After all the bullshit, the Iraq War is ultimately how I judge Hillary for the job.

[Bonobo]

And this is the man I support.

Yes, the Iraq War vote. It's important but really?? THAT important? Give Hilllary a break, you may say. I say no.

I'll tell you a few reasons why.

1. We killed at least a quarter of a million people.

2. We became a nation that engaged in horrific mass torture.

3. Voting for it or opposing it is the best indicator of future behavior.

4. It cost 2 trillion dollars

5. It is a shame that will affect Americans and their place in the world for generations.

6. It is an evil that will affect Iraqis and other ME people for generations and generations.

I won't let it go.

Hillary gets no pass from me.

[cantbeserious]

1. Thinking The Same - The Iraq War Vote Is The Top Of The List - Followed By The Patriot Act

eom

[Live and Learn]

5. Ditto. nt

[daleanime]

105. Amen....

[billhicks76]

113. Article Says Hillary Paid Outsiders To Troll Bernie Comments...Disgraceful?

This is really awful...reminds me of what NSA was doing.

http://socialnewsdaily.com/59087/reddit-user-claims-he-was-paid-to-troll-bernie-sanders-supporters/

[madokie]

2. As a Vietnam war Veteran

a war that should never have been to begin with I strongly oppose anyone who thinks war is the answer. When I see a Vietnamese person here I want to go up to them and apologize for what we did to their country and their people. Give that person a big hug and an honest ask for forgiveness. This war still weights heavily on my shoulders, 45 years later.

I will vote for the democratic nominee but I hope that Bernie is that person.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Bernie voted FOR the AUMF Against Terrorists in 2001. This bill got the ball rolling

for war. Despite his no-vote against the 2003 AUMF Against Iraq (officially named, the Authorization to Use Military Force, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution or IWR), he's voted for every war funding bill since.

Had Sanders voted against the first war bill (2001 AUMF Against Terrorists) and the second one (AUMF Against Iraq), and then refused to vote for any war funding bills afterward, I can understand why those who oppose war would could claim the right to excoriate Hillary Clinton. But that's not the case now, so although he's slightly less hawkish than Hillary Clinton, he's no peacenik, he's definitely NOT anti-war, so it's high time people stop trying to portray him as such.

[KingCharlemagne]

65. you will stop at nothing to try to wash

The blood of the innocent off Hillary's hands. Alas for you and her, you cannot.

Simply pathetic.

Out, damned spot!

[BlueCaliDem]

69. Let's not go there, Charlemagne. You don't want to compare bloody hands,

not after Sanders' votes on gun control bills. Just. Don't.

[JackInGreen]

86. Go ahead and tabulate those numbers

And get back to us. Bernies vote on something that passed anyway on gun control vs the invasion and occupation if Iraq. Go ahead. Can't wait to see.

[plantwomyn]

100. Passed anyway?

If Clinton had voted the same way Sanders did the Iraq war authority would have passed anyway too.
You just muted you 'outrage'...

[JackInGreen]

102. You don't see a difference?

Ok. Eom.

[kenfrequed]

98. I'm sorry, but there really is no comparison.

You cannot compare war to the criminal acts of... criminals.

That is about the most ignorant analogy I have ever seen.


Sometimes not voting for all gun control laws IS NOT EQUAL TO authorizing the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and US servicemen. To compare firearm deaths by criminals to the very essence of the actions of nation is sick, sad, and wrong.

[BlueCaliDem]

125. Bloody hands are bloody hands. Now you want to "qualify" which is worse?? Seriously??

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't start injecting qualifiers. Dead is dead. Bloody hands are bloody hands.

If you're going to contend that Hillary Clinton has "blood of the innocent on her hands" because of a vote on a bill that was going to pass both chambers of Congress anyway, then that same accusation should apply to Sanders for his votes against sensible gun laws - including the landmark Brady Bill that's kept over 2.1 million guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and fugitives.

Just to refresh your memory...since 1968, more Americans have DIED by guns than on the battlefield of ALL WARS in American history.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

Gun deaths since the Revolutionary War through to 2015: 1,396,733

Gun-related deaths only from 1968 through 2015: 1,516,863

That's 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths - about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths.

So if you and your fellow Sanders supporters are going to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for all those deaths in Iraq, then hold Sanders accountable for all the gun-related deaths due to our ridiculously lax gun safety laws that he's supported (up until recently, that is). Deal?

[kenfrequed]

169. Soo...

So there were more gun deaths from 1968- 2015 than there were from the revolutionary war- 2015?

There is something wrong with your skills at arithmetic.



Further I would ask, are you going to blame Bernie Sanders for all violent gun crime that has occured in that time period? Is there a percentage system where you factor in votes for and against reasonable gun control?


This is the elaboration of a terrible argument and you know it.

[BlueCaliDem]

171. Soo...

...you apparently didn't bother to follow the link. Maybe you should try and read it. It would certainly open your eyes.

Further I would ask, are you going to blame Bernie Sanders for all violent gun crime that has occured in that time period? Is there a percentage system where you factor in votes for and against reasonable gun control?

I blame him for not taking these percentages into account when he voted against sensible gun safety bills. If people are going to withhold their vote for Hillary Clinton because "she has the blood of innocents dripping from her hands!!", then I'll point out Sanders' support for wars and his support for the NRA and gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of the blood on his.

[kenfrequed]

173. A bad argument is a bad argument

Your numbers:

"Gun deaths since the Revolutionary War through to 2015: 1,396,733

Gun-related deaths only from 1968 through 2015: 1,516,863"


Tell me where you got them and explain why they are impossible and I will give you smiley face sticker.



So, what you are saying is that you are planning on heaping all firearm deaths on Bernie as though he actually voted to have people shot? Because that is the analogy you are creating here. I served in the Army and there is a hell of a big difference between ordering a military action on a country and loose gun laws.


Today of all days I think you should appreciate that.

[BlueCaliDem]

178. Opinion doesn't constitute fact.

Tell me where you got them and explain why they are impossible and I will give you smiley face sticker.

I see what you mean by a bad argument is a bad argument. You appear to be quite an expert making them. But to indulge you (hoping this time you'll actually click on the link and READ), here it is: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

So, what you are saying is that you are planning on heaping all firearm deaths on Bernie

Go back and reread my post. You clearly haven't even bothered. I explain quite clearly what "I'm saying", and you'd know this if you took the time to read.

I served in the Army and there is a hell of a big difference between ordering a military action on a country and loose gun laws.

First off, she never ordered military action on any country. That's not what Senators do. That's the president's job.

Second, there is NO difference when it comes to blood-spilling, and that's a fact. I repeat, bloody hands are bloody hands. Nitpick the specifics all you want in order to justify supporting Sanders over Clinton, but try and keep a modicum of common sense while you're at it. Fact remains, if KingCharlemagne wants to accuse Hillary Clinton of having the blood of innocents on her hands, then I'll accuse Bernie Sanders of the same - and there's MORE of it on his. Remember, he not only voted for the authorization to use military force in 2001, but he also voted against the Brady Bill, voted Yea for the PLCAA, and cast a Nay-vote on other gun safety bills.

[KingCharlemagne]

128. No, let's go there. HRC has the blood of one million-plus innocent Iraqis

dripping from her hands. What, pray tell, is Sanders' body count by your estimation (with sources like Johns Hopkins U. and the Lancet to back you up)?

[BlueCaliDem]

132. Well, we can start with your bloated number. A new study shows that it's less than half that.

[center][font color="black" size="5" face="face"]Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says[/font][/center]
[center]Household survey records deaths from all war-related causes, 2003 to 2011.
Published October 16, 2013[/center]

[center]War and occupation directly and indirectly claimed the lives of about a half-million Iraqis from 2003 to 2011, according to a groundbreaking survey of 1,960 Iraqi households. The violence peaked in 2006 and 2007, say public health experts who were part of the study.[/center]

In the new PLOS Medicine journal survey, led by public health expert Amy Hagopian of the University of Washington in Seattle, an international research team polled heads of households and siblings across Iraq. The researchers, including some from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, aimed to update and improve past estimates of the human costs of the war and occupation.

"We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate," says Hagopian. "People need to know the cost in human lives of the decision to go to war."

The survey responses point to around 405,000 deaths attributable to the war and occupation in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. At least another 56,000 deaths should be added to that total from households forced to flee Iraq, the study authors estimate. More than 60 percent of the excess deaths of men, women, and children reported from 2003 to 2011 were the direct result of shootings, bombings, airstrikes, or other violence, according to the study. The rest came indirectly, from stress-related heart attacks or ruined sanitation and hospitals.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

[center]~~~~[/center]

Now...let's talk about gun-related deaths, in the United States alone, from 1968 through 2015. It's 1,516,863. That's one million five-hundred and sixteen thousand, eight hundred and sixty three. Around the number you cited for Iraqi deaths. You must've been confused.

