home

Pols are pols . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:25:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Yes my old refrain, but the Bernie Sanders edition:

There have been only a handful of truly pivotal congressional votes to broadly redefine gun rights in modern America [. . .] So where was Sanders in all this? As a second-term congressman, he steadfastly opposed the Brady Law [. . . ] In 2006, when he was running for Senate, he voted with pro-gun, pro-corporate Republicans on the odious immunity bill. [. . .I]t’s hard to see Sanders’ record as anything but grossly pro- [gun] industry.

[. . . H]ere’s the thing: When Sanders and his supporters defend his votes, they like to make the point that Sanders has represented Vermont, where an awful lot of pickup trucks sport NRA stickers, and where an awful lot of gun dealers make a decent living and don’t want to get sued out of business. In other words, Sanders was representing the interests of his constituents. And you know what that makes Bernie Sanders?

A politician, that’s what.

Yes, pols are pols and do what they do. Even Bernie Sanders.

Speaking for me only

< Move On's Latest E-Mail List Enhancement Scheme | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pols are pols . . . | 203 comments (203 topical)
    With Clinton leading Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    in the last 2 NH polls, even a pol being a pol may not work for Sanders in the nearby "Live Free or Die" state.

    More interesting to me is Marco. Is he already in panic mode? Does he not know he only has to stay top 3 for now?

    And BTD this video is for you. You may have found your kicker.

    Possibly OT (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    but I had to post this

    Trump Filter - Delete Donald from the internet

    HaHaHa...listed in what the (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    Filter does is "Make America great again".

    Parent
    If only we could filter him from more (none / 0) (#9)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    than just the internet!

    Parent
    The British Parliament (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    Is debating banning from the country.  

    Parent
    I read about that. As much as I like (none / 0) (#16)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    the thought of it, I don't think it is a good move. God forbid, he becomes President, it would make things mighty awkward.

    Parent
    Exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    Except I (still-hope) think he will not be president.  But as a nominee it could definitely add spice to the mix.

    Parent
    There is Some Precedent... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    ... in which people making hate speech are denied entry into England.  The people are asking that it be applied across the board to include rich and famous folks.

    Also, they don't have a choice as any petition with more than 100,000 has to be debated by Parliament, this was has 465,000 signatures.

    These kinds of petitions don't seem to be rare:

    As of Tuesday afternoon, a petition calling for the United Kingdom to accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the country had 445,000 signatures. Another to stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated had 440,000 signatures. Meanwhile, Kelly's petition is now undergoing the committee's review. She hopes it will be live within a few days.

    LINK

    Parent

    I know it has happened here in the US. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    Indian Prime Minister Modi was banned from the US for about 10 years. He was banned when he was Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat that saw some deadly Hindu Muslim violence. He was accused of not protecting the muslims since he is a Hindu nationalist. The US had to reverse course when he was elected Prime Minister.

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    I don't think for a second they will do it.   They are talking about it because a petition requires them to.

    Still, I love they are talking about it.

    Parent

    No Way... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    ...they are going to insert themselves in US politics by banning a candidate.  It's certainly not going to hurt his support either.

    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    he also represented his constituents by voting against the war in Iraq.

    Clinton, my Senator at the time, did not.

    And believe me, we tried like hel! to get her attention.

    For better or worse (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    New Yorkers supported the Iraq War in 2002-3.

    Parent
    To say (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    New Yorkers supported the Iraq War in 2002-3.
    is using a pretty broad brush. And it is as inaccurate as saying "New Yorkers opposed the Iraq War in 2002-3"

    There were plenty of opposing voices. Even in New York City.

    Parent

    Might want to read your link (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    The greatest opposition (and rallies) were in 2005 and beyond.  The poiling quoted matches that.

    And yep, 100,000 people at a rally in NYC is a big rally.  Too bad her constiuents were also people in the outer boroughs and you know, the rest of the state.

    Parent

    But wait, didn't you say the following: (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    Seattle didn't have almost 3000 people killed in a terrorist attack, nor have two huge skyscrapers collapse on live TV, so I imagine people there felt differently.

    So, was it constituents living in NYC that she was supporting with her war vote--those living in the shadow of the towers--or was it constituents living outside the city, in "the outer boroughs and the rest of the state" that she was supporting?

    Because 100,000 people marching in NYC really is a lot of people.

    Parent

    As a life long NYer (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    she would've been killed by our conservative upstate brethren had she not voted for that war. Same deal w/her working with Wall Street.

    It really shouldn't be that hard to understand and move on. BTD's point remains, poles will not do everything you want.

    Can we deal with that and still support the choice that aligns best with your own leanings?

    Parent

    You might want to read my comment. (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:21:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, sj...now you're just talking crazy... (3.67 / 3) (#109)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    :-)


    Parent
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    I know, right?

    Parent
    Yes she is. (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:49:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Such unwarranted (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sj on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    bellicosity. I should think you would find such constant anger exhausting. I know it makes you incoherent. And apparently unable to read comments for content. You stop at buzzwords.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    I would think your penchant of being a troll would be much more exhausting for you.  

    Parent
    When did you get so tiresome? (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    And when did you stop actually reading comments for content before finding something to complain about them? Maybe you were always this way before and I just gave you too much credit.

    You're just boring now, and for some reason you find it necessary to jab at nearly everything I say. I wasn't talking to you in my first comment for a reason. Which you have now limned graphically.

    ::yawn::

    Do what you do. Troll away.

    Parent

    Indeed. not everyone (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    fell for the Iraq war.  On Oct. 2, 2002 Jesse Jackson and a little known Illinois state senator spoke at an anti-war rally at the Kluczynski Federal Building plaza in Chicago.  That state senator found his way to the White House, in substantial measure, on the basis of his opposition to that war.  

    Over the years, I never quite got a full and clear explanation as to what factors shaped his opposition to the war. But, for me, reasons for opposition were everywhere. Initially less obvious, but never-the-less still evident, were reasons that deserved opposition to the Gulf War as well. At least in that war, many Democrats voted against it, except Al Gore.

    And, the duping and hoodwinking continues.

    Parent

    Senator Robert Byrd (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    spoke eloquently in the Senate and on interview programs detailing the reasons for his opposition to Bush's war in Iraq.

    Robert Byrd speaks

    Anyone seriously interested in the welfare of the American people - and the welfare of the soldiers that Bush was salivating to send into distant hellholes - had the information placed before them.

    The kind of politician - the one who follows an agenda - is what I think of with the phrase, "pols will be pols". A politician who is interested in politics - not people.

    I don't think it is right to tar Sanders with the "pols will be pols" line...

    Parent

    As did (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    A vast majority of the entire country.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    in theory at least, an elected official should bend to the will of the people they represent.

    In reality show me a pol who doesn't engage in some level of pandering and I will show you a loser.

    Parent

    I Would Hardly Call... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    ...voting the will of your constituents, pandering.

    To me an ideal candidate leaves their own personal views at the table, which are for the most part are tied to big dollars, and vote in a way that the majority of their constituents want.

    Side note, in this day and age it seems like we could vote on most issues from home and not have to rely on this absurd system in which we vote for someone who votes for us, who is also being influenced by financial interests other than the people they represent.

    Parent

    So, (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    Why does Hillary Clinton get called out for her vote?  She was voting for the will of the majority of her constiuents (many of whom had actually been affected by 9/11, unlike Bernie Sanders' constiuents).

    Parent
    I think Clinton gets called out because (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    her vote was completely in line with where she still seems to be on matters of war and national security; in some ways, it makes it harder to reconcile her regret for her vote because it doesn't seem to fit with her overall point of view.

    Sanders, as has been pointed out, is not considered to be any kind of friend to the NRA-types; yes, he voted against the Brady bill and against the bill that would have taken immunity away - but he is for background checks, he is against assault weapons, among other gun-related things, and this isn't something he had an epiphany about - it was always his position.

    Parent

    I think you are much too forgiving on the (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    gun manufacturer immunity vote.

    Truly egregiously bad imo.

    Parent

    I called everyone out in 2002 (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    Honestly, the Iraq Debacle is why I started blogging.

    I've written that it is what spurred me into redeepening my involvement in politics (after a few years of tune out).

    I gave a lot of money and effort to the Wes Clark campaign as a result.

    Parent

    Because (4.50 / 6) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:09:05 PM EST
    it's Hillary. She's apparently held to a different standard. No one lambasted Biden that I recall. And Obama would have voted for it if he had been in the senate at the time we all know now.

