Bernie can tout his past opposition to immigration reform and his support of immunity from lawsuits for gun makers.

and why wouldn't he would run on his Iraq vote? he was correct, he gave very specific reason why he voted against it and most of his talking points were accurate regarding the outcomes.

Bernie is one of the very few who got it right. But hey, the Iraq War was "like a hundred years ago" so who cares?!

and all that.

DU is a much different place than it was during the Bush/Cheney regime.

Trillions in expenditures, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, a security state that endures to this day in every airport search, drone strike, and civilian death on all sides is water under the bridge?

Ok then.

It's one thing to support Biden in the primaries (I don't because there are better Democratic candidates) but it's another thing to excuse away voting to authorize this historic, deadly blunder.

Votes on war and peace are always a test of conscience and character. Voting to authorize this war of choice was a clear mistake and shouldn't be minimized, given the magnitude of the error.

under the rug.

Sick of the "Bernie is a peacrnik" bullshit narrative. He voted yes on many a military foray.

Iraq was based on lies and Sanders knew it, hence the no vote.

He also voted yes on various legislation:

1. On a bill that included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief.

2. On a bill that included an amendment he inserted for funding of the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs to support broken, mangled troops as they returned home.

3. On a bill he co-sponsored that included massive expansion of GI Bill benefits.

4. On a bill that funded the Iraq War's end as Obama removed US troops.

You got a problem with those? You shouldn't.

In 1998, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” on which 38 members of varying ideology and party affiliation voted no.

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Change in Iraq, ehrnst.

The President wasn't granted authority under the ILA to use military force, although the BFEE later used one section to drum up support for invading Iraq as it lied to the world. There are other ways to effect "regime change," but war's a bipartisan racket and we gotta keep feeding the defense industry beast.

Sanders was right on his "no" vote in 2002:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/flashback-rep-bernie-sanders-opposes-iraq-war

Or because we're discussing a yes vote, no - TWO, that Bernie Sanders cast for military action in Iraq in 1998?

Have you had this discussion about this "difference" with someoone who lost a loved one in Vietnam?



https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

I never hear such concern over the nuances when someone talks about Hillary's speech clarifying her intentions prior to the Iraq resolution vote.

As someone who lost a loved one in Vietnam, I'll be happy to discuss this.

Trying to put the invasion of Iraq on Bernie Sanders is what we in the service used to call Bull Shit. Unlike Biden and Clinton he did not vote for the 2003 invasion.

Please note this bill passed the Senate without a roll call vote but rather as a voicing of unanimous consent. Bernie, for all we know may not even had been in the chamber at the time.

Bernie Sanders is our best chance to stay out of any future wars.

Here's a summary of the bill from the website cited above.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..." It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

This summary is from Wikipedia.

And 500,000 dead in Iraq as a result of that vote aren't as relevant as deaths from the 2003 vote because Bernie.

And trying to equate simply pointing out his two votes for military action in Iraq in 1998 with "trying to to put the invasion of Iraq on Bernie Sanders" is what anyone, including those in service, would call Bull Shit. Or more formally, 'attacking a straw man."

Here is a summary from Wikipedia:

He certainly wasn't in the Senate chamber at that time--he didn't become a Senator until 2007.

Now, the House, on the other hand...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml

military industrial complex multiple times. He's just another personally ambitious millionaire career politician.

when the $$ flow into their home state, especially when they are up for re-election.

Doesn't seem to support the claim of such Senators "being the best chance to stay out of any future wars."

1. On a bill that included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief.

2. On a bill that included an amendment he inserted for funding of the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs to support broken, mangled troops as they returned home.

3. On a bill he co-sponsored that included massive expansion of GI Bill benefits.

4. On a bill that funded the Iraq War's end as Obama removed US troops.

I don't.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

....you pulled out of them? Are they significant parts of the bills or just things added to them as is done on most spending bills?

Or perhaps they're bills "that would have passed anyway", as we've heard in the past.

but this is something we (all) need to get over. just because I say something "good" about Sanders does NOT mean that I'm diss'ing Warren or Biden or anyone. Just like IRL, i can tell my friend that I love the sweater she's wearing, that doesn't mean that I think my other friend is wearing a shitty sweater. how about we only say "good" things about all our candidates?

Link to tweet

were lying to the American public. Hell, the vast majority of DU knew it.

they supported the Iraq war.