So I ask you...who has more "blood on their hands"? I told you not to go there but you just had to, didn't you?

[KingCharlemagne]

134. you're fucking unbelievable. Putting u on ignore. - nt

[BlueCaliDem]

139. I'm sorry you think that way. I'm not trying to negate the senseless deaths of any people, Iraqi or

American, with my post. For the record, all life is precious to me, be they casualties of war or casualties of gun-related deaths.

But in my defense against what I believe is an unjustifiable ignore by you, I had asked you not to go there.

[bvar22]

141. Gee....only 1/2 Million blown to pieces?

Only 1/2 MILLION with destroyed families and homes?


1/2 Million....gee, thats not so bad....is it?

Does that get added to the 1/2 Million Iraqi children that died directly from the Clinton "sanctions" in the 90s?


Quote from the article:""We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate,"....


THAT is a lot of innocent BLOOD dripping from shameless hands.

[bvar22]

147. You can add in the 1/2 MILLION innocent Iraqi Children that died from malnutrition and sickness...

...due to the Clinton sanctions during the 90s.

[BlueCaliDem]

149. And you can count Bernie Sanders as a cheerleader of those UN sanctions. He supported them.

[ornotna]

144. Jury results

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top. This is just rediculous she voted for the AUMF yes, but that doesn't mean "her hands are dropping with blood" can we stop the over the top references. The entire country bears that burden, not just one of the many senators and house members who voted yes on that bill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:48 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The truth hurts.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hyperbole, maybe. Instead of hiding why not counter with facts and links. And no, the entire country does not bear the burden, just the ones who sent us to war.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: it seems the over the topness is a 2-way street
we shouldn't be insulting each other but to be shut down for insulting one's candidate?
That's over the top
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[bvar22]

74. Would you have Bernie vote AGAINST supplying our soldiers in a War Zone?

Ammunition, food, resupply, transportation, armor, water, etc?

I oppose defunding our children that the Politicians PUT in harm's way.

[BlueCaliDem]

84. No. Especially not after he voted FOR the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists.

It is then his duty to ensure there's funding for that war.

I was just pointing out that if people are going to excoriate Hillary Clinton for her AUMF Against Iraq vote and therefore "can't support her", to not forget that Sanders voted, as an Independent Socialist, for the original declaration of war (although Congressmen and women reject that it was a declaration of war) and every war funding bill since. So their excuse not to vote for her because she voted for another Authorization to Use Military Force bill rings hollow, don't you think?

[passiveporcupine]

95. Your information on Sander's voting record on war funding bills is incorrect.

See my other post...there is a link to the bills and how he voted on them, and why he voted for some of them...but not all.

Here, I'll even post the link for you again:

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/why-did-bernie-sanders-vote-to-fund-the-iraq-war/

Also, you cannot count the 2001 AUMF as part of the war funding efforts for Iraq. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We NEVER should have gone to war with them.

[KingCharlemagne]

129. Crickets. Big surprise, eh? - nt

[BlueCaliDem]

131. I responded. So no. No "crickets".

Your apology is accepted.

[BlueCaliDem]

130. You're correct. He only voted for SOME war funding bills that funded Iraq, too.

It doesn't matter WHY he voted for those war funding bills. He voted for them. I mean, if you and other Sanders supporters don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because of her warmongering votes without caring why she did so, make sure your candidate's hands are blood-free. In this case, combined with his votes to protect the NRA and gun manufacturers, they are absolutely not.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We NEVER should have gone to war with them.

That was NOT the general consensus at that time. The vast majority of Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. I didn't. I never did, and I was attacked for saying so. So on this, we can agree. It's one of the reasons I couldn't support nor vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sanders vote for the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists, his votes against the Brady bill, his vote to give broad Federal legal immunity to gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers - the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in American history - and his unwillingness to apologize for these, is why I can't support Bernie Sanders for president today.

[passiveporcupine]

143. Most Americans believe in God too. It doesn't mean there is a God.

If you couldn't support her decision in 2008, how is it different now?

Again, if you don't get the difference between going after terrorists responsible for 0/11 anad attacking a country, I can't help you. I am a pacifist, but I understand the need for self-defense, and even going after the bad guys in a violent crime or terrorist action. Are you saying that pacifists should just accept murder and not go after the murderer? That's what it sounds like.

And Bernie voted the right way on the bill regarding liability for gun use. You don't hold the manufacturer or dealer of a car responsible for a person using a car to deliberately kill someone. You don't do that for knives, or hatchets, or bows and arrows. So why would you for guns? If the guns are legally sold, then the dealer and mfg should not be liable for how they are used. If, however, a dealer knows they are building someone's arsenal, who is possibly a danger, then they should be held liable, and they still can be. A mfg should be held responsible for mfg and selling illegal weapons. If we don't like what they are selling, we need to make it illegal to sell those weapons...not go after the mfg for selling a legal object. I'm all in favor of making some weapons illegal to sell. So is Bernie.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

And yes, it does matter why a congressman votes for a bill. Sometimes they have to make concessions to get important things done. It was too late to stop the wars...they were already ongoing, so if the funding bill is going to be passed, why not include something worthwhile in it. His no vote would never have stopped those bills. It's how our system works.

You guys keep saying Bernie can't compromise...he's too idealistic...well, here is his proof that he can compromise (when it's important enough) and negotiate deals. so he's either too idealistic for you, or not enough. Make up your minds. You can't have it both ways.

[BlueCaliDem]

148. True. But try and tell them you believe they shouldn't believe in God. See where that gets you.

If you couldn't support her decision in 2008, how is it different now?

She apologized. Bernie refuses to apologize for his vote on the PLCAA: at a Virginia public forum four days later, Senator Sanders declared, “I don’t apologize for that vote” [for PLCAA]. But he should. Profusely.

I am a pacifist,

No. You're not, because:

but I understand the need for self-defense, and even going after the bad guys in a violent crime or terrorist action.

Definition for Pacifist: "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." But you're willing to make exceptions. That means you're NO Pacifist.

Are you saying that pacifists should just accept murder and not go after the murderer? That's what it sounds like.

Not saying that at all. Draw your own conclusions, and I'll draw mine. Based on your own admission, you're NO pacifist.

And Bernie voted the right way on the bill regarding liability for gun use.

Of course you'd think that. The gun lobby thinks so, too.

You don't hold the manufacturer or dealer of a car

False equivalency. The PLCAA protects gun industry actors engaged in negligent (as opposed to responsible) behavior. Didn't you follow the link I gave you? A painful reminder of how bad the vote was is given to you at the link for you to read. That's why I provided the link to you.

In 2004, a group of families destroyed by the D.C. sniper shootings brought a lawsuit against the gun company and dealer that armed the gunmen, Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply. Bull’s Eye’s sales practices were so grossly negligent they had “lost” 238 guns during the previous three-year period , including the Bushmaster rifle used in the shootings. The families won a settlement of $2.5 million when the trial court determined the gun industry could be held liable.

The gun lobby got the message and decided to clamp down on litigation that was exposing their industry’s bad practices. Just one year later, Congress passed the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA), slamming the courthouse doors on victims and survivors of gun violence like the ones described. The law gave gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers broad immunity from civil litigation—legal protections that were unprecedented and unjustified.

Thanks to the help of Senator Sanders, the gun industry no longer has to worry about being negligent in their business practices. Whoopee.

And yes, it does matter why a congressman votes for a bill.

Thank you. We can at least agree to that fact.

You guys keep saying Bernie can't compromise...he's too idealistic...well, here is his proof that he can compromise (when it's important enough) and negotiate deals.

And "you guys" keep saying that he'll stand on principle no matter what. So which is it?

[passiveporcupine]

150. I think you are oblivious to everything that doesn't fall into your world view

for example pacifist. Look it up. Look at wiki on it. You don't get to take just one definition out of a dictionary and say ooooh...that's it.

I'm done talking to you because it's like talking to a brick wall.

Bye

[BlueCaliDem]

152. Right backatcha.

[bvar22]

156. That is a False Equivalency...AND you KNOW it,

and yet you continue spamming DU with the Afghan vote just like it was the IWR....
They are COMPLETELY different.

Let me explain it in very simple terms that even you can understand:

1) The people that attacked New York World Trade Center were in [font size=3]Afghanistan[/font],
NOT in Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
Iraq did NOT, and Could NOT Attack us...and everybody KNEW that ...except maybe you.


Are we clear?

