in the 2004 Democratic primary, just as I refused to support Clinton & Biden in 2008 and Clinton now. I still went to Ohio to GOTV for Kerry in the general, because Bush had to be stopped.
I think those who support Hillary Clinton today either don't understand what went down in 2002-2003, or they are willfully blinding themselves to it. She is still a hawk. I do not trust her in matters of war and peace, or reigning in the power of her Wall Street friends. Add her vagueness on fracking & Keystone, that makes three strikes.
But, as I said, voting for the IWR was a disqualifier by itself.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I knew, millions of people protesting knew, most countries other than Britain and the US knew.
Why didn't Hillary know? Or did she "trust" Bush to do the right thing? There are no good excuses, none.
And a few more things, the US and Britain knew too, but there was a lot of money to be made and what better way than a war? Cheney knew there was no yellow cake, Powell knew there were no aluminum tubes or anthrax, they knew even if the weapons were there there were no delivery systems, they all knew. Hillary knew too, but to run for President you have to look tough don't you? She voted the way she did for reasons of political gain which is unforgivable. How could she put so much faith in the people she called the vast right wing conspiracy just a short while before? If you reward her for such misconduct then don't be surprised if someone else does the same in the future.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)and neither did you or anyone else except those members.
Ted Kennedy said that those briefings had convinced him to vote against the IRW, but that he was barred by law from telling anyone else what he had learned there. So he didn't blame Hillary or any other Democrat for trusting Colin Powell -- who at that point in time was viewed as an independent figure, aloof from politics. In fact, at one point even the Dems tried to recruit him to run for President.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)listening to independent sources is no excuse.
Why would anyone discount the source of information that was there doing inspections and had no reason to lie? Big deal they told a few of them extra special lies and told them it was super secret hush hush. Did Bush also tell them that Sadam tried to kill my Daddy? Wow I'm not impressed.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)The plan was supposed to have been that if the inspections revealed IWR's, then Bush could go ahead, with UN approval. Otherwise, he wasn't supposed to. But he ignored that contingency and invaded Iraq even though the inspectors didn't find WMD's. That isn't what Dems who voted for the IWR had approved.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)someone would have been smart enough to suggest a diplomatic solution. No, it had to be sanctions or war, no other options. And how many children died while Clinton was President because of those sanctions? Maybe that's why most thought Obama was the better choice in '08. Maybe that's why many still think there is a better choice.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)corner with a group of anti-war people, waving signs against starting the war. So you don't have convince me about that.
But I, like Ted Kennedy, am not blaming Hillary for making the mistake she made trusting Colin Powell. I wish she hadn't, but I appreciate that she's expressed regret and learned from the mistake.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She likes to point to her time in the White House as "experience."
Anyone in the White House in 1999 should have known the difference between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. She should have known.
And she did know. The Code Pink women told her the score on Iraq. There is a video of her speaking to them. There is a video (hard to find now) of them speaking back to her and telling her of what they experienced and saw visiting Iraq.
There is a video -- hard evidence of her walking out in a huff after being warned in a very quiet, kind way that a vote for the Iraq War would be a huge mistake.
This is not a matter of making a mistake. This is a matter of refusing to listen to rational, decent advice based on first-hand experience. This is a matter of Hillary's choosing to do the expedient, popular thing and not the wise, difficult but morally correct thing.
Hillary's vote for the Iraq War was proof of her failure to follow the moral high-ground.
Hillary's vote for the Iraq War is one of a number of decisions by her that have led me to the conclusion that she has poor judgment.
We do not need a president who, like the Bushes, has poor judgment.
We need Bernie. He follows the moral high ground on virtually every issue.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)They had access to better information than we did. We knew it was all lies but she didn't?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's one vote I will never forgive or forget, I will always hold it against her.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Just kidding!
JI7
(89,249 posts)Which is why it doesn't hurt her
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and knowing what we know now, he'd do it again....or not....or depends, whatever the last response was lol.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)dem in texas
(2,674 posts)Back then I could not bring myself to vote for her in the primary because she'd backed the invasion of Iraq. That was then, and this is now. I will vote for her because I think she can win and the most important thing for Democrats is to win the presidential election. I don't think Bernie could be Jeb. It the Dems lose, we will get another Scalia on the Supreme court, shutting down Obamacare, more tax breaks for the rich, it can go on and on. No matter who wins the nomination, you must vote Democrat.