    Parent
    I hold them all accountable (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    Every single Democrat that voted for that IWR is complicit in that disaster. I not only hold my stupid senator, Maria Cantwell, accountable for her vote, I protested against her when she held an event in Seattle in 2006 with then-senate-darling Obama. Her goons tried to have me arrested for exercising my free speech rights. F*ck her and her goons. If they taken me away in handcuffs, I would have gladly sued the living daylights out of her.

    Clinton's speech justifying her IWR vote was full of distortions. Yes, she and all the others deserve to be held accountable for Iraq, and everything that has occurred since because of the power vacuum that our country created with that invasion.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    I'm glad you hold everybody accountable but the one I hold accountable is George W. Bush. IMO the buck stops with him.

    Parent
    Don't be dense (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    I hold him and Cheney accountable, and I said so in a prior comment.

    Parent
    How odd (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    Because my husband will have a sleep disorder for the rest of his life because of Iraq, but I well remember everything, and very few of them do I want to lambast. They've almost all said they were wrong, and they've seen up close and painfully where their votes got us. The Iraq War years were excrutiating painful for me too, just flat excrutiating. But the majority of this country backed going in once fed the line, this being a representative democracy and all....

    I always take into consideration that the nation was suffering from trauma and shock too at that time. That colored the situation also, and we are all vulnerable human beings. I never felt that most of the Democrats voting for the AUMF considered our soldiers to be unimportant cannon fodder either, even though Cheney and Rumsfeld made it clear that once the ink was dry that's what they would now become.

    Parent

    I can tell you for a fact (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 08:38:47 PM EST
    that not only did Maria Cantwell never acknowledge her mistaken vote, she never apologized for it to anyone, and more importantly, she threw it in our faces:

    In 2006 she said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that she "had no regrets" about her vote, and did not think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. She doubled down. This was 2006. And that is why I stood outside her event with Obama and protested her. I got tons of support from those entering the auditorium. Most were there to see the new darling, Obama, and thought her stance on Iraq was dismal.

    I cannot tell you how reviled the woman is in Washington. The problem, as always, is that as the incumbent in both elections since, she's had the big money locked up so no one was able to mount a strong primary challenge to her. The establishment WA State Dems and their arm twisters have made it very difficult, indeed, for anyone to have a fighting chance to unseat her.

    As for the rest of the Dems who voted for the IWR, I can only ask: is it really okay for politicians to drag us into war because they were scared??

    When else is it okay for them to not be held accountable? Because I can't think of a more dangerous error to make as a public official than to have a hand in dragging the country into an unjustified war. It has nothing to do with  respect or "support" for the military. It's about whether the politicians respect and support the citizens who have to foot the bill, and whether international law is being followed. In this case, the whole damn thing was ginned up. And it was being ginned up from Day 1, which was 9/11. Anyone who had a hand in that war should rightly be held accountable. At the very least, an acknowledgement and sincere apology should be offered.

    I can't hardly believe these points even need to be made. The excuse making is beyond the pale. If you want to vote for someone who took us into that war, fine. But at least acknowledge that it was a failing on their part, and not something to be excused.

    Parent

    Nobody is infallible (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:25:06 PM EST
    And I have had more dark hours behind closed doors hating my country than I care to remember.

    I don't have use for anyone who doesn't think they made the wrong vote that day. But if all I'm going to do is sit here until the sun goes supernova breaking my arm patting myself on my own self righteous back I'm not doing anyone any good.

    The truth is that the majority of this nation signed on for the Iraq War. And as long as this remains my nation I'm going to have to connect through my humanity with my fellow man if I want them to be able to really hear me in a meaningful way the next time we find ourselves in that position.

    Perfection doesn't exist though, and if I don't want to finish my years on planet earth miserable over the past, I'm going to have to make some peace with it. Because it's done. It can't be undone. The only thing any of us can do now is the next right thing.

    And I don't think most of the AUMF Dems were scared. I think there intention was to do the next right responsible thing, and they were wrong.

    Parent

    Fair enough, MT (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    I will say, I am glad that Patty Murray did the right thing with her vote, and I will always thank her for it. Unfortunately, I can't stomach Cantwell because she refuses to admit her mistake. And I sincerely hope there is a Democrat strong enough and funded enough to challenge her in 2018.

    Parent
    And that is a race I would love (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    To send some hard earned Army wages to. I will watch it now, and her. The goofballs around here are sometimes too distracting :)

    I will never forget the Air Force Chaplain who helped me fight Tricare for Josh's surgery. He was an amazing person. He was the only person that I shared my Iraq misgivings with completely and openly at the outset.

    He was a baby Chaplain during Vietnam. Then spent the rest of his time in in a largely at peace military.

    He was very worried about me, about how unsure I was about what my husband was doing in combat. He told me, "We need to do this, they'll get it done, they'll be home in 90 days". And he was retiring. He moved to the Gulf Coast before we were even 90 days out. The Bush administration even fooled him. In his darkest and foggiest imagination after this country went to war in Vietnam, he would have never guessed occupation and De-Baathification. I never saw him again. I hope they didn't break his heart and soul like they did so many other Vietnam Vets.

    Parent

    Many thanks, MT (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    Your statement about the ongoing debate over the role of personal guilt for voting for the AUMF years ago and its interplay with a continuing kind of morality play is excellent.

    Without going into a litany of my anti-war activities (including 2002 pre-Iraq invasion organizational public endeavors on the Denver community level0 I can say that the mentality of public flogging that sometimes seeps through discussions surrounding the AUMF vote then has a depressingly circular and unending quality.  While I do respect individual assessments about the morality of this vote (and other significant votes in our nation's history), the sometimes rigidity of defining any individual by one act or one vote can take us down a personally destructive path as well.  

    It has a hell-fire & damnation quality to stone one for a wrong or misdeed that hardly describes the life of one(s) who made a mistake in life or in a vote. I almost have to question what is going on at a deeper level when a few require public recantation (again & again) or maybe even a Joan of Arc burning at the stake ... before being able to turn to the present.  Maybe it is a substitute for a judgmental evangelical religion in the secular world of governance? Who knows.  I do know this: Like yourself, I'm not casting the first stone.

    Parent

    We've already turned to the present (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by CST on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    I'm not buying this - Hillary is not taking much flack these days for her Iraq vote, it almost never comes up anymore, the country has more or less moved on.  I think what some people take issue with is the constant beating of the drum that we somehow have to both excuse the person and excuse the vote.  And for a lot of us that's just never going to happen.  I can excuse a person for a lot of things but I'm never going to be okay with the "justifications" for why she "had to vote that way".  I take a much greater issue with people saying that we have to somehow make excuses for that vote than I do with the idea that we move on and make this about the future.

    And that's not to say that she has to be constantly apologizing either - its a meaningless exercise beyond the acknowledgement that it was incorrect.  But what gets me is the idea that we are supposed to somehow justify that vote now in order to support her.  And speaking for me only, that's never going to happen.

    Parent

    Bingo. (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    There was nothing but a dedicated self-interest in many of those pro-AUMF votes.  The same goes for the Patriot Act votes.

    It's very weird watching people try to peddle these rewrites of Hillary History.

    It has an uncanny resemblance, including the demonization of her opponent, to the opinion herding that accompanied the manufactured rise of Obama in '08.

    What's rich is seeing people who couldn't hate Hillary enough in '08, trumpet her infallibility now.

    Are we really that easily manipulated?

    Parent

    I am NOT justifying the vote (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    Not at all.  I agree that everyone--HRC, Sanders, all past & present Congressmen/Congresswomen--should have the integrity to take responsibility for each vote.  And, that is especially so in the periodic big, controversial decisions.

    My principal concern has to do with the occasional demonstration by some to use one action or one vote by ANYONE to define the totality or worth of the person.  Obviously, we all make judgments about lots of things, about lots of people, and--most definitely--about all politicians.  Good; fine; understood.  There is a difference, imo, when a few on either side of a political argument carry the fervor of religiosity to define the PERSON (not the correctness or misjudgment of a vote) for all time.  Surely, that is a person's right to do so ... but, it is equally right to query how such self-righteousness should be applied to the mote in their own eyes ... because that would make the early Puritans seem mild.

    Parent

    "one action or one vote" (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    You've totally missed the point. You should reread what CST wrote, because she nailed it.

    That "one vote" in question was one of the votes that gave a lying, criminal president the go-ahead to take us into war...a war we are paying for in countless ways, to this day. There is no vote as important as a vote to go to war. That's why people are still so incensed by it.