[rhett o rick]

81. Funny that you are pointing out that Sen Sanders supported a Democratic President

while HRC supported the war for a Republicon President. That's an important difference and I am glad you brought it out.

[passiveporcupine]

94. You must not understand the difference

between fighting terrorists who just blew up the twin towers and killed 3000 people in America, and fighting another nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Out of ten appropriations bills for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he voted nay on six, yea on three and consent on one. Here is the breakdown:

Arria’s statement is correct but also distorts Sanders’ stance on funding the Iraq war by omission. His voting record on the bills that funded the Iraq war show that he voted against them more often than he voted for them. Additionally, his ‘yea’ votes show that there were other considerations at play.

The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, made a nasty habit of funding its disastrous occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize Congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war.

2006 The first time Sanders voted ‘yea’ to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

2007 The second time he voted ‘yea’ was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home.

2008 The third time he voted ‘yea’ was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools.

2011 The last time he voted ‘yea’ was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war’s end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country.

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/why-did-bernie-sanders-vote-to-fund-the-iraq-war/

[PADemD]

3. Same as in 2008.

I have not forgotten. And shame on John Kerry for his yes vote, too.

[Live and Learn]

4. Me too. I will never forget those votes. nt

[tecelote]

6. Profit

We all know why we stay at war.

It's a sin and I pray Bernie wins for this reason above all others.

[bulloney]

9. That's it in one word, tecelote. Profit.

The U.S. is a nation run by sociopaths whose incessant lust for money and power trumps any sense of humanity. Yet, these same sociopaths will be the same people out front telling about their deep Christian faith and how they support the sanctity of life.

Yeah, right.

[tecelote]

11. "...telling about their deep Christian faith and how they support the sanctity of life."

Agreed. Isn't amazing how they can say this but not care about the sanctity of life after you're born?

[joshcryer]

7. I supported Kerry and Biden after their vote.

I considered the vote political cowardice, nothing more, as in the run up to the war Bush made it clear that he was going in. And Clinton knew he was going in, so her vote was tacit approval, though her speech was flowery with diplomatic language.

I'll note that the primary winner in 2004 voted for it (going against a guy who was completely against it and being against it was his platform), and two of the top contenders in 2008 voted for it (Edwards, Clinton), and the VP voted for it (Biden). For those politicians it was political expediency.

Only history will bore out those votes. If Clinton repents on that vote sometime in the future I will accept it (particularly if she admits the expediency nature of that vote).

Because Bush was invading anyway with or without a vote.

Here's an article a month before the resolution vote: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

There was a lot of reporting like that in the blogosphere and the good (non MSM NYT style) media. We knew that shit was a farce from the beginning.

Would it be that a lot of Democratic politicians had spine. I'll note that it wasn't exclusive to the IWR. Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. I'll also note that "third way" Mark Udall voted against it with Sanders in the House. Politics is a really convoluted thing. You do the correct thing, you take a stand, you get smeared and lose your seat or lose in polls. Feingold lost his seat in 2010, he had spine and still lost; and my preferred candidate Sanders is a long shot, why? Principled stands always get you in the end.

It's all about expediency. It sucks. I don't like it. I'm just saying that's how it is. "Third Way" Mark Udall (yes he was on the Third Way board) lost why? Because after Sandy Hook he came out for gun control. He took a principled stand and lost for it. Blame the national party all you want. That's what happened. I saw the daily news reels. I busted my ass. Nothing could be done.

We need approval voting stat to fix this shit.

[Martin Eden]

10. I didn't vote for either of them in Democratic primaries, because of their IWR vote

Inexcusable, and a disqualifier in my book.

I did, however, travel to Cuyahoga County Ohio in November 2004 to help GOTV for Kerry. Getting GW out of office was of paramount importance, and I was never so disappointed in my fellow Americans as when enough of them checked the R box to allow Bush to take the WH again.

If Hillary is our nominee in 2016 I'll vote for her in the general if there is the remotest chance that my home state of Illinois will swing to the R, but other than that I won't. I've had enough of voting for politicians I don't want.

[joshcryer]

12. I did caucus for Edwards.

If only because I didn't like Obama's messaging (he said he'd put Social Security "on the table"; he and Clinton did not differ much on anything). But mainly because I just wanted to give him a caucus vote and say "there are other options."

And Edwards did vote for the IWR.

But Edwards was absolutely not going to win anything so for me it was a protest vote. I liked his anti-poverty platform, which he was doing the best on.

If Clinton is the nominee she gets my vote but that's about it. I'm not going to bust my ass like I did for Obama.

Protest voting for the Green or CPUSA is not even a remote possibility. There will be enough liberals doing that. Maybe the Greens will get more than 0.5% of the vote. Maybe they'll get 1%. I won't be the one giving it to them. It doesn't matter whether I think my state is safe or not.

I don't protest vote. And if the Greens manage a Nader-esque, good quality candidate, I will oppose them with absolute vehemency. The risk is too great.

I'm not worrying about liberals not voting. They'll vote. They'll just protest vote. Which won't be a big deal. The Libertarians always get more protest votes than the Greens.

[Martin Eden]

16. You protest voted in the primary, for Edwards

The principle is pretty much the same for the general election. You calculated he didn't have a chance anyway, just as I will calculate if an R has any chance to win Illinois.

However, if I vote Green it won't be a "protest" vote. It will be exercising my right to cast my vote for whichever candidate's policies most align with my own.

[joshcryer]

18. In the primary, not the general...

The end of my post was about the general.

In a two party system voting third party is a protest vote. I will not deny your option to do that. But I reserve the right to fight against a credible third party candidate.

By saying that calculating a win you will vote otherwise it is most definitely a protest vote. Just like the Greens got 0.5% of the vote in 2012 they may get 1% of the vote in 2016. The Libertarians got 1% in 2012. They'd get 1.5-2.0% in 2016. Big deal. The Libertarians always get more votes.

I don't care about protest votes. Do what you got to do.

[bvar22]

157. That is NOT true in states that are not "in play".

Presidential elections are Winner takes all.

Most states will NOT be "in play" for the general election.
I know MY Dark Red State will NOT be in play,
so I am free to vote my conscience for President.

Down Ticket Dems will get my full support.

[joshcryer]

158. Yes, you can do the purist vote.

Like in 2012 the Greens got 0.5% of the vote. I'm not worried about you not voting, I'm worried you will give the youth no reason to vote.

[bvar22]

161. Twisted words, expected from this source.

Please quote from my post where I stated I would not vote,
or encouraged anyone else not to vote.

The Down Ticket Dems will NEED our help if Hillary is the nominee,
and I encourage everyone to BE THERE to help the Down Ticket Dems if Hillary gets the nom.

[joshcryer]

164. Ooh yes, voting 3rd party encourages people.

Saying that the Democrat is no different sure does encourage that youth vote!

[bvar22]

168. Twisted words and Strawmen....is that all youever have?

Please quote where I said that the Democrat is no different?

I implored everybody to show up and vote for the down ticket Dems if Hillary is the nominee.
How did THAT get all twisted up in your mind?

[joshcryer]

174. Ooh my, so exciting, vote "down ticket"!

So encouraging!

Man, this is the best GOTV strategy I've ever seen!

Please, tell me more!

[JTFrog]

49. The OP didn't seem to have any problem voting for Kerry.

And I think Edwards was his third choice.

[bvar22]

154. ...And then there are those representatives like Senator Paul Wellstone...

...who was engaged in a neck & neck fight with Norm Coleman.
Coleman had every single BIG TIME Republican coming to town every weekend to stump and raise funds for Coleman... President BUSH, VP Cheney... they were in Minneapolis working for Coleman so often they could have filed for residency.
No BIG TIME Democratic Celebrities came to town to help Wellstone.
All he had was his bus and his volunteers.

Bush and the Republicans scheduled the Iraq War Vote less than two weeks before the election.
Common Knowledge, "political expediency", the blood lust of the nation, and all the talking heads predicted that if Wellstone voted "NO"....he would lose his race.

Wellstone did the RIGHT thing anyway (fuck "expediency&quot , and voted "NO!!!".
He later returned to his campaign HQ on University Ave and explained to his somber volunteers and campaign workers who had believed the pundits that Wellstone would lose, that [font size=3]"Sometimes, you just have to do the RIGHT thing."[/font]

From that day forward, Wellstone surged in the polls and was leading Coleman shortly before he was killed. Even the hard core conservative Republicans RESPECTED a man who Walked the Walk.

"Political Expediency" is a synonym for cowardliness.
I don't follow cowards.

[kristopher]

8. I was furious with the craven Dems who voted for the war.

I agree with you 100%, it was an unforgivable act given that the rationale was so transparently false.