George II
(67,782 posts)...and please don't repeat the refrain "we all knew bush would lie".
Thanks.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And Hillary was either too blind or too craven. Take your pick.
Sorry.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee voted no.
Response to George II (Reply #18)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Cuz they were 2 for 2 in authorizing force.
Come on Sparky, who did you vote for in '04?
George II
(67,782 posts)........voted to "authorize force" ONLY after the failure of the Government of Iraq failed to comply with a long list of conditions. It turns out that the Government of Iraq actually DID comply with all the conditions, rendering the "authorization to use military force" invalid.
Many like to ignore the specifics of the legislation because it sounds better to claim that all these people "voted for war", which is a blatant lie.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)most Democrats in Congress didn't make that mistake.....but Hillary did.....
There was no reason to be threatening them with war in the first place.
There was no justification for giving Iraq ultimatums. They made that shit up.
I could figure that out from my couch. Hillary couldn't do that as a Senator.
artislife
(9,497 posts)For her run at the presidency.
Which is another one of my reasons I cannot support her. The run for senate in NY was just to fulfill her resume requirements. Like electives for a college degree. She chose the state and she knew when she would take her first go at the presidency. So calculated.
If anything, I admire Warren more, because I don't think she will ever run. She is busy doing good work in Congress. It isn't a stepping stone but the main event.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I was thankful that Bernie did. Wouldn't they make a wonderful team?
artislife
(9,497 posts)She isn't going for it. I think he would have been her biggest supporter. I like the idea of someone younger and PoC, a woman would be even better. But mostly, I want someone who truly believes in the same things those two do.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and their nuanced criticisms weakened their ability to attack. Hillary's current stances have the same effect on a number of issues.
Obviously they were preferable to the re-election of President Cheney
1monster
(11,012 posts)General... But I was happy to vote Kucinich in the primaries even though he was no longer in the race.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)or Clinton, unless it is the November election and your choice is a Democrat or a Republican.
Then I dont know how anyone could not vote for the Democrat.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)...I'm very glad we have the opportunity to vote for someone who I believe was on the right side of these issues, at least in the primary (IWR, Patriot act, etc.)
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)with Hillary's authorization for the Iraq war, but that was what - 12 years ago? She had shown regret over that vote.
Good for King Bernie for being against it from Day 1, but Hillary's still getting my vote.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It isn't ancient history to them.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Against the Brady bill and for the PLCAA -- the NRA sponsored bill that overturned gun liability laws in 50 states. His votes might have made sense to his largely rural voters, but not for the US as a whole.
Family members of the dead Connecticut school children are being blocked from a lawsuit specifically because of the PLCAA.
When Hillary voted for the IWR conditional upon finding WMD's, she made the mistake of trusting Colin Powell, who lied in his presentation to Congress. And she erred in trusting Bush not to go ahead, despite the lack of WMD's, without UN support. And she long ago expressed regret for her mistakes.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)True colors, shown.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)People die in the US every day from gun violence, and the NRA and gun proponents help to prolong it.
But this isn't a competition. We shouldn't be killing people in wrongful wars or on our own streets or in classrooms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.
When a person kills another in the United States, though, he or she generally uses a gun: 60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a firearm, which is the 26th-highest rate in the world. (In other gun-permeated countries, such as Finland (45.3 guns per 100 people), only about 19 percent of homicides involve a firearm.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nice attempt to portray Bernie as an NRA shill and "gun proponent" but it won't work.
The memes that Bernie is a "gun nut" and non-supportive of poc were proven wrong a long time ago.
But kudos for simultaneously beating a dead horse and trying to breathe air into its lungs at the same time.
jomin41
(559 posts)HRC's Iraq vote was a major disappointment for me. I'll vote for her if she wins the nom. It would be suicidal not to.
oasis
(49,387 posts)Hillary has courage.She got up before the senate to question what Bush knew about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. It went over like a lead balloon.