    Parent

    Then you should put your mind (none / 0) (#151)
    by sj on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    at rest.
    My principal concern has to do with the occasional demonstration by some to use one action or one vote by ANYONE to define the totality or worth of the person.  
    Because I don't see that happening here.

    Parent
    You've made the salient point, CST (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    I can excuse a person for a lot of things but I'm never going to be okay with the "justifications" for why she "had to vote that way".  I take a much greater issue with people saying that we have to somehow make excuses for that vote than I do with the idea that we move on and make this about the future.

    And it's a very similar thing to what jondee said elsewhere in the thread, about being able to hold your nose and vote someone without having to contort yourself into a pretzel to do it.

    Hordes of people spoke out against the war at the time. We were chastised for it. The "you're either with us or you're against us" slogan was used repeatedly as a cudgel to shame us and shut us up. And a whole lot of people are in denial about that, engaging in revisionist history to this day, even in this thread.

    Parent

    Yes they are (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    Considering this thread was about Sanders' shameful support of gun rights and immunity for gun manufacturers, and the double standard that has been applied in a "Move along, nothing to see here," fashion.

    Amazing how commenters can do contortions to interpret that to mean support for HRC's vote on the Iraq War.

    Parent

    Maybe you should report us to (none / 0) (#155)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    the girls' vice-principal.

    Parent
    I beg to (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    differ,
    Hillary is not taking much flack these days for her Iraq vote
    , Bernie has used her vote as a cudgel against her several times in the debates and in statements. Around these parts it sure seems to be used against her quite frequently, up to and including consider her vote as a disqualifying event.

    Personally I am not trying to search for any justification for her vote, just suggesting that there are several mitigating factors that should be considered before passing judgement. We owe that to every human being, including politicians.

    Parent

    Cudgel.. (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    Nowhere near as much as he could have, or maybe should have..

    Sanders generally talks about the issues in the debates as if he had much bigger fish to fry than rhetorically tainting in any way the unassailable record of Hillary..

    He's going to end up helping her much more than he will ever hurt her.

    Parent

    I, to (none / 0) (#176)
    by Amiss on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    come up against these ads at least once a day. I can not help but be very disappointed in Bernie.

    Parent
    You WOuld to Ask the People... (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    ...calling her out.  I would guess more so for her current.

    Funny thing, I don't remember all these people being against it at the time.  I would never classify me as for it, but I wasn't against it.

    I mean we all got duped.  It's so easy to say now, that is was a bad vote, but at the time we had no idea what the republicans were up to and how they were shaping the facts.

    Parent

    we did not (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    all get duped.

    Parent
    Ditto. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    Some of us were looking at the facts, and didn't trust Bush or Cheney as far as we could spit. A lot of us knew it was all based on lies, and said so, out in the streets, right along with 15 million others across the globe.

    Parent
    Scott, you can't hang around liberal (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    Websites commenting, and admitting you got duped on the Iraq War. A certain amount of dishonesty wedded to indignation is expected out of you on political blogs.

    Parent
    Depends on where you live, I guess (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    In Seattle, 50,000 of us came out to march against it on February 15, 2003. Of course, our congressman warned us all that Bush would lie to get us into war there, so it's not like we didn't have some congressional support. Senator Patty Murray also voted against the IWR. Maria Cantwell, that idiot, voted for it.

    Some pols show courage in the face of war, some do not. Clinton did not.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    Seattle didn't have almost 3000 people killed in a terrorist attack, nor have two huge skyscrapers collapse on live TV, so I imagine people there felt differently.

    Parent
    Some of us had friends and family members (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    living in New York on 9/11. And Saddam Hussein never had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Facts are facts. Some of us were looking at facts, and rejecting the lies.

    Parent
    But not a majority of her constiuents (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    Which is what BTD said.  (Also, there was a wide majority of the larger constiutency called "the American people" who supported it).

    Congrats  - you are belong to a minority of people, since even liberals tend to embrace more conservative opinions immediately after an attack, at least temporarily.

    In essence, terrorism-induced fears led liberals to think more like conservatives. This effect was temporary--the researchers report that the gap between liberals and conservatives on these questions was already re-opening later that year.

    But these findings suggest conservative politicians have a window immediately after a terrorist attack when they can pass new laws, or embark on retaliatory attacks, with the widespread support of the public.



    Parent
    A minority of people who face facts (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    instead of unsubstantiated fears and lies fed to increase those fears? Maybe so. I was never duped for one minute by the lies, or the liars that told them.

    Parent
    Yes"congrats" Shoe.. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    you adhered to your principals and don't regress into paniced, protect-the-hive swarming instinct after the 9/11 attacks..

    I remember when that sort of equanmity in the midst of adversity used to be considered a good thing.


    Parent

    Someday, perhaps I will understand (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    why people feel the need to belittle those who didn't go along with the rest of the sheep being led to slaughter; I guess the comfort they get from the "but, but, everyone else approved of the war" excuse is just easier than feeling the pain of knowing they were wrong.

    If it makes anyone feel better, I can tell you that there is no comfort in having been right.

    Parent

    Yes, it's a constant belittling (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    Of those people that takes place daily on Liberal blogs. And those individuals are never constantly belittling to others.

    Parent
    Those who voted NAY (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    156 members of Congress from 36 states voted NAY on Joint Resolution 114

    In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:
    ...
    Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re[resentatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq

    link

    Too few but not everyone went along like sheep.

    Parent

    Total lack of nuance (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 06:41:58 AM EST
    a bit of whitewashing of history, it's not so black and white the, there were (plausible)legitimate reasons for voting for the AUMF short of the total endorsement of the folly that was to come.

    Sen. Clinton's position on the AUMF was nuanced, as is evident from her speech in Oct 2002. She was emphatic at the time that her vote was not a vote to simply authorize war but to help secure a credible threat of force to enable a renewed and robust inspections regime in Iraq. Her position was not that different from the one taken by other Democrats at the time - such as Sen. John Kerry - who like her have expressed regret for trusting Bush on this vote. Needless to say, this does not in any way mean that there were no political overtones in their votes. However, even credible and independent observeres like Hans Blix have made it clear that it was much less likely that robust inspections would have been possible if there had not been a credible threat of force against Iraq at the time.


    Parent
    But the bottom line IS black and white; (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 07:58:43 AM EST
    there's no asterisk afforded to these votes, anymore than we get them when we vote.  When all is said and done, it doesn't matter that someone voted with nuance or caveats or understandings; once you hand over your vote, you have no control over what happens next.

    I think those who voted "no" on the AUMF did so because they either (1) weren't buying the case for war, (2) did not trust those in authority, and/or (3) did not want to put that much power in the hands of people they currently did not trust, and didn't want to leave that power for future presidents whom they might trust even less.  Or all of the above.

    I think for a lot of us, the thing we had the most trouble with was this:

    I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    What, up to that point, would ever have given her the idea that Bush had any intention of doing this?

    And this:

    My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

    Was she aware who she was dealing with, who the people who were behind this were?  For the love of God, Joe, WE knew Dick Cheney's cold, black heart couldn't wait to go to war, and WE knew it was Cheney running the show. And WE knew all the people he had working for him were working toward the same thing.

    How is it even possible for her to think that the nuance she attached to her vote meant anything to those people???  I'm pretty sure that the minions keeping track of the votes stamped "SUCKER!" next to her name on the list.

    All the other stuff that helps support her nuance doesn't really matter when it's juxtaposed against the powers that be, whom WE ALL KNEW could not be trusted as far as we could throw them.

    Parent

    Other things everyone is forgetting (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    Some Senators were in the middle of campaigns while everyone was unclear about WMDs, and the Bush White House was pushing fear mongering on a traumatized nation. The AUMF vote in the Senate went down in October 2002, and even though Democrats voted in such a manner as to not appear that they were abdicating their responsibility to keeping the nation safe...ONE MONTH LATER THEY LOST THE SENATE, to a country in trauma being fed horrible propaganda.

    George Tenet could have been more out front and unafraid taking on Dick Cheney's constant lies to the press too. But he didn't. He brings up he also had an institutional responsibility to the CIA. So he couldn't come out swinging against his vice president trying to take him out.

    I have learned from my husband that completely  unseating yourself though, martyring yourself in a fight that takes you completely off the field, can be just as detrimental to the common good as flat out losing the good fight in a toe to toe match.