[Martin Eden]

13. Do any Hillary supporters here agree it was a forgone conclusion GW would invade Iraq ...

... once given the authority with the IWR vote?

I got into a "debate" with one yesterday who insists the IWR was not a vote for war. He (or she) said it was an "extremist ploy" to insist it was a vote for war and "Why would anyone presuppose that the POTUS would lie us into a war?"

I was here at DU in 2002, and it was obvious to anyone who knew about PNAC and bothered to dig beneath the propaganda to see the case for war was bogus and that if the IWR passed, Bush would invade. If Hillary Clinton couldn't see that, she's not nearly as smart as she appears to be.

IMO, to insist she thought Bush would act in good faith is to say she's incompetent.

[Vattel]

17. I haven't seen any. There are plenty of posts on DU suggesting that Hillary only wanted to

put pressure on Hussein to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. Of course, that theory cannot explain why she supported Bush's March ultimatum that demanded that Hussein and his sons leave the country or face military consequences. She was on board with what is arguably the worst US foreign policy mistake in US history.

[Martin Eden]

19. Yes, she was on board with the neocon agenda.

Otherwise, Hillary should have insisted Bush allow the UN inspectors to finish their job.

The demand that Hussein & sons leave the country was not in the IWR or the UN resolutions.

[Scuba]

29. Millions of us knew. The idea that Hillary didn't is laughable.

[Art_from_Ark]

39. From 1991 to 2002, Iraq had been the most surveilled,

the most sanctioned, the most bombed country in the world. Both Hillary's husband and Bush had run bombing campaigns against Iraq. There is no conceivable way, against that backdrop, that Iraq could have amassed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

[polly7]

43. Yes, and the killing sanctions had ensured they not only had no ability to

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

manufacture any sort of threat to the U.S., or anyone else, but that their people were suffering horribly - half a million children already dead because of them. 'We think the price was worth it'. They knew damned well Iraq was not a threat - but they were definitely the best bogeyman - no ability to fight back in any meaningful way (as they were absolutely aware of). PNAC's hit list had spelled out clearly that Iraq had to go long before Bush even announced it. Anyone in gov't who even opened their eyes in the morning knew of all of this. 9/11, sadly and horribly, was a fantastic opportunity for them.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. Absolutely

Two Texas oilmen launching an unprovoked attack against an oil-rich country. And with the name Operation Iraq Liberation, or OIL for short.

Here's what CNN had to say about it:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

[polly7]

45. Great article.

And brings back a lot of bad memories.

The very, very first oil company to get into Iraq, as I recall, was a close friend of the Bush family - Hunt Oil. I remember reading that when they first got in and thinking, what slime.

[kenfrequed]

41. That is where I ended up

One of the following would have to have been true:

1) She thought Bush and company were telling the truth. Of course by the time of the vote they had already told several lies to try to get us to war and Knight-Ridder had already done some good reporting on wire that contradicted the Bushies.

2) Political expediency. She didn't want to injure her brand by being anti-war for political purposes or was agreeing to give democratic cover for the war for some purpose.

3) She thought the Bushies were lying but didn't think they would actually use the authorization to go to war. This would have been exceedingly politically naive.

4) She didn't actually care about the war. Maybe she actually bought that it would go very easy or maybe it didn't bother her for some reason.

5) Opportunism. It didn't take a genius to figure out occupying Iraq would be a long, difficult, and improbable task under the best of circumstances. Maybe she thought she could play the 'it was only a vote for authorization' later when things went south on Bush and reap the benefits.

There must be other reasons, but I just can't think of any good reasons.

[Oilwellian]

60. With neocons and neoliberals...

always follow the money, always.

[LibDemAlways]

55. Bill Clinton received a letter from the PNAC crowd

during his Presidency urging him to go to war with Iraq. There's no way Hillary didn't know what these warmongers were up to. She could have waved the letter and called them out, but she didn't. Her vote was an act of cowardice and political expediency, pure and simple.

[Martin Eden]

68. Either that, or she was on board with the neocon agenda.

One thing is for certain:

Those who insist Hillary didn't know Bush would act in bad faith are either calling their candidate stupid or just plain fooling themselves.

[Darb]

162. She did give him the rope, but nothing more.

He didn't have to go to war. he had the backing to use force, it is all on him. Playing the "Hillary should have known" card is immaterial.

[bvar22]

181. Oh Thats it...she was just giving BUsh rope to hang himself!!! LOL.

For proof, all we have to do is look at the Senate records where she stood on the Senate floor the day of Shock and Awe and gave a scorching condemnation of the Bush Administration for exceeding the authority of the IWR, and withdrew her vote FOR the Iraq War with profuse apologies to the American People for her lapse in judgement in trusting the Village Idiot from Crawford.
YES! We ALL remember THAT......
Wait.
What?

That never happened, Hillary cheered the tanks all the way to Baghdad.

[kelliekat44]

14. Bernie wasn't the only one who opposed the war...that was easy. Neither was Hillary the only one

to vote for the war...that was hard.

[Sunlei]

25. have to give Sanders credit for no vote. I do not think it was/is easy to go against the 'flow'.

[Martin Eden]

26. Hard or Easy, voting for the IWR was unequivocally Wrong.

Did you listen to Bernie's speech in the OP? Hard to refute anything he said.

Bernie favored UN inspections for WMD in Iraq, but not the "blank check" in the IWR. Congress should have insisted the resolution include a provision that brought the ultimate vote for war back to Congress where it is Constitutionally mandated. This was essential because by October 2002 it was obvious the White House Iraq Group was building a fraudulent case for war and the key policymakers in the Bush administration were absolutely intent on invading Iraq.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Do you blame Bernie Sanders for voting FOR the AUMF Against Terrorists in 2001?

The only congress person to vote against it was California's Barbara Lee. That vote one gave Bush broad war powers, far broader than the AUMF Against Iraq, which you still excoriate Hillary Clinton for.

And do you hold Bernie Sanders to account for voting with every single war funding bill since his AUMF Against Terrorists vote?
Because if you don't, you're only using the AUMF Against Iraq (you know it as the IWR) as a club to beat the Democratic front-runner with because she's beating your preferred candidate with double digits in all the polls (except those for New Hampshire). That's disingenuous, at the very least.

[Martin Eden]

67. The AUMF is not the IWR

AUMF was passed in Sep 2001. This was shortly after 9/11, as a direct response to those attacks. The IWR vote was more than a year later and it specifically targeted Iraq, so don't pretend the two are the same thing.

Also not the same thing is a vote to go to war, as opposed to funding our troops when they're already in the field. There is no equivalency between those two, either.

As for my personal motives, you have it precisely backwards. I oppose Hillary Clinton first and foremost because of her IWR vote. It is for that same reason I would not support John Kerry in the 2004 Democratic primary or Joe Biden when he ran. I was very much engaged with this issue since Bush started beating the war drums for Iraq in 2002. THAT is when Hillary and the others lost my vote.

I truly wish Hillary had provided the kind of leadership we needed at that time to make every effort to avert the disaster in Iraq, but instead she added her voice to the Bush propaganda machine in the run-up to war. Had she stood up and pointed out what Bernie did in his speech, I would be proud to embrace her as our standard-bearer in 2016.

Despite her IWR vote Hillary could have regained my confidence if she demonstrated better judgment since then, but she is still very much a hawk. I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary not as some kind of punishment for her IWR vote, but because I am convinced she is much more likely than Sanders or O'Malley to pour more of our country's blood and treasure down the Middle East sinkhole. This unending war doesn't defeat terrorism, it serves to perpetuate terrorism while feeding the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us against. As long as that goes on, vital programs needed by the American people at home -- the Democratic agenda we should all support -- are perpetually underfunded.

Finally, I must point out you did not attempt to rebut my argument that voting for the IWR was uniquivocally wrong. It really is indefensible. Anyone who was fooled by the Bush administration's propaganda doesn't have the intelligence to be a US Senator, let alone President.

But we both know Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She was either on board with the neocon agenda, or voted for the IWR out of political calculation. Neither is acceptable.

[BlueCaliDem]

138. There were two. The IWR is officially titled the "Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq"

or the 2003 AUMF Against Iraq. Look it up. The first one was the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF Against Terrorists) which both Sanders and Clinton voted for.

Also not the same thing is a vote to go to war, as opposed to funding our troops when they're already in the field. There is no equivalency between those two, either.

