Sanders: Maybe Clinton should apologize to victims of Iraq War

So Sanders wants to lead the Democratic party, yet he insults every Democrat that voted as Clinton did? Will Sanders apologize to the victims of the war he voted for? :rofl:

I guess Mr. Sanders does not want to own up to being scared of the gun lobby in Vermont. What a brave and principled guy. More and more, Bernie Sanders proves he is no Democrat. For that he deserves a medal, or maybe a chest to pin one on.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
somebody say chest?!

CfZNvhvUEAA1UoW.jpg
 
Whoa! Check out Sanders. There's the fire. What took him so long? He's been flatlining up until now.
 
Hey,sanders caught a lot of shit about his stance back then. Time to throw it back in peoples faces .
 
So Sanders wants to lead the Democratic party, yet he insults every Democrat that voted as Clinton did? Will Sanders apologize to the victims of the war he voted for? :rofl:

I guess Mr. Sanders does not want to own up to being scared of the gun lobby in Vermont. What a brave and principled guy. More and more, Bernie Sanders proves he is no Democrat. For that he deserves a medal, or maybe a chest to pin one on.
Amazing, it takes you two paragraphs of drivel to how how truly stupid you are. Sanaders said from the start he was a SOCIALIST.
Sanders is TRYING to take the DNC to a NEW platform. He wants to lead democrats to a socialist party by dividing the party moron.

Trump is TRYING to lead the RNC toward a more NATIONALIST platform. As to your comment "Afraid of the gun lobby?" Its OUR right sh#thead, so be afraid BE VERY AFRAID.

Now go tend your Goats boy.
 
So Sanders wants to lead the Democratic party, yet he insults every Democrat that voted as Clinton did? Will Sanders apologize to the victims of the war he voted for? :rofl:

I guess Mr. Sanders does not want to own up to being scared of the gun lobby in Vermont. What a brave and principled guy. More and more, Bernie Sanders proves he is no Democrat. For that he deserves a medal, or maybe a chest to pin one on.
Amazing, it takes you two paragraphs of drivel to how how truly stupid you are. Sanaders said from the start he was a SOCIALIST.
Sanders is TRYING to take the DNC to a NEW platform. He wants to lead democrats to a socialist party by dividing the party moron.

Trump is TRYING to lead the RNC toward a more NATIONALIST platform. As to your comment "Afraid of the gun lobby?" Its OUR right sh#thead, so be afraid BE VERY AFRAID.

Now go tend your Goats boy.
Your conspiratorial nonsense is usually a bit more entertaining. Maybe it's time for another vacation?

inshallah
 
Bernie is pressing for advantage here, and he's got some great ammunition.

HildaBeast voted for War.

Bernie voted for Peace.


Game over - in this context.
 
Last edited:
just like trump, sanders is being bombastic and counting on the ignorance of his audience.

how old were today's college kids on 9/11/01 ? :eusa_think:



Handing Bush a major victory, the Democratic-led Senate voted 77-23 for a war powers resolution negotiated between the White House and congressional leaders backing a possible use of force to rid Iraq of suspected weapons of mass destruction and possibly oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.


Bush wins Congress backing over war on Iraq



precisely how much political 'courage' does it take to cast a no vote #23 from the political margins of the senate echo chamber, just so you can wag your shallow sanctimonious anti-war finger after being outnumbered by over a three to one vote...?
 
Last edited:
hqdefault.jpg


In the face of Secretary Clinton's undisputed strength in these areas, when Bernie Sanders is asked how his experience measures up to hers in the "Commander In Chief" category, he invariably comes up with a single Talking Point.

Unfortunately that Talking Point, presented in Bernie's shallow vernacular, simply isn't true. It usually goes something like this:

The key foreign policy vote in modern American history was the 2002 vote as to whether we should go into Iraq. I made the decision not to go to war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, voted for the war...

Like many simplistic and "sound bite" arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense. This falsehood can be broken down into five sub-myths.

Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush "carte blanche" to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.

False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as "necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war--and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress's requirements, hadn't given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

Myth #2:

...

5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary's 2002 Iraq War Vote
 
He does make a valid point. Clinton and others should apologize for the Iraq War nightmare. Sanders nailed her. Good on him.
 
Oct. 2002 Congressional Votes Authorizing the President
to Use Military Force Against Iraq

On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, respectively, voted on HJRes 114, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (58 KB)
pdf-logo.gif
. This legislation, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" against Iraq, was passed by 70% of the House and Senate.
Oct. 2002 Congressional Votes Authorizing the President to Use Military Force Against Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org
 
PRO: "The point is that this document [United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission report: 'Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programs'] conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles."

-- Colin Powell, MBA
gstar.gif
gstar.gif
gstar.gif

Former US Secretary of State
Presentation to the United Nations Security Council
Mar. 7, 2003



-----------


CON: "There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever...

If the purpose was to make sure that Iraq is free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then they can do that. These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket.

These are weapons of mass destruction and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not. We have said many times before and we say it again today that Iraq is free of such weapons."

-- Saddam Hussein
gstar.gif
gstar.gif
gstar.gif

Former President of Iraq
Interview with UK Labour Cabinet Minister Tony Benn, Channel 4 News
Feb. 4, 2003


Top 10 Pros and Cons - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org




^ hmmm what to do, what to do... :eusa_think:
 
And OUCH! It really was a big BERN. Gotta give Sanders some props. :clap:


he's been harping on that same talking point for months now, fyi.

he should be ashamed for stooping so low as to undermine his country in this manner.

just goes to show how he hasn't got a diplomatic bone in his body...
 
bernie should apologize for those who served our country in that effort.
 
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a "progressive" Democrat.


False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a "mistake" which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president's war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.

5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary's 2002 Iraq War Vote
 
Myth #3: At the time of her vote, Clinton was very supportive of going to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

False! While Clinton quickly turned against the war, another piece of "lost history" is the deep concern she expressed at the very time of her vote in the fall of 2002. Given the Resolution's several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton's vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President's ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made this clear:

My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

These words presaged the doctrine of "smart power" Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader--in a troubled world where such leadership matters--but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.
 
Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a "progressive" Democrat.


False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a "mistake" which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president's war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.

5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary's 2002 Iraq War Vote

Ha, you Clinton Bootlickers really are feelin the BERN on this one. Your hysterical reactions say it all. You know the man's right. So just accept your girl got BERNED, and slink away quietly. Bye.
 

Forum List

Back
Top