As the independent heckler of a small, homogeneous state that will support and reelect him with almost complete reliability, BS has the freedom to completely vote his own conscience.

Actual leadership, with the elections of so many being dependent, and the agenda of the Republican party weighing in the balance doesn’t have such freedom to do so.

Our Democratic Party leadership went with what the VAST majority of Americans wanted in that political climate at that time.

https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/



We were already the minority party in both chambers. Had those burdened with the responsibility of leadership opted to oppose shrub, 2004 would have been an absolute bloodbath for us.

Wonderful that BS got to make his ineffectual point, and hold his moral highground.. Soooo proud of him..

these courageous senators voted NO:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Plus 126 Democratic congresspersons who did the right thing.

Did they all make "ineffectual" points or are you just blinded by hatred for Sanders?

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

Here’s a list of the “no” votes on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which Sanders, when pushed to answer questions on it, claims was "nearly unanimous." Even Hillary expressed regret for her Iraq vote in 2002. Haven't heard a peep out of Sanders in terms of regret for this vote - have you?

Did they all make "ineffectual" points or are you "just blinded" by a double standard when it comes to Sanders?

Abercrombie
Bartlett
Brown (CA)
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Doggett
Everett
Ewing
Ford
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
LaHood
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Mink
Paul
Payne
Pombo
Rivers
Rush
Sabo
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Stark
Towns
Vento
Walsh
Waters

It appears there are no consequences for those decisions, at least politically-speaking. It was, after all, a long time ago.

It's not relevant to me, any more than the Anita Hill hearings.

You can trust President Sanders not to get us into unnecessary, endless wars.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

WTF?

licking all over him?

is that what you'd say about Biden when he said he thought President Donald Trump was right to walk away from the second summit with North Korea? was that licking? or just a little stroke? WTF indeed.

so votes don't matter! Falling for the Republican lies to get us into war, staggering amounts of money wasted, death, destruction widows turning to prostitution to survive, children scarred for life, migrant crisis, antiquities destroyed, etc. No biggie, it was "like a hundred years ago"!

It’s a pretty disgusting comment IMO.

but this place is much different than it was during the Bush/Cheney regime so I'm not so sure.

Privileged lot that we are.

that Darth Cheney, whose face is likely the quickest to come to mind when you think, "Iraq War", is decent. Apparently the war and any vote associated with it means jackshit. Good to know, I suppose.

Is Biden really in touch with the American public on this one? Seems not.

In 1998, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” on which 38 members of varying ideology and party affiliation voted no.

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Perhaps you typed in haste, and might want to think that over and restate that? Otherwise, that's a huge straw man you're attacking.

Here's a question for you:

Do you have an issue with Sanders votes (which he has never expressed any regret for, and mischaracterized as being "nearly unanimous) for military action in Iraq being brought up when votes for military action in Iraq are being discussed as unacceptable in POTUS candidates?

Americans have digested the Iraq war as a mistake already but it is not a high priority to them.

Iraq war is water under the bridge and one can never change the past. Biden's past decisions were contemporaneously supported by the American people so they don't find fault with it.

They are more attuned about what Biden can do for their lives in the future. All candidates running against Biden (except one) know this and they are focused on how they will improve the lives of the people from this moment forward.

One candidate seems to stuck with digging for skeletons in Biden's back yard and it is not working.

Would you be willing to tell their families it’s “water under the bridge”?

but it was supported by a large majority of the American people.

Everyone NOW knows it was a fuck up and not many today would say it was a right thing to do.

However, that is because it is hindsight. If people knew then what they know now, they wouldn't have voted for it. Not Hillary. Not Biden. Not even many republicans.

Making that decision 17 years ago paramount for the benefit of ONE candidate is wrong.

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq that had found nothing and were expelled from the country to start the war.

Even Colin Powell knew the WMD allegations were nonsense.

15 million of us protested globally on the same day to make sure our voices were at least.

I joined DU in those years because of utter frustration with the foolish march to war against a nation that didn't attack us.

Awareness of the flawed case for war was certainly known to Biden, Clinton, and Kerry. They voted for it anyway.

And now there may be a third Democratic senator who showed poor judgement on this vital issue that will be our party's nominee for president.

It is what it is. But excusing that vote is a whitewash of history.