The AUMF Against Terrorists, the one both Clinton and Sanders voted for, already gave G.W. Bush broad and extensive war powers. Did you read it? Specifically this part:

The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

U.S. mass media, broadcast radio, newspapers all beat the drums of war and all reported that Iraq was, somehow, involved in 9/11. Only a few liberal blogs, European news outlets, and European newspapers were ringing the alarm that this was UNTRUE. But by that time, the vast majority of American polled were lulled into believing warmonger Bush was right, and that he should have anything and everything he needed in order to go after those responsible for 9/11 - and that included Saddam Hussein.

Finally, I must point out you did not attempt to rebut my argument that voting for the IWR was uniquivocally wrong. It really is indefensible. Anyone who was fooled by the Bush administration's propaganda doesn't have the intelligence to be a US Senator, let alone President.

Oh, I'm sorry I hadn't "rebutted" your argument that voting for the AUMF Against Iraq was wrong. There was nothing to argue. You're right about that. It was a very WRONG vote. I've been against it from the get-go. It's why I've posted, post after post, why I didn't support nor vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Her refusal to apologize for that vote was key, just as Sanders' refusal to apologize for his votes against the Brady bill and supporting that egregious PLCAA is the reason I can't support nor vote for him.

But we both know Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She was either on board with the neocon agenda, or voted for the IWR out of political calculation. Neither is acceptable.

No, she's not stupid. Absolutely not. That's why she had to vote for both AUMF bills. She was Senator of New York State - the State hit by 9/11 the hardest. Do you think New Yorkers would've understood had she voted against the AUMF Against Terrorists and the AUMF Against Iraq when they believed that Saddam Hussein most likely had something to do with 9/11? Do you think they'd happily re-elect her? Or do you believe her political career would have ended? Think about it.

Hindsight is 20/20 and tanding on the moral high-ground is wonderfully noble, but that and $4 bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks as a politician in a time when Americans wanted retribution for those attacks. Hillary Clinton was elected by the majority of voting New Yorkers, tasked with representing ALL New Yorkers. They'd been the victims of the biggest attack on American soil in American history and they wanted recompense. Had she voted NO on either bills, she would have been seen as a traitor to New York and her constituents' needs.

[Martin Eden]

142. Spin it any way you like, the 2001 vote is not the same as 2003. Period.

The 2001 vote was not preceded by months of false propaganda pursuant to the known PNAC agenda to invade Iraq. This is not hindsight. By the time Oct 2002 rolled around it was obvious the case for war was bogus, and our own intelligence agency stated Iraq was unlikely to attack us (as Sanders pointed out in his speech).

Anyone who bothered to dig beneath the war propaganda knew this and also knew that once given the authority Bush would use it to invade Iraq. If Hillary Clinton didn't know that, she is stupid. But she's not stupid.

The following paragraphs of yours is one of the most astonishing things I have ever read in my 13+ years at DU:

No, she's not stupid. Absolutely not. That's why she had to vote for both AUMF bills. She was Senator of New York State - the State hit by 9/11 the hardest. Do you think New Yorkers would've understood had she voted against the AUMF Against Terrorists and the AUMF Against Iraq when they believed that Saddam Hussein most likely had something to do with 9/11? Do you think they'd happily re-elect her? Or do you believe her political career would have ended? Think about it.

Hindsight is 20/20 and tanding on the moral high-ground is wonderfully noble, but that and $4 bucks will buy you a latte at Starbucks as a politician in a time when Americans wanted retribution for those attacks. Hillary Clinton was elected by the majority of voting New Yorkers, tasked with representing ALL New Yorkers. They'd been the victims of the biggest attack on American soil in American history and they wanted recompense. Had she voted NO on either bills, she would have been seen as a traitor to New York and her constituents' needs.

I've thought about, and I've concluded that no rational person could possibly make that argument about the 2002 IWR.

New Yorkers (the primary victims of the 9/11 attacks) were being sold a pack of lies by an administration that was hell-bent on invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq would divert focus and resources from the difficult conflict we were already fighting in Afghanistan against the enemy that had actually attacked us.

Your argument is that a US Senator who ostensibly represents the interests of those New Yorkers should not tell the truth to her constituents to avert an unjustified war that would cost New York and the rest of the country dearly, but rather should go along with the lies because opposing this false retribution could hurt her political career.

Wow. Anyone who believes that should oppose Hillary Clinton with every fiber of their political being.

That is the exact opposite of representing the interests of her constituents. If you disagree, then think for a moment about New Yorkers who lost loved ones on 9/11 or in the bloody fiasco in Iraq. Then ponder for a moment, if you will, what they would think of Hillary Clinton if they learned she knew they were being lied to about Iraq but vocally supported and voted for the war because she thought it would be better for her political career. They would tar and feather Hillary Clinton, if they could. Don't think so? Imagine you had a family member who was murdered, and someone falsely accused a neighborhood bully. A close family friend knew they accusation was false, but urged your brothers to go after the bully because they were hot for revenge. One of your brothers was killed in the fight. Then you learned the bully had nothing to do with it and your friend knew it at the time but let your brother go and get killed anyway.

And hell, many thousands of New Yorkers took to the streets to protest the war in Iraq before it started. New York voted against the warmonger Bush in the next election, and politicians who had the spine to stand up to oppose the war (like Howard Dean) gained support they wouldn't have otherwise. I'm willing to bet John Kerry would have won the presidency in 2004 if he showed the same courage opposing the war in Iraq as he did when he led Vietnam Vets against that earlier insane bloody conflict.

I'm still shaking my head at the two paragraphs I quoted. You are absolutely twisting yourself into crazy knots of pretzel logic trying to defend the indefensible.

Think about it.

Please.

[BlueCaliDem]

151. A vote for war is a vote for war. Consequently...

In 1998, Bernie Sanders' name was included as a YEA vote on HR 4655, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the aim of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power. President George W. Bush later used the Iraqi Liberation Act to provide justification for military action for the 2003 invasion.

Oops.

I've thought about, and I've concluded that no rational person could possibly make that argument about the 2002 IWR.

No. But high-strung and fearful New Yorkers and Americans - overall - made that argument through pollsters at the time. Being rational at the time was not an option - certainly not for politicians who want to be re-elected.

I'm still shaking my head at the two paragraphs I quoted. You are absolutely twisting yourself into crazy knots of pretzel logic trying to defend the indefensible.

I'm not trying to defend anything. As you might have read in one of my many posts, I've been against Bush, against the AUMF Against Terrorists and against the AUMF Against Iraq from the GET-GO. All I'm trying to do is give those anti-Hillary Clinton people a reality check - that their preferred candidate is NO anti-war socialist hero. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make what I write any less truthful or, as you so kindly put it, "twisting myself into crazy knots".

[Martin Eden]

167. And a fruit is a fruit. However...

...an apple is not an orange.

Your argument rests on the assumption there was no difference between the AUMF in September 2001 and the IWR in 2002. That simply is not true, as I have already pointed out. There would not have been an IWR vote if the Sep 2001 AUMF (or the 1998 "aim of Congress&quot already provided the president with that authority. It did not.

Your following statement is also untrue:

I'm not trying to defend anything.

You've been trying, repeatedly -- and yes, twisting yourself into crazy knots of pretzel logic -- to defend Hillary Clinton's October 2002 vote for the IWR. Nearly our entire exchange has been about your defense of HRC's IWR vote, yet you assert you haven't been trying to defend anything.

And I'm still shaking my head over this:

No. But high-strung and fearful New Yorkers and Americans - overall - made that argument through pollsters at the time. Being rational at the time was not an option - certainly not for politicians who want to be re-elected.

For the love of all that is sane in this world, being rational in a time national crisis is exactly what we should expect -- nay, demand -- of those we elect to represent our interests!!! It just boggles my mind that anyone would think otherwise. If you were on a ship that struck a submerged rock and a deraged ship's officer convinced the passengers to jump over the side into icy water where they would surely perish but you knew the ship was in no real danger of sinking, I'm beginning to believe you would not only encourage it but jump in yourself to certain death.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton knew her constituents were being lied into a war but she did nothing to set them straight and voted for that war based on a calculation of how it would affect her personal political career, that ranks among the greatest reasons I have ever seen to vote against a politician. If what you beleive about Hillary is true, she deserves to be publicly shunned for the rest of her life. She did a terrible disservice to the people of New York, to her country, and to our citizens in uniform who were sacrificed in a war based on lies.

Hopefully, her political calculation was also dead wrong. If HRC fails to win the Democratic nomination it will almost certainly be due to her vote to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

And very, very, deservedly so.

[rhett o rick]

82. Try rationalizing it any way you want but in the end she helped George Bush a Republicon

start a war that was the worst decision in a century at least. She either believed him or agreed with him. How can you over look that?