    Martyring yourself careerwise often does nothing more than completely silencing you forever. All your experience and expertise gone, silenced, useless. Walt Disney movies never have such endings, real life very often does though.

    Parent

    Stop being logical (4.00 / 4) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    It doesn't fit the pearl clutching - even though both Kerry and Edwards voted for it to and managed to become the ticket without this much caterwauling.

    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    all so easy to label actions black and white in retrospect and from a safe distance. There is even a name for it, Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

    I keep hearing the mantra "everybody knew" but really see no evidence that that knowledge was as widespread and clear cut as some would assert. Sure there were hunches and signs that could or maybe should have been seen but no one can tell me that that the intentions of the Bush administration were so obviously transparent in real time.

    I keep hearing "we" knew this and "we" would have voted this way, but none of these "we" were newly minted freshmen Senator from a 9-11 ground zero state.

    I look askance at Bernie's votes on gun control and support of the F-35, but I realize that I am not an independent Senator from Vermont either. I could condemn him for being on the black side of these issues but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assign him a darker shade of gray.

    There are forces in politics that can muddy the waters no matter how clear things may appear from the outside.

    Parent

    I don't seen anyone saying (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by sj on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    "everybody" knew. But enough citizens did know, and some of them comment here. If we did enough research to know Powell's presentation was bogus, then surely those who duty it was to be informed should have known as well.

    Lots of people all over the world were not duped.

    Parent

    There is evidence that people did know (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    Here is BTD on the subject:

    I called everyone out in 2002 (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:34:44 PM CDT
    Honestly, the Iraq Debacle is why I started blogging.
    I've written that it is what spurred me into redeepening my involvement in politics (after a few years of tune out).

    I gave a lot of money and effort to the Wes Clark campaign as a result.

    If you want evidence that people did not believe Bush and company's erroneous information, go back into the archives of Daily Kos and read what Armando (BTD) and other front pagers said on the subject? Read the archives and the comments there and on the other left leaning blogs. Go into the archives of BBC, world news and even NPR and see where some news organizations were seriously questioning and even discounting the information that Bush and his poodle Blair were sprouting.

    Once again Veterans for Peace mounted a  valiant effort to distribute information giving the reasons why the war was not only not necessary but would be very a costly unnecessary expenditure  of national treasure.

    Politicians who voted Yea either agreed with going to war, did not take the time to throughly inform themselves on the subject or chose to go along because it was politically expedient.

    Parent

    All of this information and more (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    was readily available prior to the vote.

    On July 28, 2002, less than eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that "many senior U.S. military officers" including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.[7]

    A few days later, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary.

    Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.[8]
    ..
    Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East.[11] The next month, Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism.[12]
    ...
    Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, echoed many of Scowcroft's concerns in an October 2002 speech at the Middle East Institute. In a follow-up interview with Salon, Zinni said he was "not convinced we need to do this now," arguing that deposing Saddam Hussein was only the sixth or seventh top priority in the Middle East, behind the Middle East peace process, reforming Iran, our commitments in Afghanistan, and several others.[13]

    link



    Parent
    HRC's recent views on the F - 35 (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    Sept., 2015, during a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution Clinton stated:

    I'll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed, the F-35.

    link  

    If support for the F - 35 is a sticking point with you, you may want to examine HRC's views on subject.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    I hope we sell a whole bunch of those overpriced POS to recoup at least a fraction of the money we have wasted.

    Hillary is a Hawk I get it, at this time being a dove(and a woman)would probably be detriment for her in the general, matter of fact I almost guarantee Bernie will drift at least a little back towards "refusing to rule out military force in certain situations" territory if he wins the nomination, once again the same ole refrain, pols being pols.

    Hillary will not take on the MIC head on, neither will Bernie. Obama ran as a relative dove but I never saw much rein being put on it. No president can, it took generations to build the oligarchy and sadly it will not be dismantled quickly or easily.

    Parent

    Your perspective, FlJoe (none / 0) (#165)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    Preface: I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but ... considering the evolution of so many terms and words over the past few decades, your comments would be appreciated as to what constitutes a "dove" and what defines a "hawk" regarding U.S. interactions with other countries in this decade.  More precisely, when would the use of military action be acceptable to a "dove" and when would a "hawk" determine to forbear from the use of any military force in a perceived international crisis? Are or should there be gradations in the terms? Can a "hawk" be dovish and/or a "dove" be hawkish?

    The reason that I ask: Those terms have been prevalent and easily tossed around since my maturation days during the Vietnam War.  At that time--and for most years and world events thereafter--I clearly considered myself a "dove."  Yet, I also knew at some level that there would/could be situations that call for and (in fact) justify the use of some form of military force in our modern day world.  For example, I supported the 1990s' direct and rapid and effective use of force in the Bosnian situation in view of obvious evidence of ethnic cleansing/genocide by the Belgrade government. In contrast, my view of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was that of opposition ... ab initio. Now, we come to the dilemma presented by Syria and the related ISIS. As for the latter, my feathers are changing (subject to more info.)

    How and when AND can and should our "bird category" change under differing circumstances? Or are we and must we always be defined by our initial position during our youth?    

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of... (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    you don't mean to ask a stupid question?  Really?  

    The meanings of "hawk" and "dove" have not changed, and the only thing that's being tossed is a giant word salad in the hope that Clinton can come out of it not wearing that "hawk" banner across her chest.

    Here's the thing: she doesn't run from her aggressive and pro-intervention stance, so why are you playing rhetorical games trying to run from it?

    It's worth remembering that while Clinton infamously voted to invade Iraq, of course, she was also notably trigger-happy during her time at the State Department. These days, you're more likely to hear about Benghazi when the topic of Clinton and Libya comes up, but far more important was the key role she played in pushing for intervention there in the first place. (A now laughably laudatory Washington Post article from 2011 called it "Hillary's war.") Referring to Muammar Gaddafi, Clinton infamously crowed, "We came, we saw, he died," which, no matter what you think of him, is quite a thing to say about the brutal killing of a political leader. Years later, it's clear that the decision to go into Libya was an epic mistake. The country has essentially ceased to exist.

    It's not just Libya, though. Almost every time there was an internal disagreement within the Obama administration about whether to use force, Clinton could be found on the interventionist side. She successfully pushed for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and has been open about her desire to intervene further in Syria. While you can't draw a direct correlation between the two, it's nevertheless intriguing that so many of the Obama administration's major diplomatic successes have occurred in the years since Clinton departed.

    Given the fact that many of the interventions Clinton has backed over the years have been historic disasters, can we expect to see her called to account for her decisions? Unlikely. When elite media outlets aren't pushing for ever-wider wars, they're homing in on irrelevant distractions. You can bet that the number of times Clinton has to talk about Benghazi will dwarf the number of times she has to defend her initial call to invade, and that's a real shame, because Clinton has some very big questions she needs to answer.

    Link

    Parent

    I'd be interested in your definition (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    Yes, it would help to see the definition set out by those who use the words as shorthand... really (and, your traditional "Oh, for the love of..." notwithstanding :))

    Parent
    I've decided that if (none / 0) (#192)
    by sj on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    your obtuseness, deliberate and pretentious though it may be, is not addressed you'll pretend ad nauseum that there is no meaning. You wanted a definition, here it is:
    Popularly, "hawks" are those who advocate an aggressive foreign policy based on strong military power. "Doves" try to resolve international conflicts without the threat of force.
    Notice the word "popularly"? That would include -- but is not limited to -- everyone here who is commenting about it. Except you.

    For the love of God, it took 3 seconds to type this, and about another two to choose which link of the many provided.

    Can the thread hijack of "sloganeering" stop now?

    Parent

    Thank you for your definition, sj (2.00 / 1) (#201)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    The opposite of "thank you," however, for the demonstration of how to make a response with name-calling and derogatory fluff.

    BTW, there has been no response from the usual groupies to the query about what standards of foreign policy response make sense in this century.  Hint: Response standards/approaches/strategies in foreign policy are not usually static from century to century.  But then--to tell you the truth--I really don't want the usual name-calling response that seems to be part of your calling card.

    Have a good day.  Husband & I went to the CSO all-Gershwin program today (Andrew Litton, conducting.)  Exhilarating, uplifting.  I'm smiling.

    Parent

    In short, you are describing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    pigeonhole-ism.

    Parent
    We DO pigeon-hole, don't we? (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    'Could be because it is easy. Advertisers and cable news recognize that as well.

    Parent
    You're right. Let's do away with words (none / 0) (#169)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 02:57:54 PM EST
    altogether. Words shouldn't have any meaning. Definitions are bad.