In my view, it took plenty of courage for her to stick her neck out in a challenge of the bullshit propaganda the Bush Administration was putting out.
Hillary laid it on the line, and got no backing, against a popular president during a period when Americans had a growing anxiety about war and terrorism.
I have no doubt she struggled with her decision on voting for the IWR.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)yet so many Democrats went along.
oasis
(49,387 posts)I'm going to edit my previous post about Hillary's senate charge against Bush's pre 9/11 attack knowledge. She did question him, but it was circa 2004. Sorry my memory gets blurry on dates far back when there was a lot going on.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that were based on trumped-up propaganda, about which she then gloated on national television.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,977 posts)it was set BEFORE THE ELECTION, just so EVERYBODY IN CONGRESS had to show just 'who was more patriotic', NOT AFTER the election. i remember because i was so pissed the NITWIT made the vote POLITICALLY CHARGED to WIN.
and it pissed me off that the MEDIA did not point that out AT all, but since 9/11, Wdiot boy could do no wrong.
and i do believe KERRY VOTED YEA TOO.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)most Democrats showed that courage
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Democratic Party and just looked it up.
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
MY QUESTION, of those who voted for the war, Democrats, how many were up for reelection and for those who voted against it were they a ways off from theirs?
Persondem
(1,936 posts)for him to vote as he did.
More Dem senators voted for it than against it 29-21 and 82 Dem members of the House voted for it. It's not like this was some gutless, oddball thing for Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Biden to do.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)might be an interesting one, but none of the choices are particularly Presidential.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Now what did they have in common? Maybe letting politics dictate whether we go to war and hundreds of thousands die and are maimed not to mention the monetary cost? Can't run for President if you don't look tough enough can you?
What do you think, should we call our armed forces, pawns for politics? Of course the other side were just a bunch of sand monkeys so they don't count, not even the infants, children, and women.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)Old rehashed news. She has repeatedly said she regretted that vote .
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it isn't old news for the severely injured or the veterans with PTSD.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)that Hillary regrets her decision. I'm sure it'll help ease the pain of losing their loved ones to a bogus occupation built on lies and profits.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)if your main reason to not vote Clinton is over Iraq but you would vote Biden, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And its why Hillary was crushed by Obama in 2008 ... oh wait, that's not what happened.
Obama barely passed her.
Suddenly, this is the most important for Dem primary voters ever!!!!
not.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)She blew her own chances by dodging sniper fire while hanging around with rednecks downing Jack Daniels and reading the bible. She's got too much baggage to be an ideal candidate. Don't think the cons are just gonna sit by let that slide:
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... that I have ever read ... and not just on DU ... anywhere.
The funny thing about your post is that all of the "baggage" she has, amounts to nothing. Lots of RW screaming to be sure, but little else.
In 2008, she lost to Obama because she took the caucus states for granted. That's basically it. He had a better ground game in those states. If not for that, she wins easily ... AND she wins the general election EASILY.
Now ... some of you want to claim that she can't beat the GOP whack jobs that she would have beat in 2008. Did she kill some one since 2008?
Oh wait ... she killed Chris Stevens because he had evidence she killed Vince Foster ... and the evidence was on her email server!!
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Better yet I'll provide them for you since you Clingons have such short memories of what made her a mess:
Here's the sniper fire "misspoke":
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
Here's her calling Obama an elitist (going after the redneck vote):
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-13-obama-clinton_N.htm
Here's her world famous southern accent making a comeback from 2008 (from think progress):
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/06/02/3664725/shouldnt-make-fun-hillary-clintons-southern-accent-according-linguist/
So no these aren't right wing talking points its recorded history. She pandered and she lost. Plain and simple.
In short:
And NO! Nobody out here other than you is claiming that the right wing circus was gonna beat her in 2008 if she if she won the nom. We all remember the "No talk express" and the many sound bites that caribou barbie gave us. A dead dog would've been elected to POTUS since the War Shrub administration killed it for the cons.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and who died and those who still suffer.
How it affected elections is trivial by comparison.
This is not a talking point.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Tired of it being dismissed by HC supporters.