[Scuba]

32. Bwahaaaahaaaaaa. Lamest-ass post ever!!!!!

[polly7]

38. Huh?

[frylock]

58. Hard Choices©

[BeanMusical]

103. Wut?

[Hepburn]

165. IMO, it did not take a Rocket Scientist to see that Iraq had nothing to do with 911

Not one bit hard at all to see the lies.

[kelliekat44]

15. Well, just as Iraq is your single issue, guns are mine...so.... nt

[Fumesucker]

22. Do you think guns will be a big issue in the general if Hillary wins the nomination?

[BlueCaliDem]

57. For The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun

Violence? The New Yorkers Against Gun Violence? The Mayors Against Illegal Guns group? The Violence Policy Center (the group the NRA is most afraid of, by the way), and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' Americans for Responsible Solutions and all their members? Oh, and let's not forget, African Americans. Oh, you bet. Just because Hillary wins the nomination, doesn't mean the gun violence issue is off the table. You can count on it that they'll be pushing her hard to make this a prime issue of her presidency.

[bvar22]

155. #2...Knowing how much Hillary loves corporate money,

do YOU really expect her to "go up" against such a powerful and RICH Conglomerate of Corporate donations?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. War and guns are not really separate issues, are they?

And both candidates favor strong regulations of firearms, while only one of them voted to arm our troops and send them with guns to shoot others.
Maybe your 'single issue' is guns that might harm those you count as worthy, not those in Iraq. The American Sniper's gun, that was a good gun, right? A war gun.....

[Oilwellian]

61. Her foundation and guns are also intertwined

War is a racket.

[frylock]

59. What proposals has Clinton made to curb gun violence?

[rhett o rick]

83. There are a number of reasons not to vote for HRC but I don't need to get past her betrayal of

her party, her country, our vets, the Iraqis and for what? Oil profits. The 1% that some align with only care about profits and not human life.

The fact that there are others responsible doesn't diminish her responsibility.

[Maedhros]

88. We killed a quarter of a million innocent Iraqis,

and you're worried about your GUNS?

At what point do innocent lives stack up high enough for you to care?

[sulphurdunn]

20. I'm just a rural school teacher

in Appalachia, and I knew the buildup to the Iraq War was a White House M$M fraud. So did millions of other people. HRC and the entire US Congress knew it too. Not one of them should ever be rewarded for supporting it.

[darkangel218]

34. Exactly.

I'm certain she had at least the same level as knowledge at least as the regular people at the time, but she decided she would vote for it anyway.

So nope, she doesn't get a pass from me either.

[Sunlei]

21. the SOS & diplomatic positions never seemed (to me) to work with our 'war lover'-government.

but yes way back when? 15?-20 years ago now? that IRAQ War vote really suckered a lot of elected Government 'Leaders' and millions & millions of American people.

war mongering and calling for war seems to grow "a life of its own" in Our Government, like a snowball rolling in the snow.Sunlei 2016

[Martin Eden]

23. Bernie showed great judgment in that speech !!!

He demonstrated a much better grasp of the situation and its consequences than anyone who voted for the IWR.

[JaneyVee]

24. 33,000 gun deaths a year here in America.

Bernie voted for that.

[think]

35. Your statement is reprehensible, preposterous, & is no way supported by the facts.

Bernie Sanders supported legislation that would expand background checks & ban assault weapons many times including the effort in 2013.

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

And in case you forgot Hillary campaigned for Alison Grimes last year. Grimes does not support a ban on assault weapons:

Grimes mentioned her longstanding invitation to meet McConnell at a gun range, before saying she opposes banning assault weapons but is open to considering changes to how guns are purchased at gun shows. "You shouldn't have different standards when you go to a gun store versus a gun show," Grimes said.

Grimes said she is a "big supporter" of the 2nd Amendment and does not believe that banning weapons "is the way to actually reduce the violence that we see here in the US." Instead, she said, the government should work harder "to make sure we educate people and that we enforce the law."

When the Herald-Leader submitted a questionnaire to the Senate campaigns in May, Grimes responded to a question about requiring background checks at gun shows by saying that she supports "reasonable background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill." She said at the time, "However, these efforts should not infringe upon the right of law-abiding Americans to possess firearms."

Source: Lexington Herald Leader on 2014 Kentucky Senate race , Sep 25, 2014

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Alison_Grimes_Gun_Control.htm

So please stop using baseless accusations as a disgusting tactic to avoid acknowledging that Clinton sent America to war wthi Iraq and failed the American people.

[JaneyVee]

37. Except he voted 10x for pro-gun legislation.

Yet you think Hillary's meaningless IWR vote is worse? Every Democrat voted for it and it would have passed anyway.

[think]

40. It would have passed anyway no way condones her vote. That is not leadership. That's capitulation

And your fact less claims about Bernie's voting record on gun control still ring hollow and disingenuous.

[JaneyVee]

42. Here's some facts for you:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

[kenfrequed]

101. Uhm

Are you making an equivalency argument between the action of a nation going to war. The affirmative, decision to attack with the military to a series of votes on gun control?

Is that what you are doing right now?

Because I cannot tell you how utterly messed up that kind of an argument is.

[Logical]

179. Not murders! Most are people killing themselves. Nt

[Victor_c3]

27. I'm with you on that

I've posted at length my struggle in the past on this forum, but as a severely disabled vet produced by that war, I take the vote and her subsequent refusal to apologize or acknowledge that it was a mistake very personally.

I was a stupid and naive kid when I joined the army in 1997. I believed we learned our lessons from Vietnam and that our politicians would use military force as a means to make the world a better place. Watching the events unfold in the Balkans at that time proved that to me. In 2001 I agreed with our response to September 11th. However, I never agreed with the push to invade Iraq. I had just finished up ranger school when the war started and I never imagined that it'd be as bad as it was. I deployed to Iraq from February 2004 through March 2005 where I served as an Infantry Platoon Leader for 13 months.

Most people back here have no idea how intense or how wakeful it was. The fighting is one thing. Actually, you kind of get used to it and relish it at points. However the violence and seeing the impacts your weapons have is another thing altogether. Most people have no idea what it is like to come across a child fighting to stay alive that your unit had just shot or what it smells like when you come across a guy who had his head ripped open and the smell of brains permeates the air.

[Bonobo]

31. Oh shit, Victor. Your voice really needs to be amplified and heard by all.

I sometimes feel like the real purpose of all those "Thanks for your service!" comments is to shut up voices like yours with that fake-ass patriotism.

[Oilwellian]

64. Thank you for your input

It's important to hear.

[JEB]

91. Thank you for the powerful honest post.

This country needs a big dose of the truth you are offering.

[slipslidingaway]

92. Thank you for your post and I am so sorry for what you have and are enduring ...

war should be a last resort.

In some ways I think we need to reinstate the draft so that the cost of war would be more equitable.

I did not know until years later that my father, a WW2 marine vet, had reached out to my male cousins during the Vietnam war and told them he would help them evade the draft if they wanted. I always knew that he was proud to serve, he signed up before his age would allow ... he was willing to go at age 16 or 17, he tried a few times.

But war has a way of changing people, rarely were the holidays we had when he was not depressed thinking of all those lost on some island in the Pacific. We still have pictures of beheadings buried in some box, need to dedicate those to some historical society before we leave this planet. But you put forth another view, homeless children and people that had lost their lives from the other side.

What I learned, he was very proud to serve his country and wanted me to watch endless WW2 movies as a child

But the war always haunted him, and us as a consequence, especially at holidays.

War is not only a racket, it wreaks havoc on families.

I hope you can find the peace that eluded my father.

We move forward, whether it be through war or illness.

[BeanMusical]

107. Man, I'm so sorry.

[cosmicone]

121. Thank you for your service and sacrifice.

War is hell and the Iraq war was as hellish it could get. It was also unnecessary and a mistake.

In hindsight, Hillary's vote "to authorize the president to use force if necessary" was just what it said. She is culpable in that she was had by Dubya, Cheney & Co. However, the entire blame for the war is not on Hillary's shoulders.

You as a person have every right to determine how you should vote but your disability is far more symbolic of the greater American sacrifice by veterans throughout the years and above being used as a political football on DU or anywhere else.

I salute you, respect you and your service should be honored forever.

[Martin Eden]

122. We have a solemn duty

We have a solemn duty to send our citizens in uniform into harms way only when necessary to defend our country, then ensure they have everything needed to accomplish a well defined mission. We must hold our elected representatives accountable, or there will be no end to these insane wars that only serve to perpetuate terrorism and enrich the owners of the military industrial complex.