    Denial. River. Egypt.

    Parent

    When some words become slogans.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    We could do with less slogans.  Better to concentrate on words that evidence thinking.

    Parent
    Hogwash (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 05:48:08 PM EST
    The words "dove" and "hawk" have real meaning and you know it. You just don't want to address Clinton's hawkishness. It's a problem for her with a lot of liberals. Deal with it or don't, that's your choice. But it is real.

    Parent
    We are both biased in this area, shoephone (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    One difference: I admit it ... and, I acknowledge my political persuasion without calling you names or other derogatory comments.  Awareness of the meaning of words--rather than automatic sloganeering--can help.

    Parent
    I Probably (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    should use scare quotes around those words also. Those words have been overused and under defined since Vietnam. However ever since then the left has felt compelled to measure candidates on some rather arbitrary subjective scale.

    I posited earlier that there is a great deal of "hawkishness" baked into the American pie, with ginormous armed forces and a powerful and well entrenched MIC it has never really been "doveish" in any stretch of the definition, no matter who our current leaders or policies are.

    In reality the scale that should be used is total warpig (ie. Cheney, Kissinger, the Bush neo-con cabal) on one side and not warpig(most Democrats) on the other.

    My Dad served in three wars, I grew up a hawk. I came of age during the height of the Vietnam and the cultural revolution soon softened me up and the likes of Walter Cronkite(Journalism we hardly knew ye) really opened my eyes and I became a "situational" dove. However I never lost the idea that there was a possibility that the military could and should be used in a just, honorable and necessary way, I probably could not support any politician who thinks otherwise.

    So to answer your question warpigs are warpigs, pure black on the scale, and I suppose not warpigs could be considered on scale of Hawkish to Dovish with our leaders hopefully picking the right shade of gray when their time to choose comes.
     

    Parent

    "warpigs" hmmm (none / 0) (#172)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    A most useful, descriptive, evocative word. Now, we simply have to focus on realshades of gray (in a different sense than commercial films, of course.)

    Also: My Dad served in the Marine Corps during WWII: and, in a number of ways, my thinking comports with your penultimate paragraph.

    Parent

    Are the Israelis getting them at wholesale (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    or retail?

    They say only the goyim pay retail prices..

    Parent

    Hear hear! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 11:42:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Nuanced? Wars are not nuanced. (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 07:59:31 AM EST
    Bush and Cheney were selling a war. Giving them the authority to do so at best showed a lack of judgement. Even your link acknowledges that there were "political overtones" to her vote.

    As my comment indicated, 156 Congressmen and woman, chose not to give Bush the authority to go to war. 11 of those votes were from Representatives from New York. Seven Republicans voted against it. They chose to come out against giving Bush the authority to go to war. They chose "Nay" over maybe he will not really pursue the war. They chose "nay" over nuance or "political overtones."  They were right.

    Parent

    Of (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    course war is not nuanced, but the threat of war is extremely so. Our foreign policy has been based partly on the implicit or explicit threat of force since WW2. The AUMF was sold as an explicit threat to force Saddam into compliance and it was actually working but Bush abused the authority. Unfortunately too many people, including many leading Democrats thought the explicit threat of force was needed and they foolishly trusted the Bush administration to do the right thing.

    Of course there was political overtones, that was the point of BTD's original post.  

    Parent

    Two days before the vote (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    A choice on who to believe.

    "

    On Oct. 9, 2002, Graham -- the guy everyone thought of as quiet, mild-mannered, deliberate, conflict-averse -- let loose on his Senate colleagues for going along with President Bush's war against Iraq.

    "We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that's who we're going to go after," Graham said on the floor. "That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future."

    He told his fellow senators that if they didn't recognize that going to war with Iraq without first taking out the actual terrorists would endanger Americans, "then, frankly, my friends -- to use a blunt term -- the blood's going to be on your hands."l



    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    Everybody should have listened to Graham. Release the 28 pages!

    Sen. Graham was right, Hillary and many others were wrong, virtually no one except the dead enders will dispute that. Hillary and most of the others have admitted their mistake and she has suffered far more from it then anyone. Hillary has already been pilloried for it, it's time to move on.

    Parent

    She is a candidate for POTUS (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    Her judgement on foreign policy and the need for military action is one component of her candidacy.

    Ignoring all aspects of what went on in the march to war does not benefit anyone. There are currently too many opportunities to repeat many of the same mistakes. IMO, reviewing politians record and current stances throughly is the job of responsible citizens  and is not the equivalent of pillorying them. YMMV

     

    Parent

    Mo (none / 0) (#191)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    I absolutely believe that Bob Graham was the smartest man in the Senate on this issue. So let me point to his more nuanced take. link
    Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful .... I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

    In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

    .  Franks and Graham seem more worried about the degradation of the war in Afghanistan then the wisdom or rationale for invading Iraq.

    Ok fast forward 7 whole months until he finally starts even asking the questions, (I completely excuse him, he had his hands full with investigating the 9/11 failures)

    At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

    Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

    A scant 2 weeks before the vote Graham begins to smell a rat.
    There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document.
    He demands answers for the American people and of course he is disappointed  
    On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version.
    A mere week before the the the vote he has his final epiphany
    From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
    Finally, his  plea to the Senate notwithstanding, he delivers he delivers his final absolution
    On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

    BTW: all this compressed time frame of enlightenment came after months of  mostly uncontested propaganda and mere weeks before an election that was all about homeland security.

    Parent

    They could not apply caveat emptor (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    because they refused to take the time to read 92 pages of the NIE that Graham begged them to read. Only 6 Senators, signed in to read the report. SIX. Staff members were not allowed to read the full report so the excuse that the Senators were briefed by their staff was just smoke and mirrors. They were not permitted to read it and therefore could not brief the Senators on the contents.

    These Congressman were not voting on what to name a bridge or a Post Office. They were voting to give a president the unrestricted ability to launch a war that he and his administration were actively promoting.

    Uncontested propaganda? Why was the propaganda uncontested. I personally think that the members of Congress needed to become heavily involved in indepentantly researching the information that the Bush administration was using to sell the war from the moment he started beating the drums.

    Even Powell has admitted that there was no evidence to support a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

    An upcoming election based on Homeland Security might be the reason for their votes but IMO protecting their jobs was not sufficient justification for their votes. The price was too high.

    Parent

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    94% of the "world's greatest deliberative body" did not perform due diligence, that is disturbing, but probably same as it ever was, even on  many of the  most monumental issues.

    There was some mitigating factors such as the very compressed time frame I mentioned, and the eyes only/secure location restrictions.

    You hit the nut here

    Why was the propaganda uncontested.
    that my friend is the true question we should be asking rather than questioning the intelligence or motives of any individual player on the congressional side of the equation.

    No one can deny that The Bush Admin catapulted the propaganda for months echoed endlessly and virtually unchallenged by the MSM and very little pushback from Democrats on the basic narrative. Definitely not to the level of asking these allegations to be proved in front of congress.

    So yes

    the members of Congress needed to become heavily involved in indepentantly researching the information that the Bush administration was using to sell the war from the moment he started beating the drums.  
    yes and yes. I bet Bob Graham has always kicked himself in the ass for not asking for the NIE much sooner.

    Unfortunately by the time the vote came around the Bush administration owned the narrative. Even some of the dissenters thought there was at least something there, just  not certain enough or imminent enough to justify war.

    The Democrats were backed into a corner, they could have vigorously opposed the AUMF and most likely lost (I think they needed 49 out of 50 dems, ) and spent the next 4 weeks explaining that they were "impeding the president's ability to protect America" because of some "caveats" and "dissensions" that they saw in some secret document. Good luck putting that in a campaign ad.

    I suppose the Democrat's should have grown a spine and stopped the vote with a filibuster and appear even more dangerously obstructionist. For better or worse, out of ignorance or guile, by chance or by plan they chose a path of  only moderate opposition out of abject(not unwarranted) fear of being labeled soft on terrorism. A label that still gets pasted on them to this day.

    Given the political landscape they faced they had a terrible political calculus, enable a possible debacle and hope cooler heads will prevail or commit short term political suicide almost insuring that the lying warmongering party gets stronger. That's a hard call.

                                           

    Parent

    There was another alternative (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    There was middle ground. While those who voted for the AUMF present it as the only choice available, it was not.  HRC voted against that choice.