23 Senators
133 House members

Patty Murray.
Tamny Baldwin.
Barbara Boxer.
Ted Kennedy.
Russ Feingold.
Paul Wellstone.
Elijah Cummings.
James Clyburn.
Betty McCollum.
Ron Wyden.
Sherrod Brown.
Bernie Sanders.
Jim Leach of Iowa (the only Republican I have ever voted for).

They deserve our appreciation for their vote to forestall the rush to war.

Was it 2020 hindsight that also led to their opposition?

No, it was political courage under high pressure and sound strategic thinking.

Was it 20/20 hindsight that led 15 million of us to demonstrate against the war before it began?

No, it was our recognition that peace is fragile, the rationale for war was unsound, and US inspectors were already on the ground in Iraq investigating the administration's WMD claims.

And I am not claiming to be extraordinarily insightful. It was obvious that the Bush administration was signaling its determination to invade Iraq, that as soon as the authorization was in hand, they were off to war.

Even FOX news was still fairly new at their purely propagandist approach to issues like this. But when the Times with Judith Miller amplified the false claims, another factor contributed to the rush for war. Our voices of opposition were ignored, to the detriment of all. Hundreds of thousands of people perished in a war of choice.

All that being said, Biden has my vote if he wins the nomination. But it would be foolish to ignore lessons from that time as we go forward because a similar situation may come up. And we should be open to discussing this topic as we consider which of our excellent field we will support in the primaries.

When someone votes differently to your liking, it is nefarious or cowardice.

and project motives onto clear statements of fact and opinion.

Nefarious? That's your word. It was a significant and costly error in judgement. Nothing more and nothing less.

is correct in one sense. I do expect Democrats to vote my way on grave issues of war and peace that are as clear cut as this issue was. Otherwise, they may not get my support during a primary.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

In 1998, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” on which 38 members of varying ideology and party affiliation voted no.

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Apparently so.

IMO your comment is abhorrent.

"It is an issue for history books and not to bludgeon one of the candidates with."

Here’s the deal, it’s not going to make me not vote for Biden but I do think it’s something he should address in the primary when/if it comes up.

And I’m willing to be it will come up because one candidate voted a different way. This is what happens in primaries.

They are telling that it's a thread about Joe Biden and the IWR. And there's reason for you to be contented - up thread there's plenty of discussion of the 1998 vote, including from people who support Sanders in this primary. I don't, although Sanders' vote against the Iraq authorization was a courageous vote. I am always willing to give credit where it is due. Are you?

And I find defending some votes because the death toll was maybe lower not to be "discussion" but rationalization for different standards being applied to one candidate.

then it would make sense to apply the same standards. But the sum of their votes is different.

What you're essentially saying is that Sanders' second vote doesn't distinguish him from Biden on the Iraq issue because of Sanders' 1998 vote for the regime change resolution.

There are differences in what was proposed (open-ended regime change versus immediate war authorization) and in the context of Republican vs. Democratic administrations, but you are saying there's no distinction unless Sanders voted twice against the proposed policy.

IMO, this minimizes the importance of the 2002 vote. I don't think this serves any useful purpose. It's simple to support other candidates in 2020 (I do, you do) while still giving credit to a historically important vote (as 2002 was).

But opinions vary.

I am responding to the blanket, black/white statements concerning politicians that "This one vote is a dealbreaker!" with no nuance, no discussion.

I will then ask why a similar vote - very, very similar vote for military action in the same country - is not a dealbreaker for another politician.

It does not minimize any vote, in fact, the blanket "all or nothing mentality" does minimize the harm of other votes.

Might give you a better perspective

Sirota’s deleted tweets from election night 2016

Link to tweet

We absorb those talking points thru the discourse here at DU.


In other words you don’t need to read his work to absorb his half-truth hit pieces. Someone on the Internet will be happy to provide them to you.

Hey I am a real fan of your posts in general! Always great to talk

as well as the fact that he became an upfront critic of the Iraq war.

This Mother Jones article is illuminating:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/joe-biden-and-the-iraq-war-its-complicated/M

Avoidance noted AGAIN.

In 1998, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” on which 38 members of varying ideology and party affiliation voted no.

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Bernie should also be asked why he supported that. I haven’t said he shouldn’t.

But whatever the number, I just find that all the silence on his record of military votes rather interesting in all the discussions about other candidates' 2002 Iraq resolution vote.

I also no of no apology or admission of regret for that vote on his part, unlike HRC.

On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being “almost unanimous.”

Which as the record shows, is not true.