Too often, the armchair warriors at home thump their chests for the USA to "kick some ass" without questioning what they've been told or thinking about what this means for those who are sent to do the fighting and become targets in open-ended occupations. After it turns into a mismanaged bloody fiasco based on a pack of lies and the body bags start coming home these flag-waving "patriots" will say Hey, they volunteered.

That really makes my blood boil.

On March 15, 2003 I travelled to our nation's capitol to join 100,000 protesters 4 days before Operation Iraqi Liberation was launched. As we marched through the streets of Washington, a small group of counter-protesters started chanting support our troops, support our troops. I started chanting with them support our troops, bring them home. Others joined me, and very soon we drowned them out.

Victor_c3, I am so sorry for what you and others had to go through, and especially for those who came home broken or didn't come home at all. And for their families. I have not forgotten the systematic campaign of lies that led to this war and the failure of Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton to stand up, speak truth to power, and make every effort to prevent this catastrophe.

We have to hold them accountable.

[KingCharlemagne]

133. I hope you are able to find some peace in the months and

years to come.

I cannot fathom that some HRC supporters have the temerity to still defend her vote. That is chutzpah!

[think]

28. The decision to send Americans to war is one of the most important things a president must consider

Bernie made the right choice in calling out the case for going to war with Iraq and stated clearly the consequences for America and the Middle East in doing so.

I would urge people to listen to this video and research the truths told by Senator Sanders.

There was NEVER any imminent threat from Iraq. Hillary Clinton had access to the same information that Bernie Sanders had and chose either to dismiss or not believe information provided by our own intelligence agencies..

Bernie made the right choice. Hillary FAILED the American people and the greater world community for that matter.

[Paka]

30. Bernie's Iraq War vote is high up there,

on a long list of reasons why I am voting for him. He gets it right from the "git-go."

He won't let us down. He's the "real deal."

GO BERNIE!

[90-percent]

33. The Iraq Invasion

Most of the planet knew invading Iraq was bullshit. As I understand it, the largest gathering of war protesters in history was before the Iraq invasion. IN HISTORY.

All it took back then to know what GWB was up to was ACCESS TO THE INTERNET to get news outside of America and find the few pockets of JOURNALISM that were providing accurate information instead of propagandizing for war. You're either with us or the terrorists and Americans better watch what they say. There's journalists that lost their jobs because they were questioning the war. Phil Donahue and Chris Hedges, to name two.

The entire post 9-11 era reminded me deeply about IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. The propaganda of both the White House and the MSM reminded me of what Germany may have been like around 1933 and the creeping TOTALITARIANISM by such things the heinous PATRIOT ACT.

I sure hope there's some prosecutorial breakthroughs in Europe over the recent admission by Tony Blair that the war was a mistake and its a shame we were given such crappy intelligence. MY ASS! Cheney went to the CIA and combed thru raw intelligence PERSONALLY to try and find a Saddam connection.

Anybody that voted for the IWR is unfit for any elected office. If I, as an average American internet user knew it was bogus then our Reps should have known also. It was the thing to do given the atmosphere at the time, but the LACK OF IMAGINATION of Congress is as big as the LACK OF IMAGINATION that nobody in the GWB White House could imagine terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers! (Condi was such a hack! Incompetent) Or that GWB would actually lie us into a war that was of no benefit what so ever to anybody besides the MIC and the Chinese companies that make American flags.

-90% Jimmy

[Martin Eden]

124. "Anybody that voted for the IWR is unfit for any elected office."

I agree, good post.

We knew the case for war was bogus and that once given the authority (IWR vote) the Bush PNAC'ers would invade Iraq. Hillary supporters who try to excuse her by saying Bush didn't act in good faith are essentially calling her too stupid to know what we knew.

The consequences have been too horrible to give any politician a pass on this.

[KingCharlemagne]

136. knowing she is currently the odds-on fAvorite to win the

Nomination makes me throw up inside my mouth a little bit. Is she really the best the Deems have to offer? Really???

[restorefreedom]

36. reason no. 7 for me...it birthed ISIS and destabilized the entire region

reason no. 8 for me...it made most of the world see what lying, opportunistic profiteers the u.s. really is. it gave people who liked us a reason not to like us. And it gave people who already didn't like us a place to focus their attacks.

never again.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. I spent the 2000 election cycle pleading with voters to back Al Gore because George Bush meant

war with Iraq. And so it did....if I could call it, the Congress could have too.

[Dem2]

48. I disagreed with her and many other Democrats on this vote.

But for f's sake, it's not a deal breaker for me.

[bvar22]

140. That kind of indifference to unnecessary suffering and death...

IS a Deal Breaker for me.

[Dem2]

145. I guess I'm a bad person.

I realize that it would have happened with or without her vote, and that the mood at that time was a LOT different than now when we look back at the debacle it became. I would have voted against it personally (was clear that they were not telling the truth in those ridiculous presentations), but I realize that the pressure to go along with the President at that time was very, very high.

[bvar22]

160. You are smarter and care more about our country than HIllary?

If you would have voted NO, then you are.
If YOU would have voted "NO",
how can you give Hillary a pass on voting YES to the destruction of a country that did NOt attack us, and COULD NOT attack us.

We killed over 1/2 MILLION Human Beings with dreams, lovers, husbands and Wives they loved, children, families that ate together with their Christian neighbors, photos on the end tables, and a future...
but you're OK with that???
WE did that.
I didn't help.....but Hillary did.

[Dem2]

166. I guess I am

[Adrahil]

50. Fair enough. But it's not my bottom line. nt

[Faux pas]

51. Kicketty Kickin'

[BootinUp]

54. I have never blamed the Democrats for the Iraq War

To understand my position, it is only necessary to agree that the Democrats had this country on a path to avoid such a war before the people I do blame came to power. Thats it, end of story.

[Sheepshank]

56. and if not for the Iraq war you would have found another single issue on which to make your stand

...I get it, you hate Hillary enough to make you stand on one issue. I just don't buy off on the fact that this bluster is genuine.

[Comrade Grumpy]

63. The greatest foreign policy blunder of the past century. It's a pretty big deal.

We all knew what was coming after that vote.

[Maedhros]

62. There are only two options RE: Hillary's IWR vote

1. She didn't realize that she was green-lighting the invasion

or

2. She understood the ramifications and voted for it anyway.

In the case of #1 she would have proved herself much too naive and too easily duped, thus disqualifying herself from the Presidency. We need someone in office just a tad bit more aware of how politics works.

In the case of #2 she would have proved herself a willing co-conspirator in the waging of an illegal and unjust war of choice, thus disqualifying herself from the Presidency on simple moral grounds.

So which is it?

[ms liberty]

89. Excellent points. n/t

[cosmicone]

66. The person offered me 95% of everything I wanted

but his tie was of the wrong color, so I declined.

[F4lconF16]

71. Over a million dead and a country destroyed is not a fucking tie. Thanks. Nt

[cosmicone]

72. And Hillary is single-handedly responsible for that?

oh wow

[JoePhilly]

73. They think Hillary = Bill ... and that ...

... Hillary invaded Iraq.

[F4lconF16]

79. No. She and the whole bunch of them have enabled and fought antiwar efforts.

When you vote for a war, you hold just as much responsibility as anybody else. From war criminal Bush to war criminal Obama, the whole top political echelon is complicit. Sanders, too. I am not a fan of his foreign policy. Militarists, all. They are willing to result to atrocities in the name of freedom, democracy, and the pursuit of capital.

This is why I'm not a Democrat. Because loyalty to a party makes it really easy to shrug off the devestation neoliberalism and liberalism have caused in conjuction with their conservative counterparts.

Don't trivialize this. Just because they are foreigns in another land doesn't mean their lives are so worthless you can call the terrible atrocity of their deaths and the slow destruction of an entire culture comparable to a FUCKING TIE ON A POLITICIAN.

Fuck that attitude. Fuck that whole thing.

The fact that people can shrug off over a million deaths scares the shit out of me.

[bvar22]

146. I agree.

Something bad wrong when people can just shrug off 1 MILLION innocent deaths,
5 MILLION displaced from their homes...never to go home again,
the countless families torn apart....


Yes. I agree. Something bad wrong with anyone who can just shrug that off.

[jen63]

172. Oh jesus, thank you! n/t

[WIProgressive88]

115. Wow. Just...wow.

What an unbelievably insensitive post.

[Bonobo]

116. The Cosmic Cone never fails to amaze.

There is a severely disabled vet on this very thread talking about their grievous injuries and ruined health.

Talk about insensitive.

[JTFrog]

127. Does it make you feel guitly that you voted for Kerry?

After his Iraq vote?

Or, as we have witnessed, do you save all your scorn for Hillary?