    The Senate's Forgotten Iraq Choice
    On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as "one of the most important votes we will cast in this process." And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

    A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

    Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.

    link



    Parent
    There was no need for (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    a threat of war against Iraq. It was a war of choice. The whole argument for war was a lie. There was enough information available to cast doubt on the Bush administrations claims. HRC did not even chose to read the complete NIE prior to casting her vote.

    Parent
    Not only did I adhere to my principles, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    I lost one of my best clients over it. She was flipped out about 9/11 and said "this is the time we need to trust the president", to which I responded, "This is exactly the time when I wouldn't trust either the president or the vice-president" and that was that. I finished the job that very day, and received a kiss-off letter from her in the mail the next day. I never worked for her again,  and never wanted to.

    Guess who's embarrassed all these years later? Not me.

    Parent

    You must be perfect. (2.00 / 2) (#178)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 09:11:20 PM EST


    Parent
    And you must be pathetic (none / 0) (#179)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 09:31:09 PM EST
    If sticking to my principles and being proven right--along with millions of other people around the world--makes you respond like a snotty six-year old, then you've got some serious personal issues to attend to. I wish you lots of luck dealing with your demons.

    Parent
    Tsk, tsk. (3.00 / 3) (#183)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    There are many of us who can and do stick to principles without mounting a moral high-horse about it publicly.  Thank you.

    Parent
    But you're not one of them... (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    much as you'd like to think you are.

    Parent
    No need to be (none / 0) (#193)
    by sj on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    You must be perfect. (2.00 / 1) (#178)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 08:11:20 PM MDT

    One must just be thinking individual. And listen to the words and not the speaker.


    Parent
    My WWII vet step-dad (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    was seething over Colin Powell's performance for the UN. He lost all respect for Powell over it. And he absolutely despised Cheney. He'd say, "Yeah, ya really gotta love a guy who got five deferments sending other people's kids to slaughter!"

    Parent
    For me, (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    Colin Powell was an element of the distrust and skepticism.  An already tarnished legend what with his "team player" careerism in his My Lai investigation, his lying to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh's Iran Contra investigators about whether or not Defense Sec Cap Weinberger kept a diary (saved by Daddy Bush's pardon of Weinberger on the way out of the WH door), and his undermining, if not insubordination, of President Clinton in the matter of DADT.

    Parent
    There was quite a lot of band width (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    expended on how unbelievable Powell's "performance" at the UN  was at the time he gave it.

    In the lead up to the war BBC, other world news outlets and even NPR were disputing the information that Bush and his crew were using to justify the need for war. Veterans for Peace came out with numerous position papers including a more accurate report on how much the war would cost in dollars. Even a few Senators spoke out against it.

    The information that this war was being sold using inaccurate information and was a war of choice by the Bush administration was there for anyone who wanted to take the time to investigate the issue.

    Parent

    I can't speak for shoephone, but (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    ...being in a minority is not a new place for me. Being correct and in the minority is also not a new place for me.

    I'm not swayed much by how the cattle move. I might get trampled, but I'm not generally swayed.

    Parent

    I'm going to have to say something (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    The last time I was in Manhattan with oculus the wine store and a handmade gift shop either gave me discounts or a gift when they saw I paid with a military credit union card. They all inquired if our family soldier had served in Iraq, and they all thanked him for his service. Nobody sneered, everyone knows how it all went down.

    Parent
    I don't sneer (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    at your husband's service either.
    Nobody sneered, everyone knows how it all went down.
    But I still knew the Iraq invasion was wrong. It's not either/or.

    Parent
    At one point on Liberal blogs during the (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    Iraq War, serving soldiers were treated like scum. And some prominent bloggers chalked it all up "to the necessary process". BTD was never one of them. But he's been missing on the crazy train many times.

    Parent
    ok (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    I never really saw that. Not as anything more than the usual stoopid that can show up. Admittedly, I'm not as sensitive to soldierly issues as you are, so I concede that it might have been there and I may not have seen it.

    (I'm much more sensitive to other types of issues; like issues pertaining to Brown People. Or when I am assumed to be a non-thinking member of a herd.)

    Parent

    Sort of like how you know (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    Powell covered up My Lai?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    I have read extensively about My Lai. My perspective is that of a human, not a member of the military's chain of command.

    Parent
    Maybe my memory has been affected (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    by the intervening years, but I truly don't remember anger or derision being directed at the rank and file - maybe I wasn't hanging out in the right blogs.

    There was plenty of anger and negativity directed at those whose decisions were responsible for sending our men and women to war, but I don't remember any blame being directed at the troops.

    That anger grew as we saw the stop-loss, the multiple deployments, the long lines of damaged vets not getting the right care.

    Not saying what you describe didn't exist, just that I don't remember encountering it in my blog travels.

    Parent

    You probably (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    didn't hang out in places where they did it. It wasn't everywhere but it was there.

    Parent
    And we were/are just ordinary people, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    so how is it that we weren't fooled, but Clinton was?  

    For heaven's sake, this was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, people who had been champing at the bit for years to go to war.  In what universe is it even possible to believe in or trust the motives of these people? How is it that the brilliant Hillary Clinton signed off on this mess?  Because an attack happened in the city she represented?  That's a reason to close your eyes to the lies - because it will make your constituents feel better?

    People knew the case for war was manufactured - it was being written and reported on contemporaneously, by the few members of the media who refused to go along with the con job.

    As far as I'm concerned, you can make Hillary Clinton complicit in the deaths of the servicemen and women who were sent to war on lies she closed her eyes to.  

    That's why she gets called out.

    Parent

    Listening to both Kerry and Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    Vote speeches, I don't see either one of them as irresponsible. And they voted according to the majority of their constituency.

    Parent
    eh (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    Kennedy didn't vote for the war, but then he no longer had higher ambitions.  I don't think Kerry was worried about being re-elected in MA.  From what I understand Kennedy tried to talk Kerry out of it too.  I've never liked Kerry much though.  I'll take Hillary over him any day of the week.

    Parent
    And I miss him (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    The United States is lesser without our lion. Kerry has always eyed the Presidency.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    are right about ordinary people being against it but a lot of ordinary people were on the opposite side of the fence and they were the majority at that time.

    The Matt Bai article BTD linked to instructive.

    Parent

    That would be (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    Almost everyone who comments here and many Obama supporters, not to mention half the media.

    Parent
    Clinton's Problem... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    ...isn't the vote, it's that she is hawkish and that vote is just an easy way sum up her views of the ME.  

    And the people not duped, where the F were you, because it would have been a lot more helpful back then, then it is today.  These great majorities of folks who knew better didn't IMO exist in 2002.  Not directed at CST specifically, but this has come up more than a time or two and let's just say my memory of that time frame differs considerably.

    It just seems to me a lot more people in 2016 knew better than in 2002.

    Parent

    there were protests (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    They weren't huge, but they did happen.  At least there was one in Pittsburgh.

    I think the highest support for it was 75% for with 24% opposed.  So no, never a great majority.  But 24% of the U.S. population who were probably mostly liberals will get you close to half the Democratic party.  And a lot of the millennial voters were kids back then.  I was 18/19 in 2003, so lets just say I was acutely aware of the potential downside.

    Parent

    It was big in C Springs (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    They shutdown Academy Blvd, police, jail. They were serious. I didn't protest though. I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure what to do, and I read everything I could find. After Powell at the UN though I resigned myself "to the fact" that we had to do this. And that seemed to kill the huge protests too. That little vial, that beloved trusted American, and the truth died until it became too painful to not resurrect it.

    Parent
    I've heard that a lot (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    From most of my family too.  The one I was wrong about was Afghanistan.  I thought that's where we were "supposed" to be.  But now, I'm not sure that was right either.

    There was a sense that something had to be done after 9/11, I'll give you that.  I just never saw the Iraq connection, it didn't make any sense to me.  Even if Hussein did have WMDs, for the life of me I couldn't figure out what that had to do with us, and why that meant we had to go to war, and what any of it had to do with 9-11.  We didn't invade North Korea, we didn't invade Pakistan or India.  Why Iraq?  I couldn't answer that question, even if Powell was right.  Honestly, I was baffled by the levels of support, none of it seemed to make any sense.

    Parent

    Someone I never thought would (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    Get us into something ambiguous was Powell. And I know how this all turned out plagues his soul. It will probably do so until his dying day.

    One thing the US population never understood were the proxy wars in the Middle East and how those are  intertwined with religion.

    And in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance helped us defang Al Qaeda, and we rewarded them by ditching them and letting extremists wipe them out for aiding us. Just ignoring the extremists in Afghanistan probably wasn't a solution either.

    Parent

    You are not alone. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    At all.
    Someone I never thought would (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 03:05:15 PM MDT

    Get us into something ambiguous was Powell.

    An attitude I never understood. I remembered his role in My Lai.

    Parent
    Demonizing (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    Nothing more than demonizing. Someone could just as easily demonize Sanders for his gun legislation votes. Or how he destroyed the F-35 debate on the left.

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    what you are talking about.

    Parent
    The military chain of command (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:40:21 PM EST
    During the 1960s and 70s was never anything more than dysfunctional. The whole country knew it, made jokes about it, and fully supported it too. It was a different Era, an Era full of spousal abuse and child abuse too.

    When I pleaded with my husband to get out once stop loss was lifted he brought up something that fanatics never want to discuss, that if everyone decent leaves the field of a bad situation...now you've placed the entire situation fully in the hands of the corrupt and crazy.

    Powell didn't do anything that everyone else in the existing chain of command didn't do in that Era. And when he got to a position where he could change things for those experiencing the $hit rolling downhill he did. That is how he became beloved. As a Major though in the 60's or 70s, you aren't $hit...and if you were a black commissioned officer back then...you were even less that in the Army...and you did as you were told or GTFO.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    I see.

    He went along to get along. That's how it was done in that Era.

    I still remember his role in the My Lai attempted cover up. Shameful, IMO.

    Parent

    I guess you have a very poor (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    Memory then because Powell was only responsible for investigating a letter that was written by a soldier who was not at My Lai at all. The letter discussed concern about how troops were treating Vietnamese civilians and said nothing about My Lai at all. And Powell was newly posted to the unit. He wasn't even in the unit when My Lai occurred. He wrote the letter off as one guys opinion and took his current viewing in his vicinity of military civilian harmony as the norm, and that soldier only had second hand information about My Lai when he was questioned. Something often refered to as hearsay. He was not there. He was not a witness.

    Parent
    wev (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 06:21:14 PM EST


    Parent
    While you are right (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    he/they chose to investigate the letter writer and not the substance of the letter.

    But that's what was done in that Era.

    Parent

    My Lai occurred six months (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    Before Powell even landed in the unit. And the existing commander during My Lai handed out combat awards for My Lai.

    Powell was a Major! He investigated the letter as far as his scope of authority. That is what kills me about the entire My Lai Powell conspiracy theory, the people who want to believe it also want to believe that Powell was a General when he was there and had free rein to do what he wished when he wished and investigate anything he wanted where ever and when ever he wanted.

    Parent

    Wev (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 07:17:04 PM EST
    To those who don't look at the military with stars in our eyes, he participated in the cover up by only looking in the tiny corner his instructions indicated.

    On the one hand, there is a search for clear eyed truth, and on the other, there is what they did in that Era. One is honorable, the other gets you an honorable discharge. Or advancement.

    I have no desire to argue about My Lai, Viet Name or Colin Powell. So I'm done. You can have the last word.

    Oh, I did want to say that my disdain for Powell does not spill over into disdain for rank and file.

    Parent

    Or even (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 07:21:49 PM EST
    Viet Nam. I have been putting dangling "e"s everything lately.

    It's probably my keyboard. Couldn't possibly be my typing.

    Parent

    See..more treating the military (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    Like scum. Who wants stars? Try just humanizing.

    I don't have stars in my eyes. But I do know how the military has evolved and how chain of command operates and has evolved too. Today's military is not as dysfunctional as it was in the 60's and 70's and some of that evolution is due to Powell.

    Parent

    Geesh, dunno why people are mad about (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    the "unfortunate" incident at My Lai (504 Vietnamese people murdered).  Didn't Lt Calley receive the full justice system treatment?  Didn't he pay the harshest of Good Old Boy penalties for his murders, 3-1/2 years under house arrest?


    Parent
    How is Clinton hawkish? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:24:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Lots of people who comment here (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by sj on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:19:28 PM EST
    That would be (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:50:21 PM MDT

    Almost everyone who comments here and many Obama supporters, not to mention half the media.

    were never duped. So "almost everyone who comments here" is not a true statement.

    Parent
    Well, not to toot my own horn (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    but I was always utterly, completely, and unequivocally opposed to the Iraq invasion.

    And in general, also felt that Bush and his neocon hoodlum friends had about as much business occupying the Whitehouse and overseeing our foreign policy as I do overseeing the super collider program.

    Parent

    Because public opinion has turned (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    On the Iraq war, and that's the price you pay as a pol.  Also, because of the huge ramifications.

    Parent
    Then liberals (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    Should be lambasting Bernie Sanders far and wide on his gun stances.

    That's the price you pay, right,

    Parent

    You're really making an equivalence (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    between supporting the Iraq invasion and not taking a tough gun control stance in Vermont?

    Really?

    Parent

    It's politics (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    I don't think I stand behind anyone on lambasting on the Iraq vote, INCLUDING Hillary.

    But this pooh poohing of Sanders bad votes on guns is not right imo.

    If you agree with him, fine. But if you don;t you are being just as partisan blind as those who want to pretend Clinton did not present an egregiously bad vote on Iraq.

    Parent

    I don't poo-pooh Sanders' gun votes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    I think he has been wrong on this issue, and it is a sticking point for me in supporting him. I'm not blindly supporting him, and I'm not intransigent when it comes to the general election. But, if we are being realistic with your "pols will be pols" frame, then we can acknowledge their lapses without agreeing with them. If the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils has any real meaning, then I'm going to have to say that voting for someone who supported an unjustified war against a country that didn't attack us is much more distasteful to me. And I think jondee is correct that there is not a real equivalence between Sanders-on-guns and Clinton-on-Iraq.

    Parent
    jondee, you're not really surprised, are you? (3.50 / 2) (#65)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    I know I'm not.

    Parent
    I agree with BTD (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    Why would you be surprised?

    Because I'm stating facts?  

    Oh dear.  You poor thing.

    Parent

    Because BTD's never been wrong.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    which is quite a heavy responsibility when you think about it..

    Poor thing.

    Parent

    You have no idea (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    The burden is heavy.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    But you'don't like to think so, wouldn't you?

    I'm talking about double standards.

    But you know that.

    Parent

    Very fair (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    I'm not lambasting him, and I'm not lambasting Clinton either.

    Parent
    If I had to guess (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    I'd say opinions on guns have probably not changed as much as opinions on Iraq.

    Parent
    I would disagree (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    Weapons have gotten more powerful,  and it used to be acceptable kids to do things like bring BBC guns to school.  Now they can't even bring squirt guns or make guns out of their thumb and forefinger and pretend to shoot.

    Guns are not nearly as acceptable by many people as they used to be.

    Parent

    If she had fought our leave taking (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    But she didn't.

    If she had made that vote and then never set foot into that war zone or asked difficult uncomfortable  questions of the military during Senate hearings, but she didn't.

    Hillary didn't go rug shopping in battle armor surrounded by trigger happy Blackwater contractors and declare Iraq a peaceful productive democracy :)

    Parent

    Go ahead and pander.. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    but don't pander on issues that  potentially have world-destabilizing inplications and that insure that thousands will be killed, maimed, traumatized, and uprooted..

    Jesus Christ, just because some people are holding their noses and voting for Clinton, doesn't mean one has to contort oneself into a pretzal to excuse everything she ever did..

    Parent

    Thousands upon (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    thousands demonstrated in the streets to voice their anger and discontent about Bush's march to war.

    Everybody with half a brain knew what Bush was up to.

    Parent

    Gotta admit, Powell's evidence: (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    the satellite photograph of a tractor trailer rig parked in the middle of nowhere, set new standards for demanding the utmost credulousness of listeners.

    What compounds the problem is that the same politicians who we are assured are the smartest people in the room - are also, we are assured, the biggest suckers and scam victims of all time.

    Parent

    That's what happens when you (none / 0) (#181)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 01:04:06 AM EST
    go for a "curveball."

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    are you saying all these people are all stupid or craven?
    Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
    Baucus, Max (D-MT)
    Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
    Breaux, John (D-LA)
    Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
    Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
    Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
    Cleland, Max (D-GA)
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
    Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
    Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
    Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
    Edwards, John (D-NC)
    Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
    Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
    Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
    Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
    Kerry, John (D-MA)
    Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
    Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
    Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
    Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
    Miller, Zell (D-GA)
    Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
    Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
    Reid, Harry (D-NV)
    Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
    Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
    Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

    Or are they all just "hawks", predisposed to make war? If it's so black and white go ahead and name which ones are the fools and which ones are the warpigs. I will cede you Lieberman as both.