Look, I'm just saying, you had no problem putting Kerry and Edwards on your list of Dem's you would vote for after their Iraq war votes... but now omg this is the one thing that will keep you from voting for a Democratic candidate?

Maybe someone pointing this out to you can help you get things back into perspective.

I doubt it, but it's worth a try.

[Logical]

180. Lol, what does that even mean? Also, why post Hillary brushing off dandruff?

[F4lconF16]

70. The only wars we should be fighting are ones involving a direct physical invasion.

Every bit of resources that go into destroying children, families, women, communities, poor, houses, cities, environments, and nations is a stain on our collective souls.

I don't give a shit if war is legal, or if it's "for a good cause".

War is never a necessary evil. That is an insidious lie we tell ourselves.

War is death. War is pain. War is wanton, glorious, excessive destruction. War is rape. War is impoverishment. War is a battle of the poor for the god, guns, and glory of the rich. War is nationalism. War is racism. War is oppression. War is survival and loss.

War is slaughtering innocents as they run from a burning hospital.

I am a pacifist, and proud to be so.

I have said it on multiple occasions here:

Fuck war.

Fuck the war-mongers.

I will oppose your wars until my dying breath.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. You must be one of them bleedin' heart libruls crying over a bunch a dead furriners. K&R

[riversedge]

76. I am with Hillary.-->moving Foward to fix the problems of this country.

[coyote]

77. You should read post 27

Hillary enabled that. Please tell the millions of women, men, and children whose lives and country we destroyed to move forward so we can fix our country. Fuck the Iraqis, right? We need to move forward as you say.

[BeanMusical]

104. +1 Unbelievable.

[sabrina 1]

78. It shows you what kind of people they are when they THINK they can just brush that horrible

travesty aside, all those lives destroyed, because we didn't have enough people willing to stand up when it was necessary.

That and so many other things, are why I support Bernie.

[KingCharlemagne]

135. +Infinity - nt

[Uncle Joe]

80. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.

[azmom]

85. K&R

[colsohlibgal]

87. That Iraq Vote

Hillary strikes me as an intelligent woman so.....why did she vote for that stupid and immensely costly war?

I see it as being afraid to vote against it. She was hardly the only one like that but that doe not excuse any of them. Trillions of dollars. So many killed, so many maimed any number of ways. ISIS unleashed into the vacuum. Now antiquities being stolen or destroyed.

Votes can have consequences. She lined up with Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the PNAC crowd and we paid dearly.

It would be hard for me to overlook that if that were all but we have the bonus of her being in bed with Wall Street.

Obviously none of this bothers the rabid Hillary supporters.

[Autumn]

90. I gave her a pass in 2008. I have no more passes to give.

[Chicago1980]

93. Your primary vote and support may be behind Bernie,

but if Hillary wins the nod will you vote for her?

Will you hold your nose and vote for her? That's really the question.

The SCOTUS is on the line and I don't want the republicans getting a chance to their damage.

I don't want people getting mad and staying home because they didn't get what they wanted.

[modestybl]

96. Will not vote for her, not only for that immoral vote...

... but because she is STILL lying about that vote...

[KingCharlemagne]

137. More disturbing, imo, is that she has shown not the tiniest shred of

Remorse for her vote. Regret? Sure, BC it cost her the 2008 nomination. But remorse? You know, the quality that makes all non-sociopaths human?

I guess that's why she pals around and yuks it up with the likes of her BFF Kissinger.

[Darb]

163. Who you gonna vote for, Cruz?

I call bullshit.

[MisterP]

97. in 2008 Dems started "forgiving" her for her vote

that was not theirs to forgive, not unless they're Iraqis or soldiers (or their survivors)

[SoapBox]

99. K & R

She's a War Hawk...no thank you.

[peace13]

108. So proud and brave.

Remember when she said that her group had come under sniper fire? Er...actually not . That was so demeaning to our troops that faced the war every day. It is that type of thing that really turns me off.

[BeanMusical]

111. Yeah, she's a chickenhawk for sure.

[Kalidurga]

109. I am not a single issue voter so her vote on this was not very relevant to me.

But, I am starting to come around. We spend way to much on the military. If Hilary is in office that is not likely to go down. I can say this because of her IWR vote. It's hawkish and hawks like to spend lots and lots of money on bombs. So, that's how it becomes more than one issue and I don't have to feel like I am putting too much weight on just one vote.

[xocet]

110. K & R Hillary's war vote disqualifies her. n/t

[Cassiopeia]

112. The best indicator of future behavior.

Exactly.

HRC's cavalier attitude to war just isn't acceptable to me.

We'll go completely bankrupt and the nation will fail if we don't stop making war, especially in the ME.

[Moonwalk]

114. I'm confused. Why is this one vote the only indication of future behavior? She was secretary...

...of state and had a big hand in brokering the deal with Iran which avoids war. Shouldn't that count just a wee bit more? It's much more recent than that vote, and her involvement in that was far more important.

I really don't understand why I'm being asked to ignore all the experience and things she's done as Secretary of State and ONLY view this one vote as indicating what she'll be like as president.

If I said that Sander's one vote against a gun control measure was a clear indicator of his future behavior and what he'll do as president, you'd be pissed at me. You'd say, "That's not right or fair! You can't ignore all the other things he's done and you shouldn't ignore how he thinks now about gun control as compared to then." And you'd be right. So...why are you saying that this one vote of Hillary's should be viewed as indicating her future behavior? Why shouldn't I take her behavior as Secretary of State as indicating her future behavior instead?

[Cassiopeia]

118. Yeah, look towards her time as SoS

She was banging the war drums over and over during that term as well.

[JDPriestly]

117. Hillary was warned by Code Pink. She heard them out and then stubbornly voted the wrong way

on the bill.

[JonLeibowitz]

119. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:37 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

There's also this, among other things (Warning: Graphic):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=788176

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a direct violation of the TOS: "Don't post "shock content" or porn.
Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust."

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 10, 2015, 12:54 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disgusting
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The TOS says "for no other purpose than to shock and disgust". This clearly serves a purpose of informing what HRC found amusing and a laughing matter. To say it is offensive is a reflection on the candidate, not on the post itself. This is fair game, very much unfortunately, only because she made it so.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This man's body isn't yours to use for your propaganda.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The point could have been made without the photo.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't thing the photo of the candidate is all that shocking or disgusting.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Hogwash]

120. Her well-known penchant for suppporting wars is the biggest personality flaw she has.

Her story of "dodging bullets in Bosnia" lie is the 2nd biggest personality flaw.

Face it, she doesn't give a damn what you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks of her.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. She made several stunningly bad calls during the last administration

But that may be the worst.

And no, she wasnt the only one. If we were talking about Biden or Kerry or any of the other senators who voted for it, it would be just as much of a legitimate issue.

[tblue]

126. Me too & all the posts trashing us

has me really not interested in volunteering side-by-side with them should she win the nom. I usually work my tail off every general election but it sounds like they don't want us around or need us anyway.

[mike_c]

153. there are a number of reasons why I consider Sen. Clinton unfit for office....

That is #1.

All of this brouha about whether we'll vote for Sen. Clinton if she's the democratic party nominee misses a very important point. We won't vote for any of the current slate of republicans because-- no matter what their other qualities-- none are fit for office. No one questions that response. They're unfit. Don't vote for 'em.

Senator Clinton is likewise unfit for office, IMO. Rather than list all the reasons why, I'll simply refer the curious to the great variety of posts on DU that list them, over and over. But ultimately, I only need one of them to convince me she's unfit. Her vote in favor of crimes against humanity in Iraq. For that, Senator Clinton belongs in the ICC dock at The Hague, along with her co-conspirators in Congress and the executive branch.

The IWR was a singular political event for me. It divided all of American politics and politicians into two-- those who stood firm for human rights and international justice, and those who abandoned our ideals to support crimes against humanity for political expedience. I not only won't vote for anyone from the latter group, I will cheer if they are ever dragged to The Hague in chains. Senator Clinton belongs to that group.

[AzDar]

159. She stated at the time that she was casting her vote 'with CONVICTION'.

She's either a liar, or lacks good judgement, and should never be President.

[Bonobo]

177. Yes. And she also tried to influence the rest of the senate with her speech. nt

[Hortensis]

170. That vote'd be enough for a lot of us, but my observation is the

typical Bernie supporter would be against HRC for wearing pant suits if they couldn't find something that sounded better to declare.

[EndElectoral]

175. Thanks for the post. I cannot in all conscience vote for someone who voted for that atrocity.

We all have those points that cross the line. Hundreds of thousands protested going to that war. The UN with Blick said there were no WMD's found, and Democrats who rolled over failed in one of those Profiles in Courage moments.

The cost of that has been reprehensible.