    Parent

    Was your question intentionally comical (4.00 / 3) (#188)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    or a mistake, on your part? Because practically every single name on that list is the name of a craven, DLC-inspired DINO.

    Please say you meant it as a joke. Otherwise, I'm just going to think you are ignorant as can possibly be.

    The fact that you included the name of my idiot senator, Maria Cantwell, after everything I've already said about her, shows you haven't been paying very good attention. Cleland, Harkin and Carnahan are the only ones on that list that truly disappointed me. The rest of them are either bought and paid for by special interests (see: Bayh, Daschle, Rockefeller, Schumer, Bob-corrupt-as-sh*t-Toricelli) or conservative blue dog Dems (see Breaux, Landrieu, Lincoln, Zell-the confederate-zealot-who-later-switched-to-being-a Republican-Miller.)

    Lieberman is in a league all his own.

    Really, you make this too easy.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#194)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    we are indeed doomed? It's pretty much the same cast we have had for decades and for the most part still do, maybe I should have not used "craven" as a search term. For the record I put  My senator Nelson in the empty suit/dupe category, I have varying degrees of respect for many of the others on this "rouges list" up to and including supporting them for president , I really liked Edwards in 2008, Biden and Dodd were quite acceptable in my eyes, and you know my views on Hillary

    I am not ignorant, I just know that the DNC/Corporate breed of Democrat is the dominant one now and for the foreseeable future. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by endless harping , name calling and recriminations for regrettable votes or positions in the past.
    If the progressive movement is going to move the herd to the left it's not going to do it by cutting off the legs of half of the stack.

    Parent

    Just lie back and think of England... (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:16:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not a "progressive" (4.00 / 3) (#196)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    I'm a liberal. And you and the DNC corporate shills you support are part of the problem, not the solution. In fact, they do need to have their political legs cut off.

    Parent
    Gee (3.50 / 4) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    I thought I was a liberal all these years maybe I ought to get my DNA checked.

    Brilliant strategy by the way, lets start a civil war within the Democratic party, why let the Republicans have all the fun?

    With your attitude we truly are doomed.


    Parent

    No, actually, with your support of DINOS (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:14:08 PM EST
    we are getting screwed every day. Congratulations. Pat yourself on the back. Your prescription is to just keep letting them get away with their coddling of Wall St and the MIC. News flash: You can't create change by keeping the same corporate coddlers in there, term after term after term.

    Like I said, you are part of the problem.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#200)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    That is the way our government is designed,

    Nothing is usually ever accomplished except by compromise.

    The 2 extreme ends of the political spectrum can usually never dictate legislation (that danged need for 60 votes in the Senate)

    Although, the recent animosity towards compromise by both extreme factions has made any governing be limited to executive actions and judicial fiat, not a good way to go.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, the lines of what (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    is considered extreme and what is considered middle ground have been redrawn. Policies that were considered mainstream Republican positions are now being condemned as being too far to the left in the spectrum.

    OTOH, some of the most lasting and popular legislation was considered extreme prior to implementation during FDR's presidency.

    Parent

    BTD, FYI (none / 0) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    Your link above is circular and brings one back to this same page.

    Thanks fixed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:48:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Totally OT... (none / 0) (#10)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    BTD do you still have a link to the pic of your SIL's chicken coop?

    LOL (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    Did I post that?

    I'll look for it.

    Parent

    Yep, about 3 years ago. (none / 0) (#17)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    The link does not work anymore.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    well might be harder then.

    Parent
    Found one (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    Southern Living.

    Chickens living large.

    Parent

    Thanks! It really is beautiful. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    You should see the house they live in (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    They are both trained as architects (tho my brother is an attorney). Just a beautiful house.

    They have impeccable taste imo.

    Parent

    If the garden and coop are any (none / 0) (#29)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    indication, I expect their house is gorgeous.

    Parent
    That's fabulous (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    And not just the vegetable gardens. The whole thing crafted together so well. Oakleaf Hydrangeas a great choice.

    Parent
    Do they (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    actually have all that inside the city limits of Atlanta? Because I know a lot of people say "Atlanta" when it's really not.

    Parent
    Buckhead (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:13:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:40:52 PM EST
    all of that in Buckhead.

    Parent
    I particularly like (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    the boxwood hedges.  A Buckhead neighbor, the St. Regis Hotel, (my favorite hotel in Atlanta)has a similar parterre boxwood hedge along the entryway.

    Parent
    Probably the only chicken coop in all of Buckhead (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:39:04 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    probably so.

    Parent
    D- rating from the NRA, says enough for me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    Yeah, sure, wish he had an F, but please Tent, get this  weak sh*t outta the key before Dikembe Mutumbo's old ass swats it into the tenth row. What matters is Sanders doesn't take Big Corporate Money, doesn't get on his knees 24/7 and suck their d*cks like the Clintons. And THAT in America today for almost everyone, is what really matters. And the difference on guns, gimme a break, is utterly negligible in context. Financial corruption is the KEY problem in America. It is the REASON guns were able to proliferate. And on Big Money, Sanders wins, hands down. Clinton is a two-bit shill. "Cut it out, Wall Street!" Pfft.

    Go Dubs!

    Brady Bill and Gun immunity (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    huge issues.

    Sorry, your comment is ignorant on the subject.

    Parent

    Not saying (none / 0) (#21)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    it is not a big issue but what is gun immunity.  I don't recall hearing the term.

    Parent
    Gun manufacturer immunity (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 11:57:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Senator Sander's (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    vote on this matter has been puzzling, even for a Vermonter or the customary pols will be pols. PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) does not protect the gun owner, it protects the gun manufacturers, dealers and importers.

     It undermines tort liability and tramples on the fundamentals of the civil justice system.  By wiping out, specifically, gun manufacturer liability in all the states, as well as juries rights to make awards that are deserving in their judgment, it seems out of character for Senator Sander's general support for gun owners, and, importantly, his support for the "little guy." There are some gun manufacturers in Vermont, but that, in and of itself, would not seem to be a compelling reason for this odious legislation. But, I guess it may be.

      The campaign, it is said, has moved Mrs. Clinton more toward the left on some issues; Senator Sanders seems to have moved somewhat on gun control.  But, I wonder if he would be up for a repeal of PLCAA?

    Parent

    Not sure why anyone is bragging about support (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    of the Brady bill.  Most of the time y'all devote to complaining that it doesn't work.

    First Lady Told Prez She Might Want a Gun (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    -- Depending on Where They Lived
    President Obama said Thursday that while he and his wife Michelle Obama were campaigning in Iowa, the First Lady indicated that she would have wanted a gun if the couple lived in a rural area.

    "At one point Michelle turned to me and said, `You know, if I was living in a farmhouse where the sheriff's department is pretty far away and somebody can just turn off the highway and come up to the farm,'" he said during a CNN town hall on guns in America. "`I would want to have a shotgun or a rifle to make sure I was protected and to make sure my family was protected.'"
    Vermont? (none / 0) (#175)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jan 09, 2016 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    Of course, Vermont is such a state.  So was Bernie right?

    Parent
    You also might want one (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    in case a black bear got overly bold and menacing, as they've been known to do on occasion..

    Parent
    But mostly, they don't (none / 0) (#187)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    We have them up here, and if you leave them alone, they leave you alone.
    You do have to be very careful of a mother bear with a cub or two, though.

    Parent
    I know they're generally pretty skittish.. (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    but after seeing the doc Grizzly Man, I googled bear attacks and was very surprised at the number of people over the years that had been killed or attacked by black bears.

    I definately give them a respectfully wide berth.

    Parent

    Well, I certainly don't approach them. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    But as long as you take some basic precautions, they're pretty much not dangerous.  Unless you're careless, and they are very hungry.
    Don't have bird feeders and hummingbird feeders near the house (or, unfortunately, anywhere else, unless you want to keep replacing them).  Don't put out your garbage cans and recycle bins out the night before.  And a few other basic precautions such as that.
    And don't go running (or even walking) towards them.
    But then, we have coyotes up here, too, and I wouldn't approach one of them, either.
    We have pretty much hijacked BTD's thread, so we should probably stop now.  Unless we can make a comparison between politicians and wild bears.  And I'm not going there.
    ;-)

    Parent
    Pols are pols . . . | 203 comments (203 topical)